S:C

I am a little rusty in the lingo. Especially with the Advaitins. And I lack understandable explanations - which are not available in my language, as far as I see. Where do the concepts of „substantiality“ differ concerning svabhava… ? @dwai could you provide us with a translation of please? (Don‘t know how or why this got an orange colouring…) So the Advaitins despite their focus on impermanence see ‚God‘ while the Buddhists do not? Empty of substance in both views?

Would you be able and willing to give a reference for this quote please?

Does anyone else find it funny that the measurement unit for high impedance is called ohm? I wonder whether good old Georg did some meditation on his last name.

Is this not a word in the English language? sorry… there should be one like this. there it is…

When treaded categories fall away, the search for structure continues for the functional mind. Garfield/Priest discuss it nicely, Why mountains are mountains or the like… (I forgot).

無? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative) mu is translated as "no thing", saying that it meant "unask the question". He offered the example of a computer circuit using the binary numeral system, in effect using mu to represent high impedance:

Sorry, I cannot explain it understandably.

That more how I understood it, @Apech Language (in that view) constitutes reality. Claiming an observation via language seems to constitute a different layer of reality (for lack of better words), in that view. To rely on feelings, wishes and personal needs and preference is therefore deemed ‚valid enough’, just as well as empirical sense data (both faulty, but necessary nonetheless). A claim that is backed up, constitutes reality. Language is reality, then, not a map thereof. Please correct me if I am wrong here.

Judith Butler is the name I associate with your question. It might be, that there has been someone before, who proposed that conceptual change and also the linguistic turn, but she made the most noise. So it seems to rely on the concept of a performative model of gender, e.g. it relies on language theory (‚performative‘), which originated in the wake of Austin, Searle etc. An act of speaking is conceptually separated into several sub acts, where one of them is ‚illocutionary‘, e.g. creates a reality of itself through speaking, as empirical sense data is frowned upon as a reliable source for observation, language instead is used as the source. Or so I understood it.

Would you care to make it a topic?

I tend to disagree. whatever truth might be reached may still feel warlike and painful, considering the boundaries would get only get dimmer or thinner then… (not fully disappearing) while not ready for dissolution if that makes sense at all.

because? his perspective is/was provocative to the then common/current standard? what are you referring to exactly?

Differentiation. Seems contradictory to the approach for reuniting with God, no? And to Matthew 7:1: Judge not lest you be judged. (By the same standards maybe.) A purification of sorts through the process of differentiation for a clearance of sorts? Odd.

Thank you for your explanation @stirling, I had read the article on wiki before, but it seems to have a very wide array of meanings and I was baffled at the plural. It’s clearer now!

What’s “logos” in your view? @Apech Reason, rationality, differentiating abilities of the mind, grasping word concepts?