Illusive Mind: Zen - A Powerful Way of Looking at Reality

zenandtheartofdodgethis
Date Posted: May/10/2004 7:30 PM

I never like making new threads because I think it is a failure on my part to suitably integrate my point into the existing structure of ideas. However they serve a very useful purpose, I get to refer to an argument specifically.

So when someone asks me who I can be comfortable holding to logically contradictory points of view, I can refer them to the Logic is as valid as imagination thread and then they refer me to my doctor.

My personal philosophy of everything has evolved somewhat to the point where I no longer have a 'camp'! I used to be an Atheist and a materialist and an evolutionist, there is a whole camp of people willing to back you up and to whom you can refer to particular arguments. However now I have gone further down the branch I find I have to go through the whole structure of the argument just to get to a point, (something I found when discussing the idea of the soul with PFloyd.)

I think for the most part Benpadiah and I share a lot of ideas but as formidable ally as he is, two, a camp does not make! Perhaps I'll write a book about it, that's what good philosophers seem to do, but for now I'll outline some things and take a look at the criticisms.

Where I have branched out is in terms of my ‘relativist’ approach. I deny the existence of objective existence and refuse the ‘truth’ of all things. Even my own ideas. (This takes a thinking cap). This means the idea of no truth is not a truth in of itself, it is a possible interpretation. I adhere to it not because I think it is the truth but because I think it is the best way to relate to reality. So in adopting this philosophy one must start with attempting to generate a complete paradigm shift in how they think of ideas.

I’ve called the thread Zen, for two reasons. One because I’m egotistical so I thought I’d slap my name on it. Two, I know something about Zen, but I am using the word in the way I want to use it, as a way of describing important parts of my philosophy as oppose to its original meaning in regards to its Eastern roots.

I’ve just had a thought. The whole idea of this thread is very egotistical and I think I would much rather put my ideas into a structured thesis than attempt to interject them in here. I’m making it far too easy for people, if you want to see how I think then just read my posts, I’m just another user on here, they are not any more important than anyone else’s.

So instead why don’t I use this thread for a useful discussion (rather than a soapbox) on Zen, what people think it is, what people think it isn’t. And no I will not accept pictures or hand gestures as appropriate answers and all paradoxes, conundrums and Koans will be kept to a minimum.

So, what is Zen?

FoXDie:

I got your back broham.

Well...I'm not entirely familiar with the denotations of Zen, but I can try and express my connotations of it.

Zen is a mind set, a way of thinking, a way to live, and a guide. Zen isn't a religion, it doesn't tell you what Gods to believe in etc (I don't think lol). What I've come to know zen as is an unclouded state of mind. It is a means to view the world as it is, not as others do. Zen attempts to open the mind by exposing the unrealities, the unknowns, and the unimagined of the world. It casts away the boundaries of human thought, and human science, and human doubt in an attempt to enhance, and enlighten the mind. Zen is helpful in this sense, but it also helps to calm the spirit. Zen is harmony. Harmony with life, with nature, with everyone and everything. It is the eternal balance of the universe. Zen is the key to life, but your self is the key to zen.

Am I close?

neomaul

Zen is what Phil Jackson preaches all da freaking time.........

benpadiah

I would rather talk about your personal philosophy zen.

This could be YOUR untitled thread!

That's what I would like.

-ben

zenandtheartofdodgethis
Date Posted: May/12/2004 7:33 PM

Point taken Ben,

I'm reluctant to, but so what, doesn't matter does it.

OK, so my whole system of thought which I have arrived to from nineteen short years of life begins (and possibly ends) with a single maxim.

There is no truth, perhaps.
That's the ironic version, the more grammatical version:

Perhaps, there is no truth

If someone could translate this into Latin for me that'd be great, I'll put it up on my wall. So before I continue, I'd like to see what people think of this simple statement.

Note: Truth can be replaced with 'absolutes' to avoid confusion.

zenandtheartofdodgethis
Date Posted: May/13/2004 6:28 PM

Perhaps, there is no truth

What would it mean to deny this statement? Well, I suggest that it would demand a narrow or 'close' minded attitude to the nature of philosophical inquiry.

