Wherein: Recursive Neurologic purrs like a honey dew pussy morn & I like totally diss Svabhava.
Von Neumann’s Catastrophe of the Infinite Regress demonstrates that one may never truly remove Quantum Uncertainty from any Measurement, as any measuring device itself operates as a Quantum System with its own Uncertainty.
Additionally: The only measurements we can realistically discuss arrive at our attention by way of the Human Nervous System; and so all forms of Knowledge may find appropriate categorization as Neuro-Knowledge, and since that measurement too comes by way of the Nervous System, it amounts to Neuro-Neuro-Knowledge & that too flows into infinite regress.
The fractal geometry of quantum/neuro epistemology consequentially implies that all systems of thought possess a demonstratable incoherence & irrationality (including this system of thought that suggests all systems of thought as incoherent & irrational.)
Now don’t get it flipped! I totally dig the Buddha; less Tanha (desire) less dukkha (suffering): Klesa Nirodha! but for my $$$, I gotta bring in the slickest of the slick: The Super Jigga Mind: Nagarjuna (the original Mahayanist)
Von Neumann’s Catastrophe reveals an infinite regress of uncertainty due to it utilizing the thinking mind as a tool of measurement. All thinking presumptuously supposes the dualistic categories of “identity” & “difference” (Subject & Object: categories w/out basis) Thinking presumes a demonstratably incoherent abstraction within its very premise; so no wonder the pattern continues through its increasingly complex applications.
Hypostatic Theoretization refers to the phenomena of an abstraction that has gotten concretized to the point of seeming more real than the conditions from which it got abstracted. The permanent independent self (or “Identity”)(according to Nagarjuna) has gotten Hypostatized from the experience of perpetually changing causes & conditions.
Nagarjuna employs a comprehensive method of neutralizing all hypostatic theoretizations; which goes a lil’ something like this:
We understand objects of thought either on their own terms (Definition/Identity) or by their Relationship with other objects.So to conceive of any object X on its own terms or definition would assume the premise of X=X. A Tautology, a useless statement that provides no real information. (Sorry Ms. Rand!) (X)
To define X in relationship with Y leaves us wondering about Y, so we define Y in terms of Z and Z in terms of A and we arrive at an infinite regress that never conclusively defines anything. (Non-X)
Understanding X using both its definition & relations takes us into the murky waters of mutual exclusion, you can’t prove existence by admiting non-existence. (2 Wrongs don’t make a right!?) (Both X and Non-X)
Understanding X using neither its definition nor its relations leaves one understanding nothing at all! (Neither X nor Non X)
X, Non-X, Both, & Neither exhaust all forms of thinking & description, and all have fundamental glitches in their structure, so one may reasonably suppose all linguistic formulations as inherently erroneous?
Nagarjuna proposes the Meme of Emptiness in response to the defects of thought & language. Emptiness, not in the sense of non-existence or void, but rather the absence of Svabhava ( self essence ) Meaning specifically that we do not create ourselves, nor do we possess an independent, permanent (Closed System) existence. [See Ernest Becker Re: The inborn human desire to create themselves (The Causi Suri Project) and the futility thereof.]
Appropriately enough the Sanskrit for Emptiness; Sunyata also means “Shhhhh!” or as I learned it: “SHUT UP!!!” Suggesting maybe an interplay betwixt apprehending our “Identity” and arousing mental chatter/recursive conceptual formulation?Pratityasamutpada supposes that since all objects arise dependant on all other objects, No Object possesses an invariant closed system identity & since everything arises dependant on perpetually changing causes and conditions; still further: everything remains “empty” of self-nature (Open System)
Debate has continued since the first century in regards to whether or not Nagarjuna’s claim that all claims have no meaning itself counts as a claim without meaning...personally I don’t give a fuck!
A set of propositions cannot contain itself without generating paradox and "nonsense"[Russell & Whithead, Principia Mathematica]
Therefore, Nagarjuna's 4-valued logic either does not include itself
or it leads to Zen koans, Nasrudin jokes and Monty Python routines
[I like it either way]