Ignorance

Found this in "The Book of Tea" by Kakuzo Okakura and thought it very interesting. The book was published in 1906 but the message here still resonates today.

"People are not taught to be really virtuous, but to behave properly. We are wicked because we are frightfully self-conscious. We nurse a conscience because we are afraid to tell the truth to others; we take refuge in pride because we are afraid to tell the truth to ourselves. How can one be serious with the world when the world itself is so ridiculous!"

Most of the morals we are supposed to abide by came into existence thousands of years ago. Society has changed infinitely since the morals of most religions have been handed down. Yet the world does not stop to question if these rules are the right ones for society today. Some of them can be translated to fit today's world but some are just nonsense when applied to the current society. If the rules and morals of long ago are not adjusted or stricken or altered or updated, we are encouraging a world of ignorance. We need to come to terms with who we are as a society and not be afraid to redefine and re-assert our virtues.

Infinity

So it's been 2 whole months since my last post. I've been pretty damn busy. I just finished reading Stephen King's "The Gunslinger." There is a sort of monologue at the end of the book when the man in black tries to explain to the gunslinger the vastness of the universe. The idea he says defeats both the pragmatists and the romantics. And I totally agree with this. The more we strive to find out, the more knowledge we gain, the less there seems to be to dream about and romanticize. However at the same time for every question we answer it seems that a multitude more rise to take its place.

The greatest question of the universe lies not in life but in size, the man in black says. This too seems like a very good point. Given the vastness of the universe it is hard to believe that there is not another life-bearing world out there somewhere. The size of the universe however is a much more open question. And even beyond the unimaginable bounds of this universe, are there others? If we were to be warped to the edge of this universe what would be there? a wall? a sign saying "dead end"? Or is this universe just a small piece of a much larger cosmic entity? This question makes me think of a great example I read by Michio Kaku a few years ago in his book "Hyperspace". He gave an example of a fish swimming in a pond. To that fish the pond is its universe. But one day a hand reaches in and grabs the fish, pulling it from the pond, its universe, into a much larger world it never knew existed. A world full of air, and other life forms that it could never have previously imagined.

What if our universe is to us as the pond is to the fish? What if our entire universe is nothing but a small pond in an even larger entity and to the inhabitants of that larger universe we are but fish, with no understanding of the greater picture that we fit into. The man in black comes to a similar idea asking what if the universe as we know it only exists as a blade of grass in a much larger world. What would happen if there was a fire in that much larger world, would we be consumed? And conversely when we chop down trees and use them as firewood, are we destroying vast universes that we don't even know exist?

While the size of our universe is beyond our understanding at the moment, we may soon answer that question but once we do, other questions will continue to rise such as what is beyond our universe, perhaps nothing. But more than likely there is an infinite succession of larger and smaller entities. We may never know, but it's fun to think about.

Valentine's Day

So today is Saint Valentine's Day (shortened to Valentine's Day). I thought I would do a basic little history/legend piece on it. Valentine's Day, like Halloween and Christmas, was taken from a pagan holiday/festival. The holiday can be traced back to the Roman holiday of Lupercalia whish was held every year on February 15. Men would strip naked and chase young women with animal hide whips, spanking them, with the hope of increasing fertility. This celebration retained its popularity into the 5th century A.D. even after Constantine changed Rome's official religion to Christianity. Since it was a pagan holiday it is said that the Chirstians at the time figured it would be easier to just call it a Christian holiday than to continue to ban it.

The church eventually pinned it to Saint Valentine's legend. According to the legend, Valentine ignored a ban on marriage during the 3rd century A.D. under Claudius II who was trying to swell the size of his army and so forbade them to marry. Valentine decided to marry people in secrecy. For this crime it is said he was executed on February 14 in the year A.D. 270. Nobody can say whether the legend is true but experts say it is a convenient explanation for a Christian version of Lupercalia.

