05 Aug 11
Originally posted by TaomanI thought true wisdom was to value the bottle tops as much as the gold. 😉
Thank you to those who will know what I mean; nuggets of gold amongst the bottle tops. BEEEEP....BEEEEP!
Great posts, and special thanks to BB on koans and to vistesd.
Collection material and recommended.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
05 Aug 11
Originally posted by black beetle"Do we really exchange “cryptic messages” when we apply Math, or do we apply them in order to “identify one’s fellows”? "
I understood that our divegeester’s response was both a response to your quote and a response to my “Some are workers, some are not”, because his reply was unquoted. Of course, the general agreement you imply could well be his response too to your main point.
As regards your point about the exchange of cryptic messages and its possible cognitive conten ...[text shortened]... ou merely have to do it on your own. I hope you comprehend.
Are you still afraid of this?
😵
Actually, I think in some cases, yes, not when we apply math, but when we want to find others of like inclinations. Mentioning Euler's theorum or the Goldbach conjecture can be a way to identify one's intellectual fellows and dispense with those who don't get it.
Regarding "organon," I look at definitions and find something that might be close: Organon -- An instrument of thought, esp. a means of reasoning or a system of logic. But does the "esp." fit? How can a koan be a system of thought? Maybe it is a pebble thrown into a pond, disappearing from view and leaving only the disturbance it brought about, to be considered. I am afraid that the use of 'organon' with a general audience is part of the cryptic nature of whatever it is that you are advancing. "Cryptic" might not be quite right; it might be arcane, coded, inside language, something by which members of a group test people for their receptivity, etc. You even allude to this as a usage of the koan.
I hope my reservations aren't taken as hostility. I respect people who peacefully explore such things, but I think it is worth knowing that some people can see exclusionary overtones in this emphasis on koans, when you at the same time express a respectable degree of inclusiveness in other ways. The same is the case when people go on at length quoting scripture.
Originally posted by JS357You could level this charge at several of the frequenters of this forum, though. The philosophy buffs are especially guilty. In just the past few days I've had to look up "epistemological," "ontological," "normative," "coherentist," "Euthyphro dilemma," "phronesis," "prima facie," "Neo-Hobbesian," "supervenience," and so on. All in the same thread, and mostly—but not exclusively—in one guy's posts (which also include a lot of name-dropping of obscure long-dead philosophers). Sometimes I can make less sense of this guy's posts than I can a black beetle post. Now, mind you, I like the guy and on the whole he makes strong cases for his arguments, but there's a cryptic "insider's only" flavor to many of his arguments.
I am afraid that the use of 'organon' with a general audience is part of the cryptic nature of whatever it is that you are advancing.
06 Aug 11
Originally posted by vistesdReading Wittgenstein 2.0 at the moment - philosophy as therapy, a ladder to be climbed and then removed, bear a family resemblance to Zen. Of course Wittgenstein 2.0 is neither special nor profound (but Wittgenstein 1.0! What a high-tech model that was ...).
Zen is neither special nor profound; and is certainly not the only discipline that insists on the priority of the existential territory.
06 Aug 11
Originally posted by Soothfast>>When you find gold, yell and leap around, when you find a bottle top put it in the recycle bin.
I thought true wisdom was to value the bottle tops as much as the gold. 😉
Know, however, that both are nevertheless empty when wisdom shines, and thus of equal "value".
>>A bottle top can shine bright as gold in the sun's glare.
>>Values are imputed by mind. A decent nugget of gold can be used as a doorstop or be part of a royal crown. It can also be used to give a reminding tap on the head at the right time, to help one to realise original mind.
>>Nothing wrong with discrimination and differentiation,
just don't think that is the end of the story, for it never is.
>>Things do not exist unto themselves alone, (thus are "empty" of inherent stand-alone existence ); every value anything has depends on what is beyond it.
Thank you for your mindful comment.
06 Aug 11
Originally posted by JS357Edit: “Regarding… …thought?”
"Do we really exchange “cryptic messages” when we apply Math, or do we apply them in order to “identify one’s fellows”? "
Actually, I think in some cases, yes, not when we apply math, but when we want to find others of like inclinations. Mentioning Euler's theorum or the Goldbach conjecture can be a way to identify one's intellectual fellows and dispense wi ...[text shortened]... in other ways. The same is the case when people go on at length quoting scripture.
Methinks the definition of the Koan as an instrument of thought and mainly as a means of reasoning or a system of logic, is accurate in full; the Koan is indeed a very sharp epistemic instrument, evaluated as one of the most important “skilful means” (upaya) of specific Eastern traditions (mind you, at the same time, many other traditions dismiss it in full!). What kind of instrument? It is an instrument designed to activate one’s mind so that, this mind can pass from, say, Buson’s state/ statement “This mind is not a Buddha” to his state/ statement “This mind is Buddha”. That is, with this organon the individual is considered to have the chance to break free (from his own delusions) and thus overcome Dukkha.
How? By means of transforming his own evaluation of the mind (thus his mind, in other words the interface the sentient beings are using in order to cope with the observer Universe/ Physical World, with their own Inner World and with the World of the Ideas; I join hands with Popper, as you see.), into the most trusted epistemic organon. Therefore, there is nothing cryptic.
Edit: “Maybe… …koan.”
Nope. Next thing I could hear is that when I was racing and testing motorcycles I was exchanging cryptic information with my mechanics:
--“Hey John, why are you so slow at K4?”
-- “I cannot push further my front tire due to early chunking”
Over there I was “advancing” the exelixis of a specific bike; over here I am “advancing” a specific way related to the evaluation of the mind. In both cases I “advance” no thing: I simply try to get the most out of an ever-changing environment according to my evaluation of the mind alone (of course, I am forced to Communicate anyway). Therefore, again there is nothing cryptic per se.
Edit: “I hope... ...scripture.”
Your reservations, and everybody’s reservations, are more than welcome, because without the sharpest criticism we cannot advance. Since I strongly reject any kind of authority, how could I ever take your opinion or anybody else's as hostility?
On the other hand, yes, people can see exclusionary overtones, I agree. Do you in person see any?
And how is it “the same case when people go on at length quoting scriptures”? Preaching I hate, down with it. I am ready to change every single opinion of mine in no time and to accept yours -just kindly please let me know why should I.
Koans, are just a loss of time when you have them exploited; and a barrier when you don’t know how to handle them. No big deal. Koan is only an organon -and, oh, well, we have many handy. Nothing cryptic.
Nothing Holy
😵
06 Aug 11
Originally posted by SoothfastThe flavor of an Arran 2000 is an extremely cryptic ""insider's only" one; I bow to the masterblender😵
You could level this charge at several of the frequenters of this forum, though. The philosophy buffs are especially guilty. In just the past few days I've had to look up "epistemological," "ontological," "normative," "coherentist," "Euthyphro dilemma," "phronesis," "prima facie," "Neo-Hobbesian," "supervenience," and so on. All in the same thread, and ...[text shortened]... but there's a cryptic "insider's only" flavor to many of his arguments.
06 Aug 11
Originally posted by SoothfastWell, he seems to me (speaking as an interested amateur) to be a philosopher by profession, or maybe a lawyer or something similarly related. I have had somewhat less trouble with his posts than you, but only somewhat 🙂 And frankly I'm afraid to tangle with him head-to-head, at least not until I'm better-grounded myself... and that's going to take a while. As things stand, he could out-argue me with one hand tied behind his back. (Think keyboards.) Note that this is not a concession to him of any truth, just recognition of superior philosophcal knowledge and technical prowess in argument. 🙂
You could level this charge at several of the frequenters of this forum, though. The philosophy buffs are especially guilty. In just the past few days I've had to look up "epistemological," "ontological," "normative," "coherentist," "Euthyphro dilemma," "phronesis," "prima facie," "Neo-Hobbesian," "supervenience," and so on. All in the same thread, and ...[text shortened]... but there's a cryptic "insider's only" flavor to many of his arguments.
07 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by pyxelatedHe is, in fact a philosopher—and I, who am still just an armchair layperson in that regard, now have several shelves full of philosophy books, a collection that began when he handed my head to me on a platter five or six years ago. (Not that that dictated my reading selection, which is always eclectic.)
Well, he seems to me (speaking as an interested amateur) to be a philosopher by profession, or maybe a lawyer or something similarly related. I have had somewhat less trouble with his posts than you, but only somewhat 🙂 And frankly I'm afraid to tangle with him head-to-head, at least not until I'm better-grounded myself... and that's going to take a while ...[text shortened]... th, just recognition of superior philosophcal knowledge and technical prowess in argument. 🙂