For to understand this philosophy a particular approach to philosophy is requested if not required.

To deny the statement would be to claim that it is not possible that there is no truth, or absolutes. Now I'm merely talking about logical possibility not physical possibility, so to deny this claim is to suggest that it makes no sense to suppose that it is possible there is not an objective truth.

So to accept this statement is to accept that something else is possible. It is to embrace an open mindedness that means putting ones beliefs or prejudices or pre-conceived conceptions to one side and opening up to the possibility of other views.

The consequences of starting with such an idea is that this philosophy does not claim to be 'the' or indeed even 'a' truth. It starts with the declaration that perhaps there is no truth and if that is true then what can we think about the world and our relationship to it.

benpadiah
it cannot be true that there is no truth.

if there were even one truth, then this statement would be false.

it cannot be true that there is a truth.

if there were even one truth, then this statement would be false.

therefore, BOTH the first statement AND its opposite... ARE TRUE.

and, by their internal criteria, therefore NEITHER statement is true.

here is an example of the greatest common denominator of truth, and the lowest common denominator of logic:

the following statement is true.
the preceding stement is false.

or, to put it more simply...

this statement is false.

the first was an example of a two step impossible loop.
the second, an example of a one step impossible loop.

do you feel dizzy yet?

you should.

It will help you to comprehend what I am about to say next.

The One Step Impossible Loop Is At The Root Or Font Of All Consciousness.

I am me.

Impossible...

if you know yourself as "me" then you are seeing yourself (the me) from a position outside of that self (from the position of the I).

if you know yourself as "I" then you are seeing yourself (the I) from a position outside of that self (from the position of the me).

"You" are either "I" or "me"

A=A + B=B = A B

BUT!

A :. A + B :. B = A B

"You" are Neither "I" nor "me"

how is this true?

simple.

I "may be" me... but you may "not be."

silly?

then you haven't thought it about it enough.

zen here has... and he can help explain.

As for me...?

I'm off to smoke a cigarette.

-ben

zenandtheartofdodgethis
Date Posted: May/17/2004 6:50 PM

What is required to understand this proposition is to abandon the classical binary logic assumption that for any proposition it is either true or false.

This seems intuitively accurate; however consider the case of the unproved theorem.

I have just written a new theorem x, it attempts to show the relationship between the orbit of the earth and the processes of the brain.

Now is proposition x, true or false? Well it is unproved, so we don’t yet know, so within this system of logic one is forced either to presume all unknown statements true until shown to be false or false until shown to be true.

But then what do we mean when we say that something is true? Supposing that theorem x is accepted we could regard it as ‘true’ yet information might be found at some point in time which renders it false. Thus the value of truth is a fluid one, things are true for the moment.

When we regard something as true what we are in fact suggesting is that is ‘fits’. That it compliments our other information. Consider that the vast majority of so-called ‘truths’ are completely subjective in that it is entirely dependent on the content of the other information we are seeking to complement . So it is true that the sun rises in the east if we are talking from the point of having a direction of east and west and having above and below and having these rise and fall. If we are aboard the international space station orbiting the earth however the statement, “The sun rises in the east” ceases to be true.

The class of truths that are self-evident, are tautologies, that is true by definition. “All bachelors are single”. For these truths the information that is being complemented is contained within the truth itself.

We may regard the surrounding information as the context. Propositions may be considered true or false by virtue of their context. When the context is insufficient (as is the case with Theorem x) the truth value of the proposition may be regarded as unknown.

Consider the statement,
This statement is neither true or false
It is true, but if it’s true then it’s false.
What does this prove? That the context of logical semantics helps little. (Sorry Ben!)

Some might be tempted to salvage the objective status of truth by suggesting that truth can be found by choosing the ‘right’ context. However rightness like truthness only exists in a context. So one could give a good argument why choosing the American context when viewing the ‘rightness’ of a war, however they would then to argue why the context for their argument for the context was right, ad infinitum.

So when thinking of the world in terms of true and false, right and wrong (something I think is natural to human beings) we are inescapably limited by whatever context we happen to be in. For that is the design of context, it is a limitation, it limits meaning.

