- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
03 Aug 11
Originally posted by black beetle"That's about the weave of it" was said as a response to something I said. I took it to be general agreement. This is after your "Some are workers, some are not." I don't know if this agreement would be the response to the following amplification of my point: The exchange of cryptic messages is a common element of religion and religion-like systems; it serves to identify one's fellows. It may also, but does not always, have cognitive content which in turn may or may not be understood the same way by the parties. So the parties don't have to understand a koan as long as they show sincere acceptance of it as a koan. Outsiders will be revealed. Some are workers, some are not. I am aware and ready for a comment that koans do not yield to such rational analysis. That is part of the cryptic content. It is to be viewed that way.
Obviously, my replies to you are not a snide commentary. I am nobody’s teacher. I respect you as much I respect myself, and I do not hesitate to spend my time in order to communicate with you. This doesn’t mean that I am forced to agree with you when I disagree. I did not talk down to you; instead, I am attacking openly and directly your rigid views of ...[text shortened]... n your own without using your eyes. Together we advance Upstream.
May You Be Always Happy!
😵
My comment is based on an article on the evolutionary value of religion:
http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/11/13/evolution-morality-and-religion.htm
Quote, from partway through:
Religious rituals and rules function as ... hard-to-fake signals, and indeed, Irons has characterized religion as a “hard-to-fake sign of commitment.” He points out that religions are learned over a long span of time, their traditions are often sufficiently complex to be hard for an outsider to imitate, and their rituals provide opportunities for members to monitor each other for signs of sincerity. This is a costly and time-consuming process.
unquote
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by JS357I understood that our divegeester’s response was both a response to your quote and a response to my “Some are workers, some are not”, because his reply was unquoted. Of course, the general agreement you imply could well be his response too to your main point.
"That's about the weave of it" was said as a response to something I said. I took it to be general agreement. This is after your "Some are workers, some are not." I don't know if this agreement would be the response to the following amplification of my point: The exchange of cryptic messages is a common element of religion and religion-like systems; it serves ...[text shortened]... h other for signs of sincerity. This is a costly and time-consuming process.
unquote
As regards your point about the exchange of cryptic messages and its possible cognitive content in the realm of various religious and/or religious-like systems, I agree in general -but over here at this thread there is nothing “to be accepted”, as I already told you back then. I perceive this exact exchange more like a philosophical or a scientific one: what would you think about a mathematical equation, or about the analysis and the approach of a Western or an Eastern logician? Do we really exchange “cryptic messages” when we apply Math, or do we apply them in order to “identify one’s fellows”?
In my opinion, religion is an ill-considered pseudo-philosophical metaphysic by-product of the human mind: one uses a blind belief as a cornerstone and, over this irrationality that has to be accepted blindly, he creates a whole castle made of sand. I always wonder what exactly is forcing the people to be enveloped by a religious system; and always I find out that the reasons are many, and all of them based on unjustified projections of the mind. This is exactly what I perceive as delusion.
As regards the koans in general, in the beginning they were used by the teachers as a catalyst in order to either cause satori, or to check the level of the awareness of the individual (usually trained monks) to whom they were addressed. Later on, they were used as an organon of education and training, and in some traditions they became the stepping stone from which the individual would start his analysis. Koans attack all the theories; they are neither absurdity nor nonsensical; and they are doubt generators. The Western logic and the Aristotelian philosophy is to the Easterns pure intellectualism that keeps the individual hooked into the phenomenal world (the so called Floating World). The Zen tradition aims to ease the individual to overcome this attachment and, thus, overcome dualism. What exists before language? What exists before symbols? Koan is raising constantly the Great Doubt; when one doubts deeply and his analysis is strong and original, he will finally overcome his delusions, for he evaluates accurately each of his thoughts. The problem starts when one really doesn’t know and, instead of admitting his ignorance, he either pretends that he knows (because “G-d” informed him in person, or because he read it in his “holy book”, or because some saint told him so, or because an authority told him so). This kind of people I evaluate as delusional, because they cannot even realize that the very moment they attempt to talk about the transcendental they belittle it to a trivial phenomenon that automatically has its transcendence cancelled.
