[Buddha-l] Moment of individuation

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Sat, 2005-04-23 at 10:04 -0400, Stanley J. Ziobro II wrote:

> One's interpretation can be true, but limited. 

Exactly. That is James's position, and I agree with him.

> The only problem I see is the temptation to deny a truth on the
> grounds that not everybody recognizes it as such; or the temptation to
> deny that there is a truth or truth because there precisely are
> different interpretations.

Again, this is a good articulation of James's position, and again I
completely agree with him.

> The latter then becomes a positive affirmation that there is a
> universal truth, and that truth is that there is no universal truth,
> that it's simply a matter of frames, lenses, perspectives.

Exactly my point. You are catching on fast. I have never had any problem
with the claim that there is a truth. I have always had a problem with
the claim that anyone knows what it is. So when I hear, for example,
people saying that there is an absolute truth and Pope Benedict XVI is
proclaiming it (yes, I have heard people saying just this) or that there
is an absolute truth and it is stated in the Bible (or the Qur'an or the
Pali canon or the Lotus Sutra), then I am inclined to say "You are
offering a perspective on the truth, not the truth itself."

> A judgment is the response to the question whether something is what
> it is, and as such regards veracity.  To the question "What is it?"
> one makes inquiry, has insights, seeks understanding, and the like,
> but until one makes a judgment one is only ultimately understanding.
> Now, if this is what you mean, then we are simply deaing with
> different teminologies but actually agree.

I'm not sure. I can't for the life of me figure out what you are saying.
I don understand what I have been saying, so I guess in that respect
there is a difference in what we have been saying. What I have been
saying is quite clear to me, and what you have been saying is
unintelligible to me. But I always invoke the principle of charity of
interpretation, so I am willing to assume you are saying the same thing
I am saying.

> > When one thinks one knows and has left surmising behind, then one has
> > stopped being wise and started being a fool.
> 
> Not necessarily.  One may simply be being responsible and ceasing from
> sitting on the fence of indecision.  But it is the mark of wisdom that one
> knows one's knowledge is limited.

That is exactly what I said. When one thinks one knows and is being
responsible, then one is beginning to sound very much like a fool. When
one makes a decision and says "I am willing to gamble on this being a
fruitful course of action for fulfilling the particular desires that are
now driving me," then one sounds considerably less foolish. What I find
alarming in today's world is that there are far too many acting on
particular desires who don't seem to acknowledge that but instead claim
to be acting on the truth. This, as you well know, is my principal
complaint against the neo-conservatives.

> > When we think we know, what we are really doing is having faith in our
> > faith---or in someone else's, whom we assume to be an authority.
> 
> Do you mean this to be a comperhensive statement relative to all forms of
> knowledge?

Like everything I claim, it is a working hypothesis, nothing more. This
particular claim is a working hypothesis that I have not yet had
occasion to abandon. If evidence ever comes my way that overthrows it,
be assured it will quickly be abandoned.

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico