Arbitrary absolutism: the values of the house philosophy

[Kelly Jones]

Nat, I mentioned earlier to you that Prince has PTSD. You know yourself that bashing others is very easy to do. Now consider how easy it might be for someone who had various childhood traumas, and is acting out those damaged emotions. So take it easy, hey. Give the guy a break, as he has been trying to control himself and present more rational arguments recently. I don't think one should look down on an attempt to break out of the stranglehold of a mental illness.


How about we get back to the topic?

The law of identity is used at each step of the way.

A thing exists relative to another thing.
The Totality does not exist as such (relative to something).
But to say that the Totality does not exist as something relative, is to give it a nature that is relative to something that does exist relatively.
Going back to the conclusion that the Totality does not exist in that relative way, one again applies the law of identity to recognise this:

One cannot give any relative nature to the Totality,
BUT
(at the same time as recognising the above,)
One can also not exclude all relative natures from the nature of the Totality.

"Not this, not that, not both, not neither." Neither A=A, nor A=B, nor A does not equal A, nor A does not equal B.

No, A=A is still being used here. You're confusing the meaning of the A in A=A.

A finite thing is symbolised by an A. This finite thing is specifically related to what it is not (not-A).
A=A (the finite thing)
not-A=not-A (what the finite thing is not), which is again A=A

This process is duplicated exactly with regard to the Totality, where:
The Totality is A, and what it is not (all relative natures and characteristics) is not-A. Again, the law of identity is being used.
A=A (the Totality is itself)
not-A=not-A (all relative natures and characteristics are not the Totality), which is again A=A

But, just as the conclusion that the Totality is not restricted to a relative essence, we have again to revisit this "A vs. not-A" presentation of the Totality, just as I explained above. In other words:

All relative natures are part of the Totality, (this is a new interpretation of the A that symbolises the Totality)
Therefore, the true meaning for the A that is the Totality is all A's (all A=A's, all not-A=not-A's).


The wrong conclusion here would be A=not-A. That amounts to equating the Totality with one of its own parts, rather than seeing that the totality of the parts (every part singly taken as a complete whole) are identical with the Totality.


.

[jupiviv]

Nat, I mentioned earlier to you that Prince has PTSD. You know yourself that bashing others is very easy to do. Now consider how easy it might be for someone who had various childhood traumas, and is acting out those damaged emotions.

Personally I think the idea of judging people who have PTSD to be the otherwise sane is nonsensical. Then again, judging people who love someone or want to have children to be otherwise sane is nonsensical. Living in an insane world, and all that.

[Unidian]

Nat, I mentioned earlier to you that Prince has PTSD.

You did? Sorry, I forgot. Are you sure you told me that?

You know yourself that bashing others is very easy to do. Now consider how easy it might be for someone who had various childhood traumas, and is acting out those damaged emotions. So take it easy, hey. Give the guy a break, as he has been trying to control himself and present more rational arguments recently. I don't think one should look down on an attempt to break out of the stranglehold of a mental illness.

OK, fine, I'll back off.

How about we get back to the topic?

The law of identity is used at each step of the way.

A thing exists relative to another thing.
The Totality does not exist as such (relative to something).
But to say that the Totality does not exist as something relative, is to give it a nature that is relative to something that does exist relatively.
Going back to the conclusion that the Totality does not exist in that relative way, one again applies the law of identity to recognise this:

One cannot give any relative nature to the Totality,
BUT
(at the same time as recognising the above,)
One can also not exclude all relative natures from the nature of the Totality.

Then "The Totality" is absolute nothingness, ineffable and incomprehensible except outside its conventional self-negating manifestations, such as you, me and the fencepost. And what is the big deal about us? Chop wood, carry water, and don't make self-aggrandizing websites.

[Kelly Jones]

Well, no. Sorry. Come to think of it, it was to Alex, who said something (I paraphrase) like the QRStians have a raison d'etre of mocking and belittling people, and saying they're Right all the time while everyone else is Wrong all the time, and that prince was obviously the essence of QRStian fury.

Apologies. Thanks for paying attention.


.

[Kelly Jones]

Jupta, re the insanity thing.

I tend to see people as clouds of shifting values and opinions, rather than coherent and consistent mind-essences. Within the whole changing swirl of their views, there can be a "spirit" of something a little more sane. It's like seeing a species of struggling orchid amidst the whole rampant jungle of competing plants. One can try to make room for that, and help it grow - if one thinks it's worth doing that.

What else can one do?


.

[Kelly Jones]

Then "The Totality" is absolute nothingness, ineffable and incomprehensible except outside its conventional self-negating manifestations, such as you, me and the fencepost. And what is the big deal about us? Chop wood, carry water, and don't make self-aggrandizing websites.

The Totality isn't nothingness whatsoever, and we can speak of it, and think of it. It is everything we do, and everything we don't do.

Also, while false knowledge, or ignorance, is also the Totality, it isn't knowledge of it. We can speak truly of the Totality, just as I demonstrated using the law of identity to recognise incomplete definitions or mistakes along the way.


.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

1. His first source was also originally my source. (Forgive me for answering here.)

Please take note I pointed out the mistake of that source, that it dealt (just like you appear to do) with both logical systems being comparable, in some way addressing "each other's premises". If one treats the material in a flawed manner like that, it would inevitable lead to exposing a deep flaw in Buddhist logic, like the "logician" did!

As it stands the logician.net contains a deeply flawed reasoning because it simple doesn't grasp the difference. There are a multitude of mainstream acadamic level sources which point out this difference correctly but I personally believe it has to be understood with the power of ones own mind first.

2. Of the SEP article, I assume paraconsistent logic is a topic in modern philosophy

It just means the two logical systems are not in opposition but can exist next to each other, simply because "paraconsistent" means it's not (fundamentally) propositional and functions in different contexts ("besides" and not countering the consistent or "A").

Everything is real and not real.
Both real and not real.
Neither real nor not real.
That is Lord Buddha's teaching.

—Mûla-madhyamaka-kârikâ 18:8, quoted in Garfield (1995: 102), quoted in SEP

I am grotesquely ignorant so how one gets the first line AND the second line AND the third line neatly fitted into A = A would of course be quite beyond me.

Something appearing as having a property of "real" or "orange' belongs to a whole different territory, the field of epistemology. The mistake is to drag this out and address something like "existence is", ""suchness" or "i am" which is not talking about property but about existence itself, which can lead to a certainty in thought, of thought, which lies really at the ground of any powerful, but not necessarily accurate or wholesome perception in Western as well as Eastern thought systems.

[David Quinn]

Then "The Totality" is absolute nothingness, ineffable and incomprehensible except outside its conventional self-negating manifestations, such as you, me and the fencepost. And what is the big deal about us? Chop wood, carry water, and don't make self-aggrandizing websites.

You mean like this one - James Quirk

You don't have any integrity at all, do you? And as this thread has shown, how ugly you become when challenged.

"To be thoughtless is easy, it is easy to live without shame and be selfish. But it is hard to be selfless, pure and intelligent." - Buddha

-

[Unidian]

How is that website self-aggrandizing? Especially compared to this one:

David Quinn

Although I am not part of any religion, I consider the great wise men of the past to be my spiritual brothers and colleagues - Socrates, Diogenes, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Jesus, Nagarjuna, Huang Po, Chuang Tzu, Hakuin, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Eckhart, and Weininger.

Wisdom of the Infinite - An incisive book that rivals Chuang Tzu and Nagarjuna at their best.

Letters Between Enemies - Correspondence between the renowned sage, Kevin Solway, and myself. Focuses on the personal side of the philosophic life. Spiritual dialogue at its finest.

The Thinking Man's Minefield. - The greatest writings of the human race collected on a single website.

Quality Posts - This section archives some of the better contributions posted to Genius Forum over the last couple of years. Some of these posts are packed with original ideas; others are dripping with timeless wisdom; yet others are fearless in confronting the sacred cows of society.

So, tell my how my site is self-aggrandizing in comparison?

You don't have any integrity at all, do you?

Not any you'd acknowledge, no. Thankfully.

And as this thread has shown, how ugly you become when challenged.

Ugly is in the eye of the beholder.

"To be thoughtless is easy, it is easy to live without shame and be selfish. But it is hard to be selfless, pure and intelligent." - Buddha

Yes, all of your opponents are always labeled "thoughtless" sooner or later. It started with the entire female gender and Lord knows where it will stop.

[David Quinn]

How is that website self-aggrandizing? Especially compared to this one:

David Quinn

Although I am not part of any religion, I consider the great wise men of the past to be my spiritual brothers and colleagues - Socrates, Diogenes, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Jesus, Nagarjuna, Huang Po, Chuang Tzu, Hakuin, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Eckhart, and Weininger.

Wisdom of the Infinite - An incisive book that rivals Chuang Tzu and Nagarjuna at their best.

Letters Between Enemies - Correspondence between the renowned sage, Kevin Solway, and myself. Focuses on the personal side of the philosophic life. Spiritual dialogue at its finest.

The Thinking Man's Minefield. - The greatest writings of the human race collected on a single website.

Quality Posts - This section archives some of the better contributions posted to Genius Forum over the last couple of years. Some of these posts are packed with original ideas; others are dripping with timeless wisdom; yet others are fearless in confronting the sacred cows of society.

So, tell my how my site is self-aggrandizing in comparison?

Clearly, I don't have a problem with that kind of promotion. It has an absurdist spine which really appeals to me. It puts people on edge and shatters their normal expectations, breathing life into their minds. I love seeing it in others as well, provided they can back it up with interesting, high-quality thought.

But what I find odd with you is that you have been trying to extract triple the amount of self-aggrandizement than normal:

First, there is the self-aggrandizement involved in your website, which, as you say, is pretty standard in its juggle to marry greedy, outright promotion with conventional humility.

Then there is the self-aggrandizement involved in your swanning around the place self-righteously proclaiming to people that all you do is chop wood and carry water, like some sort of pious Zen devotee.

And then there is the self-aggrandizement involved in you ticking off Kelly for having a website and promoting her thought, even though you have created exactly the same thing, despite having the nerve to pretend that you haven't.

And all the while, you are acting as if nothing is going on, that nothing's amiss.

And you wonder why I call you thoughtless.....

-

[RobertGreenSky]

(Btw, not once in 35 years reading have I ever come across any source, whether J. Krishnamurti or any voice in Daoism, Zen, or Buddhism, who ever wrote a damned thing about A = A, not once! You're bullshitting yourself about its significance.)

Perhaps because most of the logic in those traditions, like most of the Naiyanikas, is epistemological, dealing with descriptive knowledge or thinking
about and hardly ontological,

Since I had J. Krishnamurti lying around on my desk at the moment, I decided to illustrate this:

• So the thinking, the word, the symbol, the image is knowledge, and that is time.... So all knowledge, obviously, there is no question about this, all knowledge is time. And all knowledge is the past.

When JK is addressing thought and knowledge, it's accumulative thoughts and knowledge, descriptions.

• Therefore I must be very clear, there must be clarity that there is no deception whatsoever. And I'm saying that deception exists, will inevitably exist if I don't understand the nature of reality.

Yet there seems to be a higher understanding of the nature of reality...

• But to see the whole field of knowledge, and to see the whole field and where the knowledge is necessary, where it becomes a destructive thing, requires great intelligence. So is intelligence the product of time? Do listen to it. Don't agree or disagree. Is intelligence personal, yours or mine? Or is intelligence the seeing of this whole movement of knowledge? And to see it you must be highly sensitive, attentive, care, affection, love, you must have, otherwise you can't see the beauty, the swiftness of intelligence.

And that understanding is "great intelligence" and "highly sensitive"? What is this intelligence on the nature of knowing?

• To know myself is very important. I see the limitations of knowledge, I see very, very clearly that the very word `know' is a dangerous word in the sense that it has tremendous associations with knowledge. So what have I left? I have understood the limitations of knowledge, I also see the Anglo-European word `feeling' and the danger of that word because I can invent a lot of feeling and a whole lot of froth. So I can also see the limitations of that. And at the end of this, where am I?

• Then only is there pure observation which is insight without any shadow of the past or of time. This timeless insight brings about a deep, radical mutation in the mind.

Clearly A=A is as well no accumulative knowledge, it's not in the past, on itself it doesn't tell us anything new about something or contains a specific sense or feeling. It's pure observation and could bring deep changes in the mind if followed through.

Last thoughts in our discussion of A = A. If it is The Extra Special Genius Forum Godlike Defined To Be Beyond Critique Holy A = A then it is an object of belief as well as of veneration. You wrote, 'Clearly A=A is as well no accumulative knowledge, it's not in the past, on itself it doesn't tell us anything new about something or contains a specific sense or feeling. It's pure observation and could bring deep changes in the mind if followed through.' Really? We could all profit from a thorough definition of A = A - :D :D :D If on the other hand it is the Aristotelian law of identity, as Kelly suggested, then there are three sources indicating Nagarjuna rejected it and your mere claims he didn't aren't sufficient answer. Emptiness is a denial of identity and so is dependent co-origination. Both Buddhism and Daoism hold that things exist only as conventions of language.

Defined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits?

- SEP, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

Unidian and I are dealing with the limitations of thinking as did the Laozi in Chapters 1 and 2 and beyond; as did Nagarjuna, and as did J. Krishnamurti.

A paraconsistent logic is a logical system that attempts to deal with contradictions in a discriminating way. Alternatively, paraconsistent logic is the subfield of logic that is concerned with studying and developing paraconsistent (or “inconsistency-tolerant”) systems of logic.

- Wikipedia, Paraconsistent Logic, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent

I don't think there is room for A = A in such logics - does A = A admit contradictions? I didn't think so.

Knock yourself out with the last word.

[jupiviv]

It's ironic that RobertGreensky and Guestoflogic are using so many concepts, names and words to defend their position. If they were sincere about what they are saying, this discussion wouldn't occur.

[Talking Ass]

If everyone, and yourself, were 'sincere' in this way the forum would only be an endless series of agreements and affirmations.

The Totality...is the Totality!
Yes, yes...it is Total!
I agree with that too: Total is the Totality!
I would like to add that it is Infinite too.
Yes, yes, Infinite.
In-finite!
It's an Infinite Totality!
Whoa, boys, what about A is A?
Well, what about it?
A is A!
It is!
An A is an A is an A. That is really what she meant (GS).
Truth is my star!
But 'star' is a concept. You must do away with it.
...
You're right! I have excized it!
Truth...IS!
Truth...Infinity...Totality
TIT!
TIT for TAT!
What's the A in Tat?
Absoluteness!
Yay! Bravo! Yipee!
Truth Absolutelness Infinity and Totality.
Anyone disagree?
...
Well?
...
Then its agreed!
Yay! Bravo! Yipee!

(ad infinitum)

[jupiviv]

If everyone, and yourself, were 'sincere' in this way the forum would only be an endless series of agreements and affirmations.

No it wouldn't, because A=A is not the same as A=B. A=B is also an affirmation, but wrong.

[Talking Ass]

If everyone agreed about the truth of A is A, the fact that there is a Totality, that Truth 'exists' and that the Totality is Infinite, where could disagreement arise? If the forum were composed of 'perfect agreers' there would never be any dispute, only affirmations.

Did you find any fault in what I wrote above? Do you disagree with any part of it?

Take this for example, you often dispute with other (apparent) believers in the A is A formula, and you are right, right? Those you disagree with are wrong, right? All those who have a different 'belief' than you are believing A is B or in any case they are not affirming A is A, right?

[AlyOshA]

Robert:

What I would really like to have, since I am in fact grotesquely ignorant of 'philosophy', is a working sense of what you actually mean by A = A.

When Moses talked to God in the burning bush he asked God, when I go back to Israel "who" will I tell them sent me? It was a rhetorical way of getting God to reveal his/her (both dual and non-dual) identity. God's answer was "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" translated in the King James as "I Am what I Am", translated from Hebrew as "I shall be as I shall be" (simultaneously what "is" and what is "becoming"). Then he added, tell them "I Am" sent you. Jesus many times referred to himself as "I Am". Essentially this is the same thing as saying "A=A". By itself this is the ultimate philosophy. Also it is a practical means of experiencing God.

[RobertGreenSky]

It's ironic that RobertGreensky and Guestoflogic are using so many concepts, names and words to defend their position. If they were sincere about what they are saying, this discussion wouldn't occur.

If we were sincere we wouldn't disagree with you? Not only do we sincerely disagree with you but we do so eloquently and with fine support for our positions - how often have I heard in return, 'Academics? We don't need no stinkin' academics.' Alas, if you had similar quality support you'd use it, but you don't, so you make things up as you go along and all the assenting 'yup yup yup yup yup's' you get from other GF regulars won't stand up to the genuine learned support we advance - bullshit is known as bullshit the world over and off this forum you'd be in big trouble.

[RobertGreenSky]

Robert:

What I would really like to have, since I am in fact grotesquely ignorant of 'philosophy', is a working sense of what you actually mean by A = A.

When Moses talked to God in the burning bush he asked God, when I go back to Israel "who" will I tell them sent me? It was a rhetorical way of getting God to reveal his/her (both dual and non-dual) identity. God's answer was "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" translated in the King James as "I Am what I Am", translated from Hebrew as "I shall be as I shall be" (simultaneously what "is" and what is "becoming"). Then he added, tell them "I Am" sent you. Jesus many times referred to himself as "I Am". Essentially this is the same thing as saying "A=A". By itself this is the ultimate philosophy. Also it is a practical means of experiencing God.

While I appreciate this I don't think Aristotle was considering the sense of it when he dealt with logical necessities and your 'ultimate philosophy' is not Buddhism, Zen, and Daoism, although I can understand if you are predisposed toward Western philosophy and religion. The Buddha never taught 'I am that I am', none of his followers taught it of him, and neither Laozi nor Zhuangzi ever advocated A = A as any kind of meaningful principle. You've given me the word 'identity' and which does echo 'law of identity' but alas I see no burning bush - or perhaps it is fortunate that I don't since I am in my humble apartment typing on what is probably a non-fire retardant keyboard. :)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If the forum were composed of 'perfect agreers' there would never be any dispute, only affirmations.

But this is already the case: a forum composed of perfect agreers. Currently there's no one around entering an actual discussion. And not only we all just are repeatedly confirming our own position, looking for evidence to fulfill the present suspicions - not one second doubting if perhaps the wrong end of the stick is clasped, but we're also all agreeing with each and every statement we make to the very thing supposedly under dispute! That's why the idea of having a dispute is already delusional. One can question all about absolute truth but the only unavoidable answer, if one not seriously sabotages the process, is the realization that the questioning itself is not actually a maintainable position. Only then one can cease.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If on the other hand it is the Aristotelian law of identity, as Kelly suggested, then there are three sources indicating Nagarjuna rejected it and your mere claims he didn't aren't sufficient answer.

Aristotle formulated it thus:

• Primary premisses are more knowable than demonstrations, and all scientific knowledge is discursive. From these considerations it follows that there will be no scientific knowledge of the primary premisses, and since except intuition nothing can be truer than scientific knowledge, it will be intuition that apprehends the primary premisses. (from Posterior A)

Emptiness is a denial of identity and so is dependent co-origination. Both Buddhism and Daoism hold that things exist only as conventions of language.

But we're not talking about any things. The principle is that of all consciousness. Even becoming aware of any "emptiness" or "co-origination" is a highly conscious activity. Becoming conscious of anything at all involves identities, since any bit of reality identifies itself by becoming conscious. But understanding in fullness sees that the reality of ignorance is the Buddha Nature and the empty illusory is the ultimate nature of reality.

Unidian and I are dealing with the limitations of thinking as did the Laozi in Chapters 1 and 2 and beyond; as did Nagarjuna, and as did J. Krishnamurti.

Before one can try to understand what is meant with "limitation of thinking" one should learn to understand what is meant here with thinking, and what not. This understanding is not limiting but liberating and inclusive. This is why Laozi demonstrates it in all his chapters.

I don't think there is room for A = A in such [paraconsistent] logics - does A = A admit contradictions? I didn't think so.

Any logic concurs to A = A but some do function differently in specific logical systems which only can exist because of certain defined axioms. In the case of Nagajuna et al, the context should be apprehended first correctly. He never claimed for example the enlightened one would be fully conscious yet fully unconscious. It was just not an issue.

[David Quinn]

Everything is real and not real.
Both real and not real.
Neither real nor not real.
That is Lord Buddha's teaching.

—Mûla-madhyamaka-kârikâ 18:8, quoted in Garfield (1995: 102), quoted in SEP

I am grotesquely ignorant so how one gets the first line AND the second line AND the third line neatly fitted into A = A would of course be quite beyond me.

I will show you how:

Everything is real and not real.
Both real and not real.

All things are unreal in the sense that nothing objectively exists.
All things are real in the sense that they are manifestations of reality (the Tao).
They are both, depending on how you look at it.

Neither real nor not real.

Since things do not really exist in the first place, how they can be decribed as being real or unreal?

Pretty simple, really.

As you can see, the understanding of these matters doesn't require an ejection of A=A (as if that were possible!). Rather, it requires the application of A=A on the concept of the Totality - i.e. on the truth that the Tao is everything and therefore nothing.

In other words, it requires identifying what the Tao is and fearlessly pursuing its logical implications to the end, just as Nagarjuna has done.

[Cue the fundamentalist Christian ... er, I mean, Robert! ]

-

[Talking Ass]

Diebert wrote: "But this is already the case: a forum composed of perfect agreers. Currently there's no one around entering an actual discussion. And not only we all just are repeatedly confirming our own position, looking for evidence to fulfill the present suspicions - not one second doubting if perhaps the wrong end of the stick is clasped, but we're also all agreeing with each and every statement we make to the very thing supposedly under dispute! That's why the idea of having a dispute is already delusional. One can question all about absolute truth but the only unavoidable answer, if one not seriously sabotages the process, is the realization that the questioning itself is not actually a maintainable position. Only then one can cease."

I totally disagree with everything you've written here.

(Joke).

Everything hinges on this 'absolute truth' part. A long time ago I felt I solved the problem of such an attractive idea by understanding that though an absolute truth might 'exist', no two people (because they are two persons) could or will ever agree unanimously on the definition of it.

How do you think our conversations can become more 'productive'? Should they?

[Unidian]

Hi David,

But what I find odd with you is that you have been trying to extract triple the amount of self-aggrandizement than normal:

First, there is the self-aggrandizement involved in your website, which, as you say, is pretty standard in its juggle to marry greedy, outright promotion with conventional humility.

I'm not following. Where is the "greedy, outright promotion?" That site is actually nothing more than an archive of my stuff, so that it doesn't get lost when boards disappear and links go dead. I haven't publicized it anywhere, nor do I intend to. So where's the "greedy, outright promotion?"

Then there is the self-aggrandizement involved in your swanning around the place self-righteously proclaiming to people that all you do is chop wood and carry water, like some sort of pious Zen devotee.

Pious Zen devotee? Me? Sheesh, that's rich. Let's clear that up right now - I'm not. I do practice a bit in my own eclectic/eccentric way, but beyond that, I make no representation of being any kind of "devotee" in any sense.

And then there is the self-aggrandizement involved in you ticking off Kelly for having a website and promoting her thought, even though you have created exactly the same thing, despite having the nerve to pretend that you haven't.

No, it's the tone of you guys' websites, not the fact that you have them. IE the presentation of yourselves as the best things since spiritual sliced bread.

And all the while, you are acting as if nothing is going on, that nothing's amiss.

And you wonder why I call you thoughtless.....

No, I don't wonder about that at all. You eventually call all your opponents thoughtless, as I said earlier. It's par for the course in your narcissistic world.

[RobertGreenSky]

... You eventually call all your opponents thoughtless, as I said earlier. It's par for the course in your narcissistic world.

- Unidian, of David Quinn

You're lucky; I'm a fundamentalist.

[RobertGreenSky]

All things are unreal in the sense that nothing objectively exists.
All things are real in the sense that they are manifestations of reality (the Tao).
They are both, depending on how you look at it. ...

Since things do not really exist in the first place, how they can be decribed as being real or unreal?

Pretty simple, really.

- David

Pretty wrong, really. The Buddha's-Nagarjuna's point is that nowhere can a thing be found and that would include the Tao and this 'Totality' the idea of which would have offended them all. Our thoughts about the Tao are ten thousand things; you cannot conceptualize Tao and Laozi said it - we quote it again and again and again and you just ignore it.

'... it requires identifying what the Tao is and fearlessly pursuing its logical implications to the end, just as Nagarjuna has done.' - David

Where did he do that? I didn't see - not a single time - mention of the Tao in MMK; where is any mention of 'Capital-T Totality', 'The Whole Enchilada', 'The Great Big Old Dog Biscuit', or anything similar? Once again you made something up. (We're still waiting on that translation business.)

Now (cheaply) label me a 'fundamentalist' as you like, but if you keep insisting that A = A is important to Buddhism-Daoism when (1) any meaningful identity is denied in both and (2) not once did any major figure in Buddhism and Daoism ever affirm A = A and (3) conceptualization was advised against by both, and we will label you a wishful thinker. If you prefer, we'll label you a 'wishful conceptualizer' since it sounds more important.