So the Koan annihilates the intellectualism; the delusion; the constant string of thoughts; the lust for life; the fear of death; the theories and the interpretations; the motion; the stillness; the Good; the Evil; the dualist approach; Yin; Yang. You find yourself without refuge, all you have is a specific point of attention. If there is something to be found, you have to find it on your own.
Therefore the Koan is an organon that yields rational analysis in full, because it is not transcendental per se. Where exactly you will end up by using this organon, it will be finally a projection of your mind. Nothing about it is “cryptic”, that is, you merely have to do it on your own. I hope you comprehend.
Are you still afraid of this?
😵
Originally posted by black beetleObviously to the casual reader they (your commentaries) are fully of snide comment, and you certainly are not a teacher, I assure you! I remain unimpressed with your hill-top wittering and "cross legged"posturing. Try shaving your head.
Obviously, my replies to you are not a snide commentary. I am nobody’s teacher. I respect you as much I respect myself, and I do not hesitate to spend my time in order to communicate with you. This doesn’t mean that I am forced to agree with you when I disagree. I did not talk down to you; instead, I am attacking openly and directly your rigid views of n your own without using your eyes. Together we advance Upstream.
May You Be Always Happy!
😵
I like my (how do call them...) "rigid views", my "delusions", my "unsupported projections", my "chains". The fact you do not, is your entitlement.
Please do not wish me happiness, frankly I don't believe you.
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by divegeesterFeel free to beleive whatever you want😵
Obviously to the casual reader they (your commentaries) are fully of snide comment, and you certainly are not a teacher, I assure you! I remain unimpressed with your hill-top wittering and "cross legged"posturing. Try shaving your head.
I like my (how do call them...) "rigid views", my "delusions", my "unsupported projections", my "chains". The fac ...[text shortened]... s your entitlement.
Please do not wish me happiness, frankly I don't believe you.
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by divegeesterThis black beetle character has his head above the clouds and has little
Obviously to the casual reader they (your commentaries) are fully of snide comment, and you certainly are not a teacher, I assure you! I remain unimpressed with your hill-top wittering and "cross legged"posturing. Try shaving your head.
I like my (how do call them...) "rigid views", my "delusions", my "unsupported projections", my "chains". The fac ...[text shortened]... s your entitlement.
Please do not wish me happiness, frankly I don't believe you.
concern for us ants below who usually have our head up our buttocks,
not counting you of course.
Originally posted by SoothfastInteresting discussion. I wrote the following late last night, but didn’t get to post (for the reason alluded to toward the end). In a nutshell, I think it is about the use of different modes of discourse—such as propositional or descriptive modes, on the one hand, and the “elicitive” mode on the other. Poetry, of course, does not just serve elicitive discourse, but is often used for that.
Okay, here's the thing.
We must be precise in the things we say to others, because others cannot get into our heads and contextualize our words with the groovy imagery we're seeing when we are speaking them. You can take a barrel of fortune cookies and see significance in all the different arrangements of the fortunes that are possible, so being explic . 😉
Infinities I think I can handle. It is finiteness that I am afraid of.
_______________________________________________
One should not confuse, however, precision with abstraction—since abstractions (say, in logical form) can generally be made to appear more precise, it seems, than the just-so-suchness (tathata) that appears here right before us, but of which we, and our observations, also are (which generates paradox even in the midst of attempted observational preciseness). For example, a deductive inference can be valid without being true. Its precision, even if valid, is no measure of truthfulness. (An invalid inference cannot be true: even in logic, asymmetry?) [Thus far, just stating the obvious; your example of mathematics, too.]
From the Zen point of view, one should, further, not confuse existential (or ontological: in Zen I am not sure the distinction is “precisely” parsed) precision with more or less precise statements of concept, whether in logical form or not.
There are at least two major theories (or paradigms for expressing) the (nomological?) truth: the correspondence expression, predominant in the west; and what I will call the “ontic expression”, which predominates in the east. I suspect there may be some (generally unrecognized) linguistic basis for this divide. For example, in English, the word “truth” is cognate with trust and troth—and even tryst. So the idea of correspondence may be built in. In Sanskrit, satya (“truth” ) is cognate with sat: being, existence, actuality. For the Zen Buddhist to say that “truth” is “the pine tree in the garden” is an ontological expression, likely meant to direct one away from mental abstraction/conceptualization—and toward unmediated reality (or at least conceptually-unmediated perception: the Buddhist notion of “mutually arising” comes in here) as opposed to the mediation of corresponding concepts. [Of course, we are also dealing here with translation, and the two “theories of truth” can perhaps be rendered complimentary if that is allowed for.]
