|
#12 21/04/2000
|
In this
issue:
Short
conversations Koan from
Lotos To the reader |
Brothers, if I shall hurt you, I'll do it regretfully. Zen Help Weekly Internet magazine |
Zen thoughts
Attention!
In Zen Helps Guram's words are marked with this blue uprights & not thick print.
Greetings all! :))) Klein. :))
"Changing boundary view" going to be is in the Second Logic' frames. So, the task of the Second Logic, besides "drawing boundaries", - is to monitor the First Logic - less intensive on the easy areas, more intensive approaching to uneasy one -, when you need, to interrupt the activity of the First Logic:)), to draw a new boundary and start again the First Logic.
It depends
on the ability of the owner to identify the moment to apply the Second Logic, as well
as on his desire and firm intention.
The Second
Logic controls the First formal one. It is under constant control by the Second Logic.
Missing the point of "changing boundaries" you may continue to think that
activity is in the frames of the old boundary and the First Logic is still being
continue. And it's really will have been being continue but it will be like
shooting with the closed eyes.
There is
a formal-mathematical firm & invariable logic which we run into every second. Two
by two - is always four. In every case gravitation force acts equally, at any
condition a flipping stone falls with the same acceleration of gravity. For example,
solving an arithmetical problems with formal logic for finding X value, it's value
will be always equal. Making the same experiment in different condition, the result
must to be equal every time. In this case the experiment is considered to be
successful.
The first
formal logic - it is when for the one cause you have the equal result every time.
When you have done one you have always received the other. This is the Method and
the principle of the first logic activity. Acting with the first logic the result
doesn't depend (must not depend) from a person applies it. When the first logic
acts, that who applied it could not affect on its process and result.
The first
logic is a firm and safe mechanism. Solving the concrete problem in FRAMES of this
concrete task the first logic is acting. (I mark some words with capital letters
nonrandomly).
Imagine
active area of the first logic as some projection plane on which, for example,
projects such geometrical figure as a cone. (It's a favorite Klein's figure; later
I understood why it is cone. - I understood, Klein).:))). On that plane the bottom
and foundation are projected as a circle. Looking on the cone from the plane of the
first logic you see only the circle. Leading this plane on different corner cone is
projected like a triangle. But triangle and circle are not superposed on the plane.
You look the circle and do not see a cone, you look the triangle and do not see a cone
again. But they are projected from the same figure, aren't they? However you revolve
this plane on its imagine axis circle is stay a circle, triangle is stay a triangle
with the same ratio of corners, isn't it?
But you can lead a numerous quantity of various planes, see you? Nevertheless on
each plane cone will have different but invariable projections of lines and shapes,
will he? And in the Boundaries of this projection projected figure of cone will
not change its shapes.
For example,
you need to take up and analyze only triangle and not other projection of the cone.
First , it's important the right choice of the projection plane, right choice of the
Boundaries view. In order to the frames of this boundary you can see only the triangle.
Not knowing how to see spatially, not knowing about existence of the great number of
other planes, a numerous never-ending number of the Boundaries View you could not
chose the right plane. And here Second Logic begin it's activity and allow to Lead
Boundaries Correctly and Chose the Boundary View Correctly.
The Second
Logic - is the ability to see spatially and the ability to draw the boundary correctly.
In the frames drawn with the Second logic the first formal logic is acting. The Second
Logic - is the ability to draw the right boundaries skillfully, requisite in present
moment and for the present situation. The possibility to act in these frames
is prerogative of the first logic. The first logic - is a formal logic. The second
logic - is not mathematical , not formalized. The second logic allows among a quantity
to choose any acting model of the first logic, which can acts only in the frames
of this boundary, and allows to act in this frames with the principles of first
logic.
Drawing
the boundaries and Second Logic - depends only from a person who apply it, from his skills
and intention. Second logic is not just only this. You will find it later.:))
That is
all - are very abstract examples. :) But, believe, all this is really acting in real
situation. Ability correctly choose the boundaries, and ability to act correctly
inside them - it is important. And "ability of correct acting" inside the boundaries -
it is " to concentrate on the execution of the concrete task", it is " to stay in
frames of the boundary not leaving it before you need and then change the boundary view
and acting in time". Changing boundaries - it's the property and ability to manage with
the Second Logic.
The Second Logic
executes control over the changing of boundaries. Repeat it you again, Second Logic draw
Concrete, the most precise boundaries. It is reject useless & unimportant things in present
concrete moment.
A person who
acts with the Second Logic is the most important thing of the Second Logic. Not the
logic defines a person, but a person defines and applies it, creating "lively substance -
midst - wave" based on it.
To connect,
to display and sort - this is the effect of the appliance of the Second Logic. To connect
and sort rather to sort and connect. To identify, delimit and connect. To understand
about the existence of inexhaustible number of the boundaries and ability to act in one
concrete or even several boundaries, not mixing notions and at the same time knowing that
everything is interrelated, everything is in united flow. And at the same time be able
to separate from this flow necessary directions, do not disturb about consequences and
simultaneously to represent it clearly .
