Fun fact: that was the working title for American History X.
Funner fact: I made that up.
You’re a moron.
That contradicts everything I’ve ever heard about Zen Koans, but hey, I am just going by what people have told me. So who knows?
Reading the wiki about it, it seems like it’s somewhere in between. We are both getting it wrong in that we are talking about achieving an expected result, when each koan is specific to the circumstances of the practitioner, the teacher, and the school they are being taught within. The point is to help someone achieve a particular state of awareness. How that makes you feel, at peace, or like there is a lead ball in your gut, seems like the external projection that we as lay people want to think we know about them.
That being said, I revise my earlier position and think that Kimmy_Gibbler has thus far been the closest to using the term correctly as he has been arguing for different states of knowing.
Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind. I will lend it to you if you like.
You can argue for “different states of knowing” while being completely wrong on substantially all of the particulars.
Sounds interesting. Perhaps at some point. But in my readings of such esoteric pursuits a common theme that comes up as a block is when someone rationalizes an expected result, and therefore cannot attain the form of consciousness that they seek to attain because when they begin to they push it away as it does not conform with their preconception. It is only through the dropping of the preconception that they are able to attain it.
A lead ball in the gut, or finding peace are equally preconceptions.
I think you are partially right but are misapplying a useful general principle. One of the most important teachings of Buddhism is mindfulness. If you practice mindfulness with an aim to achieve Nirvana, you will fail.
However, mindfulness is very difficult, both physically and emotionally. Buddhist masters from Suzuki in the Zen tradition to modern Theravada masters like Jack Kornfield describe how hard it is, and many of their writings converge on what it feels like.
This is very different than rationalizing about the expected result, that is, Nirvana, satori, enlightenment, or in the Stoic tradition, sagedom, or whatever.
From what I understand, the purpose of a koan is to shock the mind into enlightenment by posing a problem that is not answerable through logic alone but must be understood intuitively.
He is not making a statement of particulars here. FinnAgain has made an extremely limiting set of criteria for knowledge based on a rational epistemology. His parting shot:
is indeed pretentious, but so is the attempt to redirect Zen koans as a bludgeon.
Kimmy’s point is that there are ways of knowing that are not subject to Occam’s razor and rational analysis. This is a valid point to make. Certainly in other particulars he might be very wrong, but in the statement that we are now orbiting I don’t see anything particularly controversial in what he has said.
What I am seeing is a fight regarding particular modes of attainment that not a single person in the argument has ever achieved. I do not think that either you, FinnAgain, myself or Kimmy_Gibbler has truly attained these modes of consciousness that we are now discussing. The discussion is that of intellectual dilettantes. I happen to be in a happier position here as I am fully aware of my ignorance and the limits of my erudition, and know that between the three of you, I simply have not read the breadth of material. But I do have a little bit of experience with coaxing other forms of knowing, other forms of consciousness and know that it’s not limited to one particular reaction, say a lead ball in the gut. Particularly when different koans are designed for different things. I do not have the basic knowledge of Zen, but it just seems intuitively to me that we are all projecting our preconceptions and that Zen isn’t so simple that out of the myriad Zen koans in the world, they all achieve the same feeling.
As with a lot of meditative and contemplative methods I can see how an extremely rational mind would only trip over itself by trying to come up with a priori rationalizations for a mode of experience that the person who has read about and read has never personally gone through.
Yes, that is how I am understanding it too.
You posted this while I wrote the previous post. What you are saying makes some sense.
If you see Jack Kornfield on the road to Nirvana, kill him. 
What luck, then, that I repeatedly addressed Kimmy’s points. As a matter of fact, Kimmy declined to do more than offer pretentious idiocy while suggesting that her and Smshy’s bullshit couldn’t’ be dismissed due to its errors without understanding its brilliance and “unpackaging” it. Because, after all, it takes so much time and effort to spot bullshit based on other bullshit.