It is not, ontologically (or existentially), less precise than some more conceptual philosophical response. But if you’re asking for abstraction, and you want precision-in-abstraction (or -conception), then—
The moth batters herself
obsessively
against the window-screen
—will seem both imprecise, and likely trivial (a “fortune cookie” ), in response. Whereas that poetic response points to exactly an existential truth that is prior to all our conceptualization—and, by its analogic image, might also point to the essential pathology of the concept-bound mind. Of course, that image only becomes analogic, or metaphorical, in the context of a particular question or argument—e.g., one that wants or presumes conceptual precision as a means to existential “truth”.
And, as this is the “spirituality” (much as I so dislike that word!) forum—though it has also been the de facto philosophical forum—any attempt to point beyond concept to the (ultimately ineffable) real/tathata, seems wholly appropriate. Such attempts often seem to take the form of poetry (metaphor), direct statements of reality, or Zen koans and such—various forms of what bbarr has called “elicitive” language, as opposed to descriptive or narrative or propositional language. They are aimed only at pointing from the conceptual matrix that we conceive (and get caught up in; including such concepts as “god” ) to the underlying pre-conceptual reality, the just-so-suchness from which, in which and of which we are. Sometimes, it aims to, first, shake up that matrix. And a whole lot of confusion can ensue when elicitive (or even just plain aesthetic) language is taken as, say, propositional language.
Thunder over the ridgetops,
lightning just outside:
time to unplug! 🙂
_________________________________________________
Addendum after the storm:
I didn’t get to post any of that before I had to unplug the computer (it has gotten zapped before in electrical storms—especially through the modem). But—does this addendum really add any precision to “lightning just outside / time to unplug!”? 🙂
What if you had asked: “But is there a god?” The response—lightning outside / time to unplug!—could only be deemed inappropriate if you assume a priori that I am not, legitimately, answering your question—and, even more, the very nature of your question! That is, only if you assume that the paradigm from which you ask the question is (or ought to be taken as) in some way hegemonic—and that I am being either obfuscatory or frivolous if I do not submit to that paradigm.
Now, clearly this lengthy response indicates that I have, provisionally, accepted the hegemony of the paradigm from which you voice your objection to blackbeetle’s discourse, but—
Do not think by that
that the truth I wave my hands at
is anything less than
the cat sleeping by my elbow,
or the jiggling ice
in my glass of tequila—
🙂
__________________________________
EDIT: (1) The second person "you" should be taken as a general, not particular, usage in the above; (2) I make no argument against conceptualization as a means to knowledge (how foolish that would be); Zen really attempts to offer just a corrective to, from its view, the confusion between concept and the underlying actuality that we often seem to become caught in. It just points to the "territory" when we get our heads stuck in the "map"--and, it seems, even sometimes insist that the territory conform to our maps, rather than changing our maps to conform to the territory. Zen is neither special nor profound; and is certainly not the only discipline that insists on the priority of the existential territory.
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by vistesdWhat a fantastic post! For those interested in reading a professional philosopher using ellicitive, poetic expression and stingingly precise propositional discourse to get at what's important and real, read John Koethe. He's great.
Interesting discussion. I wrote the following late last night, but didn’t get to post (for the reason alluded to toward the end). In a nutshell, I think it is about the use of different modes of discourse—such as propositional or descriptive modes, on the one hand, and the “elicitive” mode on the other. Poetry, of course, does not just serve elicitive dis ...[text shortened]... rtainly not the only discipline that insists on the priority of the existential territory.
04 Aug 11
Originally posted by vistesdI haven't had time to follow up on the post of mine which you are addressing, though a sequel has been my intent. Anyway, once upon a time, a little over a century ago, two great mathematicians set out to ground mathematics, once and for all, on a well-defined set of axioms and rules of inference expressed purely in terms of symbolic logic. They spent years writing the Principia Mathematica, three volumes one after another. Hundreds and hundreds of pages of logic symbols that proved the fundamental properties of numbers. And it looked as if they had succeeded.