Consider this passage:

"Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”

--Act 5, Scene 5, Lines 19-28: Macbeth to himself
One of my favourite literary passages. How do we make sense of this passage? What do these strange symbols on the page mean? Well we need context, the first context we need is the context of the English language. If we attempt to view this piece from the context of the Japanese language we wouldn’t be able to make sense of anything.

So with this context we can understand what tomorrow means we can understand what day means. So we know what the words mean, but can we understand what the author means? No, we need another context, I can choose anyone that I want, I can make the candle mean a nuclear weapon, I can make mean the poor player a literally poor actor or I can make the whole passage as a metaphor for life.

Now most people would think that the first context is less correct (or true) than the second and certainly the third. But of course in getting trapped by our true/false dichotomy we are within a context. We could be thinking within the context of Shakespeare being from a certain period and being the greatest playwright who ever lived. Within this context we may think that he could not have possibly been talking about nuclear weapons and that being a great playwright it is probably a metaphor for life.

So what we realise is that we cannot make sense of anything without adding contexts to them and that none of these contexts are inherently true. There is just what fits for the moment and what doesn’t.

So, it must be simple then we simply need to get the context that fits the best and we’ll be fine. But that doesn’t seem to work, both Creationists and Evolutionists think their theories fit the best. That is because in deciding what fits you are in yup, you guessed it another context.

What you may now be aware of is that the human act of context making is a system that is developed in order to make sense of the world, it is a formal distinction system designed to simplify and (paradoxically) abstract existence so it can be conceptualized by the human brain.

To emphasise how deep seated this process is, we must consider some of the first contexts that are created in the first years of childhood development. We learn that the thing with horns and brown spots is a cow, and that a cow is different from a horse and different from a house. We learn that this shade is called black and this is white, we learn that this is a thing that is wood and it is different from cotton.

What we are learning is the context of reality. The fundamental system we have developed to interact with the world a formal distinction system. Over the centuries of human existence we have advanced our distinctions by continuing to distinguish this from that, this is ironic that is satire…

What are we actually learning as children? Yup, you guessed it, language. This is the human invention that allowed us to relate to reality in a way that we can make deductions, conclusions and rationalise. You can see that language is not just about words, it is the fundamental human context. It transcends words, it is comparable to the machine code programming of a computer. It is inescapable.

Go outside and look at the world, and try with all your might to do so without language, without the context of language and all the others added upon it. Look at a tree without thinking of it as a tree, without thinking of it as something which is different from that. This leads to the practice of Zen meditation, but I will return to that in another post.

If we attempt to remove all context, we find, nothing. Thus there is no truth but what we make for ourselves. It all exists within the contexts we design. Even this entire post is true only by virtue of the context I have given it and perhaps false to you dear reader by virtue of the context in which you are reading it.

Thus it follows not that there is no truth, but perhaps there is no truth. It is in fact unknowable because the absence of any context is insufficient to determine a truth value.

So what do I know? perhaps nothing.
What does it all mean? perhaps nothing. Perhaps it is a tale
told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

-Zen

benpadiah

wow, dude.

WOW.

Now, THAT is what I call philosophy!

zenandtheartofdodgethis
Date Posted: May/17/2004 7:52 PM

lol,

The consequences of such a thought extend far and wide, including but not limited to placing ourselves as the author of our universe. That is we can take responsibility for the meanings we create by the contexts we add in our lives.

This does not mean pretedning the car isn't going to run over me. It means when you say "My mother is an ass-hole" you realise that is a meaning you have created and you alone are responsible for. It is actually the context you have given your mother and consequently the only things that will appear in your reality are those actions which 'fit' those that prove to you that she is in fact an ass-hole. And so we live as victims of our own meanings.

Especially perhaps the most common context we create for ourselves "I'm not good enough".

zenandtheartofdodgethis
Date Posted: May/17/2004 8:32 PM

But that is the essence of Zen's (my, and yet I do not own it!) philosophy. The consequences of such a paradigm are as I said far reaching and I think particularly wonderful.

What has this got to do with Zen Buddhism?
Hmmmm.

