[MD] Three Hot Stoves

[John Carl]

Happy New Year Dan,

>
> Dan:
> Well, you got me there... I have no reading to back up my assertion. I
> never read about zen, or write about it for that matter. I have seen
> for myself, though... for what it's worth.
>
>
John:

Seen "it".  Hmm.  What an interesting sight that must have been!



> > 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:
>
> By definition, of course. You're defining experience right now. And
> you take that for experience. Dynamic Quality is always here but we
> cover it up, cloth it in thought, define it. And when someone comes
> along and tells us there's more, we wonder about it. We really do.
>
>
John:

But of course this always more.  This is also, "by definition".  Our piece
of the puzzle is only part of the story, always.

What seems interesting to us, is that part of puzzle which matches what we
have, but is more than we've got.  What doesn't interest us are the pieces
we already possess or the parts that don't seem to fit.





> > 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.
>
> Dan:
>
> Perhaps, it is the difference between experience and reading about
> experience. Don't get me wrong... I am a big reader. Comes a time
> though when reading doesn't do it. It is hard climbing mountains while
> lugging a library along. Or so I've found...
>
>

John:

Dan, have you ever seen the movie "The Razor's Edge"?  It was Bill Murray's
first foray into serious acting, and sorta interesting along those lines,
but even moreso does it illustrate perfectly the difference between climbing
mountains and reading books.  There's one scene that is so powerfully
moving.  The amazing thing to me was that scene wasn't in the book.  It was
one of those rare times when a movie took an idea from a book and improved
upon it.  A rarity indeed!

It's also full of what I'd term "Chicago Buddhism" and I highly recommend it
to one and all.  Quote from the movie:  "MY GOD man, you mean you've never
read the Upanishads??!!"  Spoken in a thick north england accent, one dirty
coal  miner to another.


> > 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.
>
> Dan:
> How so? The heart desires love. But it isn't rational.
>
>
John:

And here I could argue for hours.  There is nothing more rational than
love.  There is nothing more logical than caring.  The entire MoQ hinges
upon this one point.  The Wisdom of Love as opposed to the Love of Wisdom.


>
> Dan:
> Sure, thought experiments are fine as long as they don't drift into
> the nonsensical.
>
>
John:

I find the line between sense and nonsense to be highly adjustable.  It
really depends upon whom one is communicating with.  One man's trash is
another man's treasure.


>
> Dan:
> I'm sorry John. I think it is nonsense, not thought experiements at
> all. Like I said, you're missing the whole point of the hot stove
> analogy, which is a shame.
>
>

John:

Well, I disagree, obviously.  The point of a hot stove thought experiment is
to understand our relationship with direct reality.  That's about as far
from "nonsense" as I can imagine.  That our reality is formed by our past,
more than our present is my point in essence, and that those who are
incapable of forgetting their past are doomed to eternally repeat it.  Take
that Santyana!

And take care, Dan,

John