that means, more or less by definition, that I don’t get it and am unenlightened, right?
Only if you believe that to be the case.
Believe that to be the case? That seems to imply you define ‘enlightened’ as ‘believing that you are enlightened’.
To use a Less Wrong image, only if you are not Winning.
When Eleizer uses that phrase I tend to cringe but mostly let it past without comment because Eleizer tends to include it among a page or three of quite sound reasoning that explains what he is actually trying to convey. Apart from preferring actual true statements on things that are important, the only problem I have with Eleizer’s use of the ‘rationalism is winning’ is that it opens the door for abuse and confusion. Like here for example.
How in the heck does ‘only if you are not winning’, in the usage as intended on Less Wrong, imply the conclusion ‘contempt for koan usage as described implies that I am unenlightened’? It doesn’t..
The worst kind of bullshit is that which comes dressed up to look very nearly like insight and happens to include a ‘if you don’t agree you are naive/unsophiscated/unenlighted/possibly heretical’.
The worst kind of bullshit is that which comes dressed up to look very nearly like insight and happens to include a ‘if you don’t agree you are naive/unsophiscated/unenlighted/possibly heretical’.
You have much to learn. The Zen that can be accurately criticized is not the true Zen.
The source of existence does not itself exist. The necessary precondition for a property can never possess that property itself.
This would be clearer if you could explicitly state what you mean when you assert that something exists, but I very strongly suspect you can’t do so. (You’re hardly alone in this, so it’s no particular shame if it’s the case.) I could of course be mistaken.
I do not define “enlightened”, claim to be enlightened, claim that you are less “enlightened”, or say that you would be in any way better if you tried koans, or better if you wanted to try koans. I only said I had found them valuable.
I do not define “enlightened”, because it is something which I only, as it were, gain the odd glimpse, from my peripheral vision. If I define “enlightenment”, that means I place it in a box, make my understanding of it concrete. If I did, that would make it more difficult for me to gain in understanding of what “enlightenment” means, because I do not see the bits which go beyond my definition.
For over two thousand years, people have been using koans, and finding them valuable. Though I am not Buddhist, I tell you that I find them valuable too. I do not ask you to value them, but you might consider them a bit more before dismissing them.
I recommend “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!” (can’t remember the author, discussing some Buddhist ideas from an atheist, fairly rationalist standpoint. It is out of print but should be available on Abe Books.
I do not define “enlightened”, claim to be enlightened, claim that you are less “enlightened”, or say that you would be in any way better if you tried koans, or better if you wanted to try koans. I only said I had found them valuable.
That’s good. It’s just that the way you used the words in the context did make those claims.
I have a lot more respect for your perspective as presented here than for the logic of the replies that you made. Unfortunately, while there is certainly perspective to be gained in (some) usage of (some) koans, one thing that tends to be uniform is that they encourage sloppy reasoning.
For example, if you say “Woah, go easy there Cam! There are some potential benefits!” then I’ll probably acknowledge the point. However, if you feel the previous sentiment but actually reply with explicit claims like “only if...” then your words are no longer opinion or perspective. They are logical claims with very interesting implications. For example, you did make a couple of those claims regarding enlightenment although I can see that your actual beliefs are far less insane!
I have somewhat more respect for the substance of your views than for the intemperate and largely counterproductive ways in which you choose to express them.
I have no particular idea of what your views are but have good reason to believe you do not have an accurate perception of what the substance of my views are. ‘Productivity’ must be considered relative to my utility function, which by my evaluation was achieved quite adequately. Can you think of another word that more accurately expresses the judgement you are trying to make?
(Intemperate was good example. Significantly normative but including a descriptive component that sticks to the facts.)
‘Productivity’ must be considered relative to my utility function
Well, no. It could equally well be considered relative to mine. As it happens, I was guessing (perhaps wrongly) at an approximate community utility function. Based on previous evidence, this seemed to have a negative term for potentially inflammatory language that is unnecessary to making the commenter’s substantive point.
I said, “only if you believe that to be the case”. By “that”, I intended to refer to the belief that [thinking the post is worthless means that you are unenlightened].
This is thinking in rigid categories. “All people who do not value koans are unenlightened”. I do not really know what “enlightenment” is, but that false view is unenlightened.
That seems to imply you define ‘enlightened’ as ‘believing that you are enlightened’.