I was first introduced to Zen by my Sensei, I had just joined the class and he asked one of the student's "What's Zen?" He replied by clapping his hands on the floor, he asked another and he replied by pointing into space, another responded by shrugging his shoulders. ALl these responses were of course met by great laughter and I presumed that it must've been some form of in joke.

I asked my older brother for help on the matter and he told me that once you start to explain zen you have missed it. Now that I have come to understand Zen I agree and yet as a word it refers to some distinction made, how can it be understood, and why is it unexplainable?

Well it is traditionally supposed that Zen can only be understood through Zazen a form of meditation designed to direct the practiioner into a fundemental insight into the character of reality. A reality without words. In my studies though I found this near impossible and I think the study of Zen need not nearly be this hard and I attribute this attitude to traditional Japanese secretiveness (though the history of Zen comes from China and India).

A special transmission outside the scriptures;
No dependence on words and letters;
Direct pointing to the mind of man;
Seeing into one's nature and attaining Buddhahood.
Bodhidharma

Perhaps you are starting to see the connection?

“Zen stresses the importance of the enlightenment experience and the futility of rational thought, intellectual study and religious ritual in attaining this; a central element of Zen is zazen, a meditative practice which seeks to free the mind of all thought and conceptualization.”

One way of looking at it is the act of removing context. Seeing the world through the mind free from the thoughts that cloud it.

The special transmission of Zen is the realization of the Buddha's enlightenment itself, in one's own life, in one's own time. This experience has been realized by Zen students and confirmed by their teachers for over 2500 years.

Central and indispensable to Zen is daily Zazen practice. It is this practice that is the "direct pointing to the mind of man." Zazen melts away the mind-forged distances that separate man from himself; leads one beyond himself as knower, to himself as known. In Zazen, there is no reality outside what exists here and now. Each moment, each act is inherently Buddha-nature. While sorrow and joy, anxiety and imperturbability cannot be avoided, by not clinging to them we find ourselves free of them, no longer pulled this way and that. With this self-mastery comes composure and tranquility of mind, but these are by-products of Zazen rather than its goals.

Zazen is a Japanese term consisting of two characters: za, "to sit (cross-legged)," and zen, from the Sanscrit dhyana, meaning at once concentration, dynamic stillness, and contemplation. The means toward the realization of one's original nature as well as the realization itself, Zazen is both something one does - sitting cross-legged, with proper posture and correct breathing - and something one essentially is. To emphasize one aspect at the expense of the other is to misunderstand this subtle and profound practice.

In ordinary experience, being and doing are separated: what one does is cut off from what one is, and conversely. Such separation leads inevitably to the condition of self-alienation. Particularly in this century, this condition has become acute. With time and sincere effort in Zazen practice, mind and body, inside and outside, self and other are experienced as one. This condition of effortless concentration, is known as Samadhi.

In the clarity of Samadhi-liveliness, dissatisfaction and the sense of the meaningless of modern life vanish. No longer searching for answers externally, the student journeys within to reach the moving spirit of the Buddha - his own Self-Nature.

Through devotion and persistence, the aims of Zazen practice are eventually realized. The first is Enlightenment. With this experience, Samadhi is fulfilled; mind and body, the self and the universe are seen to have been one reality from the beginning. The second and more difficult aim is the actualization of the Bodhisattva (Enlightened Being) ideal. This spirit of love and compassion for all beings is developed through continual spiritual purification, the cultivation of a deep sense of responsibility, and most importantly, through self-discipline. As one's practice ripens, one becomes more alive, more creative; filled with the longing to actualize the Bodhisattva spirit in every moment and every aspect of daily life.

Dai Bosatsu Zendo Kongo-ji
Livingston Manor, NY

I care not for the religious underpinnings but there is really something to be valued here in this practice. The practice of Zen is ultimately and internal journey. This is so because in the search for reality we find that it exists entirely within ourselves and as such to know reality one must yup, know thyself. It is by doing this that one cannot transcend the apparent upsets that we fill our lives with.

“Everybody says, "I" -- "I want this, I am like that..." But nobody understands this "I." Before you were born, where did your I come from? When you die, where will your I go? If you sincerely ask, "what am I?" sooner or later you will run into a wall where all thinking is cut off. We call this "don't know.

