edgar... if memory serves me correct..you are not a fan of picasso
you are repeating what i have just stated about the yellow chair to renforce or just one man up manship? merle Merle, Van Gogh's yellow chair does not show us a chair. Seen with Zen eyes it shows us how the mind constructs chairs in the mind that do not exist in reality. Picasso defines 'art as lies that tell the truth'... This is the true meaning of art from a Zen perspective.... When we truly understand art we begin to understand that all chairs are as illusory as the yellow chair.... Edgar On Apr 18, 2013, at 7:12 PM, Merle Lester wrote: > > > > > check out vincent van gogh"s painting of "the yellow chair".... without pre >conceived ideas of what is and what is not..then you will understand the >meaning of chair..then check his painting out of "the old boots"... >understanding comes naturally with an open mind..merle > > > >So when we look a a chair we see "Chair" with all of the baggage that we've >accumulated with regards to chairness. In truth there is no chair. There is >an object in space that someone could hit you with but the concepts, memories >and words are all illusory. There's just this...thingness. > > > > >________________________________ > From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Sent: Thu, April 18, 2013 12:36:18 PM >Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Hello > > >William, > > >Well to start with it's simply the way the senses and the brain work. Actually >reality is nothing at all like the model of it our senses and mind constructs. > > >The world that we think we live in is entirely a construct of our individual >brains with the exception of it's logical structure which the mind must >approximate to a certain degree of accuracy for us to be able to function in >reality... > > >Zen is understanding how this works so that one can realize the truth nature >of things beyond the mind's model of them.... > > >Edgar > > > > > > >On Apr 18, 2013, at 12:38 PM, William Rintala wrote: > > >> >> >>Is this illusion of the senses akin to Kant's Ding an sich? That we can never >>know the objects of our senses but only what our senses perceive. >> >> >> >> >>________________________________ >> From: Joe <[email protected]> >>To: [email protected] >>Sent: Thu, April 18, 2013 11:01:51 AM >>Subject: [Zen] Re: Hello >> >> >>Edgar, >> >>We observe how they work through the senses. Understanding them this way is >>perfectly circular. And that is our reality. So, I'd say, don't play it up as >>something special. We have what we have and make of it what we will. >> >>The understanding you build of things like this is a model. It is nothing >>better or closer to reality than that. It is a model. >> >>The view you express has a technical term, and it is not a put-down. It is an >>accurate and polite categorization: "Naive Realism". >> >>There you have it. Make of "IT" what you will, also. >> >>Many of us have been there, done that. Especially the Scientists among us. >> >>--Joe >> >>> Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: >>> >>> Bob, >>> >>> Of course you are right and Bill is wrong. The senses are illusions. They >>> are not reality as it actually is. This is abundantly clear to anyone who >>> understands how they work... >> >> >> >> > > > > >
