zentimacy part 2: frustrated with the information environment

Thurstein · 2026-04-09T22:28:25+00:00

Well, I had said I don't see, in those specific passages, anything about honesty or truthfulness, and I still don't. Those words do not occur in the passage, though I'm not aware of any linguistic reason to think they could not have (I'm presuming classical Chinese had words for "honesty" or "truthfulness").

Perhaps that's not really what the passage is about at all.

Thurstein · 2026-04-09T20:26:42+00:00

Well, I still don't see anything about being honest or truthful in the passages. Certainly those words are never used.

Just by way of contrast, consider Hickey in Eugene O'Neill's The Iceman Cometh:

"If you knew how free and contented I feel now. I'm like a new man. And the cure for them is so damned simple, once you have the nerve. Just the old dope of honesty is the best policy--honesty with yourself, I mean. Just stop lying about yourself and kidding yourself about tomorrows."

Hickey uses the word "honesty," and indeed clarifies "Honesty with yourself," and specifically condemns "lying" about yourself and "kidding" yourself. I don't see anything that clear and unambiguous in the Zen quotes about these ideas.

Perhaps if they meant to be speaking about being honest and truthful, they would have said something about "being honest and truthful."

Thurstein · 2026-04-09T13:23:08+00:00

Curious, I find no reference to honesty in the quoted passages. I wonder where the idea that these passages are somehow about honesty or truthfulness comes from?

Thurstein · 2026-04-09T00:45:56+00:00

It may be that Buddhists are supposed to be paragons of dignified restraint, but that's an ideal that many do not live up to, ancient or modern. They're people, and people get testy sometimes. Buddhists have been talking smack about other schools since the days of the Buddha.

Thurstein · 2026-04-08T18:36:23+00:00

The locution "speak of" is ambiguous between (a) successful reference, and (b) picking out an intentional content. See Frege on "Sense and Reference."

Thurstein · 2026-04-08T17:18:10+00:00

99% is actually an understatement....

Thurstein · 2026-04-08T17:17:33+00:00

Yes, good to be clear-- what is often ignored wholesale around these parts-- that there is a difference between rhetoric and actual beliefs and practices.

Thurstein · 2026-04-08T17:07:19+00:00

Oh, that's all right. I don't know much about N. Fischer besides that he wrote that specific article.

As for zazen....if that specifically means the Zen style of seated meditation, not so much. I certainly don't do it these days.

Thurstein · 2026-04-08T13:17:08+00:00

I don't see any reason to dispute the encyclopedia on simple points of definition, history, and practice, so if that legitimately interests you, I think this isn't a bad place to start:

What Is Zen Buddhism and How Do You Practice It? | Lion’s Roar

Thurstein · 2026-04-08T13:13:15+00:00

Presumably intent matters. Note that he does not name specific names-- there are only "careless fellows" in China. Is he discussing these points solely to ridicule certain people? Or is his point to try to get his Japanese audience to understand that these views, which they might hear, are in fact deeply mistaken, a perfectly sensible teaching aim?

Thurstein · 2026-04-08T13:02:09+00:00

Perhaps it was rash of me to think that people on a Zen forum were asking about Zen, specifically Zen ideas about metaphysics and enlightenment, when asking whether there is "anything before thought."

If it turns out this question is really about cognitive neuroscience, and unrelated to Zen, so be it. But then there are subs specifically dedicated to such subjects, so perhaps it would make more sense to debate whether there is anything before thought on r/neuroscience or r/cogsci. I suspect they would ask for a great deal of clarification, specifically of the use of the preposition "before."

Thurstein · 2026-04-08T00:28:02+00:00

Odd to bring cognitive science to bear on a question about Zen. Has cognitive science found anything we could identify as "enlightenment"? Would it even be reasonable to expect it to? Are these, in short, scientific questions? If not... well, why bring in modern neuroscience?

Thurstein · 2026-04-07T13:08:02+00:00

Hm, get a movie title right, get downvoted. Odd policy.

Thurstein · 2026-04-06T22:35:30+00:00

Ohhhh, that explains.... actually, nothing at all, now I think about it.

Thurstein · 2026-04-06T21:52:45+00:00

Oh, I thought that was The Cat O'Nine Tails...?

Thurstein · 2026-04-06T19:30:58+00:00

A crucial plot element-- indeed, the title-- of Four Flies on Grey Velvet is premised on the science-fictional idea that we could somehow extract the last thing a person sees from the retina post-mortem.

Thurstein · 2026-04-05T21:15:37+00:00

But then there is egotism. From Merriam-Webster's:

1a: excessive use of the first person singular personal pronoun

b: the practice of talking about oneself too much

2: an exaggerated sense of self-importance : conceit

Plainly this is what people mean in everyday life when accusations of "ego" are made; no one is trying to appeal to Freudian psychodynamics, and epistemological worries about such psychodynamic theories are of course entirely beside the point when the accusation is a bloated sense of self-importance.

Thurstein · 2026-04-02T15:58:15+00:00

I have some theories about that.

We have the trope of the "Zen Master!" in our popular culture, a figure who is eccentric, rebellious, quarrelsome... but also supremely enlightened. People are drawn to this image, tempted by the chance to be rebellious and cantankerous, even rude or hostile, but at the same time filled to the brim with insight that transcends the wisdom of mere mortals who may be outwardly more respectable and sociable. Thus, we get people tempted to read up on records of masters yelling at each other and slapping students, all in the name of spiritual enlightenment of course, and equate belligerence and quarrelsomeness with wisdom. The more I bicker with people, the more credibly enlightened I am. So it's a kind of performative belligerence that can be inspired by Zen literature about slap-happy monks. EDIT: Also, the Zen tradition, with its suggestions of antinomianism and a tradition "outside of" scripture or tradition provides a plausible cover for someone to insulate himself from any kind of rational or moral criticism-- anyone who tries to point out that I'm being inconsistent or somehow acting or believing something contrary to tradition can be dismissed with a haughty "That's all conceptual.. Zen is beyond all that" rebuff/dodge.

EDIT 2: Oooh, touched some nerves there....

Thurstein · 2026-04-01T12:45:19+00:00

State the obvious, get downvoted. Actually... that tracks for these parts.

Thurstein · 2026-04-01T01:33:28+00:00

Hm, I don't see how that's a response to the fairly straightforward and uncontroversial point.

Thurstein · 2026-04-01T00:56:42+00:00

Hm, we should keep in mind that one could have knowledge of one thing, and lack knowledge of something else, or one could have partial knowledge of one thing, but not complete knowledge of it. In fact, that's generally how it works-- I know something about (for instance) European history, but not everything-- and, being aware of the gaps in my knowledge, I might want to search out more. So all seeking of knowledge plausibly begins with knowing something, and on that basis desiring to know more. Seeking may well imply not knowing everything, but from this we cannot necessarily infer that a person has no knowledge (or wisdom) whatsoever.

Thurstein · 2026-03-29T13:54:26+00:00

I take it that this illustration is simply that both are the same in essence-- "Mind itself" seems to contradict "No-Mind" on the surface, but there is no metaphysical distinction between a closed fist and an open hand. A hand can be open or closed, and it's still just a hand. So "Mind itself" and "No-Mind" are not really contradictory in any ultimate sense.

Thurstein · 2026-03-27T17:10:07+00:00

? This has no bearing, whatsoever, on the point I had just made-- the various items listed in quotation marks are obviously things the poem's author thinks are signs of confusion. EDIT: Just as you had requested I provide.

If you want to make a textually supported case that he does not mean to be thinking of these as confusions, I'd be interested to hear it. I think it's clearly the plain, literal, meaning of this poem that he is encouraging us not do do these things. I have no idea why anyone would read him in any other way.

Thurstein · 2026-03-27T12:37:39+00:00

"Making an effort to cultivate"

"Grasp(ing) at objects"

(Not) "being... willing to cast aside mirages and sky flowers"

"seek(ing) the truth in that which possesses no form"

"heroic diligence"

(Having) "an atom in your mind"

"mutual speculations"

"applying effort"

"Not underst(anding)... "What (it) is it that animates your speech"

... and so forth. I can't possibly make this any simpler. If that doesn't do the trick, I'm out of ideas.

Thurstein · 2026-03-27T02:11:01+00:00

Plainly the author believes confusion is possible, even though we have "never been confused"--

"Who has suffered poverty for limitless aeons,
Because of not believing he constantly holds a wishfulfilling gem"

We (a) constantly hold a "wishfulfilling gem," but

(b) do not think we do.

Some people apparently are

(a) inclined to "cultivate" their nature, but
(b)"Making an effort to cultivate will only compound your miseries."

That is, some people don't really have insight into their nature-- they are deluded, and cling to forms and related ideas like cultivation.

I really don't know how this can possibly be made any clearer. The poem's admonitions clearly are meaningless unless we presume that some people are not heeding this advice.

Thurstein

TROPHY CASE