On Tue, 15 Sep 1998 11:49:38 +0100 Chris Lees <[log in to unmask]>
writes:
>Lenny wrote:
>
>> The paradox arises in that the silence of the Zen mind belies a
>> language
>> and, in as much as consciousness is being linked inextricably with
>> language,
>> denies as well a Zen reality that embraces either consciousness or
>> language.
>> This forces a realization of kinds of reality, and, further, a
>> question over any assertion about "a firm base for reality"!
Some people, who don't know any better, are linking consciousness
"inextricably with language", but they are wrong. Consciousness precedes
language both phylogenetically and ontogenetically. Without
consciousness, there would be no language. The first humans, 2.5 million
years ago (mya), obviously were conscious but did not have language.
According to Deacon (1997), brain restructuring for speech and symbols
did not begin until around 2 mya and was not completed until around 0.5
mya. Furthermore, laryngeal descent and syntactic complexity did not
begin until around 1.5 mya and was not completed until the appearance of
anatomically modern humans around 200,000 years ago.
>Hello Lenny,
>
>This paradox arises only when one attempts a fairly superficial
>analysis using words and logic.
>There is a story (apocryphal, I think) that aeronautical engineers
>analysed
>the structure of the bumble bee and proved that it would be impossible
>for such a thing to fly. But it is a matter of fact that they do fly.
What makes you think that that it is apocryphal? According to the
principles of aerodynamics *used to construct the aircraft that we fly
in*, the bee cannot fly. There is no paradox here, and the "words and
logic" used to analyse what is required for *us* to fly is hardly
"superficial", fairly or otherwise.
>Common sense might suggest that because a bicycle cannot stand upright
>without support, it would be unlikely to do so in motion with a human
>attached, but in practice it does. It works.
I doubt seriously if you could find anybody with such "common sense". In
fact, such sense would be very uncommon, except to somebody who had never
seen a bicycle.
>There is absolutely nothing wrong with rational, logical, verbal
>thought.
Oh, I'm so glad to "hear" you say that. I was beginning to wonder what
it was you were trying to do in your many postings. I thought maybe you
were trying to use irrational, illogical, nonverbal thought!
>However,if you practice intensive zen meditation,you discover that
>rational thought, intellectual reasoning, can only take you so far.
Apparently it has been far enough to provide you with the internet on
which to practice your "rational thought and intellectual reasoning".
>Most Western thinkers--Western cultureas a whole--give up at that
>point.
I am not aware that "most Western thinkers", let alone "Western culture
as a whole", has given up going beyond rational thought and intellectual
reasoning. Where did you get that idea? Have you taken a survey of
"Western thinkers" lately?
>Like Descartes,most Western philosophers have based their reasoning
>upon a false premise--cogito ergo sum.
First, you've made this staement before (that is, that it *cogito ero
sum* is "very wrong") and then , as now, without a shred of
justification. I challenged you then (and the subsequent silence was
deafening), and I challenge you now to justify your claim.
Second, "most Western philosophers" have *not* based their reasoning on
*cogito ergo sum*. Many "Western philosphers", both in his time and in
ours, have criticized Descartes. Before you make statements about what
"most Western philosophers" do, you would do well to read some philosphy.
>It is part of the tradition to reject even the possibility that truth
>can be found other than by rational analysis.
What "tradition" is that? Certainly not the "tradition" of "Western
thinkers", your knowledge of which is apparently appallingly inadequate.
>But zen says that you can go further, you_can_
>penetrate the mystery.
What mystery?
>It's just that rational thought is not the tool which can do that.
>So you leave reasoning and logic behind,and have an entirely still and
>empty mind.
And with the "empty mind" you "penetrate" the unnamed "mystery"? With
any "empty mind" you can't penetrate anything. Anything that is empty
has no ability to do anything.
>Then conscious awareness can approach a deeper understanding.
First, "conscious awareness" is redundant. There isn't any other kind.
Second, what is it the one seeks a "deeper understanding" of?
>It works.
How has it worked? What has it done?
>There are many technical terms for that experience. But they are just
>words for an experience which is beyond words.
That's exactly what people have been saying about mystical experiences
since recorded history. And most of them were not Zen enthusiasts.
>When you come out of that experience, you are back in the world of
>words and reason again, a world of relativities.
While you were in that "experience", was it a world of absolutes?
>Mostly, the way that we explain reality to ourselves is in
>terms of opposites--up/down, yes/no, right/wrong, life/death, good/bad,
etc.
>That's not what reality is like.
First, maybe you explain "reality" to youself that way, but I don't.
Second, anybody who does explain "reality" in terms of opposites is one
who believes in absolutes, not relativities.
Third, I'll agree with you that "reality" is not like any of
those--except life/death. Anyone who thinks that life/death is not what
"reality" is like needs to have his sanity checked.
>It's not all clear-cut black/white.
It never was. So what else is new?
>But our minds like those
>simple polar opposites, and our language is built up on that kind of
>logic.
That shows all you know about language. Language is not built up on
*any* kind of logic. Quite the contrary, logic is built up on language.
>This has been common knowledge in many traditions for thousands of
>years.
Really? Can you name any? Or are you just making one more of your
sweeping, unjustified statements?
Listen Chris, language was invented long before logic was ever heard of,
maybe 500,000 years ago, and has been evolving ever since into the five
or six thousand different ones that we now have. The basic syntax of
language is not logical and has not changed substantially during recorded
history.
>It seems to be something that contemporary Western culture has
>forgotten or overlooked, with few exceptions.
Boy, you sure are "down" on "Western culture". That's too bad,
especially for one that seems to know so little about it.
>When one has pursued the zen path for some time, some of the above
>becomes very clear.
Careful. You're apt to give Zen a bad name.
>With practice,one can retain the 'zen mind' cultivated in
>sitting meditation throughout daily life.
Except, apparently, while writing posts to the list.
>That means that one does not get caught up in the world
>of conceptual reasoning and the opposites. One just sees 'what is'.
>It doesn't mean that one becomes incapable of thought, or speech, or
>irrational, or an imbecile. It is entirely compatible with science
>From what you have written, it would seem that Zen has not shown you
"what is". One cannot engage in "science" without getting "caught up in
the world of conceptual reasoning and the opposites". For instance, the
basis of modern physics is symmetry.
Jesse S. Cook III
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|