tiltbillings wrote:Then obviously Nanavira is not particularly adept at expressing his ideas. I am simply reading the text of what he wrote as it is written, and I see no reason from how Nanavira wrote what he wrote not to take what he has written as it is written. If he meant to say something else, then he should have said something else.
He does, in his Notes. We might critique the phrasing in the letter on account of it being truncated and potentially misleading, but the Notes themselves flesh out in detail what was mentioned in the letter in brief. I'd not try to derive Dialectics from Hegel's correspondence, so too I'd not try to derive Fundamental Structure from Nanavira's correspondence.
tiltbillings wrote:I have yet to see anyone here tell us what the "something" is and what exactly it means that it is "unchanged" for an "interval," what ever that might mean in this context. So far, and this is so in what follows, we get a lot of bouncing around of these words and some rather ill defined ideas, but no clarity.
It's very clear to me, and to others
. That you continue to find the concept(s) difficult is not a valid critique of the content, but at best a critique of the presentation, a critique with which I can agree. However, the ideas aren't thereby impenetrable. It's rather brilliant philosophy, and no more complex or obscure than, say, Kant or Hegel.