Zen is keeping this "don't know" mind always and everywhere.”
Exactly, the context is insufficient to yield a truth value, it is unknown!

If you want to be free and happy in your life then I recommend the study of Zen. We have just practiced some Zen meditation believe it or not, one form is structured inquiry, Plato was quite good at this.

If you understand this, then I ask you to share your insights with as many people as you can. The world asks it of you to shed its suffering.

“So Buddha said that all beings have Buddha-nature (enlightenment nature). But Zen Master Joju said that a dog has no Buddha-nature. Which one is right? Which one is wrong? If you find that, you find the true way.”

Hahahaha

-Zen

zenandtheartofdodgethis
Date Posted: May/18/2004 11:19 PM

Rotting_Maggotry (What a delicious name that is!) has posed the question: "Is relativism logical or illogical?"

As perhaps with all questions in life the answer depends on how the question is defined. Which thesis of relativism are you judging? The predominant areas are moral relativism, aesthetic relativism and cognitive relativism. It is my opinion that all forms of relativism stem from the thesis of cognitive relativism, that is the relative nature of truth. And which theses of cognitive relativism would you like to test? They are framed in various ways.

One you suggested was that, "Everything is relative to the individual" another is "All points of view are equally valid".
Another is "All truth is relative", another is "There are no absolute truths". etc.

The logical danger here is that each premise is self-destructive. That is, if the truth value of a thing is relative then the truth value of the premise is also relative. Unless one suggests "Everything is relative except relativism" but that seems to be grasping for straws.

Are these views illogical? Well that depends one which system of logic one subscribes. The flavour of logic we tend to adopt is classical logic and on this basis these theses are illogical by virtue of their self-contradictory nature.

Surely this means then, that relativism is thus wrong, and should be done away with?

Unless of course the theses of relativism describes its relationship to truth in a way that it itself was not postulated as a truth.
Enter, Perhaps, there is no truth

This thesis claims neither to be true or false because if it is true that perhaps there is no truth, it is equally true that perhaps there is truth. As I've said, what is required to appreciate this statement is to regard it not within the confines of classical logic, in which Ben has attempted to show it makes little sense, but it can be viewed from an intuitionistic perspective in which the truth value of a proposition can be unknown.

This view of cognitive relativism ceases to be a paradoxical absolutist umbrella attempting to explain everything within it. Instead it becomes a pair of spectacles that can be used to view the world in a particular way, just like the myriad of other spectacles that are available to the philosopher.

Of course once the philosopher becomes aware that he is using spectacles, the perception of relativism fits the world quite well (imo).

What relativism denies is that perhaps any pair of spectacles is better than any other. (including the relativist ones themselves.)

Is relativism logical? Well it depends doesn't it...
lol, it depends on the context you use to attach various meanings to each of the words.

I do think that the perhaps, there is no truth version of relativism within classical logic is illogical. Does this mean it should be rejected? If you think it does then it means you think the legitimacy of classical logic (a context) is absolute and anything that does not work within that system should be rejected as nonsense. I would ask how you justify such a position?

To adopt the thesis of relativism is to relate to knowledge in an entirely different way. A relativist may argue not over which proposition is true or false but which context elicits a more powerful perspective. And the measure of power is given by how much that particular context is able to capture.

From this perspective I think it is clear that cognitive relativism is a powerful context indeed.

-Zen

sonOFseraph

wow...u should right a book, man

Meshiak

"I do think that the perhaps, there is no truth version of relativism within classical logic is illogical. Does this mean it should be rejected? If you think it does then it means you think the legitimacy of classical logic (a context) is absolute and anything that does not work within that system should be rejected as nonsense. I would ask how you justify such a position?"

If I understand your statement correctly, a miracle (say for instance, GOD being Triune) could not exist in classical logic, and as such, should be rejected because it would require faith? How would we know GOD is Triune, unless he Himself had revealed it?

Just sharing some thoughts here...
The following questions in this (logical progression of thought) zenandtheartofdodgethis
Date Posted: May/22/2004 1:33 AM

I’m not sure, the miracle of the triune God is not illogical in the manner I have described because it is a proposition that is believed to have a truth value. However whether matters of faith are by there nature illogical (classically) is up for debate, perhaps you’d like to pose it in another thread it is a good question.