Short Conversations
-At first
site you can decide that the Second Logic is the constitutive and most important. But
it is not at all. Not correct and out of place appliance of the Second Logic in time
when the First logic must acts is too dangerous as well as blind following for the first
logic.
- not at all. Really the first logic is more simply, in a sense that its appliance needs less concentration , less force-consumption. :)). The Second logic - is always true. Just when you need to solve a task with more simple method - you need not to apply more difficult subtle special technologies. Analogy: it is not correct to charge qualified auditor with the work of the junior accountant- just like that:))
All is to
be in a right place. Brief: premature and not correct change of the boundaries - is
bad.:)
- It's not a vice of the Second Logic, it's inability to apply it. :)))
- but conversely:
if drawing boundaries and non-formalized logic depends from a skill and desire of its
owner, so this owner, on his desire and at any time, could stop the acting of the
first logic, draw new boundaries and start the first logic. At his own desire.
- not at all. The Second Logic just allows you to increase ADEQUACY of the reaction, but do not allows you to cut proceedings at you own view:))) "Reactions" - i.e. reply to the milieu's change."
- So, he will
not depends from any situation.
- He will not "depends from any situation" in conception of the fist logic owner . :)) Increased twice reactivity allows him overcome obstacles more effective 10-100 times better, mainly at the expense of non-entering to the flows of obstacles (worries), but not overcoming them, i.e. at the expense of recognition perils before it comes. But not when stones begin to fall on your head. :)) But! - he begins to have such kind of problems which the simple owner of simple do not have. :))) At the account of the increase scope of plans and pretensions.:)))). Analogy: you study best of all and go to Moscow to enter the best University, but lagging student enters to secondary school on the next street, for example, :))) of your small town. He entered but you - not. :))) And so on. So you do not become all-powerful, you just increase you scope. And smth. more:))))). This "smth" is a "chance" - very small - very! - a chance enter to the zone of "all-powerful"! :))))
- because he
can create any situation himself and acts inside it using the first logic. The owner of
the Second Logic just not only adapts toward smth/smb but also adapts to himself.
As well as toward his base, as you say, towards to his "absolute rate of reference".
- 1. No the any. :))) 2. Plus the chance to enter the "any" zone. :))
- recurring to our conversation.:)). Looking for your "base" - is an absolute rate of reference. Yours. :))))) There is no any other rates for you. There is no.
- do you know? .
Klein, I know. I really know.
- Remember in the "Sutra of the Six Patriarchy"? and in the "Diamond Sutra"? And on the page of "" (about Bodhiharma). Remember, - "who will not be fear will not be afraid of", and I asked everybody there "what he will be fear? What he will be afraid of?" :))) And did not receive an answer. :)))
- I have read
it before I found your site. And reread it on your site again, and it's my defect
that I did not pay attention on your question and did not answer you.
- Is this will not afraid of ! When he will understand that there is NO support!:))) And all supports, which he saw-perceived like supports, - is illusion.
- What
did I afraid of all this time and why I stopped afraiding of it? I do not tell "almost"
stopped afraid of. Not almost. I don't afraid. And for today it doesn't matter whether
you consider my words bragging or you believe me, because I'm just not only know what
I'm talk about. The more I was afraid of the better I'm not afraid of for today.
- Yes. I see it.
- The absence
of the support do not deprive of the soil. Vice versa, it gives the firmest soil.
- Exactly! :))))
- And gives
a boundless freedom of action. There is no common idea of the support. And the first logic
do not exists in a singular. Characteristics of all first logics come to firm causal-
investigator relations. But in different situations and in different degrees this firm
characteristics are changed for the other one, the same firm causal-investigator
relations. Which can act only in this boundaries and do not in other.
- Yes, it is! :)))
- It's difficult
for me, really, not to be afraid, but I'm not compel myself "not to be afraid of".
- Yes, I see.
- Comment ,
please - (..disclosure and identification of what, that must will happen), I mean -
hOw?
- By no means! :).
There is no any conjuration's and magic motions or searching of crystal ball for this:)))
Every second a thousand of possible "consequences" and "variants" pass by us, fly over,
crawl besides us, through us, near us, every second . :) Again, - correct choice
of the boundaries! Every step determines the next one. Doing the first step the
same time you are making a quantity of the next steps. If you make the first step
correctly you can see correctly the consequences of thise step and you have
possibility to take it or to avoid it. When you clearly represent consequences
you could not to care for it. :)) In united flow: "everything happens however it is
" & "life is full of improvisation." :))
- Creation of cone - is a final result of the dialectic. It is his destination as an instrument. Creation of cone - is an art of a wisdom. In general, :))) - is an art of the Second Logic.: ))
- It is also
the comprehension of fight and cooperation, mutual augmentability and mutual exclusions
of the antithesis and the taking of the result of this fight-cooperation not only as
a single result, but as a result of the indissoluble component of the mutual result.
