Re: No basis (was Re: Kapleau's Koo-Koo-Ka-Choo)
DharmaTroll
> Hollywood Lee wrote:
> > On 12/1/2009 7:29 PM, liaM wrote:
> >> Hollywood Lee a écrit :
> >>> On 11/30/2009 10:47 AM, Allen Barker wrote:
> >>>> On 11/29/2009 11:49 PM, herbzet wrote:
>
> >>>>> halfawake wrote:
> >>>>>> herbzet wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> but does the nothing exist?
>
> >>>>>>> Funny question -- beats me.
>
> >>>>>> the answer is: no, it doesn't exist.
> >>>>>> if the "null set" exists, it exists because it is a set,
> >>>>>> not because it is "null."
>
> >>>>>> Like a box that has nothing in it, one identifies it by the box,
> >>>>>> but the
> >>>>>> "nothing" in the box is not an existent, it is just a way of
> >>>>>> identifying
> >>>>>> absence, which also is not an existent.
>
> >>>>> Thanks for helping out with this little semantic puzzle.
>
> >>>> And yet in some cases one can form an abstraction of absences,
> >>>> and treat them as if they were "things":
>
> >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_hole
>
> >>> Buddhist philosophers were famous for developing an entire theory of
> >>> meaning by abstracting from absences - see "apoha" and have fun.
>
> >> Thanks for bringing up the apoha, totally new to me.
>
> >> Apoha makes sense as a buddhist doctrine, since a central
> >> concept of buddhist doctrine is the interrelation and
> >> relativity of all things. Because Apoha defines a thing by
> >> what it is not (or is not a part of) the very existence of the
> >> thing in question is shown to be dependent on everything
> >> else in the universe.
>
> > Yeah, the relationship of language to our conceptions of knowledge and
> > reality is interesting - but, for me at least, gets mired in complexity
> > pretty quickly.
>
> Do you know Anselm's proof of the existence of god?
>
> We know god is perfect.
> It follows god must exist, because otherwise
> god would not be perfect
It was a little more complicated than that. Indeed, I just posted that
argument last week. It was #2 of the 36 proofs of God's existence, the
Ontological Argument.
--DharmaTroll
2. The Ontological Argument
1. Nothing greater than God can be conceived (this is stipulated
as part of the definition of "God").
2. It is greater to exist than not to exist.
3 . If we conceive of God as not existing, then we can conceive
of
something greater than God (from 2).
4. To conceive of God as not existing is not to conceive of God
(from 1 and 3).
5. It is inconceivable that God not exist (from 4).
6. God exists.
This argument, first articulated by Saint Anselm (1033-1109), the
Archbishop of Canterbury, is unlike any other, proceeding purely on
the conceptual level. Everyone agrees that the mere existence of a
concept does not entail that there are examples of that concept;
after
all, we can know what a unicorn is and at the same time say "unicorns
don't exist." The claim of the Ontological Argument is that the
concept of God is the one exception to this rule. The very concept of
God, when defined correctly, entails that there is something that
satisfies that concept. Although most people suspect that there is
something wrong with this argument, it's not so easy to figure out
what it is.
FLAW: It was Immanuel Kant who pinpointed the fallacy in the
Ontological Argument: it is to treat "existence" as a property, like
"being fat" or "having ten fingers." The Ontological Argument relies
on a bit of wordplay, assuming that "existence" is just another
property, but logically it is completely different. If you really
could treat "existence" as just part of the definition of the concept
of God, then you could just as easily build it into the definition of
any other concept. We could, with the wave of our verbal magic wand,
define a trunicorn as "a horse that (a) has a single horn on its
head,
and (b) exists." So if you think about a trunicorn, you're thinking
about something that must, by definition, exist; therefore trunicorns
exist. This is clearly absurd: we could use this line of reasoning to
prove that any figment of our imagination exists.
liaM
The
world
is
not
an
echo-chamber
for
your
thoughts.
Lee Rudolph
These are your thoughts
REEEEEVERB
thoughts VERb
are VErb
These Verb
your erb
with rb
bbbbbbbbb
Appledog
The real flaw is not what Kant showed; which is indeed an interesting
point but not actually a flaw at all.
The actual flaw, my stating of which shows I am a greater philosopher
than Kant, is simply a false dichotomy. That is, if we state that
nothing greater than God may be conceived, this does not imply we can
conceive what God is. In fact, in the bible, which is our only source
of information about God (unless God speaks to us directly) it says
that we cannot understand the mind of God.
Therefore, while it may be true that nothing greater than God can be
conceived, there may be a great deal number of things lesser than god
which we may not be able to conceive. None of which are God.
Therefore, we may state that simply because there is something which
cannot be conceived, this thing does not necessarily need to be God.
Put another way, we are simply defining God as the greatest thing we
can conceive; this is self-evidently true but we may not bait and
switch and then claim that what we think of to be God is, in fact,
real. Again, if we could not possibly conceive of God, then any
conception we have of God is obviously wrong and it obviously would
not exist.
So, quite unfortunately, the proof he came up with actually proves
that what we think of as God, does not actually exist.
This doesn't mean 'God' doesn't exist - it only means the proof is not
sound.
-
Ned Ludd
"Lee Rudolph" <lrud...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hf72jj$gbj$1...@reader1.panix.com...
With your thoughts, these are.
Without your thoughts, nothing arises.
Would you drag a cart, or cast a shadow?
Ned
Appledog
> "Lee Rudolph" <lrudo...@panix.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hf72jj$gbj$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
>
>
> > liaM <cud...@mindless.com> writes:
>
> >> The
> >> world
> >> is
> >> not
> >> an
> >> echo-chamber
> >> for
> >> your
> >> thoughts.
>
> > These are your thoughts
>
> > REEEEEVERB
> > thoughts VERb
> > are VErb
> > These Verb
> > your erb
> > with rb
> > bbbbbbbbb
>
> With your thoughts, these are.
>
> Without your thoughts, nothing arises.
What a load of dogshit.
Without your thoughts, everything arises - except your thoughts.
Wake up you idiot.
> Would you drag a cart, or cast a shadow?
YOU wouldn't do anything if YOU had no thoughts.
-
liaM
Let the trolls troll and the droids droid
hot air blow and loneliness press
Thoughts concern acts applied to objects.
What do I not see here, in your words ?
zenworm
> Ned Ludd a écrit :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Lee Rudolph" <lrudo...@panix.com> wrote in message
puppetry
ZN :D
absolute permanent perfection overflowing without action
Ned Ludd
"liaM" <cud...@mindless.com> wrote in message
news:4b19b25a$0$963$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
How can I see what you don't see?
Ned
(We've been through this before, five years ago. Case 94.
Though the cart and the shadow are of course the first
two verses of the Dhammapada.)
Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll wrote:
Saint Anselm of Canterbury says: �I think now that I have
proved in the above tract, not by a weak argumentation
but by a sufficiently necessary one, that
something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought
[aliquid, quo maius cogitari non possit] exists in the thing
itself [re ipsa existere], and that this proof has not been
weakened by the force of any objection. For the import
of this proof is in itself of such force that what is said is
proved (as a necessary consequence of the very fact that
it is intellected or thought) both to exist in actual reality
and to be itself whatever must be believed of the divine
substance (Puto quia monstravi me non infirma sed satis
necessaria argumentatione probasse in praefato libello re
ipsa existere aliquid quo maius cogitari non possit; nec
eam alicuius obiectionis infirmari firmitate. Tantam enim
vim huius prolationis in se continet significatio, ut hoc
ipsum quod dicitur, ex necessitate eo ipso quod intelligitur
vel cogitatur, et revera probetur existere, et id ipsum esse
quidquid de divina substantia oportet credere).�
Proslogion, Responsio editoris 10, tr. M. J. Charlesworth
(here modified).
DharmaTroll my sweet and loving son, You are
hopelessly obsolete in your philosophical knowledge.
Kant indeed made a first (and quite serious) breach
in Anselm's Ontological Argument, but later on Frege
made another one which has been definitive.
Kant, A599, B627: �In effectivity the object indeed
is not merely contained analytically in my concept,
but is added synthetically to my concept (which is a
determination of my state), without the thought-up
hundred thalers themselves being in the least
augmented by this being outside of my concept
[Denn der Gegenstand ist bei der Wirklichkeit nicht
bloss in meinem Begriffe analytisch enthalten,
sondern kommt zu meinem Begriffe (der eine
Bestimmung meines Zustandes ist) synthetisch hinzu,
ohne dass durch dieses Sein ausserhalb meinem
Begriffe diese gedachten hundert Taler selbst im
mindesten vermehrt werden].�
Frege distinguishes between first-level concepts,
which are concepts of essence ("What is this
thing?") and second-level concepts, which are
concepts of existence ("Does it exist?). In a
different terminology: "If a type is valid, how
many tokens has it?" A first-order concept
involves properties of things, whereas a
second-order concept involves properties of
first-order concepts.
Leila Haaparanta, �On Frege�s Concept of Being,�
in Simo Knuuttila and Jaako Hintikka, eds., The
Logic of Being: Historical Studies, Dordrecht:
Reidel, 1986, 270-271: �According to Frege�s
terminology, an object literally speaking falls under
(f�llt unter) a first-order concept (Begriff erster
Stufe), in which case we use the is of predication
(copula), while a first-order concept falls in (f�llt
in) a second-order concept (Begriff zweiter Stufe).�
�Existence is, for Frege, a second-order concept.�
Frege thereby broke apart essence and existence.
Existence does not belong to essence. After Frege's
intervention, Anselm's argument turned out to be a
mere wordplay that does not resist analysis. There
is no way back.
Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll
wrote:
That is probably true, as it's been almost two decades since I studied
this stuff in college, but, um, I'm not your son, silly Tang, though
at least you didn't call me your "goodly son". Heh.
Btw, I didn't write the proof and its flaws above -- I copied the 36
arguments from the novel, "36 Arguments for the Existence of God: a
Work of Fiction", by Stephen Pinker's awesome wife, Rebecca Newberger
Goldstein. Indeed, I just ordered it on Amazon really cheaply.
But as always, I'd love to know more of the background of this stuff.
Most philosophy books are so heavy that it's a pain to get through a
single paragraph, because there are too many big words I don't know
(just a couple of them I can figure them out by context as I go along,
but I tend to soon get swamped).
Ok, that makes sense. I like the distinction!
> Leila Haaparanta, “On Frege’s Concept of Being,”
> in Simo Knuuttila and Jaako Hintikka, eds., The
> Logic of Being: Historical Studies, Dordrecht:
> Reidel, 1986, 270-271: “According to Frege’s
> terminology, an object literally speaking falls under
> (fällt unter) a first-order concept (Begriff erster
> Stufe), in which case we use the is of predication
> (copula), while a first-order concept falls in (fällt
> in) a second-order concept (Begriff zweiter Stufe).”
>
> “Existence is, for Frege, a second-order concept.”
>
> Frege thereby broke apart essence and existence.
Now that's getting really interesting!
> Existence does not belong to essence. After Frege's
> intervention, Anselm's argument turned out to be a
> mere wordplay that does not resist analysis. There
> is no way back.
>
> Tang Huyen
Very nice, Tang. Of the famous proofs of God we studied in various
philosophy classes, I always felt that this was a particularly silly
one, that was just one of those "mere wordplay" things, and that it
wasn't very interesting. I love to see this explained clearly and
mathematically by someone like Frege, though. Very cool. It's great to
have someone around here who's studied more philosophy than I have and
can immediately put his finger on the most elegant and recent
refutation. I'll look around on the web and see if I can find a
succinct account of Frege's analysis to read more, as the first-level
and second-level concepts is an interesting idea.
--DharmaTroll
liaM
>
What I do not see in your words.. Let me explain.
I did not see a troll or a droid. I was not repulsed
by hot air or expressed want of company.
In your words and Lee Rudolph's, I saw playfulness
and good will.
Sorry of my convoluted way of expressing myself caused
a misunderstanding.
liaM
> proved in the above tract, not by a weak argumentation
> but by a sufficiently necessary one, that
> something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought
> [aliquid, quo maius cogitari non possit] exists in the thing
> itself [re ipsa existere], and that this proof has not been
> weakened by the force of any objection. For the import
> of this proof is in itself of such force that what is said is
> proved (as a necessary consequence of the very fact that
> it is intellected or thought) both to exist in actual reality
> and to be itself whatever must be believed of the divine
> substance (Puto quia monstravi me non infirma sed satis
> necessaria argumentatione probasse in praefato libello re
> ipsa existere aliquid quo maius cogitari non possit; nec
> eam alicuius obiectionis infirmari firmitate. Tantam enim
> vim huius prolationis in se continet significatio, ut hoc
> ipsum quod dicitur, ex necessitate eo ipso quod intelligitur
> vel cogitatur, et revera probetur existere, et id ipsum esse
> Proslogion, Responsio editoris 10, tr. M. J. Charlesworth
> (here modified).
>
> DharmaTroll my sweet and loving son, You are
> hopelessly obsolete in your philosophical knowledge.
> Kant indeed made a first (and quite serious) breach
> in Anselm's Ontological Argument, but later on Frege
> made another one which has been definitive.
