Deadlocks,

<< It may sound like an insult to you, but to be desire-less is, IRONICALLY desire itself, or more accurately, a desire to achieve nothingness because "something-ness" has its risks of sufferings. I am absolutely taken aback when similar philosophies like these regard desire as something to be discarded only for the mere reason that it will inevitably lead to suffering, instead of also addressing the joy, happiness, victory, and glory that also can be achieved via the existence and the path of having desires.>>

You are caught in DUALITY. You ASSUME that there is only 2 ways.

A) Desire

B) No desire

Why?? The goal of Zen is to transcend DUALITY.

You are BLIND but you DO NOT BELIEVE that color red exist.

Dreamer

It is VERY SIMPLE.

You have 2 choices:

A) You are BLIND and hence you DO NOT KNOW that color red exist or not.

B) You are NOT BLIND and you know that color red does not exist.

Is it (A) or (B)?

You could not say that you are BLIND and color red does not exist. That is level 0 thinking.

The best that you can say is you are BLIND and you DO NOT KNOW whether color red exists. Only in that case, you reach level 1. You know that you know nothing.

1) You either know or do not know Zen.

2) You could choose to believe that Zen is useless without knowing anything about Zen.

What do you choose??

By the way, this the attractiveness of Zen. It forces you to THINK BETTER.

This post has been edited by dreamer101: Jan 2 2013, 02:56 PM

Where to learn zen?

seriously ?? you guys are over doing it !! it should be a free flow session of speaking your mind but from what i have read here? you guys are creating a general rule on what philosophy is about .. a cloudy guideline ..

To transcend duality? Only if that is true. If you're saying that this transcendence is about understanding and accepting the existence of both results of desires: pleasure and suffering at the same time, yes, I believe in it, and as a matter of fact most philosophies and wisdom in life expects you to prepare your life for it.

However, if it keeps defining this "self-transcendence" as a form of "escapism" from desire itself, then I'm sorry. That isn't ZEN. That's just a coward's way of living by attempting to escape from the existence of reality.

And to respond to your other query:

I am BLIND, and DO NOT UNDERSTAND how and what the colour red is, although I have heard of it.

thanks man for the "praise" and good luck with everything!

lol really lol.

i just came back from my extended holiday and believe you me, when i was in langkawi i truly and well laughed my ass off reading the passionate proses that is the philosophy of deadlocks or as we shall henceforth name it deadlockism.

in deadlockism, you shall not conduct any research. read but keep it to a minimal. to be curious and eager to delve deeper into a subject would render the reader morally corrupt. furthermore, when asked about a certain subject, feel free to blow your own trumpet and build castles in the sky... who cares if the foundations of the arguments are hollow! at least people see that you are passionate and opinionated! therefore, in deadlockism, he who makes the most "noise" wins.

p.s: deadlockism may seem like a short definition to the proverb "empty vessels make the most noise". nay. at least vessels have its use. lets not desecrate such a fine household item shall we

p.p.s: it's so obvious u have no clue whatsoever, deadlocks. but okay, i commend u for being so stubborn, headstrong about your convictions. man, i believe in real life and away from your keyboard warring ways, you're pretty much a difficult person. i hope your gf/wife has a better time than i do trying to talk some sense to u. god bless your woman's soul, she sacrificed her own happiness for yours and this daily performance of miracles of extreme tolerance to mental torture makes her second only to jesus in terms of unconditional love towards a fellow human bean. she is both a saint and a martyr.

This post has been edited by papacatastrophe: Jan 8 2013, 01:11 AM

There you go again. When I say "excessive", you accuse me of using the word "minimal".

When I say "read, and experience philosophy", you accuse me of saying, "read, and corrupt curiosity".

And yet when you accuse of being an empty vessel, you have provided no holes in my thoughts whatsoever, and never even attempted to rebuke me civilly. Instead, you have resorted to irrelevant ad hominem, hoping to invalidate my life by claiming, "if he is not a happy person, therefore his ways must be wrong".

Do you see how many assumptions you have attempted on me without actually knowing who I am? Do you see how it is YOU, are the one who is the stubborn one here?

Allow me to rephrase, so that you, and everyone can understand.

Do not merely love something at a VICARIOUS level. Especially with philosophy. And if that requires you to merely stop reading, by all means, that it is how it must be.

But of course, to be fair, should you find your VICARIOUS love for philosophy is more correct than mine, then for goodness sake, explain it. Don't just go, "Haha, I laugh at you man. You don't know anything one. You never read one hor. That's just shows how insecure you are.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Jan 8 2013, 01:35 AM

May I ask, “What is an example of love something at a VICARIOUS level, especially with philosophy?”

Ever attempt to read about a fight, but never been in a fight before to truly understand it?

Ever attempt to read about heroes, but have never attempt to be one to truly understand it?

Ever read about all about a place, but never dared to explore it to truly understand it?

Ever watch a romantic film and cried, but never ever attempt to immerse yourself into that experience?

Ever knew about about how much you have read, but is yet surprised by what people can do without doing the same?

Ever understood how it felt like to put your feet into the mud, instead of reading, watching, and hearing all about it?

I can go on, but you get the idea.

Most importantly, it is extemporaneous. I believe in the quotes I have read, but I do not believe citing about them...without ever understanding how philosophers ever came up with these quotes and ideas in the first place.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Jan 8 2013, 02:17 AM

Thanks Deadlocks! Your examples are valid, I'm kind of getting what you are trying to say. But, how exactly are you equating the attempt to read something with love something at a VICARIOUS level? And in an interesting way, how does one truly understand what is real and what is true? Ultimately, at what extend can we know the nature of reality?

Pfft. Please. You better convince me that you're not just being sarcastic.

Try to understand this.

I will never, ever know how to give you an answer if you ask me for directions, but I'm sure as hell that I can escort you there.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Jan 8 2013, 02:28 AM

Is that really an example of sarcasm? Probably that's your sarcastic joke. Perhaps you remember that you gave us an inkling of what VICARIOUS love is, and so I just want to learn more about the meaningful part. By the way, it's always raining when I get there.

hey man stop crying like a baby with your so called "ad hominem" attacks. if u can dish it out yourself, you can handle it.

personally speaking, as one consistently reads philosophy, he is exposed to a wide array of ideas, which could seem at first overwhelming to the mind. in this instance, there is a need to take notes on the book he reads, at each page he will deconstruct the various arguments and its logical flow, such logics can be "simplified" in having "true: premises to arrive at a sound conclusion, i.e., 2 (premise) + 1 (premise) = 3 (conclusion); therefore, the idea of 2 and the idea of 1 makes the idea of 3. u get the picture, there is a logical flow to 3.

as for your statements, they are often, "you lack morality in your statements, you are insecure, etc". okay then, please explain, "what is morals" or at least your position as to which school of thought do u adhere to. this way, it would've been possible for me to actually reply you. but no, not only did u not explain what kind of a moralist are you, u merely brushed it off as a "common sense" thing to you. my question is, where is the premise? how did u arrive at such a conclusion? is there a logical flow? no. so yeah i don't see your arguments to even want to bother answering you. why? it's just plain pointless.

oh yea btw deadlockism is merely a summary of your system of philosophy. if you find it utterly ridiculous, don't blame me.

yeah sure u believe in the quotes u read. u read the crust of it but never understanding its deeper meaning.

i'm sure u will hate me for telling you this but the answer lies in "platonic forms". dear god u might think, more reading???

by reading for 5 minutes this foundation/basics of which philosophy is built upon, that being the "platonic forms" you will know why reading about the deeds of heroes, admiring beauty, the feeling of love, etc is a universal thing.

haih deadlocks ahh deadlocks... your questions are goodla. but if u actually read and understand as u claimed you wouldn't have asked such questions. haih, i expected more of u. all your questions are mere tautologies. they are all but the same thing repeated over and over again.

Materazzi,

http://www.101zenstories.com/

Try this to start...