What was actually lacking was any support for the idiotic claim that 'science" can’t define illness. Which is why Kimmy, in his utter stupidity, repeatedly avoided and failed to address why there are any number of illnesses that can be clearly defined but when it comes to “genius shaman loonies!” we all just had to accept the brilliance that is our resident anarchist woo-meister.
This is an internet message board. It is the people.
If you go to an internet message board and you hate all the people there, then you hate the board.
Are you honestly making that claim? That if you like clam digging and you go to a clam digging message board and talk about how you hate almost everybody there, that you’re not either stupid to continue posting there, masochistic, or trolling? No. A board is its people. Just like a club is its members and a sports team is its players. If you liked ice fishing and joined an ice fishing club where you hated the members, and stuck around in order to keep insulting them, you’d be a jerk and an asshole. If you liked baseball and joined a baseball team where you hated the members and you stuck around in order to keep insulting them, you’d be a jerk and an asshole.
It’s no different if it’s a message board.
Sure, and when anybody starts doing that you’d have a point. The fact is that I’ve objected to Kimmy and Smashy’s smarmy, obnoxious, stupid, condescending pretentious idiocy. Did you, perhaps, not catch the OP? Or Kimmy’s defense of it? This thread isn’t about “My ideas are valid and let’s calmly discuss them.” but “you neckbeard aspies are all assholes for not understanding the genius of my thoughts!”
If the discussion had stayed in GD it would’ve been insult free. It didn’t. Anarchist-boy decided to pit us and Kimmy rushed to his defense.
I want this for a sig! 
Mmm, sorry, but within the last three (or maybe by now four) pages of this thread, you haven’t offered anything in the way of an “address” to the points Kimmy is making other than purely rhetorical ones. Now maybe you feel your position on the subject was already clearly set out, but as Kimmy offers up more and more explanation and discussion, you simply are throwing bricks.
And Kimmy is right. Science cannot define “illness.” Science cannot define ANY word. Nor can it set the bounds of the concept the word is used as shorthand for. But science can certainly be used to establish whether or not any particular situation falls within the boundaries of something previously defined. So the argument over what Smash asserted, and the extension of it by Kimmy here, could well lead reasonable people to conclude that considering schizophrenia as something other than an “illness” (whatever that means) is a poor way to approach those who are schizophrenic. But the fact that someone is making a poor assertion in one area does not mean that all they say is inherently wrong.
If I were to challenge Kimmy, I’d start by asking what Kimmy considers “illness” to be? I’d also see if Kimmy is willing to go so far as Smash would: Smash clearly believes that people who behave considerably far outside of the “norm” should be left alone to do as they please. Does Kimmy share this philosophy? If not, at what point should society intervene? And once that point is established, then show that that point is reached, and then again some, by people who are diagnosable as schizophrenic.
Now, maybe all that has already happened in the other thread. But while this thread clearly started as Smach petulantly pitting those who don’t engage him in the way he wants to be engaged, it’s taken on a life that involves a discussion of the concept of science, it’s application to issues of medicine and society, etc. And in my opinion, you aren’t contributing anything positive to that discussion right now. It seems to me you could do so, and could do so even while retaining your scathing attitude and your invective, if that’s what you feel this forum requires.
If unconventional thinking equates to brilliance, then we must worship lekatt as a veritable Einstein. :dubious:
The problem arises when our unconventional prophets venture out of their spheres of, ahem, competency. If lekatt wants to blather on about his adventures in the spirit world, fine by me. If Smash wishes to enliven discussion with his sociocultural/political insights in regard to governance and putting Starbucks management Up Against The Wall, okey-dokey.
It’s when these types try to lecture us on “alternate forms of knowledge” in regard to science and medicine that they truly demonstrate staggering ineptitude. Like it or not, science has methods and standards that must be adhered to if you wish to be taken seriously. You can’t dismiss them with appeals to revelations, testimonials or whatever Zoroaster told you in confidence.
