From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Thu Apr 21 2005 - 20:16:12 BST
Steve,
Steve said:
The reason for my query is to dethrone the myth (at least for myself)
that Zen is anti-rational. Cleary 'rigorous rationalism' is utilizing
rationality, so it's not 'anti' rational. But rigorous rationality
separates rationality itself from the 'objects' of rationality. It is
this distinction that makes this work, is that no so? And, finally,
with no objects to discriminate between reasoning self cancels.
But neither is the intuitionist school anti-rational in the sense that
reasoning is determined to be bad and a habit to be unlearned. Is that
not so? Transcending reason does not seem to me abolishing reason.
Scott:
Zen is not anti-rational in the sense that it says "reason is bad". The
difference between the two interpretations is whether reason is a
"skillful means" in gaining Enlightenment. The first option says "yes",
the second says "no".
I reject your statement that "rigorous rationality separates rationality
itself from the 'objects' of rationality". One can start with the
example of mathematics, where the "object" is the reasoning. The main
thing in applying "rigorous rationalism" is to reason oneself out of
believing that the objects of reason have an independent self-existence
-- the same with the reasoner. It is the assumption (SOM) that reason
*must* be in subject/object form that leads to the intuitionist view of
Zen, and which is followed in the MOQ.
- Scott R
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve & Oxsana Marquis
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 5:06 PM
Subject: Re: MD Zen & Reason
Scott wrote:
___________________
"The nature and history of the ... Koan, for example, is subject to
great academic controversy, with some researchers claiming it operates
quite purely in Nagarjuna's mode, viz., a rigorous rationalism whereby
logic cancels itself out -- leaving devoidness to lapse (slide) by,
interminably; and others seeing it as operative in a Yogacaric mode, as
an intuitionism, so the monk does *not* through the assiduous use of
reason *deduce* self-contradiction, but rather *transcends* reason "in a
flash"."
Pirsig is clearly on the side of the latter interpretation, while I
have been arguing for the former interpretation (which I call employing
the logic of contradictory identity). But it should be noted that this
is considerably different from your description:
___________________
Scott, I apologize for the late response.
My description was a composite of poor memory, several shallow New Age
books, and the advice of friends who were not active members of any
meditation 'school' so I wouldn't credit it with representing any
orthodox view to be sure.
The reason for my query is to dethrone the myth (at least for myself)
that Zen is anti-rational. Cleary 'rigorous rationalism' is utilizing
rationality, so it's not 'anti' rational. But rigorous rationality
separates rationality itself from the 'objects' of rationality. It is
this distinction that makes this work, is that no so? And, finally,
with no objects to discriminate between reasoning self cancels.
But neither is the intuitionist school anti-rational in the sense that
reasoning is determined to be bad and a habit to be unlearned. Is that
not so? Transcending reason does not seem to me abolishing reason.
It does not make sense!?!? to me to pursue DQ exclusive of static
latches.
Live well,
Steve
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 : Fri Apr 22 2005 - 22:25:36 BST