Peter, I want to comment on what you said here:
>>of course, (I think), this was bound up with Pirsig's point : if the
answer
>>to a question is neither yes nor no, then it must be "mu", which as I
>>understand it means "....unask the question";
I'm not sure that I see the "Mu" answer quite like this. The way I see the
"Mu" answer is like this: "Hey, you are asking the wrong question. Your
question doesn't allow for the correct answer." To me it's kind of like the
question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?", and if my understanding of
Zen is correct, then Zen Koans were like word games played to trip each
other up. I have heard some people call them "hooks", and they are designed
to illustrate attachments to words and thinking.
So let's say I flip a coin, show it to you, it comes up tails, and I ask "Is
it heads or tails?" If you were talking to a psychologist you would
certainly want to answer that it is tails. But if you were talking to a Zen
master, a better answer would be that it is a quarter. An even better answer
might be to put it in your pocket and walk off.
So the point of that exercise is the understanding that words do not contain
all the data. Abstraction is what words are and that means that they can
never be what they are, except of course for the word "word" which is what
it is, but only if you say it to someone who speaks English.
It seems to me that abstraction is a hierarchy of abstracts built upon
itself. Reality itself is an abstract. Words are an abstract, and math is an
even higher abstract. The number 2 assumes two identical things, when there
are no two identical things in all of nature. How could there be? Two
identical things would be the same thing. Mu?
That is a lot of words for the simple idea that heads and tails do not a
quarter make. In fact, one can know that without those words. And know it
faster. Perhaps that is what "intuitive" means. Knowing without knowing
exactly how you know. When I work on PCs, I don't think with words. I just
do...until it's right. I know what to do, and when to do it, and I seldom
ever have to think about it. In fact, the only time I ever think about it is
when I don't know what I'm doing.
I think Quality is like that. You know it when you see it. It isn't bound up
in words or "Bullshit". You can tell when someone has worked hard and done a
good job. Nobody has to tell you. You know.
I was reading a criticism of behavior modification(Behaviourism) just the
other day. Essentially the article said that children who were trained to
work for rewards did not internalize the values that were being taught. In
other words, they just did what they had to do to get the reward, and no
more.
In real life, however, I find that that is exactly what society wants. Don't
have any original ideas...don't do more than you are supposed to, just do
what your told and take home your check.
Whole companies are bought and sold on the reward principle. We buy a
company, cut as much overhead as we can, make it look as good on paper as
possible, take the stock public, and make a fortune. Who cares if what we
did was best for the employees, the company, the customers, or society? We
got our money!
I took a foreign language class from a very bright professor. He
specifically told us not to embellish our tests with more language than was
necessary. Just answer the questions as simply as possible. Doesn't that
seem counter-intuitive of the goal? It is if the goal is to learn as much
German as possible, but not if the goal is to have as high a grade as
possible.
I guess I'm ranting now.
Peter you also said:
>>but this does presuppose that
>>every question can be (or should be) framed in digital form. Given that
even
>>neurons (our smallest 'switches') don't behave in this way, is the true
test
>>of 'true-ness' really that one should be able to boil the matter in hand
>>down to yes/no?.
and I hope you know from what I've written that I completely agree.
Peter you might be interested in reading about Renzai Zen which is the
school of Zen most partial to the use of Koan practice. A very good book is
"Dropping Ashes on the Buddha" which is a compendium of lectures,
conversation, and correspondence of the Venerable Seung Sahn Soen Sa Nihm
(sp?), a living Buddha. So he claims anyway. I know the old bastard is a
liar. The author of the book is Stephen Mitchell (sp? again).
Peter:
>>David, what was the url of that list?
It is a newsgroup, and I think you link to them like this
news:comp.ai.philosophy
Do you know who David Chalmers is? I think you would also be interested in
his work.
Please look at my home page, which is slight, but has some good links. Click
on mind, I think, for Chalmers.
http://personal.bna.bellsouth.net/bna/d/e/deprince
If you had my neonome client (I wish everyone did, it would make the whole
internet much cheaper and much easier to use) you could just type in
"davidprince" -without quotes.
David Prince
Systems Analyst
www.NeoNome.com -The New, Free, Peer-to-Peer Internet!
Download the free client, and register your free name today!
http://www.neonome.com/products/neonomeclient.zip
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:50 BST