>
> is not merely contained analytically in my concept,
> but is added synthetically to my concept (which is a
> determination of my state), without the thought-up
> hundred thalers themselves being in the least
> augmented by this being outside of my concept
> [Denn der Gegenstand ist bei der Wirklichkeit nicht
> bloss in meinem Begriffe analytisch enthalten,
> sondern kommt zu meinem Begriffe (der eine
> Bestimmung meines Zustandes ist) synthetisch hinzu,
> ohne dass durch dieses Sein ausserhalb meinem
> Begriffe diese gedachten hundert Taler selbst im
>
> Frege distinguishes between first-level concepts,
> which are concepts of essence ("What is this
> thing?") and second-level concepts, which are
> concepts of existence ("Does it exist?). In a
> different terminology: "If a type is valid, how
> many tokens has it?" A first-order concept
> involves properties of things, whereas a
> second-order concept involves properties of
> first-order concepts.
>
> in Simo Knuuttila and Jaako Hintikka, eds., The
> Logic of Being: Historical Studies, Dordrecht:
> terminology, an object literally speaking falls under
> Stufe), in which case we use the is of predication
> in) a second-order concept (Begriff zweiter Stufe).�
>
> �Existence is, for Frege, a second-order concept.�
>
> Frege thereby broke apart essence and existence.
> Existence does not belong to essence. After Frege's
> intervention, Anselm's argument turned out to be a
> mere wordplay that does not resist analysis. There
> is no way back.
>
> Tang Huyen
>
>
>
>
Could it be the cold and the lack of daylight in
the winter that causes nordic folks to be so good
at analysing philosophic concepts ?
Lee Rudolph
>Could it be the cold and the lack of daylight in
>the winter that causes nordic folks to be so good
>at analysing philosophic concepts ?
Why, then, such a dearth of Patagonian ontologists
and epistemologists?
Lee Rudolph
("To a pagan in trouble, the Land of Fire's home. [10]")
herbzet
Lee Rudolph wrote:
> liaM writes:
>
> >Could it be the cold and the lack of daylight in
> >the winter that causes nordic folks to be so good
> >at analysing philosophic concepts ?
>
> Why, then, such a dearth of Patagonian ontologists
> and epistemologists?
Lack of sauna baths.
--
hz
zenworm
> Tang Huyen a écrit :
> > proved in the above tract, not by a weak argumentation
> > but by a sufficiently necessary one, that
> > something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought
> > [aliquid, quo maius cogitari non possit] exists in the thing
> > itself [re ipsa existere], and that this proof has not been
> > weakened by the force of any objection. For the import
> > of this proof is in itself of such force that what is said is
> > proved (as a necessary consequence of the very fact that
> > it is intellected or thought) both to exist in actual reality
> > and to be itself whatever must be believed of the divine
> > substance (Puto quia monstravi me non infirma sed satis
> > necessaria argumentatione probasse in praefato libello re
> > ipsa existere aliquid quo maius cogitari non possit; nec
> > eam alicuius obiectionis infirmari firmitate. Tantam enim
> > vim huius prolationis in se continet significatio, ut hoc
> > ipsum quod dicitur, ex necessitate eo ipso quod intelligitur
> > vel cogitatur, et revera probetur existere, et id ipsum esse
> > Proslogion, Responsio editoris 10, tr. M. J. Charlesworth
> > (here modified).
>
> > DharmaTroll my sweet and loving son, You are
> > hopelessly obsolete in your philosophical knowledge.
> > Kant indeed made a first (and quite serious) breach
> > in Anselm's Ontological Argument, but later on Frege
> > made another one which has been definitive.
>
> > is not merely contained analytically in my concept,
> > but is added synthetically to my concept (which is a
> > determination of my state), without the thought-up
> > hundred thalers themselves being in the least
> > augmented by this being outside of my concept
> > [Denn der Gegenstand ist bei der Wirklichkeit nicht
> > bloss in meinem Begriffe analytisch enthalten,
> > sondern kommt zu meinem Begriffe (der eine
> > Bestimmung meines Zustandes ist) synthetisch hinzu,
> > ohne dass durch dieses Sein ausserhalb meinem
> > Begriffe diese gedachten hundert Taler selbst im
>
> > Frege distinguishes between first-level concepts,
> > which are concepts of essence ("What is this
> > thing?") and second-level concepts, which are
> > concepts of existence ("Does it exist?). In a
> > different terminology: "If a type is valid, how
> > many tokens has it?" A first-order concept
> > involves properties of things, whereas a
> > second-order concept involves properties of
> > first-order concepts.
>
> > in Simo Knuuttila and Jaako Hintikka, eds., The
> > Logic of Being: Historical Studies, Dordrecht:
> > terminology, an object literally speaking falls under
> > Stufe), in which case we use the is of predication
> > in) a second-order concept (Begriff zweiter Stufe).”
>
> > “Existence is, for Frege, a second-order concept.”
>
> > Frege thereby broke apart essence and existence.
> > Existence does not belong to essence. After Frege's
> > intervention, Anselm's argument turned out to be a
> > mere wordplay that does not resist analysis. There
> > is no way back.
>
> > Tang Huyen
>
> Could it be the cold and the lack of daylight in
> the winter that causes nordic folks to be so good
> at analysing philosophic concepts ?
fewer parasites?
Tang Huyen
liaM wrote:
> Let the trolls troll and the droids droid
> hot air blow and loneliness press
> Thoughts concern acts applied to objects.
> What do I not see here, in your words ?
<<Thoughts concern acts applied to objects.>>
This is not always true. I am not talking about
the absence of thought altogether. I am talking
of thoughts that stop at themselves and do not
proceed to refer to any object outside of them
(i.e. outside of thoughts). They are
self-contained thoughts, where the parts are
contained within such thoughts (though the
parts can well relate to each other, but within
such thoughts only), therefore are not signs or
symbols that refer to anything outside of such
thoughts. Easy examples are musical
compositions (e.g., those of Haydn, especially
his string quartets) where there are pretty
sounds that relate to each other in harmony
but that do not point to anything outside of
such compositions, unlike realistic compositions,
like the Pastoral Symphony of Beethoven.
Mathematicians dream of inventing
mathematical systems that will eventually have
some applications in the real world, but in the
moment of invention, they only think up such
systems "in the void", in total abstraction and
separation, without referring them to anything
outside of them, e.g., in the real world.
The totalisations in Buddhism, like the
totalisations of water or air or green or
compassion, where the whole universe is turned
into water or air or green or compassion, also
are not intended to act on any object, but are
pure exercises in futility. They stop at
themselves and do not break out of themselves,
even if they are stretched out (in the imagination)
to the whole universe, without limit (they are
called "unlimited"). They are totally not
confused with the real world, but are
consciously excercises in make-believe to their
practitioners. In Buddhism, they are called
exercises in voluntary adhesion (adhimukti) or
make-believe, purely platonic contemplations.