What is Truth, what is Faith, What is Love? Doesn't these statements, the question itself, necessitate an object, when we ask the question? Within the context of Logic, to my current understanding, yes.
Well these are simply questions not propositions. If you mean by an object something which is tangible then I’d disagree, it is not illogical to refer to concepts, for logic itself is as intangible as it comes!

In John chapter 14 Jesus says to Thomas, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me."
What question does Thomas ask Jesus to illicit such a response? What is the context of the question? In what context does Jesus say this?

Thomas said “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?" and Jesus answered “I am the way”. Not very helpful for Thomas I might suggest!

You might be pleased to know Meshiak that cognitive relativism is not contradictory to faith. All it means is that truth only exists within the contexts we create and choose, and you choose the context of God and Jesus. A noble one when it produces a channel for people to express their love for their fellow persons.

benpadiah

How much authority does God have over cyberspace?

It is a wholly man-made universe... shouldn't we be able to use it to escape the guilt heaped on us by all the hypocritical and fallaciious religions?

but then, where can we draw THAT line, between vicarious catharsis for sublimation, and training on video games for the eventual coming of the New World Order?

Perhaps we will eventually have a collection fo G-rated AS WELL as X-rated video games to appeal at once to both mankind's instinctual, carnal nature, and his divine aspirations toward realising the ideals of Mickey Mouse.

Then again, as I tried to warn you, I am quite drunk, and talking out of my rearend.

Here's something else that's interesting to me:

there is a dog barking in the yard behind my mom's backyard. Every time I go out for a cigarette I have to listen to this Cujo freaking out at the top of his little cuddly puppy dogg lungs. WTF?? Why is he freaking out??

I am inclined to believe it has something to do with me, though, as zen pointed out in regards to the Reloaded cat, this would only be a self-indulgent aspiration towards borderline schizophrenic hallucination, and what greater good, if any does doing such serve?

I admit this is a rhettorical question (at least!) because I am ready to admit that I have my own opinions on the matter.

but anyway, I just got an email from sunnyday, so I'm gonna leave for now.

-ben

zenandtheartofdodgethis
Date Posted: May/24/2004 3:27 AM

You have raised an interesting question Ben. Well I choose to interpret as such at least.

Why?

The question of why? It nags and nags at us doesn’t it? Or does it?

Does Fortasse Veritam Non Est have an answer?

Well it’s answer would be that the answer to why is determined by the context afforded to it. That is, why can be answered should the information that is plotted into the equation is properly restricted.

This means if all we have to go on is that there is a dog and when Ben isn’t near it, it doesn’t bark and when he is it does then the answer that he is the cause of its barking seems sufficient. But as the seekers of wisdom that we are, we would not be entirely thrilled with such a response would we? We want the real why. The why that takes into account the psychological brain patterns of the canine, the effects of surrounding environment, the effects of the gravitational pull of a full moon etc.

We want the why, without the restricted information. We want, the why to life. But without the restriction, without the context there can be no answer. The formulation of one requires us to filter some information over others, to gauge importance to approach the subject from certain perspectives. Context. So we are back to creating our own whys.

The why without context is an unknown, in fact from the context of relativism it is unknowable. All we can endeavour to do is to gather more and more information to increase the scope of our contexts, but the search for the ‘truth’ will only lead to frustration unless one is happy to accept a particular context (eg. religion or science).

Meshiak

"All it means is that truth only exists within the contexts we create and choose"

Sharing more thoughts here...

So if "we" (I think you mean we as in human beings) created or chose the context, does this "make" something exist as "Truth?" Within the context of your the original proposition, you already came to the conclusion, Perhaps, right?

What is the definition of cognition? What is the definition of relativism?

What is the (notice I did not say, my or your) definition of Truth? Why would we attempt to define it (that is, truth) at all, unless we are seeking it? Within the context of philosophy, is this question unknowable and unanswerable?

