William, Thanks. I clearly see how this saying of your professor below supports my position, but appears to completely refute Edgar's claim of 'accurate'.
How do you read this otherwise? ...Bill! --- In [email protected], William Rintala <brintala@...> wrote: > > In college I had a Philosophy professor, an Existentialist, who was fond of > saying about Science "it is impossible to place a quantitative value on a > phenomenological realm". So it would seem that Phenomenologists and > Exitentialist agree with both of you. He was also fond of quoting A.N > Whitehead > "the (scientific) truths that we hold most dear today will, in the future, be > found to be false or be found to be so inconsequential as to be trivial". > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tue, April 30, 2013 10:00:34 AM > Subject: Re: [Zen] Someone Else's Opinion on What is Real and What is Not... > >  > Edgar, > > The word you're using below that's problematic for me is 'accurate'. I'd > accept > 'rational' of course, or even 'useful', but not accurate. > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > Sure science is "human mental models of what reality might be". But what is > > the > >reality that science so accurately models if it itself is not equally > >complex or > >more? > > > > How could a complex mental model actually accurately model something that > > was > >not equally complex or more? > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 2013, at 8:13 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > You're right about science, but it's not reality. It's human mental > > > models of > >what reality might be. It's the human insistence on trying to define reality > >by > >using rational mental models that makes it so complex. > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Bob, > > > > > > > > One can have a simple life, a simple relationship with reality, but > > > > reality > >itself, its workings, is enormously complicated.... This is well known by > >anyone > >who has seriously studied the sciences. > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 29, 2013, at 8:33 PM, bobthomas564 wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Edgar - I don't want to open up a new battle front, you and Bill > > > > > are > >having a lot of fun, BUT I always thought that 'Marvellous, chopping wood > >and > >fetching water' was about the simplicity of reality? and some of the > >enlightenment poems point to the simplicity of it all. It must be simple if > >Hui > >Neng, with no training, could undo some of the most complex questions based > >on > >his enlightenment. > > > > > > > > > > Do you disagree? > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, > > > > > > > > > > > > Reality IS complicated... > > > > > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 28, 2013, at 9:07 PM, bobthomas564 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Edgar - You remind me of a line from a favourite rock n roll > > > > > > > song > >of > > > > > > > mine by a group called Garbage. the line is "I'm only happy when > it's > > > > > > > complicated" . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From "Only happy when it rains" if you like rock n roll here's' > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > utube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esEdC0c3YI4 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Another great line is 'pour your misery down on me' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill and Merle, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here Bill is arguing against something I've never said so he's > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > arguing against me, he's arguing against his own demons... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apparently Bill is continually beset by naughty little Zen > > > > > > > > demons > > > > > > > whispering he's wrong that he can't quite manage to exorcise! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill, when you realize that all demons are actually Buddhas in > > > > > > > disguise you will understand! > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 2013, at 7:52 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. I'm afraid we have a fundamental disagreement here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think zen practice empties out your mind, and you think it > >fills > > > > > > > it up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you want to Rock/Paper/Scissors for it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ..Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen edgarowen@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As usual you contradict the Zen teachings which I > > > > > > > > > > support.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 2013, at 9:38 PM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see your problem now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You think progress in zen is measured in ADDING ON things > > > > > > > > > > > - > >like > > > > > > > knowledge. It's not. You progress in zen by TAKING AWAY things > > > > > > > until > >you > > > > > > > get down to Just THIS! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You don't progress from Level 2 to Level 3. You progress > from > > > > > > > Level 2 to Level 1 and then to Level 0 which is actually no-level > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > Buddha Nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're trying to fill you cup up instead of emptying > >it...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's Niels, not Neal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Go back to stage one and get it right. Do NOT pass go! > > > > > > > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 2013, at 10:27 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *** Sorry, I misread your post below and Replied > > > > > > > incorrectly. I erased that but if you get the posts by email you > >might > > > > > > > have received it. If you did please disregard. My corrected post > > > > > > > is > >*** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean Stage Three? Neal and I are done > > > > > > > > > > > > > with > >Stage > > > > > > > Two and and now ready for Stage One! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the quote in which Bohr correctly > > > > > > > > > > > > > > expresses > > > > > > > stage two "mountains are no longer mountains". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stage three is when those unreal illusory things are > > > > > > > realized to be the true reality. Then mountains become mountains > >again.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both Bill and Bohr haven't reached that stage yet... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 26, 2013, at 5:38 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe Edgar will listen to him... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ 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: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
