[MD] Three Hot Stoves

[John Carl]

Yo Dan,

Dan:
> We're approaching this from a Western prospective, of course. From my
> (admittedly limited) understanding, the original purpose of zen koans
> was to stop the monkeys chasing each other through the mind, that
> infernal internal discourse that never ever shuts up. In other words,
> there is no point in answering the question. It was never meant to be
> answered.
>

John:

I disagree.  A koan is that which must be answered, but can only be answered
by transcending the subject/object paradigm, so it's a question designed to
lift us out of our normal paradigm, according to my best understanding.

Admittedly, as something of an outsider, but I have quite a bit of reading -
mostly A. Watts - to back up my assertion.



>
> >
> > John:  "Dynamic awareness" must be an awareness of some sort of pattern
> or
> > concept, so I don't see how there can be any "emergence" from a
> pre-existing
> > awareness when it is exactly that awareness which defines patterns (or
> > concepts)
>
> Dan:
> Dynamic awareness is neither this nor that. Of course you cannot see
> it. It comes as a complete surprise.
>
>
>
> Dan:
> Experience is synonymous with Dynamic Quality. The defining of
> experience is synonymous with static quality.
>
>

John:

Well, I wonder about this, I really do.  For a great deal of my experience
is, at times, completely non-dynamic.  So how could DQ be synonomous with
such a static state of being?



>
> Dan:
> There is no patterning aspect to Dynamic Quality. Once that happens,
> it is gone.
>
>
John:

By "patterning" I mean what Pirsig analogized by the leading edge of the
train.  I guess, in a very pedantic way we could say that whenever you
mention the term "dynamic quality" you've killed it, but we do talk about
"that which patterns" and part of the utility of this metaphysical stance is
the ability to discuss the ineffable.



> > John:
> >
> > Well we're on the same page there too, Dan.  Except that I am a
> > philosopher.  A very simplistic and neophyte philosopher, but
> nevertheless
> > on a journey to explore "philos" and "sophia" - the wisdom of love.
>
> Dan:
>
> Oddly, I'm more a romantic. For philosophy is not wisdom of love... it
> is love of wisdom. Otherwise, we really would be on the same page.
>
>
John:

Philosophy is usually construed as you say, but I like upending the
formulation of philo-sophia to remind us that the reasons for caring are
ultimately rational.  It is wise, to love.



> > John:
> >
> > You found a tree in your experience, but that experience did not include
> the
> > falling of the tree, just the evidence of a tree on the ground. Usually
> > trees get on the ground by falling, but while it's improbable it is
> > conceivable that the tree was gently laid upon the ground by logging
> > helicopters.  What is the sound of a tree being laid on the ground by
> > helicopters?
>
> Dan:
>
> Context, John... it's all about context. They don't log here. The
> ground itself was indented by the fall. Other trees had been broken
> when this one fell. The branches of this tree were embedded deeply in
> the soil. And finally, the enormous root ball was still attached,
> ripped right out of the ground. We of course searched the hole for
> arrowheads and even found a couple broken ones.
>
> All that is beside the point though... I merely offered it as a
> humorous anecdote. I don't know if it made a noise when it fell. But
> if it didn't, there's never been a noise made in the history of the
> world.
>
>
John:

Well I'm sure you're right, but at the same time I do like to postulate the
thought experiments that illustrate the truths found in extreme skepticism.



> >John:
> > Thanks for the thought-experiments and happy Eclipsed solstice to you
> also,
>
> Dan:
> What thought experiments?
>
>
Mine!

Yours,

John