coi xorxesI had a bad feeling about switching from talking about symbols to talking about things. It invites trouble.
The Problem is: Systems can draw a distinction between the name for "that wich can be observed" and the name for "that wich can not be observed", and that's a valid luman zei nunzga. They can refer to themselves (they can refer to one of their operations and thus mark this side of the difference between themselves and their environment), but they can not operate in the unmarked space of lo'i velbo'e se velbo'e. Any talk about things that are not luman zei nunzga are actually beyond what they can deal with.
la ian cusku di'eThe different velbo'e could also be different psychical and social systems..i le mi'o velbo'e goi ko'a cu velbo'e le mi'o velbo'e be da poi velbo'e ke'a ku'o le la pavbudjo velbo'e be de poi na ka'e velbo'e ke'aLet me try to translate this. le mi'o velbo'e: "Our system" le mi'o velbo'e be da poi velbo'e ke'a: "Our system (which observes something which is observed)" The {be da poi velbo'e ke'a} adds nothing, because every velbo'e, to be a velbo'e, has to be a velbo'e be da poi velbo'e ke'a. That's even more general: if "broda" has an x2 place, then every broda has to be a broda be da poi broda ke'a. le la pavbudjo velbo'e be de poi na ka'e velbo'e ke'a: "The Buddhist so-called system".
"Buddha-Mind" was what I was aiming for.But you are right. We should not call the "Buddha Mind" velbo'e (the same is true about christian concepts of the mind of God).
But even if we say the Buddha observes: The velbo'e in the relative clause is not specified. So there is a way out. This is a typical way out for luman zei nunzga. This way out is not working though, when the system reference is lo'i velbo'e (that's why philosophers are always running into trouble). The system of lo'i velbo'e would have to get into an infinte regress in its search for a way out.
Also the problem seems to disappear when we only talk about names instead of things (well unless someone asks what things these names refer to, lol).
The systems can only deal with symbols. When we talk or think about things, we really only deal with symbols. So, when we allow for things in X2 and X3 of velbo'e we insert something that is not a valid operation of those systems. By allowing the observation of things we actually break the operational closure.
So the definition will have to go back to symbols for X2 and X3 (and also for X4 and X1, or otherwise the system will not be able to refer to itself or to its operations). I think with the recursive definition of x3 the problem of the "nu'o se sinxa" should be solved.
No velbo'e can be a velbo'e be de poi na ka'e velbo'e ke'a, so you are suggesting that the Buddhist system is no velbo'e. Your sentence then comes out as: Our system distinguishes itself from the Buddhist so-called "system".
Yep. Existence is duality, no-nexistence is non-duality ;-) Bye, Jan. -- Jan Pilgenroeder Theaterstr. 59 52062 Aachen