Wouldn't the proposition "truth only exists within the contexts we create and choose" negate itself, because if we (as individuals) create and choose "it", (that is, only in what context we ourselves create and choose to define our own truth) the context with which we attempt to define truth Itself would be relative to how we create or choose to define truth, so it could not be real Truth as we define it, could it? *does this even make sense?

Would the real question here be, Is there objective truth? A truth that exists independently but with and including ourselves (that is, we as human beings), or the contexts we could choose or create? Could "philosophy" ever provide the answer to the question, if there was one?

zenandtheartofdodgethis
Date Posted: May/25/2004 9:56 PM

Sure with properly restricted contexts we can come up with all sorts of truths, logic and mathematics are great examples of this.

What is the definition of cognition? What is the definition of relativism?

One must be careful when using the indefinite article "the" for it can assume an cross-context objectivity that may not be accurate. Especially concerning definitions, words are the most relative objects we have, their power lies in people's ability to agree with each other on their meaning. Oxford would like to think that they dictate the meanings of words but the power belongs to the people!

But to quote dictionary.com

Cognition:

1. The mental process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.

2. That which comes to be known, as through perception, reasoning, or intuition; knowledge.

Relativism:

A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

What is the (notice I did not say, my or your) definition of Truth?

truth:
1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.

5. Reality; actuality.
often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.

I would suggest that truth is that which is accepted as true. You did use capital T truth though, so are you asking about the supposed supreme actuality? The contextless absolute?

Why would we attempt to define it (that is, truth) at all, unless we are seeking it?

This sounds a little like the Atheists can't talk about God because they suppose God doesn't exist argument. What must be remembered is that in these words there are two things, there is the concept of the thing the words refers to and the object in reality the word points to. So in denying that x exists I am asserting two things, one that the concept of x exists because if it didn't I refer to it and two that the object that x points to doesn't exist thus making the concept are pretty lousy one.

So truth, as dictionary.com shows us refers to a host of things which Cognitive Relatvisim would deny. I understand what the word means but this does not mean I seek it.

A little. I think it is important for one not to overestimate the relativness of experiences. Human beings share quite a bit in common by virtue of being human. So if I see a wall of me but my friend sees a floating black hole, there is reason to be alarmed at the discrepancy between our views.

Perhaps my phrasing might've been etter if I put it like this, rather than "Truth" exists within the contexts we create and choose, truths exist within the contexts we create and choose. Yes the nature of those truth will be relative because of our own conception of truth, but probably not to a large degree.

To refute the statement means that truth can never exist. It means that it is not true that 2 plus 2 equals 4, because it is relative. To make such a distinction I think would be a mistake, it leaves us unable to powerfully relate to the world.

Fortasse, Veritam non est. Perhaps there is no truth. This also allows the possibility of there existing a truth. So yes it could be that there is an independent truth. However when viewig truth through the paradigm of cognitive relativism, the possibility of such a truth does not dissapear but the possibility of ascertaining one does.

Why? Because for the moment it is unknowable. We are hardwired to context, to know that which is without context, is to know that which is beyond language. It might exist but who could know? An what sense is there in searching for such a thing?

Meshiak

Hey Zen, I wrote a response originally but my computer kind of messed up on me when I was going to post it.
Anyway, just sharing some thoughts here after thinking about this. Honestly, after kicking this around for a couple of days, I chose the last part of your response because I thought it was kind of a summation of the ideas you were presenting. Wouldn’t want to take it out of context though, so feel free to “beat me down” (ß figure of speech) if necessary.

I agree with the latter part of your statement in a couple different ways, and I’ll just leave it at that.

However, defining truth as “that which is accepted as true,” and applying it to your proposition Fortasse, Veritam non est, truths would then be relegated to not only popular opinion, but cultural, ethical, and societal norms. I found it interesting when you yourself said “there is reason” in the statement “So if I see a wall of me but my friend sees a floating black hole, there is reason to be alarmed at the discrepancy between our views.”

I mean, there are such things as rules of mathematics, logic, and grammar, right? How could we understand language, mathematics, or logic at all if not for these rules? Is that what you’re trying to say by using the word “contexts?”

