-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Lees <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, September 18, 1998 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: "Zen archaeology"


>Sorry,Lenny,but I'm having trouble making sense of any of your posts
>today.
>We seem to be speaking straight past each other.
>

Fine! But this admission does not speak well for the universality of your
method!

>> >[snip]
>>
>> Then, how do you reconcile this idea with ... "conscious awareness can
>> approach a deeper understanding" ?
>
>I don't follow your reasoning at all.You seem to be talking about
>something entirely different,and I don't know what it is.

Unfortunately, this conundrum, which you are so helpless to deal with, is
the very reason your method will fail in it's desired goal!

>Look,I was trying to explain that words can only take a person so far
>when it comes to zen,and a deeper understanding of the meaning of a
>persons existence.

Please do not presume to offer me a greater insight into human 'meaning'! It
is not conducive to further dialogue!

>It's not such a big deal.If you accept that zen is something that you
>do,like swimming or riding a bike is something you do,then surely anyone
>can recognise that talking or writing about zen or swimming is not the same
>as actually doing it.

You cannot talk or write about 'it' if it is not talkable or writeable! That
is your paradox! Besides, 'it' is not the subject of archaeology! So, as a
practical methodology, 'it' has no application!

>But it does not follow that somehow speech or thought
>about zen or swimming is forbidden or impossible.

No one said it was! Its nature just is not consensual or contextual and
therefore cannot be known in a meaningful way! In fact, I submit that 'it'
may be an absolutely unique experience that cannot be classified at all
except as 'no-meaning'!

>It's just that you can't really
>get much of an understanding of zen or swimming by talking or reading.

No kidding!

>To really
>understand,you have to do the practice,to jump into water.
>

Unfortunately, there is no shared mode of meaningful interaction that
incorporates it into human action!

>> >[snip]
>
>> Then reflect upon the possibility of the other waiting for you there!
>
>I'm not certain what you mean,

You may not be the only one with meaningful insight on the subject! Just a
friendly nudge at hubris!

>but yes,I suppose a person could reflect
>in that way.
>Why not just get on with doing it ?
>

I suppose this implies that you feel archaeologists aren't doing 'it', yet
archaeologists are practicing something they've come to know as archaeology.
What you're proposing is to co-opt their practice and re-define it,
something I think will not happen based solely upon your assertion to a
better method!

So do it yourself!

>> >[snip]
>> >As I see it,this has implications for anyone who thinks seriously about
>> life,existence,
>> >their place in the world,and what it all may mean.
>>
>> So does rock-and-roll, go figure!
>
>Well,I have known people for whom rock and roll was a matter of life and
>death,but I've never been able to take it quite that seriously myself.
>

Than the 'zen mind' must be a narrow one indeed!

>> >Instead of imposing our ideas about 'what the world is like' upon
>> reality,we can allow
>> >reality to be what it is.Or we can approach that ideal.
>> >
>>
>> Only thing is, you can't talk about it! This method is inherently
>> anti-human!
>
>Again,your reasoning seems mighty strange to me.

Only because the 'zen mind' is non-scientific!

>I thought you just told
>me that my proposal would be inevitably "contaminated by humanity",but now
>I'm "anti-human " ?

This is a problem for you since you are reluctant to grasp the paradox of
your proposal!

>I don't understand.Presumably,you're lines of reasoning
>are in conformity with an understanding of your own,which I don't share.
>

My reasoning is in 'conformity' with the basis of 'meaning'. Since your
method cannot generate such a state, it's ultimate worth to the study of
archaeology is patently 'meaningless!'

>> >[snip]
>> I don't think I implied any such a thing. This seems more like a
stereotype
>> of the critique rather than a serious attempt to understand the nature of
>> it.
>
>Well,perhaps so,but I insist that I have tried to give you a fair
>hearing and made an effort to understand what you said.


So be it! But I can only wonder at the ability of the 'zen mind' to solve
all our problems for us after such a telling admission!

Cheers,

--Lenny__



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%