7 ms·

From the article: "The world is not a logically consistent one, but a profoundly paradoxical one. Again, this is illustrated in science, which shows that two th

by ajani 12y ago

From the article: "The world is not a logically consistent one, but a profoundly paradoxical one. Again, this is illustrated in science, which shows that two things can be one at the same time — light, for instance, acts as both a particle and a wave." I don't understand the need for constantly interspersing an otherwise flowing article with references to science. It feels like the author thinks that the authenticity of his thoughts and personal journey hinges on validation from science.

1stop 12y ago
It is fairly common in zen publications to point out apparent exceptions to an otherwise binary system (i.e. Logical). It isn't seeking validation from science it is invalidating science as the be-all of understanding our existence. Outside of zen (though very closely related). Phenomenology deals with this Subject/Object paradox our thoughts/language/science revolves around, and how it comes up short it describing some phenomena.
- lovemenot 12y ago
  Is it now time for this ancient dichotomy to be embraced by computer science? For the sake of argument, if the principles of OOP are: dynamic dispatch; abstraction; subtype polymorphism; and inheritance, what might be the equivalent for Subject-Orientated Programming ? In my view, a charateristic of SOP must be that data is personal and unique. Every single usage of data specifies a new unique identifier. To read is to interpret: is to record a new ID. Here, identity (x==y) gets broken; so another operator is needed (x~=y).
  - tgallant 12y ago
    somewhat tangential to your point of implementing a so-called SOP, I think the discussion of state, as it relates to OOP or otherwise, can result in very philosophical conversations. see here: http://clojure.org/state http://clojure.org/state As an ex philosophy major, immutable state and its implications on identity interest me greatly. I feel like this, and other ideas from FP, could be considered a step toward a so-called Subject-Object Programming paradigm.
- ajani 12y ago
  I re-read the article. Nowhere is it clear that there is even an attempt at invalidating science. He really does seem to be trying to use science to shore up his ideas. Another excerpt: "This is the basis of Zen itself — that all life and existence is based on a kind of dynamic emptiness (a view now supported by modern science, which sees phenomena at a subatomic level popping in and out of existence in a ‘quantum froth’)."
  - jvagner 12y ago
    There are spiritual observations that precede science. Saying that there isn't scientific evidence for anything is simplying stating that there isn't scientific evidence for something YET. And, showing how science has met spiritual observations, down the road, lends credence to the validity of the earliest explorations of existence.
    - derefr 12y ago
      > Saying that there isn't scientific evidence for anything is simplying stating that there isn't scientific evidence for something YET. It can also be a weasel-y way of avoiding mentioning that there is plenty of scientific evidence favouring the null hypothesis when tested against that something. E.g. mind-reading.
    - ajani 12y ago
      What you are saying is: A: If an observation has no evidence, then the evidence is yet to come. B: If an observation now has evidence, it validates the observation. It's circular.
  - lindblombr 12y ago
    He certainly does take a potshot at reductionism and science's prolific use of that thinking: --- While it is refreshing that Zen philosophy is supported in many ways by present scientific knowledge, it is also a critique of scientific thought. The scientific tradition requires things up to be cut up — both mentally and physically — into smaller and small pieces to investigate them. It suggests that the only kind of knowledge is empirical and that the rigid laws of scientific method are the only kind that are valid. Zen implies that this is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater — scientific thinking might be immensely useful, but it also does violence to a meaningful conception of life. It tends to screen out the essential connectedness of things. We live in an imprecise world. Nature is extraordinarily vague. Science promotes the idea of hard, clear ‘brute facts’ — but some facts are soft. A ‘cutting-up’ attitude to life gives us dead knowledge, not live knowledge.---