Yes! Exactly! I'll just add with the following: " comprehension of fight and cooperation, mutual augmentability and mutual exclusions of the antithesis" is to be the comprehension of organic (true) :)) arrangement of any process. It's better to have a sensation of it. :)))
By the way, any process strips on a component processes, the system - on a component systems, level - on the subtotals by means of drawing the boundaries.:)))
- The problem is only in the following: you need not only "wisdom, as an art of the thinking", but also a firmness, purity, patience, impetus and other :))) - i.e. force in all its manifestations, but not only " the force of thinking" :))".
- plus the Force
to retreat when you need; the Force to admit own mistakes, the Force not to keep away
from them, but to look and see them as a wise and vivid examples; the Force to use
mistakes and even doubts. And the Force be ready to use available potential. A confidence +
self-criticism.
- Yes.
- "Overlimited" :))) wisdom - it is not "very large wisdom". :))) It's just another kind of wisdom. :))) It's wisdom inserted many different superior elements melted them into united overlimited alloy, that became sparkling sky-blue sword :)))..or kind of friendly smile to all living creatures. :)))- what is the same things. :))))))"
- "And with a
sword I came"" Christ.(rough quote) . :)
- Yes, in general."Not piece, but sword I brought you". The Bible as against Diamond Sutra is simpler arranged.:))) I mean the following: to understand the unity of antitethises the Bible (as a text and instrument) uses sequential (linear) presentation of now "circle", now "triangle" as a "discrepant declaration of Christ". Buddha in Diamond Sutra (as a text and instrument, and only here) from "circles" and "triangles" twirls "cone" ( "non linear" and different dimensioned ( in logarithmic scale) presentation of now "circle", now "triangle". Christ made the simpler instrument. Because the functions of the instrument were not the same. Buddha also has the more simpler texts- instruments. :)))..I've just no compared Bible and Diamond Sutra :))) - the Boundaries! :)))) Always acts in concrete boundaries!
- Guram,
when Klein told about Second Logic , he gave an example with a glass (may be you have
read this letter). In which, as well as I understood, the crux is in the ability to
describe every thing in different ways. Not only form and the color of the glass but
also , for example, it's location for the present moment relatively to the other
one. What shall I do with this? Shall I need to describe them in different way?
- "What shall
I do?" - To apply it. :))"Shall I need to describe them in different way?" - Yes, indeed. :)
You need to describe them different way. You may to describe them different way. It is
possible to describe them different way. It is important to describe them different way.
You may describe things, events, the world around-inside you differently. You need this
for the purpose to realize and recognize the space around-inside you correctly.
The example
with the glass - it's just one of the examples, Wet Shoes. It's attempt in example to
explain the activity of the Second Logic. The principle of the Second Logic which is not
finished and not began with this glass. Instead of glass you can take any thing , any
event, any situation, any element of the world around-inside you. If you realize it clearly
you can use it at any time and apply it in any situation.
Why do I always
lay stress on the "concreteness"? Because in order to examine this glass, you need to
concentrate you view exactly on that verge of the glass in which you need this moment, this
spatio-temporal space. Non-possession of the Second Logic will not allow you to recognize
the glass as a whole. You need it, not a "glass"! And this works not only with
"a glass". You want to learn? So I tell you : you could not learn all together!
Begin with the concrete things! Learn to the concrete one! Learn to define concretely!
Learn to draw boundaries and act in this boundaries, which are in multiplicity. And
every time you need only one concrete of it. You'll not be able to choose and create
one of these boundaries until you will not be able to understand that the Second
Logic - is the ability to see in space, not from one plane, but exactly in space.
First, you are
an observer and explorer of time-space, world, where you are. But when you could not to
constitute one-self in this world you could not to act here effectively. What does it mean
to act effectively? It means that there is no any advantages, it is freely of any kind
of the trade. To act effectively means learning during action & while action
learn the action. To learn for the sake of learn, to act for the sake of action,
investigate for the sake of investigation. Not to stay always in the same plane
looking for the bottom of "the glass" and imagine the whole "glass".
All you learning
has one single practice value to understand how it is arrange, how it is work, how it is act,
by what principle does it work. To recognize yourself and the world round you.
If you need to
achieve another purpose you failed. If you achieve you will have another purpose. What
you need to learn you may explain with several words: to perceive and help others to perceive.
The other purposes
are aside.
And the question
"why you need this?" - falls away. It is useless. It is needless. "Why do you need this"
akin "what you can buy with this"? You can buy nothing with this. With this you may lose
everything or may obtain everything what in itself the same. :))
Koan from Lotos
Please, I ask you, not to wipe those letters you have replied. :)) Taking into account that I receive many letters and I receive them in two different computers (at work and at home) - it's difficult for me and sometimes impossible :))) (as just now, for example) :)) to identify replies in correlation to questions, in this connection the adequacy of the reflection, which is exists immanently as a potential modus could not be connotative or in other words uptakes.
To the reader
Dear reader!Anyway try to drive in! All the best and more to you! Kl.:)))))