Nothing real comes from them, except their
influence on the mind of their practitioners (very
limited, constricted minds, like those of Fu,
DharmaTroll and Renli/Appledog, have never
practiced them -- they act like caged tigers).
They do not act on the real world, do not intend
to. They are purely subjective and strictly
sentimental.
Faith can be with content, like Christian faith. It
can also be without content, without object,
without reference, and it does not refer to
anything outside of itself, or to anything real. It
only is an attitude, purely subjective and strictly
sentimental, that does no refer to anything at all,
but is self-contained. It is purely platonic
contemplation, without anything to contemplate.
It runs "in the void", in total abstraction and
separation.
Tang Huyen
Nobody in Particular
Haven't heard that term before. Googling it, I found:
http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/30465.shtml
Some phrases from there stuck out:
The philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623-62) writes, "We must
declare that religion is not irrational. These words,
directed toward people without religious faith, remain
alive today. Many people today regard any kind of belief--
and religious faith, in particular--as somehow in opposition
to reason, or at the very least as a sort of paralysis of
the faculty of reason.
There are, indeed, fanatical religions in which faith opposes
reason. But it is an erroneous leap of logic to assume on this
basis, and without any evidence, that all religions are so.
That itself is irrational, and can be characterized as a kind
of blind faith in its own right.
The proper function of faith is to cleanse the mind and make
it pure. Only when the mind is pure can our inherent wisdom
shine forth. Some philosophers have considered reason the
"slave of the passions" and believed that reason needed to be
freed from the "pollution" of emotion. Others, such as
Saint Augustine (an early Christian philosopher), held that
faith was needed to cure and strengthen "ailing reason."
What these many different positions have in common is
the belief that reason must not be allowed to degenerate
into a self-satisfied arrogance.
(Guess who immediately came to mind here?)
> Nothing real comes from them, except their
> influence on the mind of their practitioners (very
> limited, constricted minds, like those of Fu,
> DharmaTroll and Renli/Appledog, have never
> practiced them -- they act like caged tigers).
> They do not act on the real world, do not intend
> to. They are purely subjective and strictly
> sentimental.
How can you say that? Appledog is a "fully enlightened
Zen master", who knows everything. :-)
And watch for Dharmatroll whining that you insulted him now.
> Faith can be with content, like Christian faith. It
> can also be without content, without object,
> without reference, and it does not refer to
> anything outside of itself, or to anything real. It
> only is an attitude, purely subjective and strictly
> sentimental, that does no refer to anything at all,
> but is self-contained. It is purely platonic
> contemplation, without anything to contemplate.
> It runs "in the void", in total abstraction and
> separation.
Well said. I now recognize that's what my Zen teacher
years ago tried to get across. I did not understand
that concept then.
liaM
One of Confucius's Analects says "Music is what
unites". There thus is the refutation of your
assertion of music involving nothing but pretty
sounds arranged in an agreable manner. Music helped
stop the Vietnam war, after all. And inscribed in
music, are the vectors of its history.
It is a fact that Joan Baez, Jimmy Hendrix, Bob Dylan,
Bill Seeger, all of British Rock, have their roots
in the blues. Their music hit the mark because
of emotional and conceptual "noemata" (thoughts
about acts directed at objects) the music transported
to audiences: desires for liberty, freedom
from suffering, happiness, and when the war for peace
was won, for sex and rock 'n roll.
Other music, even haydn quartets, have subtexts
which you may not be consciously aware of, but
which affect you nonethess. Dotted rhythms
come straight from military music. Rondos,
scherzos, minuets, evoke the social graces and
temperance of the dances from which they derive.
Much of fast music in triple or sextuplet time
in Haydn's time are directly taken from chases,
hunts, gallops, everything to do with cavalry and
horse culture. I took a score of Haydn's
at random from my bookcase. It happens to be
Haydn's Symphony Nr. 100 in G, nicknamed "Military".
And I doubt there are "self contained" thoughts in
Math as you maintain. Perhaps you think there
are because much mathematical reasoning is non-verbal.
That's true. Math, just like Chess, Go, sculpture,
painting, music composition, involves non verbal
thought, intuition, "seeing" the problem, etc.
But there is no such thing as unrelated "seeing".
In math, as in the other disciplines
mentioned, "seeing" or non verbal thinking, relate
to the desire to solve a problem, win a game, compose
a melody or picture. Such problems involve Gestalts
needing completion (cf. Koffka). They exemplify
the intentionality integral to the "Lebenswelt"
(cf. Husserl). Now one day, my father asked my
chinese mother, what did you dream about ? She
replied, I dreamt of a fly. My father asked,
what about this fly. She replied, just a fly.
You'd think this was an example of a thought
without referent. A completed Gestalt. But even such
thoughts, a fly by itself or Gertrude Stein's
"a rose is a rose is a rose", has the intentionality
inherent in the context of it. My mother's fly
didn't fly away at my father's questioning.
Intention from this point of view, parallels the
concept of karma. Karma arise from acts, are
non separable from acts, and cannot be reversed engineered.
"Your face before you were born" exists because
you were born. Just like unicorns are a worthy
subject in philosophy. We think because we need
something, the biggest such something being Nirvana.
But do not make the mistake of thinking "objects"
completely unique and contained in the mind of
a musician or mathematician, can be completely without
reference to the "real world". Everything is
part of the real world, especially thoughts.
> The totalisations in Buddhism, like the
> totalisations of water or air or green or
> compassion, where the whole universe is turned
> into water or air or green or compassion, also
> are not intended to act on any object, but are
> pure exercises in futility. They stop at
> themselves and do not break out of themselves,
> even if they are stretched out (in the imagination)
> to the whole universe, without limit (they are
> called "unlimited"). They are totally not
> confused with the real world, but are
> consciously excercises in make-believe to their
> practitioners. In Buddhism, they are called
> exercises in voluntary adhesion (adhimukti) or
> make-believe, purely platonic contemplations.
> Nothing real comes from them, except their
> influence on the mind of their practitioners (very
> limited, constricted minds, like those of Fu,
> DharmaTroll and Renli/Appledog, have never
> practiced them -- they act like caged tigers).
> They do not act on the real world, do not intend
> to. They are purely subjective and strictly
> sentimental.
I got lazy. I stopped learning meditation under
the lama whose buddhist center I discovered when
I moved to my village in France, because it involved
working at making the image of given buddhas,
more and more tangible and effortless in his mind.
