Conversely - "Zen is Buddhism", is based on the same fundamental "Truth" (Enlightenment/nirvana), but rejects all the doctrine / scriptures of buddhism - "the phenomenon known as Enlightenment IS, and in so being, can be realized outside the doctrine, that is, beyond the scriptures and any ritualized formulas or patterns layed down therein." http://wanderling.tripod.com/40test01.html
Why the massive argument about the logicality or otherwise of "logic is not final wisdom"? Do people think logic is final wisdom? Was it logic that led the many Christians on ToothyWiki to believe what they do? No? Does that mean they are wrong? No! And yes, Buddha did describe the dharma/gospel as "not to be grasped by mere logic" - but that doesn't mean it isn't logical(ly consistent).
Zen is also not Taoism?, but on the topic of philosophy of language there are some strong similarities, and people might find [this piece] helpful.--Pallando
Congratulations. You have just given me a headache. --Vitenka
I'm interpreting it thus: I could give you an AxiomaticSystem? that is logically consistent, but wish you to understand that system as referring to a reality beyond itself, so there may be a map of principals in the system to principles in the wider world. --Bobacus
Sorry :-). Let's put it this way: in the real world, rather than in a nicely formalized mathematical system, there are things (facts, conclusions) that are logically consistent, but that you will never reach or conclude by following the laws of logic. This is neither a difficult nor profound observation. I would class most religious/spiritual/whatever beliefs, including Christianity and Zen, in this category.
I don't think I grasp this AxiomaticSystem? business, tho :-), or how it relates to the real world or the subject under discussion. Characterizing Zen as an AxiomaticSystem? that is logically consistent seems reasonable. Saying it refers to a reality beyond itself - namely the reality we find ourselves in, right? - seems odd; either it doesn't refer to reality at all (what we perceive as reality is illusion, not much more to say), or else it *is* reality, at least in terms of mapping principles. But this doesn't help me to understand anything, and...will probably just give me a headache!!
I think I just meant the difference between the NameOfAThing? and the thing itself. --Bobacus
Logic presumes a separation of subject from object; therefore logic is not final wisdom. The illusion of separation of subject from object is best removed by the elimination of physical activity, mental activity and emotional activity. There are many disciplines for this. One of the most important is the Sanskrit dhy na, mispronounced in Chinese as "Chan" and again mispronounced in Japanese as "Zen." From [Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance].
A jolly good read, actually, if a tad wooly in places. Certainly inspires one to go find texts by Kant, Hume, Poincare.. - MoonShadow
In other words: everything is everything else; nothing is anything; the way to see this is to stop thinking about it (because then you'd realise what bollocks it is).
Why is it bollocks? Godel?'s IncompletenessTheorem shows that logic is incomplete. Zen is a discipline for stopping looking at the world through any such incomplete lens, as first step towards finding completeness.
(PeterTaylor) I disagree with the characterisation of logic, and observe that the argument against logic implicitly claims to be logical, by using the word "therefore".
(Mjb67) There's nothing wrong with a claim against logic being logical - Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is logical. Zen accepts that logic cannot be final knowledge, and leaves it behind in the search for final knowledge, because otherwise it becomes a burden.
(PeterTaylor) I agree that there are categories in which it makes sense to argue logically that logic is imperfect. However, to presume as an axiom "Anything which presumes a separation of subject from object is not final wisdom" and then argue from "logic presumes a separation of subject from object" (?) to "logic is not final wisdom" strikes me as flawed -
if logic is not final wisdom, then maybe logic is final wisdom in spite of the argument that this is not the case.
Far better, if that's the view you hold of logic, to say simply that logic is not final wisdom without trying to argue your case logically. As for "logic is a burden: therefore I don't use logic"...
(Mjb67) Why better? If I just stated that, then you wouldn't know whether to believe me, or would just refute me. But I can prove the incompleteness of logic, for example by using Godel's theorem.
(Mjb67) In the quote above, Pirsig's character is making a different point about logic, which is that it is purely objective, which is true, and therefore 'not final wisdom' because it neglects subjective data. And indeed, there is a logical structure to the quote, which you perceive as flawed in a passage showing why logic is incomplete. But why? Logic is sound as far is it goes, and is perfectly adequate for showing why a discipline that rejects it could be worthwhile.
There is a way of looking at the statement which sees it as making a stronger claim than Godel, and a way which sees it as making a weaker claim.
The stronger claim: Godel merely shows that there is no axiomatic system which is both consistent and complete: by talking of "final wisdom", Pirsig suggests that not only is logic imperfect but there is something better. If that is the case, why not use this something better to demonstrate the case? Or is the claim that logic is only a subset of final wisdom?
He did do something better - he wrote the book. The para above is an extract, the only paragraph that actually contains a definition of Zen. The entire work is something else.
The weaker claim: Godel shows precisely in what way logic is defective: no consistent axiomatic system capable of expressing number theory can be omega-complete. Pirsig claims only that logic is imperfect, and does not state in what way: this makes it unreasonable to use logic in support of his claims.
I contest that he does in fact attempt to state in what way, or ways; although to be fair actually it's more of an overview/summary of how different philosophers have attempted to describe and cope with inadequacies of logic over time, and more often than not when Pirsig makes a statement of his own rather than quoting Buddhist texts or philosophers it's one even I am capable of rebutting. - MoonShadow
You're completely missing the point - but even following that line of reasoning is fine. If you do not understand something, I can't explain it to you without resorting to something less good which you DO understand.
I think "logic", and especially the idea of formal or mathematical logic in the Godel et al. sense, is a red herring here. I havn't read that much about Zen but I think it's more to do with language, and the way in which words and concepts and categorizations influence our perceptions ( and hence obscure the "real" nature of things. ) It's a simelar idea to what the "post-modernist" philosophers are interested nowadays. For example, to badly paraphrase a Zen piece I can't quite remember : "If you say a staff is not a staff, you deny reality. If you say a staff is a staff, you obscure what it really is." -- Xarak
Standard by seven.
Personally, I preferred Orac... and this is really sort of defeating the purpose of this page. Ah well *shrug* - Kazuhiko
Yes. You are all being distracted by mundane, but very very Froody things. Anyhow, Orac was irritating as all getout, and far too tempting a DeusExMachina. --Vitenka
I wouldn't mind _being_ Orac if it meant having Servalan chasing me... Mmmm. Does anyone else think that Cmdt Grayza from Farscape draws a lot from Servalan? Or is it just honest tribute?
Also the beginning of a range of books called, Zen and the art of... My favourite title being, Zen and the art of going to the toilet (I hope this book never actually existed....) - Tsunami
This use has come from a cult book called 'Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance'. Much copied (mostly because of its cool title), never surpassed. It's a coherent series of rants/philosophising of some bloke (Robert M. Pirsig) as he tours around on his bike with his son. Lots to do with the relationship between technology, people and the world, and people's personal values. Much relevancy to many ToothyWikizens, I hazard.
As the author says in the cover note:
"What follows is based on actual occurrences. Although much has been changed for rhetorical purposes, it must be regarded in its essence as fact. However, it should in no way be associated with that great body of factual information relating to orthodox Zen Buddhist practice. It's not very factual on motorcycles, either."
THE FIRST DREAM I dreamt that in front of me was half a stuffed tiger. Someone explains to me that it is very heavy - I try to lift it, but cannot, or manage to but only slightly. I ask why, and they explain: it is sewn through with many, many threads of tiger fur, so that there is really much more tiger fur there than is apparent. Perhaps it is useful for smugglers.
A BOOK ABOUT ZEN IS A STUFFED TIGER. One needs to be watching from a great distance indeed in order to mistake a puppet for a tiger. Nevertheless, it is enough like a tiger to scare hens, and to convince the owner of the henhouse to have an affair with the hunter. One who has written a book about zen is a smuggler, since he is trying to carry from one country to another something which is impossible (forbidden) to carry across. "Nothing that is really worth knowing can be taught" - that is yet an understatement. "As one seeing a dream, you will know all but will be unable to speak of any of it to others" - that is closer. "One who knows does not speak, one who speaks does not know"... But a smuggler is a positive personage; one who acts in spite of prohibitions, knowing that his aims are impossible and his actions absurd. Between me and you are thousands of doors, and each one is locked, and the keys to most of them are lost. Well, then! As Christobal Hosaevich Hunta said, it is only worth trying to solve those problems which have no solution. It is impossible to write a book about zen, or a book on tao, for dozens of reasons, the first of which is - "the stated tao is not the true tao". But it is possible to write a book containing zen, as a stuffed tiger can be sewn through with threads of tiger fur. Of course, one can make it look completely different on the outside.
Also a gene belonging to the Hox cluster in Drosophila. It's a homologue of the vertebrate Hox3 (along with zen2 and bicoid) but I don't think any of them actually play the 'traditional' Hox role. Divergence :) - SunKitten --- Also an mp3 player made by Creative. Like an iPod, basically, but a lot cheaper. See also RobotFindsKitten, [Nada] You may instead have been looking for: ZenInternet