29 Jun 09
Originally posted by vistesd"By leaping to an opinion—“Don’t seek the truth. Man, that’s absurd!”—Joseph both missed Seng Tsan’s point, and at the same time illustrated it. (Hello, Joseph! I didn’t know that I’d ignored your question; I didn’t even remember this post till it popped up again.)" I lose track as well.
Yes. Although in this case it isn’t completely illogical, but still aimed at shaking up facile assumptions.
By leaping to an opinion—“Don’t seek the truth. Man, that’s absurd!”—Joseph both missed Seng Tsan’s point, and at the same time illustrated it. (Hello, Joseph! I didn’t know that I’d ignored your question; I didn’t even remember this pos ...[text shortened]... /i] reality, before we form any conceptual statements, or beliefs, or opinions, about it.
Hello vistesd. It's been a while.
Actually, I didn't miss the point at all. It's just that the point is absurd to me, because, it seems to me, the point dismisses reality.
Isn't that the point?
Reality being the pursuit of truth, not the denial of it.
If you see this vistesd, I pray you're doing well. And please, keep it in layman's terms. 🙂
29 Jun 09
Originally posted by josephwlaymans terms?
[b]"By leaping to an opinion—“Don’t seek the truth. Man, that’s absurd!”—Joseph both missed Seng Tsan’s point, and at the same time illustrated it. (Hello, Joseph! I didn’t know that I’d ignored your question; I didn’t even remember this post till it popped up again.)" I lose track as well.
Hello vistesd. It's been a while.
Actually, I didn't mis ...[text shortened]... ou see this vistesd, I pray you're doing well. And please, keep it in layman's terms. 🙂[/b]
laymen must be changing🙂
30 Jun 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYes it does. 🙂
My, my, my. You post the lyrics, of a widely known song, that few would recognize and look what comes of it. Almost a year later it inexplicably gets resurrected and becomes a primer of sorts for Zen koans. Come to think of it, the premise for the thread was a koan of sorts. And the circle closes on itself. 🙂
30 Jun 09
Originally posted by josephwHello vistesd. It's been a while.
[b]"By leaping to an opinion—“Don’t seek the truth. Man, that’s absurd!”—Joseph both missed Seng Tsan’s point, and at the same time illustrated it. (Hello, Joseph! I didn’t know that I’d ignored your question; I didn’t even remember this post till it popped up again.)" I lose track as well.
Hello vistesd. It's been a while.
Actually, I didn't mis ...[text shortened]... ou see this vistesd, I pray you're doing well. And please, keep it in layman's terms. 🙂[/b]
Yes, it has!
If you see this vistesd, I pray you're doing well.
The same back atcha, old friend.
Reality being the pursuit of truth, not the denial of it.
No, not the denial of it. Okay, I think we agree here that Seng Ts’an is using “truth” in the sense of “reality”, what is real (and I think that both you and I recall discussions about different applications of that word “truth”; hence my note at the bottom of my last post).
But— If one is pursuing reality/truth, then that means, does it not, that one is somehow not now in touch with reality/truth? Or might it mean that one is simply dedicated to keeping in touch with reality/truth?
Reality is right before your eyes; it is in your actual experience of living. There is no need to seek that. And, how one thinks is also reality—even if one thinks badly. If one drops one’s opinions about reality, then reality reveals itself right here and now.
It’s like the metaphor of the map and the territory. If there is a conflict between what’s on the map and the territory (reality) itself, then it is the map that needs to change, not the territory. But the only way to see that is to put the map down and look at the territory. One does not need to “seek” the territory: we are living in it.
02 Jul 09
Originally posted by vistesd"But— If one is pursuing reality/truth, then that means, does it not, that one is somehow not now in touch with reality/truth?"
[b]Hello vistesd. It's been a while.
Yes, it has!
If you see this vistesd, I pray you're doing well.
The same back atcha, old friend.
Reality being the pursuit of truth, not the denial of it.
No, not the denial of it. Okay, I think we agree here that Seng Ts’an is using “truth” in the sense of “reality”, what is real (and I ...[text shortened]... y/truth? Or might it mean that one is simply dedicated to keeping in touch with reality/truth?b]
Not necessarily. One may be in touch with reality, but not the whole reality. Using your metaphor, one can know the lay of the land, but still not know every crook and crevice.
"Or might it mean that one is simply dedicated to keeping in touch with reality/truth?"
I can go with that.
"Reality is right before your eyes;..."
It’s like the metaphor of the map and the territory. If there is a conflict between what’s on the map and the territory (reality) itself, then it is the map that needs to change, not the territory. But the only way to see that is to put the map down and look at the territory. One does not need to “seek” the territory: we are living in it."
There's no guarantee that even though reality may be right before ones' eyes that one "sees' reality. It may very well be that the reality we all see clearly proves that it was all made by a creator.
That's why the whole debate baffles me. I see reality and it's creator. Another doesn't. Some one is wrong. No?
02 Jul 09
Originally posted by josephw[/b]Everything that we think about reality—every concept, thought, word, name, description, belief—is “map”. Reality precedes all that-or else we wouldn’t be thinking about reality with any of that, but just thinking about other thoughts and concepts, etc. The reality that precedes every thought-map about it is, metaphorically, the “territory”.
[b]"But— If one is pursuing reality/truth, then that means, does it not, that one is somehow not now in touch with reality/truth?"
Not necessarily. One may be in touch with reality, but not the whole reality. Using your metaphor, one can know the lay of the land, but still not know every crook and crevice.
"Or might it mean that one is simply ...[text shortened]... affles me. I see reality and it's creator. Another doesn't. Some one is wrong. No?
The territory doesn’t even have a name, since it is before all names that it might be called by (even “territory” ). All speech—such as these words here—is either an attempt at mapping (describing) or an attempt to point beyond itself to the reality that is prior to all speaking about it. All “religious” speech represents either the attempt at map-making, or an attempt to point beyond itself (its own terms, metaphors, signs and symbols) to the territory.
Seng Ts’an is using speech to that latter purpose: pointing beyond all our opinions (maps) to the territory (reality/truth).
The territory is not disputable—it just is. Maps are disputable.
____________________________________________________
One source of confusion can result from the fact that the territory includes us, with our particular map-making consciousness. Therefore, the territory does include all our maps as we make them: Christian maps, Hindu maps, Wiccan maps, serious maps, playful maps, imaginative maps.
But the only way to experience the territory itself is to set aside every map. One cannot see the territory while looking at the map—or, if one imagines a kind of holographic map, by looking through the map.
Another source of confusion can lie in the fact that our consciousness habitually so quickly (almost immediately) translates our perception into some conceptual content that is can then reflect upon. Various meditation practices are aimed just at allowing the thinking/conceptualizing functions of the mind to rest in abeyance long enough to just observe/experience the territory itself.
06 Jul 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneNot inexplicably, not at all😵
My, my, my. You post the lyrics, of a widely known song, that few would recognize and look what comes of it. Almost a year later it inexplicably gets resurrected and becomes a primer of sorts for Zen koans. Come to think of it, the premise for the thread was a koan of sorts. And the circle closes on itself. 🙂
06 Jul 09
Originally posted by vistesdHey my brother vistesd!
Everything that we think about reality—every concept, thought, word, name, description, belief—is “map”. Reality precedes all that-or else we wouldn’t be thinking about reality with any of that, but just thinking about other thoughts and concepts, etc. The reality that precedes every thought-map about it is, metaphorically, the “territory”.
The terr ...[text shortened]... ons of the mind to rest in abeyance long enough to just observe/experience the territory itself.[/b]
Your crown is visible within the Floating World, capable at last to move beyond at a glance you need no map!
I bow😵
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by black beetleThanks, my old friend, but I do not think that I merit such recognition.
Hey my brother vistesd!
Your crown is visible within the Floating World, capable at last to move beyond at a glance you need no map!
I bow😵
I think I am currently well-described by Seneca’s response to Serenus, which I was just reading:
“[T]he nearest analogy I can find is the situation of persons who have recovered from some long and severe illness but are occasionally visited by twinges and light attacks, and even when they have gotten rid of these sequelae are disquieted by mistrust and take their pulse to a physician when they are perfectly well and think the worst when their body shows any trace of warmth. It is not that their health is not sound, Serenus, but that they are not used to sound health. 🙂
—Seneca, “On Tranquility”, translated by Moses Hadas.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by vistesdThe mountains are mountains again🙂 Some day I could trade Kotov, Suba, Grivas and Dvoretsky for Senecas but for the time being this bug has to train all the time;
Thanks, my old friend, but I do not think that I merit such recognition.
I think I am currently well-described by Seneca’s response to Serenus, which I was just reading:
“[T]he nearest analogy I can find is the situation of persons who have recovered from some long and severe illness but are occasionally visited by twinges and light attacks, and even w ...[text shortened]... are not used to sound health. 🙂
—Seneca, “On Tranquility”, translated by Moses Hadas.[/b]
By knowing the things that exist you know the things that they don't exist -and that' s fine with me too; how good to hear that you are currently well my old friend😵
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by vistesdIf I'm reading you correctly, reality is the territory, and the map is drawn by our perception of reality, and if reality precedes our perceptions, then "mapping" the territory is contingent on objective inputs.
Everything that we think about reality—every concept, thought, word, name, description, belief—is “map”. Reality precedes all that-or else we wouldn’t be thinking about reality with any of that, but just thinking about other thoughts and concepts, etc. The reality that precedes every thought-map about it is, metaphorically, the “territory”.
The terr ...[text shortened]... ons of the mind to rest in abeyance long enough to just observe/experience the territory itself.[/b]
We are aware of the existence of reality, but reality exists prior to, and independent of our perception of it. Therefore, the "map" of the "territory" is already drawn independent of and prior to our perception.
I am very much interested in your thoughts vistesd. I think you know what I'm driving at. My time these days is limited, which is why it is taking me so long to get back to this thread. I hope it doesn't get lost.