> I think that a lot of debate gets MORE useful when you let go of arguing one
> pole of an argument (wish I could practise what I preach here...).
> ESPECIALLY when one pole is "X is Good" and the other is "X is Bad".
I think this a charateristic of agruments right to the core. In order
to argue, you have to adopt a reasonably, justifiable position and that
inevidably means one of the extremes. Is it possibly that this is a
product of the duality of /reason/ itself? (ie (A or NOT-A) A
propostion is either true or false)
> ...Which is where I was coming from. Anyway, I thought you LIKED the idea
> of Zen? :)
Zen is great, yes! I'm just saying that it's impossible to actually
/learn/ anything under Zen, because by definition learning is
categorizing into boxes, seperating the truth from the false, etc. etc.
All this is anti-thesis to Zen, which maintains that there /are/ no
dualities. If one wishes to learn something, it is /necessary/ to
maintain them.
> Robin wrote:
> >You're right in that I don't think any action is intrinsically
> >good or bad. But that doesn't mean the concepts aren't
> >useful. It's like, there's really no such thing as a meme
> >"out there", but the concept is amazingly useful.
>
> But not always THE MOST useful...
Now this I can agree with. We must use reason and categorization in
order to make /use/ of this world. But it implies an inherent
seperation of _subject_ and _object_ (ie this is me; that is the world)
It is this duality, more than any other, that Zen attempts to dissolve.
ERiC
A sobering thought: what if, at this very moment, I am living up to my
full potential? -- Jane Wagner