The distinction is between a thing in relation to other things and for us and a thing in itself. To the extent that water cannot wet, it is not water. To the extent that fire cannot burn, it is not fire. Yet precisely for not burning itself, fire is fire; and for not wetting itself, water is water. X is not X, therefore it is X. For precisely in its act of burning firewood, fire does not burn itself; and in not burning itself, it burns firewood. It burns in relation to something else, but in-itself (in relation to itself) it does not burn.
Since this idea of emptiness/dependent origination comes from some of the oldest books ever written, then I guess the OG Buddhists were postmodernists lol.
Fire is not fire. Therefore fire is not hot.
The distinction is between a thing in relation to other things and for us and a thing in itself. To the extent that water cannot wet, it is not water. To the extent that fire cannot burn, it is not fire. Yet precisely for not burning itself, fire is fire; and for not wetting itself, water is water. X is not X, therefore it is X. For precisely in its act of burning firewood, fire does not burn itself; and in not burning itself, it burns firewood. It burns in relation to something else, but in-itself (in relation to itself) it does not burn.
postmodernism has entered the chat
I can deal with post modernism as long as it makes its little friend post structuralism wait outside
Since this idea of emptiness/dependent origination comes from some of the oldest books ever written, then I guess the OG Buddhists were postmodernists lol.