As an adornment to the legend it is also said that on the night before he was executed Valentine sent the first "valentine" himself to a young girl usually said to be his lover. It was a note that read "From your Valentine" Happy Valentine's Day everyone!!!

Zen

So a few months ago I read Joseph Campbell's "Myths to Live By" and among many fascinating ideas he describes, I found that his explanation of Zen Buddhism to be particularly interesting. He starts off by presenting two animals as metaphors for the "two types of religious attitude." Those animals are kittens and monkeys. Kittens, when in trouble, will call out "meow" and their mother will come and carry them off to safety. Monkeys on the other hand are not being carried off by their parents but are actively clinging to their parents themselves. In Japan the kitten type is known as tariki (power from outside) and the monkey type as jiriki (effort or power from within). These are the two ways to obtain enlightenment.

Examples of the kitten type of religious attitude, or tariki, are Christianity where Jesus would be the mother cat and the sects of Buddhism such as Jodo or Shinshu where Amida might come and release people from the cycle of rebirth. The moneky type, or jiriki, however does not depend on any diety or saint or Buddha or religious figures to achieve what is needs. There are no supernatral elements, beings etc. whatsoever. This type is best represented by Zen. Zen, Campbell states, has been described as: "a special transmission outside the scriptures; not dependent on words or letters; a direct pointing to the heart of man; seeing into ones own nature; and the attainment thereby of Buddhahood."

"Zen" is the Japanese version of the Chinese "Ch'an" which is a mispronunciation of Sanskrit "Dhyana" which means "contemplation, meditation." The next metaphor used is one dealing with lightbulbs. Imagine there are a bunch of lightbulbs on the ceiling. Each one is seperate from all the others. But consider now the bulbs not as just bulbs but conveyors of light. When we see the light we do not differentiate it depending on which bulb is giving what part of it off. We see it as one unified light. If one bulb were to go out we would just replace it and the light would be the same. So the one light comes from many bulbs. He then compares this to the body. You can't think of people as individual and seperate bodies but see the bodies as conveyors of consciousness. While we tend to think of our own individual bodies and problems we must see that consciousness is the light that is made through all of us. These are two ways of interpreting the same facts. One way is not better than the other. The way of seeing things as seperate entities is called "ji hokkai" and the way of seeing things as one unified entity is called "ri hokkai."

Zen therefore meditates on these two ways hoping to be able to see things as one. If you see things as seperate you are bounded by discrimination. When you see things as ri hokkai this problem does not arise. However it is very difficult to change the accent of your thinking from ji hokkai to ri hokkai.

That is the basic idea of Zen. That is why so many monks take vows of silence, for all words are used to differentiate one thing from another. If a book is a book then it is not a magazine, if a fruit is a fruit then it is not a vegetable, etc. It is also impossible for people to convey an experience clearly unless the person your are explaining it to has experienced it themself. When you try to describe experiences you limit them to what words can describe. And anyone who tries to weave life into contexts and meaning eventually loses the sense of experiencing life. Therefore the first and foremost aim is to shatter all conceptions. The philosophy of "no mind".

Bertrand's Paradox

This paradox was discovered by Bertrand Russell in 1901.

Some classes are members of themselves; some are not. For example, the class of all classes that have more than five members clearly has more than five classes as members; therefore the class is a member of itself. On the other hand, the class of all men is not a member of itself, not being a man. What of the class of all classes that are not members of themselves? Since its members are the non-self-members, it qualifies as a member of itself if and only if it is not.

It Begins

Okay so I have been thinking lately that I want a place where I can write about what I think about. A place where people can respond or share their opinions on the topics I present. I will probably just respond to things I read, at least at the beginning, because lately I have noticed that all these great things I read are very difficult to remember a few months later and I want to be able to look back at this and remember the ideas and topics that I felt were noteworthy. Other than that I hope to have the presence of mind to retain the ideas as I read them so that they actually make it to this blog. And excuse me if I happen to make a few random posts here and there.

"A mind always employed is always happy."