Woo-meisters are fond of saying “you can’t measure my woo with your science”. Wonderful - stay in your alternate universe and claim whatever you wish. Try reordering the world of science to your taste and the critical thinkers/Philistines will kick your ass every time.
I addressed all of his points worth addressing. To the point where he rather pointedly admitted that he was going to ignore the refutations and focus on low hanging fruit (so that he could rather obnoxiously point to his tiny bit of knowledge about semiotics in order to pat himself on the back).
Nope. Kimmy offered jack shit. There was no explanation and discussion, just more smarm and stupidity. There was the obnoxious stupidity that we couldn’t detect the bullshit in Smashy’s original claims without taking the time to “unpackage” them. Then there was (with much ink spilled) variations of the claim that “science” can’t define illness. But of course it can. You can go in to a hospital and be told that you have heart disease, and you can babble all you want about physitypical functioning, or whatever, but they’re still perfectly accurately defined your illness.
Same with the flu. Same with a tumor. Same with ebola. Same with a broken bone. Same with colitis. Same with a bullet lodged in your brain. Same with scoliosis. Same with a condition that causes you to be unable to perceive reality accurately due to hallucinations.
And so on, and so on, and so on.
Medical science is a science. It is perfectly able to define what the healthy functioning of an organism looks like and what illness and dis-ease looks like.
Planck Constant. Relative inertial State. Neurotoxin. Hemoglobin. Phospholipid bilayer. Illness. Statistically significant. Velocity. Acceleration. Brain death.
Etc, etc etc…
Not to mention that linguistics is a science in and of itself.
IIRC Jack did that. But it’s unnecessary.
People have pointed out that medical science can and does diagnose and define illness all the time. It isn’t then necessary to have someone then elaborate on their mistaken idea that it can’t.
Smashy’s point was actually not just that they should be left alone, but that they hold transcendent wisdom that’s superior to the rest of us.
And Kimmy’s position was that Smashy was right about how horrible anti-intellectual the board is, and how people who know what they’re talking about are all “technicians”, and so on. Mixed in there were the bullshit claims that “science” can’t define illness.
No, not really. Kimmy just took up Smashy’s cause and argued the same conclusion (“you all suck!!!”) while, tangentially, arguing the same silliness as Smashy. A real discussion might happen in GD. Their claims about “illness” and “science” would still be wrong there, too. But at least it could happen. Here it’s a thread where both the OP and its only real defender have gone out of their way to make this about how smart, wise and cool they are and how much of a gift their ideas are for the ungrateful, unwashed masses.
Now, if it was simply a polite discussion of ideas, then fine. But it wasn’t. And I have responded to Kimmy’s stupidity, pretentiousness and arrogance. With Kimmy using his (and Smashy’s) mistakes to support their arrogant back-slapping position of superiority, then yah, I’ll point out that they’z jerks.
“Well, Mr. DYoungEsq, your physical exam, signs, symptoms, troponin and CK-MB levels and EKG all clearly indicate you’re having a myocardial infarction. However, since science can’t actually define “illness”, epistemiologically speaking and in the true Kuhnian sense of the word, we’re unable to offer you therapy at this time. We can have an aide read Nietsche to you, or if you prefer, Ray Nitschke.”
The Buddha repeated many times to potential disciples that they should adopt his teachings only if, in their experience, they actually work. A lot of people still follow the Noble Eightfold Path is because, on some level, it does work.
Similarly for science. We have categories because, for the most part, they work. Truly exceptional people can make a great impact by pointing out where they are socially constructed, where they do not best fit the evidence as understood, or how a scientific discipline can be revolutionized by great ideas.
But if you aren’t one of those people and you try to do the same, well, usually you fail and look incredibly stupid doing so.
Use it in good health.
THAT is a truly awesome line! Thank you!
“A witty saying proves nothing.” - Voltaire
“Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.” - Voltaire
You could look it up.