|
Post by enigma on Oct 24, 2017 17:22:34 GMT -5
I agree logic has boundaries and is not a source of truth. It really has no place in spirituality. However, logic isn't speculative philosophy. It's basis is practical experience and reason derived from that experience. Unfortunately, must of experience is not what it seems to be, so the logician is led astray. But I see you calling out and addressing flawful logic all the time. Relative falsity is a matter of degree, and .. well .. sometimes the fallacies in service of the spiritual malarkey can get pretty thick. I'd say correct logic has it's place in those times. It's unfortunate that sometimes I'm reduced to challenging flawful logic when even correct logic isn't appropriate in a given discussion. Sometimes we just have to play the hand we're dealt.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 24, 2017 17:25:35 GMT -5
I'm not parsing words. You described the whole discipline of logic as speculative philosophy, which tells me you don't understand the basis and function of logic regardless of what words you use to describe it. Your words tell me what you believe and what you realize and what you are confused about. They tell others the same, so be cautious. Alfred Hitch-c-o-c-k said (paraphrased): My films show the principle that emotions always supersede logic. And often distort our ability to use logic, in service to those emotions.
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Oct 24, 2017 18:19:28 GMT -5
One plus one equals two. One represents a woman. The other a man. So when you say a woman plus a man equals two. The answer may also be three. The woman is carrying in her womb a baby. That is how logic works. There's nothing logical about the conclusion that 1+1=3 people. Is that why you think logic fails? Flawful logic doesn't say anything about real logic. Real logic is an illusion to a non-dualist.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 25, 2017 4:52:05 GMT -5
But I see you calling out and addressing flawful logic all the time. Relative falsity is a matter of degree, and .. well .. sometimes the fallacies in service of the spiritual malarkey can get pretty thick. I'd say correct logic has it's place in those times. It's unfortunate that sometimes I'm reduced to challenging flawful logic when even correct logic isn't appropriate in a given discussion. Sometimes we just have to play the hand we're dealt. From what I can tell from the outside looking in, the Zen approach is to ignore logic altogether as a non-issue. From what I've read, the Hindu-Advaita Vedanta (AV)/guru culture takes an altogether different approach in explicitly requiring a phase where a candidate's mind is reconditioned into a materially ordered state. This division in that culture is in the context of AV as a numerically small subset of Hinduism with most of it centered on devotion to one or another God head. The different schools of devotional thought -- and here I include Christianity -- seem to me to differ widely on the topic of the rational mind. Some new-age influenced religious thinkers, in particular, seem to be revisiting that in these decades as a natural response to the cultural march into modernity and beyond. They approach it from a number of ways, including self-improvement or social altrusim or as a way to try to justify faith. In terms of these forum dialogs, I've found they can get to a place pretty quick were, as you imply, logic becomes counterproductive, but from my experience with that on this forum, peeps are at least as likely to just use that as a way to keep the tornado spinning as not.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 25, 2017 7:09:32 GMT -5
Alfred Hitch-c-o-c-k said (paraphrased): My films show the principle that emotions always supersede logic. And often distort our ability to use logic, in service to those emotions. Yes. There was a short segment on TCM (or elsewhere) about him, he said he liked to play (with) the audience expectations. Way back he did I think nine hours of interviews with Francois Truffaut (the French director) and they are coming out as a book, with photos.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 25, 2017 8:55:03 GMT -5
It's unfortunate that sometimes I'm reduced to challenging flawful logic when even correct logic isn't appropriate in a given discussion. Sometimes we just have to play the hand we're dealt. From what I can tell from the outside looking in, the Zen approach is to ignore logic altogether as a non-issue. From what I've read, the Hindu-Advaita Vedanta (AV)/guru culture takes an altogether different approach in explicitly requiring a phase where a candidate's mind is reconditioned into a materially ordered state. This division in that culture is in the context of AV as a numerically small subset of Hinduism with most of it centered on devotion to one or another God head. The different schools of devotional thought -- and here I include Christianity -- seem to me to differ widely on the topic of the rational mind. Some new-age influenced religious thinkers, in particular, seem to be revisiting that in these decades as a natural response to the cultural march into modernity and beyond. They approach it from a number of ways, including self-improvement or social altrusim or as a way to try to justify faith. In terms of these forum dialogs, I've found they can get to a place pretty quick were, as you imply, logic becomes counterproductive, but from my experience with that on this forum, peeps are at least as likely to just use that as a way to keep the tornado spinning as not. I agree that logic is a non-issue in Zen although it is often used as a tool to trigger realizations. Students are presented with logic contradictions and double binds as a way of pointing to the concrete reality of everyday experience that transcends meta-realistic thinking. The whole point is to get people out of their heads and awakened to the living truth. I don't see anything significantly different in the AV approach, although different teachers may use slightly different methods for helping people get free from the consensus trance. They all point in one way or another to the same transcendent unified living reality that underlies the static meta-realistic world created by attachment to conventional ideas, beliefs, and distinctions. I assume you mean that "devotion to one or another God head" refers to conventional Hinduism and not AV.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 25, 2017 16:38:44 GMT -5
Spiritual people need to negate logic so they can talk nonsense, though probably from within the spiritual trance it seems quite valid.
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Oct 25, 2017 18:52:05 GMT -5
Emptying the mind regularly with trash is a good mental exercise. So, whatever is in your mind you post it here. We get to read and see what they are. The mind becomes peaceful when you do unload the garbage that has accumulated in the mind. The mind is like a minefield where bombs hidden . All sorts of information which has the potentional to explode when stepped on. We need to walk carefully and slowly not to step on other's point of view. Everyone has a view of himself maybe that's special, pretty and wonderful. A forum which can't be without mind selfies. Click!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 25, 2017 22:05:30 GMT -5
There's nothing logical about the conclusion that 1+1=3 people. Is that why you think logic fails? Flawful logic doesn't say anything about real logic. Real logic is an illusion to a non-dualist. It sounds like it's an illusion to you, but I think that's because you don't understand it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 25, 2017 22:10:37 GMT -5
It's unfortunate that sometimes I'm reduced to challenging flawful logic when even correct logic isn't appropriate in a given discussion. Sometimes we just have to play the hand we're dealt. From what I can tell from the outside looking in, the Zen approach is to ignore logic altogether as a non-issue. From what I've read, the Hindu-Advaita Vedanta (AV)/guru culture takes an altogether different approach in explicitly requiring a phase where a candidate's mind is reconditioned into a materially ordered state. This division in that culture is in the context of AV as a numerically small subset of Hinduism with most of it centered on devotion to one or another God head. The different schools of devotional thought -- and here I include Christianity -- seem to me to differ widely on the topic of the rational mind. Some new-age influenced religious thinkers, in particular, seem to be revisiting that in these decades as a natural response to the cultural march into modernity and beyond. They approach it from a number of ways, including self-improvement or social altrusim or as a way to try to justify faith. In terms of these forum dialogs, I've found they can get to a place pretty quick were, as you imply, logic becomes counterproductive, but from my experience with that on this forum, peeps are at least as likely to just use that as a way to keep the tornado spinning as not. I'm finding out that the overuse of logic isn't an exclusively western phenomenon.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 25, 2017 22:13:41 GMT -5
Spiritual people need to negate logic so they can talk nonsense, though probably from within the spiritual trance it seems quite valid. Sounds logical.
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Oct 26, 2017 0:16:29 GMT -5
Real logic is an illusion to a non-dualist. It sounds like it's an illusion to you, but I think that's because you don't understand it. When I was taking the preparatory course, Med Tech, for proper medicine, there was a subject in the course entitled SEROLOGIC. It's a science that deals with the study of sera/serum. It's blood plasma devoid of the white and red blood cells. Logic tells us that antibodies present in the serum can be detected by using an antigen specific for that particular antibody/antibodies. Serology is the science that deals in the study and detection of communicable diseases say, Aids, Hepatitis, Venereal diseases. The logic of it is that if you introduce a foreign body into the blood of a non-immune patient. It will produce a disease equivalent to what that antigen does to the body e.g. Hiv, rabies virus. Logic has something to do with predicting outcomes. But if you get down of what logic or real logic is about, no one can explain how that two airplanes toppled the World Trade Center buildings on that fateful day of September 11, 2001. It defies logic, real or unreal why it happened. So many theories behind it. But if I tell how it was done, you will never believe me. The title of that program was " When does the day begin? " You want me to divulge the plan to you? Nah, never mind. You might say I am kidding. Nor does it makes sense/logic to you at all.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 26, 2017 5:47:30 GMT -5
Logic, ideas, and imagination are the coin of the realm for many purposes, but they're useless for resolving an existential question. The more one thinks about it, the farther one wanders from the truth.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 26, 2017 5:57:00 GMT -5
Spiritual people need to negate logic so they can talk nonsense, though probably from within the spiritual trance it seems quite valid. Sounds logical. You know my favorite lyric of all time is utterly senseless... It's koan-like in that sense, ironically. teehee.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 26, 2017 6:33:25 GMT -5
From what I can tell from the outside looking in, the Zen approach is to ignore logic altogether as a non-issue. From what I've read, the Hindu-Advaita Vedanta (AV)/guru culture takes an altogether different approach in explicitly requiring a phase where a candidate's mind is reconditioned into a materially ordered state. This division in that culture is in the context of AV as a numerically small subset of Hinduism with most of it centered on devotion to one or another God head. The different schools of devotional thought -- and here I include Christianity -- seem to me to differ widely on the topic of the rational mind. Some new-age influenced religious thinkers, in particular, seem to be revisiting that in these decades as a natural response to the cultural march into modernity and beyond. They approach it from a number of ways, including self-improvement or social altrusim or as a way to try to justify faith. In terms of these forum dialogs, I've found they can get to a place pretty quick were, as you imply, logic becomes counterproductive, but from my experience with that on this forum, peeps are at least as likely to just use that as a way to keep the tornado spinning as not. I agree that logic is a non-issue in Zen although it is often used as a tool to trigger realizations. Students are presented with logic contradictions and double binds as a way of pointing to the concrete reality of everyday experience that transcends meta-realistic thinking. The whole point is to get people out of their heads and awakened to the living truth. I don't see anything significantly different in the AV approach, although different teachers may use slightly different methods for helping people get free from the consensus trance. They all point in one way or another to the same transcendent unified living reality that underlies the static meta-realistic world created by attachment to conventional ideas, beliefs, and distinctions. I assume you mean that "devotion to one or another God head" refers to conventional Hinduism and not AV. Yes, that's what I meant. As I wrote here, it seems to me that the dichotomy between an "insight path" and a "devotional path" is just a useful way of distinguishing between appearances, and my guess is that most paths that have led and will lead to the truth could be described as a mix of not only those two, but other elements. The (casual) reading I did about AV that led me to my conclusion was this, in particular, what they call "the six virtues". I've read or viewed similar ideas about qualification of a candidate from other AV sources. In reading Shankara I'd guess they might cite his description of a disciple in the 2nd stanza of the first chapter of "A Thousand Teachings". He wasn't talking about just any old schmoe. Yes, I see the similarity with Zen in that ultimately Zen and AV require the seeker to abandon reason as a source of existential answers, but it does seem to me that Zen is more aggressive in this regard. Also, the guru system seems more personalized, so it makes sense that a given AV guru might decide to send a particular seeker away, while I suspect that's a less common resort for a Zen master.
|
|