Deadlocks,

<< That isn't ZEN. That's just a coward's way of living by attempting to escape from the existence of reality.>>

<< I am BLIND, and DO NOT UNDERSTAND how and what the colour red is, although I have heard of it.>>

You admitted that you BLIND. You DO NOT KNOW Zen. And, you DO NOT KNOW how to transcend DUALITY.

So, how could you tell what is and isn't Zen??

You just simply DO NOT KNOW.

Unless and until you FULLY ADMIT that you DO NOT KNOW. You cannot learn anything. You are still stuck at DUALITY. You are at level 0. You do not know that you know nothing.

http://www.101zenstories.com/index.php?story=1

Dreamer

P.S.: To escape from or go to something is to ASSUME that something is good or bad. Now, if nothing is good or bad, WHY there is a need to escape from or go to to begin with?? It simply is.

This post has been edited by dreamer101: Jan 8 2013, 03:24 AM

If you prefer one to utter the word "existentialism" instead of "common sense", then you are asking me to hand over my consciousness to you in form of a package. I'm sorry, but I do not have a package. If you are able to find one, then please tell me what that may be. Hence deadlock-ism is not a package I have pioneered, but merely something you thought out of thin air, because you are simply incapable to grasp something unless it is presented to you in a form of a package made out of a "school of thought".

Whoops. Does that means I'm not telling people to NOT pursue philosophy in education? Not so.

If you love quotes, there is one from my memory that I can use at my disposal, although I try to avoid using them:

"I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand."

Confucius.

So if you were to ask me, what is your school of thought?

A few years ago, I have one, but after countless contemplation over other philosophies, I think I may not have one. Call me...an agnostic in philosophy if you must, but I find associating oneself to a specific philosophy is...limiting.

Nevertheless, if you find what I have said to be questionable, why not quote that specific post, and ask me about it? I'll do my best to explain it.

For the sake of reducing the tension, I suppose I could share this video. It is irrelevant to what we are talking about, but it's a good video:



This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Jan 8 2013, 03:38 AM

Papa and Diloc’s Example: A Few Sandwiches

Papa: “I’m hungry. What is there to eat?”

Diloc: “There were a few sandwiches left over from dinner last night. I put them in the fridge.”

Papa: “I can’t find them. I only ate three this afternoon. Where are the rest?”

Diloc: “Oh, I think that’s about all there were, three or so.”

Papa: “I thought you said there were a few!”

Diloc: “Yeah, you know, a few, three or so.”

Papa: “What?! Everyone knows ‘a few’ means at least five or six. Now what am I supposed to eat?”

------------------------------------------------------

I wonder if you’ve ever noticed people have different definitions of words. Kind of like everyone speaks their own unique dialect of their language. In fact, linguistic experts call this idiosyncratic dialect an idiolect and everyone’s is different. Perhaps noticing what this boils down to is that everyone is speaking a different language, all the time.

You already know we don’t usually notice we’re speaking different languages. So that it’s almost as if the differences are so subtle that we think we have communicated successfully. Nevertheless, when two people have different definitions for a word in their two separate idiolects, then they may misunderstand each other without even realizing that a misunderstanding has occurred.

in this dialogue ill show u why precision is important in language.

papa: hey deadlocks i hear that you are an expert in antique books. i want to buy a couple of antique books. can u order them for me?

deadlocks: yeah i am a connoisseur of fine and rare antique books with much experience in this business. sure ill help u out, how many u want. i have cashflow problems myself so can u be precise?

papa: a couple will do.

