I want to gently push back on the emptiness thing. I'll be just another voice in the cacophony, but it seems like you take a very scholarly approach to emptiness (which is excellent and critically valuable) but what about the direct experience part?
-
-
Replying to @meditationstuff @Meaningness and
Agreed that there are exoteric and esoteric usages of the term, and dharma battles, and scholarly debates. But, I'll personally bite "emptiness is a phenomenological referential quality that confers immediate knowledge of something like 'that seeming territory is actually map'"
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @meditationstuff @JakeOrthwein and
Well… most of the words in that are not used in any traditional explanation. They don’t unambiguously correspond to any traditional vocabulary, afaik? So what you are describing might be a thing, which might or might not be the same as some version of “emptiness”?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @JakeOrthwein and
That's very true. But, if there's a landscape, and there's salient things in a landscape, and they're somewhat spaced apart. One can point, and even if the pointing is vague, people often look in the direction of finger and get same referent.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @meditationstuff @JakeOrthwein and
Ah, yes, same metaphor I was using! So, my vague feeling is that the landscape is less distinct than it seems you take it to be. I am quite unsure about this, though.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @meditationstuff and
Somewhat tangentially, I’ve been working on-and-off on a post that says “I don’t understand the map-vs-territory distinction” for about five years now. I’ve failed to finish it because I don’t even understand what I don’t understand… It’s been “nearly done” that whole time tho
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @meditationstuff and
FWIW, this is the same place
@nosilverv and I came around to re: Mark saying emptiness is realizing part of map=territory. I think the confusion is because map and territory retains a kind of noumenal/phenomenal distinction that the interaction view dispenses with.pic.twitter.com/LtL3RoGyrH
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JakeOrthwein @meditationstuff and
“retains a kind of noumenal/phenomenal distinction that the interaction view dispenses with”: yes, that!
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @JakeOrthwein and
But also if you take the map metaphor seriously, and look at how real maps are used in practice, they are a highly atypical form of representation, and taking them as the prototype for representation in general is broadly misleading in several specific ways.
2 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @meditationstuff and
Right. Because the “prototypical map” would be something more like an affordance or an internalized pattern of interaction?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Well the prototypical MAP is a piece of glossy paper, or maybe an iPhone app.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @meditationstuff and
point taken. Should have said prototypical “representation,“ and the idea of representation starts to fall apart when viewed this way.1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @JakeOrthwein @meditationstuff and
Yes—the category “representation” seem to be a matter of loose family resemblance. All attempts to find an essence or definition seem to have failed. That doesn’t mean the word should be taboo, but that one should bear in mind its contextuality when using it.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.