- dedward 12y ago
  In this case I read that purely as saying "It's okay for there to be contradictions - life really is that way, even if you look at science."
LBarret 12y ago
The text promotes keeping an open mind and to be humble. Often, The exception to a common rule are dismissed as minor and without effect which allows us to keep our certainties. The light example in this context, is well choosen : it is fundamental, factual and therefore cannot be dismissed easily. The scientific aspect is secondary to those advantages.
- philh 12y ago
  > The light example in this context, is well choosen : it is fundamental, factual and therefore cannot be dismissed easily. I'm curious, have you actually studied quantum mechanics? Because the impression I get from people who have is that the "light is a particle and a wave" thing is pretty much bullshit. (Which isn't the same thing as false, but more like "not actually a thing that you tell people if you want them to have a better understanding of the nature of reality".) But I haven't studied it myself.
  - ghc 12y ago
    I'll chime in here as someone who studied to become a physicist: it's not bullshit; the truth about the nature of matter is too complex (and weird) for someone without a deep understanding of mathematics to understand. Particle/wave duality is a useful abstraction that relates the math to something humans can grasp intuitively.
    - marcosdumay 12y ago
      You are not refuting the GP, you are just redefining bullshit. Yes, the wave/particle duality is a nice abstraction we can apply to QM so that we can extract some results from it intuitively (or with just a few calculations). Besides, it's a concept with deep historical significance. Even if it wasn't a good abstraction, it would still be important. But the duality is also something you can wave in front of people that didn't study QM to make sure they don't question your arguments. Doing that will make the arguments harder for them to understand, but sound like an explanation (that means, something that makes it easier to understand). "Bullshit" is a common name for that second kind of usage.
hangonhn 12y ago
I had the exact same reaction. It actually feels un-Zen like for him to obsess over that. It sort of illustrates his example of dukkha. On one hand he tells us that Zen rejects the need for logical consistency. On the other hand, he keeps using science as validation. Even if there are paradoxes or contradictions in science, scientists are constantly working to resolve them because they don't accept the idea of an inconsistent world. His constant return to science is an example of dukkha. Just let it go man...
DustinCalim 12y ago
I think the author does this, not for his validation, but to cement the connections in the mind of the Western readers who are raised with a strong basis in science and logic.
Estragon 12y ago
> I don't understand the need for constantly interspersing > an otherwise flowing article with references to science. It's just that that was what sold spirituality back in the day. Even though it seems tired and forced now, it was a very easy path to popularity.
- zerouniverse 12y ago
  One should take into account the fact that Watts was presenting his material to an audience of western intellectuals who had been so deeply indoctrinated into "scientific orthodoxy" that one really had no chance of getting anything across if one did not choose to invoke science. I don't see this as any different than the Buddha choosing to give teachings using concepts familiar to the brahmins of his time.
  - Estragon 12y ago
    It's not just Watts. It was fashionable back then.

by ajani 12y ago

1stop 12y ago

It is fairly common in zen publications to point out apparent exceptions to an otherwise binary system (i.e. Logical). It isn't seeking validation from science it is invalidating science as the be-all of understanding our existence. Outside of zen (though very closely related). Phenomenology deals with this Subject/Object paradox our thoughts/language/science revolves around, and how it comes up short it describing some phenomena.

lovemenot 12y ago
Is it now time for this ancient dichotomy to be embraced by computer science? For the sake of argument, if the principles of OOP are: dynamic dispatch; abstraction; subtype polymorphism; and inheritance, what might be the equivalent for Subject-Orientated Programming ? In my view, a charateristic of SOP must be that data is personal and unique. Every single usage of data specifies a new unique identifier. To read is to interpret: is to record a new ID. Here, identity (x==y) gets broken; so another operator is needed (x~=y).
- tgallant 12y ago
  somewhat tangential to your point of implementing a so-called SOP, I think the discussion of state, as it relates to OOP or otherwise, can result in very philosophical conversations. see here: http://clojure.org/state http://clojure.org/state As an ex philosophy major, immutable state and its implications on identity interest me greatly. I feel like this, and other ideas from FP, could be considered a step toward a so-called Subject-Object Programming paradigm.
ajani 12y ago
I re-read the article. Nowhere is it clear that there is even an attempt at invalidating science. He really does seem to be trying to use science to shore up his ideas. Another excerpt: "This is the basis of Zen itself — that all life and existence is based on a kind of dynamic emptiness (a view now supported by modern science, which sees phenomena at a subatomic level popping in and out of existence in a ‘quantum froth’)."
- jvagner 12y ago
  There are spiritual observations that precede science. Saying that there isn't scientific evidence for anything is simplying stating that there isn't scientific evidence for something YET. And, showing how science has met spiritual observations, down the road, lends credence to the validity of the earliest explorations of existence.
  - derefr 12y ago
    > Saying that there isn't scientific evidence for anything is simplying stating that there isn't scientific evidence for something YET. It can also be a weasel-y way of avoiding mentioning that there is plenty of scientific evidence favouring the null hypothesis when tested against that something. E.g. mind-reading.
  - ajani 12y ago
    What you are saying is: A: If an observation has no evidence, then the evidence is yet to come. B: If an observation now has evidence, it validates the observation. It's circular.
- lindblombr 12y ago
  He certainly does take a potshot at reductionism and science's prolific use of that thinking: --- While it is refreshing that Zen philosophy is supported in many ways by present scientific knowledge, it is also a critique of scientific thought. The scientific tradition requires things up to be cut up — both mentally and physically — into smaller and small pieces to investigate them. It suggests that the only kind of knowledge is empirical and that the rigid laws of scientific method are the only kind that are valid. Zen implies that this is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater — scientific thinking might be immensely useful, but it also does violence to a meaningful conception of life. It tends to screen out the essential connectedness of things. We live in an imprecise world. Nature is extraordinarily vague. Science promotes the idea of hard, clear ‘brute facts’ — but some facts are soft. A ‘cutting-up’ attitude to life gives us dead knowledge, not live knowledge.---
dedward 12y ago
In this case I read that purely as saying "It's okay for there to be contradictions - life really is that way, even if you look at science."

LBarret 12y ago

The text promotes keeping an open mind and to be humble. Often, The exception to a common rule are dismissed as minor and without effect which allows us to keep our certainties. The light example in this context, is well choosen : it is fundamental, factual and therefore cannot be dismissed easily. The scientific aspect is secondary to those advantages.

philh 12y ago
> The light example in this context, is well choosen : it is fundamental, factual and therefore cannot be dismissed easily. I'm curious, have you actually studied quantum mechanics? Because the impression I get from people who have is that the "light is a particle and a wave" thing is pretty much bullshit. (Which isn't the same thing as false, but more like "not actually a thing that you tell people if you want them to have a better understanding of the nature of reality".) But I haven't studied it myself.
- ghc 12y ago
  I'll chime in here as someone who studied to become a physicist: it's not bullshit; the truth about the nature of matter is too complex (and weird) for someone without a deep understanding of mathematics to understand. Particle/wave duality is a useful abstraction that relates the math to something humans can grasp intuitively.
  - marcosdumay 12y ago
    You are not refuting the GP, you are just redefining bullshit. Yes, the wave/particle duality is a nice abstraction we can apply to QM so that we can extract some results from it intuitively (or with just a few calculations). Besides, it's a concept with deep historical significance. Even if it wasn't a good abstraction, it would still be important. But the duality is also something you can wave in front of people that didn't study QM to make sure they don't question your arguments. Doing that will make the arguments harder for them to understand, but sound like an explanation (that means, something that makes it easier to understand). "Bullshit" is a common name for that second kind of usage.

hangonhn 12y ago

I had the exact same reaction. It actually feels un-Zen like for him to obsess over that. It sort of illustrates his example of dukkha. On one hand he tells us that Zen rejects the need for logical consistency. On the other hand, he keeps using science as validation. Even if there are paradoxes or contradictions in science, scientists are constantly working to resolve them because they don't accept the idea of an inconsistent world. His constant return to science is an example of dukkha. Just let it go man...

DustinCalim 12y ago

I think the author does this, not for his validation, but to cement the connections in the mind of the Western readers who are raised with a strong basis in science and logic.

Estragon 12y ago

> I don't understand the need for constantly interspersing > an otherwise flowing article with references to science. It's just that that was what sold spirituality back in the day. Even though it seems tired and forced now, it was a very easy path to popularity.

zerouniverse 12y ago
One should take into account the fact that Watts was presenting his material to an audience of western intellectuals who had been so deeply indoctrinated into "scientific orthodoxy" that one really had no chance of getting anything across if one did not choose to invoke science. I don't see this as any different than the Buddha choosing to give teachings using concepts familiar to the brahmins of his time.
- Estragon 12y ago
  It's not just Watts. It was fashionable back then.