As you have pointed out with such concepts as logic, mathematics, this cannot always be the case. We as human beings, apply the rules (contexts?) of language, as tools to understand and communicate these concepts with and to each other. The language itself (English for example) may be relative bringing into consideration societal and cultural factors, but the rules used when communicating these concepts aright themselves cannot be if we are to “powerfully relate to the world” as you put it.

In my un-collegiate schooled estimation, you’re really getting into “interpretation principles,” and specifically hermeneutics when discussing written and spoken words, and viewing interpretation principles within the paradigm of cognitive relativism leads you to some of the following possibilities, none of which in my view hold any real weight.

A. These principles simply could not exist, because they would be open to personal interpretation.

B. If they did exist, communication itself might never be possible because we as human beings couldn’t ascertain the fundamental interpretive principles of communication at all, as they would be relative, and that is simply not the case. We know how to communicate from the time we are born, crying being a fantastic example of this in any language (unless it’s 3 am and you have to get a bottle warm or change a diaper!)

Peace my friend, hopefully our discourse and dialogue can continue, I do enjoy it

zenandtheartofdodgethis
Date Posted: Jun/15/2004 11:25 PM

However, defining truth as “that which is accepted as true,” and applying it to your proposition Fortasse, Veritam non est, truths would then be relegated to not only popular opinion, but cultural, ethical, and societal norms.
I would propose that cultural, ethical and societal norms are ‘norms’ because they are agreed to by popular opinion. Truth like any other word only has meaning that it is has been agreed to grant it.

I mean, there are such things as rules of mathematics, logic, and grammar, right? How could we understand language, mathematics, or logic at all if not for these rules?
It is possible that I could interpret some form of meaning from a mathematical equation without any awareness of any of the rules of mathematics. The consequence of this is that many people would arrive at very different interpretations. That is why the ‘rules’ were created, in order to restrict the freedom of interpretation. Who created the rules? We did of course. Human Beings. We developed these things as systems to understand the world. It is laughable then that people should suppose that the universe exists within the borders of our own making. But to look at it another way, with these borders we create the edges of our realities, restricting ourselves from seeing beyond them.

Is that what you’re trying to say by using the word “contexts?”
One level of context is the level of logic and grammar, that is perhaps one of the broadest levels, but it goes beyond that. Language is far more personal than that, we attribute meanings to language not just from grammatical construction but from our personal experiences. So when you think and use the word ‘love’, you need context to make the word meaningful. One context is the dictionary/grammatical, but more importantly is the context of your own experiences of love, that is what will be most prominent in your understanding of the concept.

In my un-collegiate schooled estimation, you’re really getting into “interpretation principles,” and specifically hermeneutics when discussing written and spoken words,

Yes, a great deal of this may be regarded as hermeneutics, but more importantly is the consequences of some basic estimations about language and how they can impact how we relate to reality. If for example, we relate to all misunderstandings as a conflict of context then we can eliminate the plethora of other meanings we attach and remove the upsets that follow.

These principles simply could not exist, because they would be open to personal interpretation. I’mnot sure which principles you are referring to, but everything is subject to a personal interpretation of some kind, to what extent we allow ourselves run with our own meanings is another matter.

If they did exist, communication itself might never be possible because we as human beings couldn’t ascertain the fundamental interpretive principles of communication at all as they would be relative
I’m sure at the beginnings of evolution (note necessary to actually believe in evolution to follow the thought experiment) we encountered this difficulty of creating our own methods of communication and wanting others to follow them, however we would have found that, that method is very inefficient and as such agreed to certain rules, certain syntax so that we could communicate to one another. Does that mean that these principles of language are absolutes and therefore relativism is incorrect. No, they are in effect not because they exist absolutely but because they are agreed to relatively. Evidence of this is found in the fact that different cultures have agreed to different syntax.

We know how to communicate from the time we are born, crying being a fantastic example of this in any language I would suggest that language is in fact learned. It is doubtful wether the crying baby is crying because it knows it is communicating its intentions to the outside world or wether it is acting on a unconscious instinct, a language hand me down from our evolutionary heritage…

Labels: archives, philosophy

About Me

Previous Posts

Zen - A Powerful Way of Looking at Reality

0 Comments: