From: sbuckley@fraser.sfu.ca (Stephen Buckley)
Subject: Re: absolute truth
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:40:18 GMT

bear@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Bear Giles) writes:
>>
>>>Stephen Buckley writes:

>>>bear writes:
>>>Secondly, I would not say that Zen and Taoism have a "disrespect [for]
>>>the quest for answers."  Taoism and Zen, as I understand them, both
>>>reject the _forms_ of the answers you seem to be seeking (but for different
>>>reasons), but they both highly value the search for appropriate answers
>>>(as long as you don't get carried away :-).
>>
>>  just to be clear, the form of answers i'm seeking is the rational,
>>intelligible form that i can intellectually [and in other ways]
>>comprehend in order to use in my life.  you can blame it on my western
>>mindset, but unintelligible, ineffible answers are meaningless to me
>>and make no difference in my life.  thus i discard taoism and zen as
>>philosophies that can aid in my life beyond neat pub discussions.

>You can't be much more rational (I would say hyperrational) than an
>undergraduate in physics and applied math.  Yet I was able to understand
>Alan Watt's books on Zen.

  so can i, but the only thing zen did for me after studying it is that
it erases my identity.  and if it's unenlightened to retain an identity,
so be it.  btw i also have degrees in literature, liberal arts and i'm 
studying education.

>'Intellectual' knowledge is not the only kind of knowledge.  It is an
>important form of knowledge which has gotten short shift in non-Western
>cultures, but a western 'rationalist' is not unlike a child who wants
>pizza for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

  i know, that is why i said "intellectually [and in other ways]".  

>>>Which brings us back to my point:  you (and others) are looking for
>>>_words_ to describe something which cannot be described in words.
>>
>>  and we can argue this for eons if you like, but it's an opinion, not
>>a fact that these kinds of things cannot be described in words.  many believe
>>they can't be, many believe they can.

>I believe you can get frequently get a 'key' in words, although true
>understanding requires quite a bit more.

 and i believe the universe is more intelligible than, say, the gnostics
would have us believe.  what good would truths be if they were ineffible
and secret.  pretty pathetic creation in that case.

>Here's two ideas from Robert Anton Wilson:

>1. For a week or more, never use any form of the verb 'to be.'  Nothing
>   _is_, nothing _will be_, nothing _was_.

>2. For a week or more, never use the word 'I' or cheats (e.g., "this
>   biological unit hungers" if you are trying both ideas at once).

>Of course, you could always try reading the entire _Illuminatus!_ trilogy
>one weekend.  (_Don't_ stop partway through the first book).  If that
>doesn't shake up the synapses...

  and i love wilson's fiction, but as a practical, relevant philosopher
for how to live my life, i'd rather listen to sally jesse raphael.  i've
read illuminatus and i loved it as a book.  but as per #2 above, i have
no intention of relinquishing my identity or the critical capacity that
helps me sift through the utter nonsense that fills up the how-to sections
of many bookstores and that clogs up the spiritual market-place with books
trying to convince people to be happy and not worry about anything.
set tirade=off :)  but the spiritual pablum on the market just disgusts
me to no end.