Interesting discussion. I wrote the following late last night, but didn’t get to post (for the reason alluded to toward the end). In a nutshell, I think it is about the use of different modes of discourse—such as propositional or descriptive modes, on the one hand, and the “elicitive” mode on the other. Poetry, of course, does not just serve elicitive dis ...[text shortened]... rtainly not the only discipline that insists on the priority of the existential territory.
But then, a decade or two later, a logician named Kurt Gödel noticed that he could replace the logic symbols in the Principia with number symbols, and discovered that the entire vast work of Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead was in fact ultimately self-referential and therefore circular. This was proven by Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, which I believe was itself proven in a mere couple of pages.
Thus, I am not under any illusion that everything can be explained by mathematics, whether "applied" or "abstract," even given a generous set of axioms with which to start. However, it is my belief that much about reality, and perhaps the greater part, can be revealed by topology, algebra, geometry, analysis, statistics, and other mathematical disciplines. My own leanings are in the direction of abstract mathematics as opposed to the applied branch (the dividing line between the two is fuzzy at best), but I recognize the strength of each. I believe that reality is as much about the makings of our own internal mentalities as it is about external physical systems, and so I see mathematics, as a purely mental discipline, as a means toward gaining a deeper understanding of both
04 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdAt the bottom of it I take all truth as equal in value, without any endeavor to categorize truth as existential, conceptual, or otherwise. There's much philosophical debate out there about whether mathematics is "discovered" or "invented," but speaking for myself I think it's a combination of both.
Interesting discussion. I wrote the following late last night, but didn’t get to post (for the reason alluded to toward the end). In a nutshell, I think it is about the use of different modes of discourse—such as propositional or descriptive modes, on the one hand, and the “elicitive” mode on the other. Poetry, of course, does not just serve elicitive dis rtainly not the only discipline that insists on the priority of the existential territory.
Anyone with an inclination to do so could sit down and invent a set of axioms from scratch, make up their own symbols and definitions, and then go on and discover all sorts of incredible theorems that spring from their initial assumptions. Compare Euclidean geometry to Riemannian geometry, the latter arising from a modest alteration of the "fifth postulate" about parallel lines in Euclidean geometry.
Originally posted by SoothfastI believe that reality is as much about the makings of our own internal mentalities as it is about external physical systems…
At the bottom of it I take all truth as equal in value, without any endeavor to categorize truth as existential, conceptual, or otherwise. There's much philosophical debate out there about whether mathematics is "discovered" or "invented," but speaking for myself I think it's a combination of both.
Anyone with an inclination to do so could sit down and ...[text shortened]... a modest alteration of the "fifth postulate" about parallel lines in Euclidean geometry.
I agree. See my comments on “nonseparability” below; I think the principle applies here as well.
At the bottom of it I take all truth as equal in value, without any endeavor to categorize truth as existential, conceptual, or otherwise.
I don’t know if we’re at odds here or not. I am thinking in terms of “widening gyres”:
Say that SF (Soothfast) is doing mathematics at this moment. At this moment there is no SF other than the one involved in doing mathematics. If, an eyeblink later, SF suddenly thinks, “Now I’m hungry”—then that is SF in that moment. So, in one sphere, there is the truth of the math that SF is working on, but in a wider sphere, there is SF working on that math (or noticing hunger, or deciding to go get dinner, or realizing he’s misplaced his car keys, or...). That second is the existential domain; it is a “wider gyre”.
Now, it is fundamental to the existentialist view that there is no more—ever!—an SF that is separable from the immediate circumstances of SF’s lived life, than there is a gulfstream that is separable from the ocean (nevertheless, it makes sense to speak of a phenomenon called the gulfstream). In Zen terms, that is the principle of non-separability. Now, one might object: “But I could be doing something else in other circumstances, and have been!” To which the response is, “Yes, but right now you are SF imagining or remembering those alternative circumstances." The point is that there is no SF that is not, always, in some circumstance. If one posits some “essential” SF that “transcends” all those (and other possible) circumstances, then the existential response is that SF is just now in the circumstance of positing an “essential” SF.
The Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset had a formula: “Yo soy yo, y mi circunstancia”—“I am I, and my circumstance.” He lays this all out rather painstakingly in his Some Lessons in Metaphysics.
That is part of it. The second part is just that people are often speaking from different “language games”. Propositional logic is one such language game; Zen koans are another; narrative (fictional or nonfictional) is another. Confusion can result when two people are using recognized words and phrases, but according to the rules of different language games. Because the Zennist—as a Zennist (as opposed to some other habitable role)—has the aim of stressing the existential truth, she may not submit to the language game in which, say, a philosophical or religious question is asked. [/i]There is no language game that enjoys ultimate hegemony[/i].
My view of Zen (and of “spirituality” ) is fundamentally existentialist—without all that “angst” or Sartrean nausee.
A quick third point (which really cycles back to that of non-separability—or Yo soy yo y mi circunstancia. Even as we may attempt to separate ourselves from our environment for purposes of observation, there is an inescapable recursiveness, in that our environment really always includes us, observing our environment, that includes us observing… We just need to remember this caveat to all our observations and analyses—even if it is valid to assume it away for particular purposes.
That inescapable recursiveness—as part of my gestaltic nondualism—probably lies at the heart of my arguments with dualistic theism. Dualist theists (such as my old friends Freaky and Epiphenehas and Robbie and&hellip😉 think that they have discovered something “beyond”what I call the pre-conceptual existential ground; I think they have moved back into conceptualization. That’s simplistic, and we have had long and detailed arguments about it over the years.
And, to end as a stubborn Zennist (though I am many other things as well), a practical koan:
If I am the one who thinks “I”,
then who is that I?
Wait a second…!
OR:
Can you predict your very next thought
before you think it?
Or are you only aware of what “you” think
after you have already “thunk” it?
What does that say about
this “I” that I think I am?
________________________________
BTW,since you are also a mathematician, you might enjoy Raymond Smullyan’s The Tao is Silent.
05 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrThank you, dear old friend! I hope all is well with you. Are you still at UW?
What a fantastic post! For those interested in reading a professional philosopher using ellicitive, poetic expression and stingingly precise propositional discourse to get at what's important and real, read John Koethe. He's great.
I am headed for Amazon.com to search out Koethe. Thanks for the recommendation.
EDIT: Okay, there are several works by Koethe, both poetry and philosophy. Do you have any particular recommendations for starters? 🙂
05 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdYour output is prodigious and engaging. Don't have the time to address the substance of it all right now, but perhaps later...
I believe that reality is as much about the makings of our own internal mentalities as it is about external physical systems…
I agree. See my comments on “nonseparability” below; I think the principle applies here as well.
At the bottom of it I take all truth as equal in value, without any endeavor to categorize truth as existential, concep ince you are also a mathematician, you might enjoy Raymond Smullyan’s The Tao is Silent.
Say that SF (Soothfast) is doing mathematics at this moment. At this moment there is no SF other than the one involved in doing mathematics. If, an eyeblink later, SF suddenly thinks...
I'm amused by the usage of "SF," for I'm reminded of the Hungarian number theorist Paul Erdos who often referred to God as the "Supreme Fascist"—and in writing would use the initials "S.F." (The book The Man Who Loved Only Numbers is a biography about him.)
Smullyan is a logician, if I recall correctly. I'll take a look at The Tao is Silent. Right now I'm plodding through Stephen Jay Gould's Full House.
05 Aug 11
Originally posted by SoothfastI read Full House some time ago. I’m a layperson, but Gould really helped me to understand natural selection.
Your output is prodigious and engaging. Don't have the time to address the substance of it all right now, but perhaps later...
Say that SF (Soothfast) is doing mathematics at this moment. At this moment there is no SF other than the one involved in doing mathematics. If, an eyeblink later, SF suddenly thinks...
I'm amused by the usage ...[text shortened]... s Silent[/i]. Right now I'm plodding through Stephen Jay Gould's Full House.
Thanks for the compliment (“engaging” ); as for the “prodigious”, I really am a very sporadic poster on here these days. I take long breaks away. So, if I do not respond to something in a timely fashion, please do not take it as a slight. I enjoy your thoughtful posts. Be well.
____________________________________
And I could never think of you as "supreme fascist"! 🙂