A REPOSTING TEST to get rid of ‘weird’ characters…Bill!
Chuck, NOW YOU’RE GETTING IT! Welcome to zen. I’m excited at your reactions so I’ve imbedded my responses in a copy of your posting below: >If “ALL LOGIC AND SCIENCE is based on ILLUSIONS and BELIEFS” then your logic >is as well. It’s a bit >like saying, “This statement is false,” the statement >turns back on itself in a very confusing way. I do indeed use logic, and I use it very, very well. It is illusory, however; I know that. I also use my imagination and I dream at night. I know all these are illusory no matter how real they seem. I’ll admit that sometimes I do get lost in the beauty and elegance of logic, but it is illusory. I hope you are acquainted with the zen story (koan?) about a Buddhist scholar that visited a zen master to talk about zen. A Cup of Tea Nan-in received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen. Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full and then kept on pouring. The professor watched the overflow until he could restrain himself no longer. "It is overfull. No more will go in!" "Like this cup", Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?" Most of my posts are just games in which I try to use words and logic to describe zen. What I’m doing with you right now, and what I do in most all of my posts, is use logic and words to fill up your already overflowing cup. I hope by doing so some of the tea will spill out and scald your hand and WAKE YOU UP! I hope this post of yours is at least you yelling ‘ouch’. >Logic is a system of thought devised by people that rigidly defines the >relationship between >symbols. It is true by definition. It really tells you >nothing about the word (world?). It works >independently of content. I assume in the paragraph above you’ve made a typo (God knows I make a lot of them myself) and when you typed ‘word’ you meant ‘world’. This is an important paragraph so I’ll take it a phrase at a time: Logic is indeed a system of thought devised by people, and it does define relationships between symbols, which were also devised by people. So far all we’ve defined is a fantasy system (Logic) that operates in conjunction with associated fantasy objects (Symbols). This is what I call illusory. What would you call it? I can’t really argue with your statement that “It is true by definition”, because whoever creates the illusion can set the rules of the illusion and make whatever definitions they want. The quality ‘true’ in the definition above however has to be taken be taken in context. ‘Logic is True’ only applies within the context of the illusory system - like ‘Go to Jail, Go Directly to Jail, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200’ only applies in the fantasy world of Monopoly - and not anywhere else. Logic can only be applied in a world of duality – which is an illusion. As you said, Logic doesn’t really tell you anything about the WORLD, but it does tell you a lot about how people choose to interact with the world. They mainly observe it as a subject/object duality (I’m Me and I’m Here, and Everything Else is Not Me and is Out There.) Symbols need to be invented to stand-in for the illusory, dualistic objects, otherwise the Me/Not-Me duality just would not work. Try doing Logic or Boolean transforms using only an A – All A is A. Some A is not A. A and A or A and not A is A (or not). You just got to have duality for Logic. It’s all part of the Monopoly rules and instructions. >If logic is an illusion what process could you use to discover the fact, >certainly not logic. ☺ THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION YOU’VE ASKED, and actually the only one that matters. The Logical Answer is: zazen. Zazen is the process that helped me realize that ‘self’ and all other duality-based concepts are illusions. Logic is what I am using now to try to express that realization. It is not the only way to express that realization. I do at times try to use other ways, but in this exclusively text-base medium Logic seems the most appropriate. The Non-Logical Answer is: Wash your bowls! >Chuck …Bill! From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 9:07 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Chuck, I assume you’re asking if Logic is dependent upon the belief in Cause & Effect. This is a Good question, and one which addresses a possible overstatement in my post – even my revised post. I haven’t thought about this aspect in depth yet enough to answer you. I don’t have an opinion right now as to whether Logic comes before the belief in Cause & Effect or vice versa, but both of these definitely precede and are the basis for science. If your question is asking if Logic is illusory, then the answer is definitely yes. Logic is a product of Subject/Object Duality, which is the real culprit here. It is the basis for the illusion of Self and everything else that follows. …Bill! From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Gierhart Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 6:39 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Bill, Does that include this logic? From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 8:33 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill *** After a Good Night’s Sleep I’ve Revised this Posting in Green Font and Re-sent **** Al and Chuck, ALL LOGIC AND SCIENCE is based on ILLUSIONS and BELIEFS: an ILLUSION of subject/object (observation), an ILLUSION of time (separate sequential actions (digital)), and a BELIEF in cause & effect (an illusory relationship between selected sets of separate sequential actions). Without these illusions and beliefs there is no logic, and without logic there is no science. The Buddhist doctrine of Dependent Origination is also an BELIEF based on the same a similar illusory relationship between separate sequential actions, but it is believed that there is only one Action (like the Big Bang) that is a continuous action (analog) and that the relationships are manifested in the changing form of the one of the one Action . Karma is a more complex illusion which is based on the belief of Dependent Origination, and then adds the concepts that the relationships can propagate qualities (good/bad, or some kind of quality), and these qualities can be associated with the actor (presumably the ‘self’ associated with the changes in the Action) and even accumulate. One way to accommodate this would be if Dependent Origination allows for sets of actions (instead of just one Action), and each set might be associated with a ‘self’, but this is just speculation on my part. Have you had enough tea for today? If so, wash your teacups! Chuck said he’ll return to counting his breathes. If so, his teacup should be empty by now. Al, cut up your Master Card! …Bill! From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Gierhart Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 10:47 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Zen] Dear Bill Al, Again, I think you are right. It is difficult for us not to wonder about these things, however, doing so serves no real purpose. Nothing is more futile than arguing matters of faith. I’ll return to counting my breaths ☺ Chuck From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of mike brown Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 9:34 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Zen] Dear Bill Al, Both these kinds of issues cannot be determined and require a certain amount of faith and belief (less so in science). This is why Buddha remained silent when asked metaphysical questions of this kind. Answering them makes no difference to human suffering and Buddhism, after all, is only for the purpose of ending suffering - not deciding whether the universe was created etc. In India, when Buddhism became more interested in discussing these kinds of issues it died. Mike. ----- Original Message ---- From: Al <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, 6 July, 2008 6:57:50 AM Subject: Re: [Zen] Dear Bill From: Chuck Gierhart When you ask this question about a blade of grass, the Pacific Ocean or a rock, no answer is possible. You can describe how these things interact with their environment or the benefit we derive from them but thatâ?Ts not the same as a purpose. To ask what purpose these things have is a loaded question. The question itself implies that a supreme being create them for a purpose.> So you think that Zen is Atheism? That everything is a product of blind luck and evolution? That one single cell amoeba kept evolving over billions of years into incredibly complex strands of DNA for millions of completely unconnected creatures? Isn't Evolution an act of faith? Isn't the belief in no intelligent higher power also a religion? ________________________________________ Not happy with your email address? Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available now at Yahoo! __________ NOD32 3244 (20080705) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com __________ NOD32 3245 (20080707) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com __________ NOD32 3248 (20080707) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com
