NP just BSing again...

[Terrance F. Flaherty]

Warning, Warning, Danger Will Robinson! This is a
List-serve, this is ONLY a List-serve and this is ONLY a
Test. What follows will be gross and oversimplified and will
include name-droppings of the worst kind.

"*God, not again.*"

 See, I told you. 

Zen Buddhism is the text we want, isn't it? 

Not Stoics. 

Stoics are dialecticians. 

TRP is not a dialectician.  

Zen, if we need a Western tradition, is closer to the
Hellenistic Skeptics than the Stoics. 

Two Philosophers that come to mind in the West, other than
Nietzsche, are Berkeley and Jaspers.  

It would be necessary to study the individual Classics in
all these Traditions, particularly those of the Pure Lands &
Zen, to verify these gross oversimplified generalizations. 

And maybe they can't and never will be verified. 

Oh, yes, the translation problems and terms too. 

Spelling and grammar check not include. 

So, Word to your Aunt Milly Mfers!

You may delete this now if you don't like to read wack shit
from a MFer straight up. 

The connection to the West and to other Philosophical
Traditions might work something like this: 

To stay in the West, we could go to the mystical stream of
Christian Neoplatonism. 

We can see this path in Marcuse and Brown and others
Dialecticians TRP satirizes in GR. 
 

Certainly Eckart, Boehme, Cusanus, and oh sorry for this
terrible name dropping, have been mentioned here. 

We can add Traditions and Philosophers, Theologians on and
on, say, Hinduism, Sufism, Taoism and how-a-bout Schelling
for good measure. 

But with the exception of Taoism, these are all dialectal
and
they all deal with a Noumenal Realm or "Reality"  (in its
various representations, the term Noumenal can be traced to
Plato but of course Kant and many others use it as well). 

In the Buddhist text, we don't find the Noumenal Realm, we
find the Existential, same as TRP.  

And we find it in a Paradoxical Conflict. 

Nietzsche seems like a good text here, right?

Almost, Nietzsche is not dialectical-- he has those
opposites in conflict,  and he doesn't have the Noumenal,
but he doesn't have the Existential we seek. No, for
Nietzsche reality is below. For TRP and Zen, Reality is
neither Above (as in Plato) or Below (as in Nietzsche) it is
an Existential (not to be confused with the philosophical
school of Existentialism) Paradoxical. 

The nonduality of Samsara and Nirvana. 

See Richard Robinson, The Buddhist Religion: A historical
Introduction 

See William R. LaFleur, The Karma of Words: Buddhism and the
Literary Arts in Medieval Japan (U of California Press
1983). 

Also, Check out Nishida Kitaro (put a - over
the o in his name). He is a Modern Japanese Philosopher. He
studied Kierrkegaard and others--"paradoxical logic" and
"Nothingness."  No Hegelian logicians here, no ABSOLUTE
subject. 

KOOL stuff for TRP fans, the cross-cultural method of
sustained, irreconcilable opposites. 

That's what I say about his Holy Text. 

I mention this because I think that the
major trends of Western Philosophy are Abandoned by TRP in
GR. 

TRP was interested in Cause and Effect very early on. I
think Charles Hollander wrote a short article on TRP's
Cornell English Paper that is worth following up on.  Like
read the two works that  TRP wrote a standard compare and
contrast English paper on. 

The Stoics and the Christian Theologians show up all over
his short stories and V. They are satirized with the help of
Henry Adams. 

Heidegger and Enzian: 

I have mentioned this several times, several critics note
that Enzian is a Moses  figure. He is invested with Moses,
but he is no seer, no Prophet, he has not been to the
Mountain Top. 

Heiddegger, btw, is a dialectician.  Not only that, He is a
seer, he is an Old Testament prophet of sorts. In  his later
texts he is shepherd of Being, He goes to the Mountain Top,
figuratively anyway, and Being  discloses itself in
poetically metaphysical tablets. His NOTHINGNESS (oh sorry,
trans. das NICHTS)  is what? It's dependent upon a certain
view or Perspective, ain't it? 

For Heidegger, history begins with BEING.  The poets,
philosophers, and other spiritual Creatures bear testimony
to a Radical "*Historicization*" of BEING-to the event of
Appropriation. 

What is the SOVERIGN in Hedeggeer--The Sovereign with his
appropriation and property, mirrored on the canvas of
creation. 

How does this mesh with a culture that became enmeshed with
Nazis? 

I guess, Heidegger has to do with Rilke in terms of the
TRUTH and the GOOD. Truth, Heidegger has Truth, in H is an
unconcealment, aletheia, not a correctness. 

Correct me if I'm wrong here. 

In this sense, H was the perfect text to reference. Good on
Kai. 

I have not been reading Rilke for half of my life. In fact,
the only thing I have been doing for half of my life is not
worth talking about here. No one would believe it anyway. It
would not set well with all those accusations of racism and
bigotry. 

My German is not the best. Niether is my English. 

But I give it the old college try. More than lots here can
say, those that only poke a nose in here to spite some one
else's  cyber face. So it goes
.


 In GR, as Dwight Eddins, so convincingly, in the book-THE
GNOSTIC PYNCHON, demonstrates, finds his Muse. 

"She is the Earth and we are her people and she is with us
and there is death and there is crying and there is sorrow,
and only we can wipe the tears from each others eyes."

			Revelations, Recognitions & Celebrations of John the
unDevine