*deadlock goes on to buy 4 antique books.

deadlocks: nah here are your antique books.

papa: but i ordered only a couple!

deadlocks: what do u mean?

papa: a couple means two. as in two lovers make a couple, do u get it?

deadlocks: *** nia ma chao hai.... what am i supposed to do with the rest? i thought a couple meant a few or 4 or 5.

papa: go check the dictionary

deadlocks: but in my experience it means a few 4 or 5.

papa: go check the dictionary

deadlocks: you lowlife scum u screwed me of my business.

papa: go check the dictionary, u did this to yourself.

deadlocks: what do u mean i did this to myself, all my years of business a couple always is a few, 4 or 5. how can u say its different now. anyway, when i talk to people, this is what i always mean... so u must have misunderstood me. u are the guilty party.

papa: i use the dictionary definition of "couple" so i will only pick up two antique books. the rest i have no need for them. sorry!

deadlocks: you should have said 2 then instead of a couple!

papa: when i said a couple it was clear in itself no? i assumed that in running a business, you would clarify any doubt that u might have onto the client! you could have asked me to be precise if you didn't know.

deadlock: but i know a couple means a few, 4 or 5.

papa: which is the wrong definition...

and so on and so forth...


-------------------

do u get it now why it is important to know the definition of a word that we communicate? it is important for a variety of reasons, trade, academic stuff, organisation, etc.

This post has been edited by papacatastrophe: Jan 8 2013, 11:09 AM

Which is why I always avoid citing them, unlike you. Hence, my entire explanation to you on how EXPERIENCES are ALSO important, possibly even more than just reading.

Except that it is common sense to know being platonic is equivalent to being merely as deep as the surface, i.e. SHALLOW.

If your definition of platonic knowledge = universal, deep understanding = ?

Tautologies? Only if you regard all them as the same. You may be telling me that was because of the similar meaning conveyed with all those questions, but all of those questions are different REAL-LIFE scenarios that took place in one's moment of contemplation.

Which is why I did not tell you what ZEN really is. Instead, if you have read carefully, I have provided two different possible definitions of the duality issue, and which includes an agreement to your explanation of the duality of desire.

You have selectively chose to comment on the second possible definition, and conveniently avoided the first.

And here's my take/variation on your ZEN 101:

"Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.

Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.

The professor looks at him, smiled, and takes the entire kettle of tea, and pours it all over the ground nearby.

The Japanese master asked, "Why would you throw and waste it all away?"

And the professor replies, "For only you will limit yourself to a cup, than the nature of the universe. You see, Zen master. The cup isn't me. It's YOU. And the ground, is the how big the cup can be."


ROFL!

My goodness. Although I couldn't fathom how you would assume that I, perhaps from an alternate universe, will define a "couple" as "four or five". While you may be right about the importance of precision in language, your example which is geared towards me is so badly done, that you obviously did not understand that Critical_Fallacy's example of how "a few" is more subjective than "a couple". And not only Critical_Fallacy has pointed out the distinctive characteristic of people from different walks of life may define "a few" differently, unlike you, he has used "a few" as an example because it makes sense, because after all, "a few" is technically, simply more than one amount.

You on the other hand? Decided to adopt this method to scoff at my approach to philosophy, emphasizing on how I am completely stubborn in my "experience" to the extent of not knowing what "a couple" really means (which is absolutely hilarious for you to have that kind of perception of me).

How about this? Let's imagine the very same dialogue you which you have provided, only this time, change "a couple", to "a few". Wouldn't that make more sense? I mean, I would definitely do that, but I don't know about you.

Oh wait. Maybe, just maybe, I didn't actually know what "a couple" really means! That would justify it wouldn't?

Fat chance. Nevertheless, for the sake of hilarity, your zealousness on precision of philosophy vs. my goobledygook is akin to explaining how our as*ses are howering while we're sitting down (Pauli Exclusion Principle) to a hungry child in Africa who hasn't eaten in three days.

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Jan 9 2013, 08:30 AM

hahaha deadlockism at its best!

obviously u have no clue at all about platonic forms but yet u decided to make it all up. very nice, that just proved theory correct about deadlockism. again, in philosophy, you need to give evidence to justify a claim and this is yet another evidence in my arsenal of proofs.

p.s: in deadlockism, you shall not conduct any research. read but keep it to a minimal. to be curious and eager to delve deeper into a subject would render the reader morally corrupt. furthermore, when asked about a certain subject, feel free to blow your own trumpet and build castles in the sky... who cares if the foundations of the arguments are hollow! at least people see that you are passionate and opinionated! therefore, in deadlockism, he who makes the most "noise" wins.