Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cowofdoom78963]

problem is that there's not even a proper definition

Ive got a proper definition for you right HERE.

[Armok]

Shuzan held out his short staff and said, "If you call this a short staff, you oppose its reality. If you do not call it a short staff, you ignore the fact. Now what do you wish to call this?"

"A (for example) 73cm long wooden cylinder."

[Siquo]

Shuzan held out his short staff and said, "If you call this a short staff, you oppose its reality. If you do not call it a short staff, you ignore the fact. Now what do you wish to call this?"

"A (for example) 73cm long wooden cylinder."

You still oppose its reality. Your description is always incomplete. But not describing it means you ignore its existance. Most of these koans are specifically designed to not have a sensible answer. If there is an answer at all, it must be insensible. This goes against the nature of most people, and the more 'logical' your mind is, the harder it is to see the value of such thinking.

[Yanlin]

Shuzan held out his short staff and said, "If you call this a short staff, you oppose its reality. If you do not call it a short staff, you ignore the fact. Now what do you wish to call this?"

"A (for example) 73cm long wooden cylinder."

It's a short staff.

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

[Armok]

Shuzan held out his short staff and said, "If you call this a short staff, you oppose its reality. If you do not call it a short staff, you ignore the fact. Now what do you wish to call this?"

"A (for example) 73cm long wooden cylinder."

You still oppose its reality. Your description is always incomplete. But not describing it means you ignore its existance. Most of these koans are specifically designed to not have a sensible answer. If there is an answer at all, it must be insensible. This goes against the nature of most people, and the more 'logical' your mind is, the harder it is to see the value of such thinking.

As I stated, most everything I post here is a joke of some kind or another, I'm parodying [link to TVtropes removed to save you time] to provoke discussion, and intentionally doing stuff wrong and ignoring other viewpoints that I consider if I try to do serious logic, I cant do ACTUAL SERIOUS logic because it'd just produce giant dictionary of definitions and no conclusions.

[Andir]

You still oppose its reality. Your description is always incomplete. But not describing it means you ignore its existance. Most of these koans are specifically designed to not have a sensible answer. If there is an answer at all, it must be insensible. This goes against the nature of most people, and the more 'logical' your mind is, the harder it is to see the value of such thinking.

Ah, Epicurus. I've always thought it funny the people that say "Well if there IS a god or something of the sort, he can't be perfect, so I refuse to accept him out of..." What is it anyway? Disappointment?

I'm reminded of the Star Trek movie where they found an intelligent being with tremendous power claiming to be "God."  If you met such a being, would you blindly accept it as "God" because it was more powerful and portrayed everything you were told?  Would you expect it to prove itself as a god or question it as a more powerful being?  This is an honest question, because you will never know if this is the creature that created you or if it's something pretending.  This is why any supreme "God" would have to be omnipotent.  It would have to be able to prove to you without a shadow of a doubt.  According to Christianity, God shouldn't need to prove himself, right?  So how will you ever know?

[Ampersand]

There's this idea spinning around that somehow attacking rationality, or saying that you cannot argue against A because A is unknowable (nevermind this means that you have no idea either), somehow makes your point stronger

It makes the point clear. The point cannot be understood without understanding it. Rephrase: You don't know what you're missing until you actually have it. Assuming you referred to my arguments, I'm trying to explain that there exists a 'beyond', something that is more than rationality.

Shuzan held out his short staff and said, "If you call this a short staff, you oppose its reality. If you do not call it a short staff, you ignore the fact. Now what do you wish to call this?"

What this Koan is really about is definition deriving from the function of the object rather than from the form. No two shoes are equivalent in reality, they occupy different places and are constructed of separate atoms. They are objects existing independently from each other. What defines them as shoes is not their form, for the form varies, or their position, for their positions vary, but their function, which is itself defined by the person using them.

Suppose you find yourself on an alien planet, when you come across an object that looks exactly like a fedora. You put it on, and declare that it is a hat. Soon, a local alien runs up, takes it from you, and places it on it's oddly shaped foot. Neither entity is wrong, and neither was right. The function of the object defines it. The Koan has no right or wrong answer. It only teaches.

[Siquo]

As I stated, most everything I post here is a joke of some kind or another

I know. Don't worry, we've known you longer than this.
The question is, does it matter? One idiot can ask more than 10 wise men can answer, but it doesn't matter if you are the proverbial idiot or pretending to be one, by asking questions you force the answering one to think. You should see the questions some Zen-masters ask.

[Armok]

As I stated, most everything I post here is a joke of some kind or another

I know. Don't worry, we've known you longer than this.
The question is, does it matter? One idiot can ask more than 10 wise men can answer, but it doesn't matter if you are the proverbial idiot or pretending to be one, by asking questions you force the answering one to think. You should see the questions some Zen-masters ask.

Exactly, and by making sure the one asking questions is one who really know better, one can limit it to questions that are likely to lead into more interesting paths.

[Dakk]

From me philosophical thesis and intellectual rambling i've come across the answer to our unlimited doubts and troubles!

CTHULHU IS THE REAL LORD, PRAISE THE GREAT OLD ONES
CTHULHU FHTAGN!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ftld7Ohojg

Will you be eaten first?

[Siquo]

Oh R'lyeh?

[Ohaeri]

Lol, English please. Someone once did a girls = evil thing with logic

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

That's math and it fails at the very first step. Girls != Time * Money

They require Time AND Money. So Girls = Time + Money.

Thank you! You're the first person I've seen besides me who has picked up on this.

Must you people constantly temp me to reply?! I'm trying to pretend I'm not reading this topic!

Yes. Yes I must.

From me philosophical thesis and intellectual rambling i've come across the answer to our unlimited doubts and troubles!

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

Good illustration, btw.

[ousire]

From me philosophical thesis and intellectual rambling i've come across the answer to our unlimited doubts and troubles!

CTHULHU IS THE REAL LORD, PRAISE THE GREAT OLD ONES
CTHULHU FHTAGN!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ftld7Ohojg

Will you be eaten first?

and with that post, i officialy declaire this thread derailed.

(awsome song btw. cthulhu fhtagn!)

[IndonesiaWarMinister]

Lol, English please. Someone once did a girls = evil thing with logic

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

That's math and it fails at the very first step. Girls != Time * Money

They require Time AND Money. So Girls = Time + Money.

Thank you! You're the first person I've seen besides me who has picked up on this.

Must you people constantly temp me to reply?! I'm trying to pretend I'm not reading this topic!

Yes. Yes I must.

Yes, thee must.

From me philosophical thesis and intellectual rambling i've come across the answer to our unlimited doubts and troubles!

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

Good illustration, btw.

Is it wrong that I consider Lovecraftian to be wrecked by the Catholic love-craft successor?
You know, the Older Gods v.s. the Outer Gods, lol lol.

It was better in the original, when the humans are just ants (yet, ants are capable of terraforming....)

[Leafsnail]

This has probably probably been said, but I'll say it again anyway.  Evolution does not strive for perfection.  If something survives, it survives.  It something doesn't survive, it doesn't survive.  End of.  Period.  Nothing else.  That's the only "goal" of evolution (it's difficult not to anthromorphise) - short term survival.