That’s not a fair point. If the definition of enlightenment includes, “if you do not believe you are enlighted then you are not enlightened,” the correct inference is the contrapositive, “if you are enlightened then you believe you are enlightened.”
Believe that to be the case? That seems to imply you define ‘enlightened’ as ‘believing that you are enlightened’.
When Eleizer uses that phrase I tend to cringe but mostly let it past without comment because Eleizer tends to include it among a page or three of quite sound reasoning that explains what he is actually trying to convey. Apart from preferring actual true statements on things that are important, the only problem I have with Eleizer’s use of the ‘rationalism is winning’ is that it opens the door for abuse and confusion. Like here for example.
How in the heck does ‘only if you are not winning’, in the usage as intended on Less Wrong, imply the conclusion ‘contempt for koan usage as described implies that I am unenlightened’? It doesn’t..
The worst kind of bullshit is that which comes dressed up to look very nearly like insight and happens to include a ‘if you don’t agree you are naive/unsophiscated/unenlighted/possibly heretical’.
You have much to learn. The Zen that can be accurately criticized is not the true Zen.
Just like a Westerner to paraphrase Taoism when commenting on Zen.
I’m a Zen Taoist—I worship an unspeakable shapeless void that doesn’t exist.
That sounds like the No True Scotsman fallacy to me.
The source of existence does not itself exist. The necessary precondition for a property can never possess that property itself.
This would be clearer if you could explicitly state what you mean when you assert that something exists, but I very strongly suspect you can’t do so. (You’re hardly alone in this, so it’s no particular shame if it’s the case.) I could of course be mistaken.
I do not define “enlightened”, claim to be enlightened, claim that you are less “enlightened”, or say that you would be in any way better if you tried koans, or better if you wanted to try koans. I only said I had found them valuable.
I do not define “enlightened”, because it is something which I only, as it were, gain the odd glimpse, from my peripheral vision. If I define “enlightenment”, that means I place it in a box, make my understanding of it concrete. If I did, that would make it more difficult for me to gain in understanding of what “enlightenment” means, because I do not see the bits which go beyond my definition.
For over two thousand years, people have been using koans, and finding them valuable. Though I am not Buddhist, I tell you that I find them valuable too. I do not ask you to value them, but you might consider them a bit more before dismissing them.
I recommend “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!” (can’t remember the author, discussing some Buddhist ideas from an atheist, fairly rationalist standpoint. It is out of print but should be available on Abe Books.
That’s good. It’s just that the way you used the words in the context did make those claims.
I have a lot more respect for your perspective as presented here than for the logic of the replies that you made. Unfortunately, while there is certainly perspective to be gained in (some) usage of (some) koans, one thing that tends to be uniform is that they encourage sloppy reasoning.
For example, if you say “Woah, go easy there Cam! There are some potential benefits!” then I’ll probably acknowledge the point. However, if you feel the previous sentiment but actually reply with explicit claims like “only if...” then your words are no longer opinion or perspective. They are logical claims with very interesting implications. For example, you did make a couple of those claims regarding enlightenment although I can see that your actual beliefs are far less insane!
I have somewhat more respect for the substance of your views than for the intemperate and largely counterproductive ways in which you choose to express them.
I have no particular idea of what your views are but have good reason to believe you do not have an accurate perception of what the substance of my views are. ‘Productivity’ must be considered relative to my utility function, which by my evaluation was achieved quite adequately. Can you think of another word that more accurately expresses the judgement you are trying to make?
(Intemperate was good example. Significantly normative but including a descriptive component that sticks to the facts.)
Well, no. It could equally well be considered relative to mine. As it happens, I was guessing (perhaps wrongly) at an approximate community utility function. Based on previous evidence, this seemed to have a negative term for potentially inflammatory language that is unnecessary to making the commenter’s substantive point.
I said, “only if you believe that to be the case”. By “that”, I intended to refer to the belief that [thinking the post is worthless means that you are unenlightened].
This is thinking in rigid categories. “All people who do not value koans are unenlightened”. I do not really know what “enlightenment” is, but that false view is unenlightened.
That’s not a fair point. If the definition of enlightenment includes, “if you do not believe you are enlighted then you are not enlightened,” the correct inference is the contrapositive, “if you are enlightened then you believe you are enlightened.”
/pedant