From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Sun Dec 05 2004 - 19:43:44 GMT
Hi Chin --
> I thought you might find this interesting;
> http://www.rider.edu/~suler/zenstory/thisthing.html
Thanks for the article (which I guess was actually a speech). Like most
lectures based on Eastern insight, Professor Suler's message quotes Zen
riddles (koans) which I'm told are designed to "shock the intellect" into
seeing Truth. Unfortunately, it never works for me. And it is one of the
reasons I've not invested much time studying Buddhism and its teachings.
Aside from the conclusion that "self" is an undefinable entity, what do we
learn from Suler's exercise?
I'm a "literalist" -- some see this as naivetee. I believe in stating
things as I see them, to the best of my ability. To me, philosophical
dialectic is a process involving reason (i.e., logical methods) to work
toward rational conclusions. One constructs a hypothesis, sometimes with
the help of an analogy, to arrive at some level of understanding. For the
Western intellect, this works on a rational rather than a psychic level.
Word puzzles, koans, and allegories may sharpen the intellect in a general
way, but they are oblique or "elliptical" -- that is, they don't communicate
the concept directly. I think one must formulate a rational understanding
of a concept before any "riddle" about it can be intellectualized and
appreciated.
Discourses on Morality may be an exception, since they focus on matters that
involve human sensibility. That's undoubtedly why Jesus taught in parables.
But you can't build a cosmology on allegorical stories and hope to advance
understanding. The circular debates posted here about statements culled
from a novel demonstrate my point. It all boils down to the importance of
stating the premise rationally and with clarity. Call a spade a spade. It
makes no sense to argue endlessly over words and phrases without a firm
rational grasp of precisely what is being argued. This should not have to be
a matter of speculation, presumption, or personal bias on the reader's part.
Goodness knows, we should all strive for simplicity -- I'm certainly guilty
of verbose writing -- but let's at least try to be direct in what we are
positing. Philosophy is not an art form or a word game. Although some
ideas don't lend themselves well to literal interpretation, the philosopher
is obligated to try. (The word pictures and allegories can come later.)
I just wanted to get this off my chest. Hopefully, it will help make my own
viewpoints somewhat more understandable in this environment.
I appreciate your many inputs and insights relative to my thesis, Chin. And
I apologize for falling behind in my responses.
Best regards,
Ham
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 05 2004 - 19:45:14 GMT