When successful, the meditator sees the buddha face to
face, and has absorbed the profound essence of the
buddha figure. Compassion, for example.
I was lucky, I discovered Zazen just in time to
save me from feeling guilty at being so lazy.
It became the next best thing for me.
>
> Faith can be with content, like Christian faith. It
> can also be without content, without object,
> without reference, and it does not refer to
> anything outside of itself, or to anything real. It
> only is an attitude, purely subjective and strictly
> sentimental, that does no refer to anything at all,
> but is self-contained. It is purely platonic
> contemplation, without anything to contemplate.
> It runs "in the void", in total abstraction and
> separation.
I doubt :)
>
> Tang Huyen
>
liaM
> The totalisations in Buddhism, like the
> totalisations of water or air or green or
> compassion, where the whole universe is turned
> into water or air or green or compassion, also
> are not intended to act on any object, but are
> pure exercises in futility. They stop at
> themselves and do not break out of themselves,
> even if they are stretched out (in the imagination)
> to the whole universe, without limit (they are
> called "unlimited"). They are totally not
> confused with the real world, but are
> consciously excercises in make-believe to their
> practitioners. In Buddhism, they are called
> exercises in voluntary adhesion (adhimukti) or
> make-believe, purely platonic contemplations.
> Nothing real comes from them, except their
> influence on the mind of their practitioners (very
> limited, constricted minds, like those of Fu,
> DharmaTroll and Renli/Appledog, have never
> practiced them -- they act like caged tigers).
> They do not act on the real world, do not intend
> to. They are purely subjective and strictly
> sentimental.
I got lazy. I stopped learning meditation under
the lama whose buddhist center I discovered when
I moved to my village in France, because it involved
the meditator working at making the image of given
buddhas, more and more tangible in his mind.
When successful, the meditator sees the buddha face to
face, and has absorbed the profound essence of the
buddha figure. Compassion, for example.
I was lucky, I discovered Zazen just in time to
save me from feeling guilty at being so lazy.
It became the next best thing for me.
>
> Faith can be with content, like Christian faith. It
> can also be without content, without object,
> without reference, and it does not refer to
> anything outside of itself, or to anything real. It
> only is an attitude, purely subjective and strictly
> sentimental, that does no refer to anything at all,
> but is self-contained. It is purely platonic
> contemplation, without anything to contemplate.
> It runs "in the void", in total abstraction and
> separation.
I doubt :)
>
> Tang Huyen
>
Appledog
>
> > Nothing real comes from them, except their
> > influence on the mind of their practitioners (very
> > limited, constricted minds, like those of Fu,
> > DharmaTroll and Renli/Appledog, have never
> > practiced them -- they act like caged tigers).
> > They do not act on the real world, do not intend
> > to. They are purely subjective and strictly
> > sentimental.
>
> How can you say that? Appledog is a "fully enlightened
> Zen master", who knows everything. :-)
> And watch for Dharmatroll whining that you insulted him now.
When did I say that I knew everything?
All I'm asking for is the truth. All I am asking for is people to stop
lying. Will you? Can you? Tang obviously can't. My question to you is
if you're a better man, or not. Apparently you are because you have a
zen teacher. Do you still?
> > Faith can be with content, like Christian faith. It
> > can also be without content, without object,
> > without reference, and it does not refer to
> > anything outside of itself, or to anything real. It
> > only is an attitude, purely subjective and strictly
> > sentimental, that does no refer to anything at all,
> > but is self-contained. It is purely platonic
> > contemplation, without anything to contemplate.
> > It runs "in the void", in total abstraction and
> > separation.
>
> Well said. I now recognize that's what my Zen teacher
> years ago tried to get across. I did not understand
> that concept then.
You have a zen teacher? Interesting :)
At any rate, faith without any subject is not really faith but
something else. One of zenny's problems is that he redefines words to
mean something other than what they really mean. Case in point, if a
tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make
a _________?
Ahh, what is this word? :) Sound? What is a sound? If we define it as
something that people hear, then no it doesn't. But nowadays we know
that a sound is sound waves, and the tree certainly does make sound
waves when it falls, regardless if anyone is around to hear it or not.
So the truth is that the written way has become dogmatic, same as it
was in Joshu's time. We need a new zen. How new is your zen teacher?
-
Déjà Flu
>
> DharmaTroll wrote:
>
>> 2. The Ontological Argument
> DharmaTroll my sweet and loving son, You are
> hopelessly obsolete in your philosophical knowledge.
And you're arguing with Rebecca Goldstein, not DT.
Go tell *her* that she's "hopelessly obsolete".
And please post the vid on YouTube...
--
Ubi dubium ibi libertas
brian mitchell
> . . . if a
>tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make
>a _________?
>
>Ahh, what is this word? :) Sound? What is a sound? If we define it as
>something that people hear, then no it doesn't. But nowadays we know
>that a sound is sound waves, and the tree certainly does make sound
>waves when it falls, regardless if anyone is around to hear it or not...
Still has mileage as a koan if approached that way rather than
literally (though it's doubtful BB intended it so); be 'no-one there'
to resolve the matter.
But literalists abound. The first definition you offer is the correct
one. Strictly speaking, a falling body would propagate mechanical
waves which would only become sound when/if they were of the right
frequency to activate the appropriate sense in an organism which had
evolved the ability to 'hear' and interpret them. One must also
distinguish between sound and noise: sound is noise differentiated and
recognised.
>So the truth is that the written way has become dogmatic, same as it
>was in Joshu's time. We need a new zen.
If your new zen capitulates to physicalist literalism it's dead before
it hits the ground.
Nobody in Particular
If a man speaks in the forest
and there is no woman to hear him
is he still wrong?
brian mitchell
>brian mitchell wrote:
>
>If a man speaks in the forest
>and there is no woman to hear him
>is he still wrong?
She is everywhere.
http://oldweb.uwp.edu/academic/criminal.justice/myworldthurber.jpg
DharmaTroll
Yeah, but Tang might be right, and he might understand the refutations
of the proofs better than Rebecca, but I'm flattered that Tang finds
the need to threaten my Alpha-Male-ness, actually. Tang actually said
some interesting stuff here. Maybe my reply didn't make it to all the
servers or whatever. Here it is again:
(DharmaTroll to Tang:)
That is probably true, as it's been almost two decades since I studied
this stuff in college, but, um, I'm not your son, silly Tang, though
at least you didn't call me your "goodly son". Heh.
Btw, I didn't write the proof and its flaws above -- I copied the 36
arguments from the novel, "36 Arguments for the Existence of God: a
Work of Fiction", by Stephen Pinker's awesome wife, Rebecca Newberger
Goldstein. Indeed, I just ordered it on Amazon really cheaply.
But as always, I'd love to know more of the background of this stuff.
Most philosophy books are so heavy that it's a pain to get through a
single paragraph, because there are too many big words I don't know
(just a couple of them I can figure them out by context as I go along,
but I tend to soon get swamped).
> Kant indeed made a first (and quite serious) breach
Ok, that makes sense. I like the distinction!
> Leila Haaparanta, “On Frege’s Concept of Being,”
> in Simo Knuuttila and Jaako Hintikka, eds., The
> Logic of Being: Historical Studies, Dordrecht:
> Reidel, 1986, 270-271: “According to Frege’s
> terminology, an object literally speaking falls under
> (fällt unter) a first-order concept (Begriff erster
> Stufe), in which case we use the is of predication
> (copula), while a first-order concept falls in (fällt
> in) a second-order concept (Begriff zweiter Stufe).”
> “Existence is, for Frege, a second-order concept.”
> Frege thereby broke apart essence and existence.
Now that's getting really interesting!
> Existence does not belong to essence. After Frege's
> intervention, Anselm's argument turned out to be a
> mere wordplay that does not resist analysis. There
> is no way back.
> Tang Huyen
Very nice, Tang. Of the famous proofs of God we studied in various
Lee Rudolph
>brian mitchell wrote:
>
>> If your new zen capitulates to physicalist literalism it's dead
>> before it hits the ground.
>
>If a man speaks in the forest
>and there is no woman to hear him
>is he still wrong?
It depends on what he says. Is he asking for directions?
Lee Rudolph
DharmaTroll
> Appledog wrote:
>
> >So the truth is that the written way has become dogmatic, same as it
> >was in Joshu's time. We need a new zen.
>
> If your new zen capitulates to physicalist literalism it's dead before
> it hits the ground.
This is pure idiocy, the new "Moronayanist" school.
Brian is saying, unless you are totally full of shit and deny reality
and become an anti-truth, anti-rationality nutter who denies the world
and lives in a rebellious land of make-believe, like a teen who hates
their parents and everything about their parents' culture, and so get
a zillion piercings, dye their hair, and do designer drugs at raves
and so forth. To have that anti-culture, anti-reality requirement for
zen (or any religion) is by my book a bad move. Yes, the normal
received views tend to be problematic, but the requirement that one
must be a reality-denying nutter is rather cultish.
Look, if you really want to believe you're in The Matrix, and that
cats, trees, stones, and stars aren't real, then become an obsessive
sci-fi fan. Calling that zen, however, is silly.
I'm probably one of the youngest folks on this list. Old geezers
acting like rebelious teens is rather pathetic. Letting go of
conditioned shit is a big part of Buddhist practice. Letting go of
your aversion to your culture and to all of reality and identifying
your ego with anti-realism and denial of common sense. Brian would
make a cool hippie teenage drug dealer or sci-fi fan. He makes for a
lousy Zen Master, however, when he makes such statements.
--DharmaTroll
Appledog
> Appledog wrote:
> > . . . if a
> >tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make
> >a _________?
>
> >Ahh, what is this word? :) Sound? What is a sound? If we define it as
> >something that people hear, then no it doesn't. But nowadays we know
> >that a sound is sound waves, and the tree certainly does make sound
> >waves when it falls, regardless if anyone is around to hear it or not...
>
> Still has mileage as a koan if approached that way rather than
> literally (though it's doubtful BB intended it so); be 'no-one there'
> to resolve the matter.
>
> But literalists abound. The first definition you offer is the correct
> one. Strictly speaking, a falling body would propagate mechanical
> waves which would only become sound when/if they were of the right
> frequency to activate the appropriate sense in an organism which had
> evolved the ability to 'hear' and interpret them. One must also
> distinguish between sound and noise: sound is noise differentiated and
> recognised.
Yet all of that is just a perception, a definition, of reality. If you
are of a certain mindset, then, such a koan will help you. If you're
not, then it's just useless as a koan. And, from such a vantage point,
one may intuitively see the difference between someone who can use it
as a koan and someone who can not; such is a knowledge not had by
those who use the koan. I hope this is not beyond you.
> >So the truth is that the written way has become dogmatic, same as it
> >was in Joshu's time. We need a new zen.
>
> If your new zen capitulates to physicalist literalism it's dead before
> it hits the ground.
What is the difference between blurring the separate ideas of a sound
wave and the perception of such, and the non-blurring? Put another way
what is the difference between understanding and non-understanding?
As for physicalist literalism, you've got to be joking. If you don't
understand and accept that there is a difference between sound waves
and the perception of such, you've entirely missed the point of non-
reality.
It isn't that there is no ultimate reality. lt's just that we don't/
can't know what it is. That includes being able to make statements on
the ultimate existance or non-existance of said ultimate reality. That
goes for you as well as me, there is no double standard being applied
here.
-
Appledog
Of course.
-
Appledog
If *I* wasn't anywhere close to taking to it, I doubt you'd have to
worry about anyone else ;-)
-
p.s. ok ok I'll explain the joke. I'm obviously the dumbest person
here so if I can see through what Brian said, anyone can. "Trust me,
you can make it!"
-
DharmaTroll
> p.s. I'm obviously the dumbest person here
No, but probably one of the runners-up.
Are you in high school? You sound like a little kid.
--DharmaTroll
Wompom
"Lurid" <Lu...@cru.org> wrote in message
news:eifuh5hinbe3ro2rq...@4ax.com...
> here buddihsts here eat the young
>
<BURP!>
Appledog
Sorry are you being serious or just burning more of your own precious
time?
-
chingang
<tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote:
How are your neurons firing lately? All you keep saying is what you
can make up. It is... It isss....
Stict to the ideology of your discipline and leave the neuroscience
out of it. When you bring in mental functions, you are indeed a mere
artist painting a mental picture that pleases your desire. Thats too
bad.
Tang Huyen
chingang wrote:
> How are your neurons firing lately? All you keep
> saying is what you can make up. It is... It isss....
>
> Stict to the ideology of your discipline and leave
> the neuroscience out of it. When you bring in
> mental functions, you are indeed a mere artist
> painting a mental picture that pleases your desire.
> Thats too bad.
Thank you very much for your perspicacious
response. Please keep pricking me to remind
me to be awake and honest.
In a previous post, I wrote:
<<I swim in such a morass of intuition that I
don't know whether I speak from my experience
or just book knowledge. Nevertheless, in front of
such uncertainty, I humbly submit myself to it in
relaxation and serenity. It may be fluff to you,
but hey, I can live with it.>>
Whether I paint vignettes or tableaux of the
beyond, from experience or book knowledge
or speculation, to please my desires or not, it's
all made up, it's all fluff, better just relax and
be serene.
As a Daoist, what have you to say? "Those
who speak do not know, those who know do
not speak."
Tang Huyen
liaM
> As a Daoist, what have you to say? "Those
> who speak do not know, those who know do
> not speak."
>
> Tang Huyen
remember, let it be a warning to you..
soap froths only when the dirt's done
Lee Rudolph
I'm not sure I've seen it for 50 years or more, but Google assures
me that "sweeping compound" is still very much for sale. No need
for a sweeper to get involved with soap, or froth.
...Good grief. They're still selling wallpaper cleaner, too;
I wonder if it still has the same characteristic smell?
Lee Rudolph
liaM
40 mule team Borax
the best antidote to
termites and a good cleaner too
(doesn't froth..)
but will definitly dampen fluff
zenworm
RaaN
> On Dec 2, 5:49 am, liaM <cud...@mindless.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hollywood Lee wrote:
> > > On 12/1/2009 7:29 PM, liaM wrote:
> > >> Hollywood Lee a écrit :
> > >>> On 11/30/2009 10:47 AM, Allen Barker wrote:
> > >>>> On 11/29/2009 11:49 PM, herbzet wrote:
>
> > >>>>> halfawake wrote:
> > >>>>>> herbzet wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>> but does the nothing exist?
>
> > >>>>>>> Funny question -- beats me.
>
> > >>>>>> the answer is: no, it doesn't exist.
> > >>>>>> if the "null set" exists, it exists because it is a set,
> > >>>>>> not because it is "null."
>
> > >>>>>> Like a box that has nothing in it, one identifies it by the box,
> > >>>>>> but the
> > >>>>>> "nothing" in the box is not an existent, it is just a way of
> > >>>>>> identifying
> > >>>>>> absence, which also is not an existent.
>
> > >>>>> Thanks for helping out with this little semantic puzzle.
>
> > >>>> And yet in some cases one can form an abstraction of absences,
> > >>>> and treat them as if they were "things":
>
> > >>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_hole
>
> > >>> Buddhist philosophers were famous for developing an entire theory of
> > >>> meaning by abstracting from absences - see "apoha" and have fun.
>
> > >> Thanks for bringing up the apoha, totally new to me.
>
> > >> Apoha makes sense as a buddhist doctrine, since a central
> > >> concept of buddhist doctrine is the interrelation and
> > >> relativity of all things. Because Apoha defines a thing by
> > >> what it is not (or is not a part of) the very existence of the
> > >> thing in question is shown to be dependent on everything
> > >> else in the universe.
>
> > > Yeah, the relationship of language to our conceptions of knowledge and
> > > reality is interesting - but, for me at least, gets mired in complexity
> > > pretty quickly.
>
> > Do you know Anselm's proof of the existence of god?
>
> > We know god is perfect.
> > It follows god must exist, because otherwise
> > god would not be perfect
>
> It was a little more complicated than that. Indeed, I just posted that
> argument last week. It was #2 of the 36 proofs of God's existence, the
> Ontological Argument.
>
> --DharmaTroll
>
> 2. The Ontological Argument
>
> 1. Nothing greater than God can be conceived (this is stipulated
> as part of the definition of "God").
>
> 2. It is greater to exist than not to exist.
>
> 3 . If we conceive of God as not existing, then we can conceive
> of
> something greater than God (from 2).
>
> 4. To conceive of God as not existing is not to conceive of God
> (from 1 and 3).
>
> 5. It is inconceivable that God not exist (from 4).
>
> 6. God exists.
>
> This argument, first articulated by Saint Anselm (1033-1109), the
> Archbishop of Canterbury, is unlike any other, proceeding purely on
> the conceptual level. Everyone agrees that the mere existence of a
> concept does not entail that there are examples of that concept;
> after
> all, we can know what a unicorn is and at the same time say "unicorns
> don't exist." The claim of the Ontological Argument is that the
> concept of God is the one exception to this rule. The very concept of
> God, when defined correctly, entails that there is something that
> satisfies that concept. Although most people suspect that there is
> something wrong with this argument, it's not so easy to figure out
> what it is.
>
> FLAW: It was Immanuel Kant who pinpointed the fallacy in the
> Ontological Argument: it is to treat "existence" as a property, like
> "being fat" or "having ten fingers." The Ontological Argument relies
> on a bit of wordplay, assuming that "existence" is just another
> property, but logically it is completely different. If you really
> could treat "existence" as just part of the definition of the concept
> of God, then you could just as easily build it into the definition of
> any other concept. We could, with the wave of our verbal magic wand,
> define a trunicorn as "a horse that (a) has a single horn on its
> head,
> and (b) exists." So if you think about a trunicorn, you're thinking
> about something that must, by definition, exist; therefore trunicorns
> exist. This is clearly absurd: we could use this line of reasoning to
> prove that any figment of our imagination exists.
This should have been written in E-Prime.
--
RaaN
RaaN
> point but not actually a flaw at all.
>
> The actual flaw, my stating of which shows I am a greater philosopher
> than Kant, is simply a false dichotomy. That is, if we state that
> nothing greater than God may be conceived, this does not imply we can
> conceive what God is. In fact, in the bible, which is our only source
> of information about God (unless God speaks to us directly) it says
> that we cannot understand the mind of God.
>
> Therefore, while it may be true that nothing greater than God can be
> conceived, there may be a great deal number of things lesser than god
> which we may not be able to conceive. None of which are God.
> Therefore, we may state that simply because there is something which
> cannot be conceived, this thing does not necessarily need to be God.
>
> Put another way, we are simply defining God as the greatest thing we
> can conceive; this is self-evidently true but we may not bait and
> switch and then claim that what we think of to be God is, in fact,
> real. Again, if we could not possibly conceive of God, then any
> conception we have of God is obviously wrong and it obviously would
> not exist.
>
> So, quite unfortunately, the proof he came up with actually proves
> that what we think of as God, does not actually exist.
>
> This doesn't mean 'God' doesn't exist - it only means the proof is not
> sound.
>
> -
What is greater than which nothing can be conceived must exist only by
virtue of that nothing which cannot be conceived.
--
RaaN
RaaN
> On Dec 3, 12:42 pm, "Ned Ludd" <nedl...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Lee Rudolph" <lrudo...@panix.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:hf72jj$gbj$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> > > liaM <cud...@mindless.com> writes:
>
> > >> The
> > >> world
> > >> is
> > >> not
> > >> an
> > >> echo-chamber
> > >> for
> > >> your
> > >> thoughts.
>
> > > These are your thoughts
>
> > > REEEEEVERB
> > > thoughts VERb
> > > are VErb
> > > These Verb
> > > your erb
> > > with rb
> > > bbbbbbbbb
>
> > With your thoughts, these are.
>
> > Without your thoughts, nothing arises.
>
> What a load of dogshit.
>
> Without your thoughts, everything arises - except your thoughts.
>
> Wake up you idiot.
>
> > Would you drag a cart, or cast a shadow?
>
> YOU wouldn't do anything if YOU had no thoughts.
>
> -
One cannot without thought grasp everything arising as such i.e.
everything arising (let alone nothing)
--
RaaN
RaaN
> "liaM" <cud...@mindless.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4b19b25a$0$963$ba4a...@news.orange.fr...
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> The
> >>>> world
> >>>> is
> >>>> not
> >>>> an
> >>>> echo-chamber
> >>>> for
> >>>> your
> >>>> thoughts.
>
> >>> These are your thoughts
>
> >>> REEEEEVERB
> >>> thoughts VERb
> >>> are VErb
> >>> These Verb
> >>> your erb
> >>> with rb
> >>> bbbbbbbbb
>
> >> With your thoughts, these are.
> >> Without your thoughts, nothing arises.
>
> > Let the trolls troll and the droids droid
> > hot air blow and loneliness press
> > Thoughts concern acts applied to objects.
> > What do I not see here, in your words ?
>
>
> Ned
>
> (We've been through this before, five years ago. Case 94.
> Though the cart and the shadow are of course the first
> two verses of the Dhammapada.)
Not seeing is the unseen seeing beyond the seen or seer.
--
RaaN
RaaN
wrote:
> proved in the above tract, not by a weak argumentation
> but by a sufficiently necessary one, that
> something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought
> [aliquid, quo maius cogitari non possit] exists in the thing
> itself [re ipsa existere], and that this proof has not been
> weakened by the force of any objection. For the import
> of this proof is in itself of such force that what is said is
> proved (as a necessary consequence of the very fact that
> it is intellected or thought) both to exist in actual reality
> and to be itself whatever must be believed of the divine
> substance (Puto quia monstravi me non infirma sed satis
> necessaria argumentatione probasse in praefato libello re
> ipsa existere aliquid quo maius cogitari non possit; nec
> eam alicuius obiectionis infirmari firmitate. Tantam enim
> vim huius prolationis in se continet significatio, ut hoc
> ipsum quod dicitur, ex necessitate eo ipso quod intelligitur
> vel cogitatur, et revera probetur existere, et id ipsum esse
> quidquid de divina substantia oportet credere).”
> Proslogion, Responsio editoris 10, tr. M. J. Charlesworth
> (here modified).
>
> DharmaTroll my sweet and loving son, You are
> hopelessly obsolete in your philosophical knowledge.
> in Simo Knuuttila and Jaako Hintikka, eds., The
> Logic of Being: Historical Studies, Dordrecht:
> Reidel, 1986, 270-271: “According to Frege’s
> terminology, an object literally speaking falls under
> (fällt unter) a first-order concept (Begriff erster
> Stufe), in which case we use the is of predication
> (copula), while a first-order concept falls in (fällt
> in) a second-order concept (Begriff zweiter Stufe).”
>
> “Existence is, for Frege, a second-order concept.”
>
> Frege thereby broke apart essence and existence.
> intervention, Anselm's argument turned out to be a
> mere wordplay that does not resist analysis. There
> is no way back.
>
> Tang Huyen
Sartre says existence precedes essence.
--
RaaN
RaaN
The flaw in "Matrix" based philosophy is that it asserts an actual
substantial reality beyond the so-called illusions.
--
RaaN
RaaN
If one asserts an ultimate reality one must admit it is only an
assertion.
--
RaaN
chingang
<brai...@fishing.net> wrote:
>Still has mileage as a koan if approached that way rather than
>literally (though it's doubtful BB intended it so); be 'no-one there'
>to resolve the matter.
>
>But literalists abound. The first definition you offer is the correct
>one. Strictly speaking, a falling body would propagate mechanical
>waves which would only become sound when/if they were of the right
>frequency to activate the appropriate sense in an organism which had
>evolved the ability to 'hear' and interpret them. One must also
>distinguish between sound and noise: sound is noise differentiated and
>recognised.
>
>>So the truth is that the written way has become dogmatic, same as it
>>was in Joshu's time. We need a new zen.
>
>If your new zen capitulates to physicalist literalism it's dead before
>it hits the ground.
Well you certainly have a long way to go if you are going to split
hairs between sounds and noises which is a linguistic exercise upon
your own behalf. Its nice to point out someone else as seeing his
truth to the way you see your truth, however you don't say to someone,
"You're right, as if they could be wrong in their own judgments when
"stacked up" with yours.
Collections of koans (exercises in futility to create abandonment of
critical thinking) can become your Rubik's Cube, so to speak.
Given that you will spend a millenium or more discerning bewteen noise
and sound, that may be long enough for you to give up your quest
(intellectualism) and come down from your perch of condescending talk
to others whom you "differentiate" as being new or a greenhorn, to
realize that you are more full of your SELF as you ever have been in
your endeavors.
Understanding will get you knowledge but how much do you need?
Buddhists don't rely on intelligence or estimation or differentiating
between the "hard and the white" to achieve, they rely on the simple
task of losing the arrogant self that props itself up with contentiuos
attitudes. You won, you are more intelligent and informed than any
other in here perhaps but it only adds to the illusion of your
accumulative SELF. You are more than what you think you are, and
that's alot to get rid of. The ones that say, don't know (yours truly)
but the ones that don't say know. So what haven't the others said and
why do you say?
chingang
<tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote:
Very tricky indeed, you resort to humbleness when your outspokeness
requires it. But this humbleness is feigned or imagined along with
your other mental pictures to support what you are grasping at.
That is you tricking yourself. The con man gets conned in the end.
Have you not seen this?
Don't jump back to Lao Tzu for a defence, he will tell you you are
differentiating between the hard and the white and have become
complete, you are divided. How do you roll the ten thousand things up
into one? Like Lao said, "Those that know, don't say" and I don't
hear-tell.
zenworm
ah so
listening for no sound
gratitude
ZN :D _/|\_
halfawake
> On Dec 2, 10:18 am, DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 2, 5:49 am, liaM <cud...@mindless.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hollywood Lee wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 12/1/2009 7:29 PM, liaM wrote:
>>>>
Nice to see you around, Raan.
Robert
RaaN
> RaaN wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 10:18 am, DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Dec 2, 5:49 am, liaM <cud...@mindless.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Hollywood Lee wrote:
>
> >>>>On 12/1/2009 7:29 PM, liaM wrote:
>
I got the itch, thanks.. you too eh
--
RaaN