I’ve never heard of Piaget so I don’t really know the focus and scope of his
body of work, but I was struck by your introductory paragraph. I actually
agree with most of it, but there are parts that seem contradictory to me:
>It is well known that contrary facts (the rules of
>evidenciary and causal consistency) are often ignored
>in the obsession with maintaining one's cherished beliefs.
Why do you not include 'the rules of evidenciary [sic] and causal consistency'
in a category of belief? If they are not beliefs, how would you characterize
them? What would you call them?
>Believing any set of beliefs, especially those which
>aren't even in synch with the causal rules of the illusory
>objective world just adds another layer to the veils of
>illusion which impeded true Zen.
By using the term 'illusory object world' you seem to acknowledge that the
object world is illusory, yet you somehow cling to the belief that causal rules
induced from these illusions are not also illusory. Can you explain?
Enquiring no-minds want to know!
[balance of previous email thread deleted per as Al has recommended]
Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: