I forget, yummy, It just gets worse as one gets smarter, haha. The real trick is how to produce coherence among the disparate parts; I don't mean consistency. All which has nix to do with developing one's intuition or getting enlightened. My two favorites are Brother Lawrence, "The prayer of the presence of god" and the 17th Patriarch. Both were held too dumb to understand the scriptures so the first was put to gardening, the second to clean the stables of horse poops.
The First took seven years to reach nirvana, the 17th patriarch of Zen one is not told. He never omitted to let his learned brothers know how dumb he was. """Enlightenment " and "Nirvana"? They are dead trees to fasten a donkey to. The scriptures? They are bits of paper to wipe mud from your face. The four merits and ten steps? They are ghosts in their graves. What can these things have to do with you becoming free?" --Te-shan ""One day the Master announced that a young monk had reached an advanced state of enlightment. The news caused some stir. Some of the monks went to see the young monk. "We heard you are enlightened. Is that true?" they asked. "It is," he replied. "And how do you feel?" "As miserable as ever," said the monk. vot? Nobody ever told anybody that being enlightened solves your problems, do it? adrian ornamentalmind wrote: > ...and all of this doesn't even go into how truly dense and bizarre > most Mensa members are! > > On Aug 28, 2:04 pm, adrf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It does not need the elaborate rehearsal of binary logic basics to recognise >> that any ALL >> statement in Aristotelian Logic and its offspring will contain an antimony >> or contradiction. >> Nor such verbalisation as inane garbage. The problem is that language is >> ambiguous, academia is >> addicted to its jargon confined to the assumption or stricture of one >> meaning per word, which >> is non-viable because language too is incomplete, as is logic. If people are >> unfamilair with >> rather post medieval binary logic - or any other speciality - they won't >> understand and stop >> hearing or listening or reading. Did you know there's about a 100 Logics >> around? Aristotle >> abstracted his logic from the Greek language, which is of the SvO variety >> and "is" is a >> dangeous word. Not a thing is fully, only partially, identical to any thing >> else. Nowadays >> things are referred to SET Theory, and words and sets are analogous. It is >> somewhat less prone >> to error than Logic. >> >> Aristotle is flesh >> All flesh is edible >> Therefore Aristotle is edible. >> >> Is perfectly rational to all flesh eaters, cannibals, predators and >> ubiquitous archaea. Archaea >> even eat rock. One can construct a heap of the likes. Logic bears no >> relation to reality. It >> does not matter which object is named A, as long as it's flesh. I've already >> wrote that >> Epimenedis may have spoken truth in a fit of honesty to a non-Boetian, In >> fact any >> self-confessional statement will be incomplete, which is why it is a fool's >> game to misconstrue >> people's psyche and understanding with what they say. They usual thing there >> is that if people >> don't understand someone they poke the blame at speaker, which is also >> unsustainable. Freud >> rightly has it that projecting blame into others confesses the content of >> that blame by >> speaker, which is also not 100% reliable. >> >> What is the problem is that both the public at large, - which does dispermit >> the generalisation >> ALL of a public are "THE SAME" - hardly knows Logics, let alone Binary such >> that their beliefs >> can be quite 'irrational' which does not help any. Besides that Georges is >> himself prone and >> pray to making wild generalisations, somewhat obfuscated by >> over-verbalisation. IE He's stuck >> in the limits of his own jargon. It's something the Lady Jessica in >> Herbert's DUNE books >> comments on. >> >> Bearing on the case is the problem of paradox. Taking Russell's Theory of >> classes, In a town >> lives a babrber who only shaves himself. NO self respecting Barber conforms >> to that. Any >> question asked of ALL barbers will find that most, but not necessarily all >> barbers shave >> themselves. Thus, elementarily, anybody with sufficient insight, will find >> in the ambiguities, >> therefore contexts of use of a word, contradictory instances. Just tape some >> good debates and >> there you have it. If you go through the wikipedia list of paradoxes and fit >> them into various >> contexts you will find, that being constructed as stated, you can always >> flummox a fool with >> contradiction their knowledge also being incomplete. BUT do not be surprised >> at a feasible 1 to >> 5 % of a population able to beat you at it. Wild generalisations are >> frequent. There are, >> though a number of such 100% words like ever, never, always. nothing, >> everything and more that >> also carry such dangers. It all boils down to taking words as literally >> real, which is an >> unsustainable idea. >> >> It still makes Godel viable, even if it is an obvious fault. Standard binary >> logic has some >> twenty, repeat, twenty major faults built in. Chuang tzu, ZEN, puts it >> aphoristically: >> "The bait is the means to get the fish where you want it. Catch the fish and >> you forget the >> bait. The snare is the means to get the rabbit where you want it. Catch the >> rabbit and you >> forget the snare. Words are the means to get the idea where you want it. >> Catch the idea and you >> forget about the words. Where shall I find a man who forgets about words and >> have a word with >> him. >> >> In effect ZEN Koans and Mundos make a nice list of verbal mousetraps to >> avoid. There's quite a >> lot of them. If someone would tell Georges I've got an IQ of 215, give or >> take 40 points of >> fuzz, and he has not, it might sober him up some as he falls prey to an >> over-rated self esteem. >> It does not matter how smart you are, being error prone is unavoidable. At >> about 160 + IQ it >> all turns more obvious. Personally I think IQ is a piece of nonsense, but >> then I've >> administered them a lot. It's as easy as pie to make people's IQ vary by >> some 20 points by how >> one conducts a test. I find my IQ a bit of a farce. Genius boils down to >> being able to >> concentrate on more things, all at once and together, than most other >> people. Me, I've got more >> of a beef with the Bell curve of distribution and politics. Same gambit, >> different ballpark. >> >> "There is more beauty in truth, >> even if it is a dreadful beauty. >> The storytellers at the city gate >> twist life >> so that it looks sweet to >> the lazy >> and the stupid and the weak, >> and this only strengthens their >> infirmities >> and teaches nothing, >> cures nothing, >> nor does it let >> the heart >> soar." John Steinbeck, East of Eden >> >> adrian. >> >> >> >> Georges Metanomski wrote: >>> "GOEDEL AND LIAR'S PARADOX" has been updated and is >>> available in >>> http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/RELATIVISTIC_DIALECTIC/C_MODELING_AND_LOG... >>> or indirectly via: >>> http://findgeorges.com/ >>> CB CRISIS OF NOUMENALISTIC LOGIC >>> cbd goedel and liar paradox >>> Georges.- Hide quoted text - >> - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
