IBM, ZEN, RELIGION
------------------

#: 25906 S11/Quality Sounds
    06-Feb-89  20:48:12
Fm: Sheryl Smith 76117,2063
To: Will Zachmann [PCMAG] 72241,43 (X)

The Buddha nature of IBM...that very thought turns my brains to jello!  It
probably looks something like...PL/1...

Sheryl


#: 25925 S11/Quality Sounds
    06-Feb-89  22:42:38
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Will Zachmann [PCMAG] 72241,43 (X)

Does IBM have a Budda nature?


#: 26042 S11/Quality Sounds
    07-Feb-89  19:18:24
Fm: Sheryl Smith 76117,2063
To: Will Zachmann [PCMAG] 72241,43 (X)

Does IBM have a Buddha nature?  That depends on the characteristics of the
corporate entity.  If a thing may be sued, is it a Buddha thing?


#: 26083 S11/Quality Sounds
    08-Feb-89  01:32:32
Fm: Will Zachmann [PCMAG] 72241,43
To: Sheryl Smith 76117,2063

Let me officially go on record so there may be no doubt on the matter of my
opinion:

       IBM most definitely has a Buddha nature!

Tell 'em Willy Z. said so!

willy z.

#: 26054 S11/Quality Sounds
    07-Feb-89  21:10:31
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Will Zachmann [PCMAG] 72241,43 (X)

     When the Sage Joy was asked
         "Does IBM hava a Buddha nature?"
     He responded "FU"
     And no one was enlightened.
 

#: 26084 S11/Quality Sounds
    08-Feb-89  01:32:42
Fm: Will Zachmann [PCMAG] 72241,43
To: Ben Sano 72401,2736 (X)

When the Sage Joy was asked
       "Does IBM have a Buddha nature?" He responded:
       "Does IBM have an Open Look?" And everybody became SAA compatible!


#: 26121 S11/Quality Sounds
    08-Feb-89  08:12:41
Fm: Neil Rubenking [PCMAG] 72241,50
To: Will Zachmann [PCMAG] 72241,43 (X)

       The blue-suits of the Eastern and Western divisions were squabbling
over their ESD.  They carried it, yowling and scratching, before Master Josh. 
The Master took ESD in one hand and sword in the other.  "If any one of you
can say a true word, you will save the ESD. Otherwise it will die". The
blue-suits were dumbfounded, and none spoke.  IN a flash, the ESD was cut in
half and tossed aside.

       Later, the Novice Grasshopper arrived.  On hearing of these events, he
took off his sandals, put them on his head, and walked away.  Said the Master,
"If only he had been here before, the ESD would have been saved".


#: 26181 S11/Quality Sounds
    08-Feb-89  18:02:48
Sb: #26121-The Zen of Music
Fm: Will Zachmann [PCMAG] 72241,43
To: Neil Rubenking [PCMAG] 72241,50

The master IBMsho said to the monks:  "If you have a bus, I will give you
another.  If you have no bus, I will take it away.

Mumon's comment:  With its aid I cross the DMA over a memory transfer:  with
it I return to my workstation on a moonless night.  If you call it a bus, you
will be shot into hell as quickly as an arrow.

       With it in my system I distinguish
       Between what is deep and shallow.
       It supports heaven and earth
       And causes MCA to be taught wherever it stands.


#: 26394 S11/Quality Sounds
    09-Feb-89  20:58:53
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Will Zachmann [PCMAG] 72241,43

I think I will have a cup of tea.



#: 25952 S11/Quality Sounds
    07-Feb-89  06:19:27
Fm: Will Zachmann [PCMAG] 72241,43
To: Ben Sano 72401,2736

One of the famous zen koan asked:

       Does a dog have a Buddha nature?

Joshu said:  mu.  (Wu in Chinese.  Means something like "nothing, not, empty,
void" but not really.)  The Mahayana bunch, though, at least maintain that all
SENTIENT beings have a Buddha nature.  So, if you believe them, all you need
to do is decide whether or not IBM is a sentient being.  Whaddya think?

will z.


#: 25966 S11/Quality Sounds
    07-Feb-89  07:58:38
Fm: Neil Rubenking [PCMAG] 72241,50
To: Will Zachmann [PCMAG] 72241,43

Will,
       An important point -- sentient don't mean SMART, necessarily.  And when
pressed, the radical Buddhist types will extend sentiency to grasses, trees,
mountains, and rivers. Those Zem Nasters were real jokers, eh?
       -- Neil


#: 26082 S11/Quality Sounds
    08-Feb-89  01:32:22
Fm: Will Zachmann [PCMAG] 72241,43
To: Neil Rubenking [PCMAG] 72241,50 (X)

I dunno Neil.  There have definitely been some times when I was in the,
..er, appropriate state of mind, when it was, shall we say, immediately self
evident that grasses, trees, mountains, rivers and quite a number of other
things were sentient beings.  So maybe those Zem Nasters were onto something.

will


#: 26120 S11/Quality Sounds
    08-Feb-89  08:12:25
Fm: Neil Rubenking [PCMAG] 72241,50
To: Will Zachmann [PCMAG] 72241,43 (X)

Will,
       But, grasshopper, surely you understand that those who are truly "onto
something" regarding Things As It Is will surely be "real jokers"? (Japanese
Zen Master in S.F. used to always use that phrase -- "Things As It Is".  We
never knew if it was PROFOUND, or just another example of his poor english).
       -- Neil


#: 26180 S11/Quality Sounds
    08-Feb-89  18:02:30
Fm: Will Zachmann [PCMAG] 72241,43
To: Neil Rubenking [PCMAG] 72241,50

Things as it is are when it's at.


#: 26188 S11/Quality Sounds
    08-Feb-89  18:49:49
Fm: Craig Stark [PCMAG] 72241,102
To: Neil Rubenking [PCMAG] 72241,50

Maybe you Sages that are into "Things as it is" can enlighten me.  Last time I
looked (25 years ago, not counting reading the motorcycle book), Buddhist
metaphysics were based on the doctrine of anatman, as opposed to the Hindu
doctrine of atman.  On that doctrine, what could it *mean* to speak of a
Buddha *nature*?


#: 26292 S11/Quality Sounds
    09-Feb-89  08:27:53
Fm: Neil Rubenking [PCMAG] 72241,50
To: Craig Stark [PCMAG] 72241,102

Craig,
       "Ah, very good question!  Please think about nothing else for a long
time, until the resolution of the paradox becomes YOU."
       NOTE: the following is (to the best of my memory) part of a real text
that's highly regarded by the Zen Buddhists: "How splendid is the Buddha! No
matter how he is questioned, he always manages to get out of it".
       -- Joshu


#: 26395 S11/Quality Sounds
    09-Feb-89  20:59:02
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Neil Rubenking [PCMAG] 72241,50

I think I will have a cup of tea.


#: 26555 S11/Quality Sounds
    10-Feb-89  23:10:48
Fm: Craig Stark [PCMAG] 72241,102
To: Neil Rubenking [PCMAG] 72241,50

>No matter how he is questioned, he always manages to get out of it."<

Until now I thought that Kissenger took Metternich as his starting point. Now
I know better!


#: 26306 S11/Quality Sounds
    09-Feb-89  09:26:58
Fm: Will Zachmann [PCMAG] 72241,43
To: Craig Stark [PCMAG] 72241,102

Craig,
       It's simple really.  It "svabhavasunyan" of course!  "...form is
emptiness and the very emptiness is form; emptiness does not differ from form,
form does not differ from emptiness; whatever is form, that is emptiness,
whatever is emptiness, that is form, the same is true of feelings,
perceptions, impulses, consciousness."  I trust that makes it perfectly clear
;-).

Will Z.


#: 26396 S11/Quality Sounds
    09-Feb-89  20:59:16
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Will Zachmann [PCMAG] 72241,43

I think I will have a very strong cup of tea.
 


#: 26405 S11/Quality Sounds
    09-Feb-89  22:26:06
Fm: Jay Ackroyd 72311,1423
To: Will Zachmann [PCMAG] 72241,43 (X)

Will,

I think those phrases only work if you cut off a finger, or at least hit with
a stick somewhere near the end.

whichever it is, Craig deserves it for polluting a discussion of religion with
logic. Heck, if it made sense, it'd be easy.

Jay


#: 26557 S11/Quality Sounds
    10-Feb-89  23:11:19
Fm: Craig Stark [PCMAG] 72241,102
To: Jay Ackroyd 72311,1423

Jay--Sorry, it's an occupational hazzard.  Now:
  "God" means "That than which no greater can be conceived."
  That than which no greater can be conceived cannot be conceived not to
exist.
  Therefore, God necessarily exists.

It ain't easy even if you try to make it make sense.

Craig


#: 26801 S11/Quality Sounds
    12-Feb-89  06:13:27
Fm: Jay Ackroyd 72311,1423
To: Craig Stark [PCMAG] 72241,102

As far as I can tell logic and sense have no role in religious belief, at
least in the fundamental acceptance of the doctrine.  Take the Christian
trinity for an example.  Theologians tried for centuries, and it still makes
no sense.

Most contemporary arguments for the existence of God are restatements of the
watchmaker argument, which would seem to apply in a continuing progression
through creators.

At least Zen has the virue of explicitly rejecting the role of logic in
attaining enlightenment.

Jay


#: 26953 S11/Quality Sounds
    12-Feb-89  21:20:44
Fm: Craig Stark [PCMAG] 72241,102
To: Jay Ackroyd 72311,1423 (X)

Apart from F.R. Tennant (early 20th cent.), who worked from the thesis that
"the survival of the fittest presupposes the arrival of the fit," I don't see
your basis for holding that "most centemporary arguments for the existence of
God are restatements of the watchmaker argument."  Certainly Hume demolished
that one properly, in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.

If "logic and sense have no role in religious belief," it becomes impossible
to state what is believed.  This may be the case, but I'm far from convinced. 
Enjoy your Zen, however!


#: 26996 S11/Quality Sounds
    13-Feb-89  04:48:17
Fm: Jay Ackroyd 72311,1423
To: Craig Stark [PCMAG] 72241,102 (X)

<it becomes impossible to state what is believed>

Yes, I think that it is impossible to state clearly what is believed.  It is
not possible for a Christian to define clearly the nature of God.  it is not
possible for a practitioner of Zen to state what it is he or she believes, in
a clear way.

Kierkegard's "leap into the abyss" is the closest I have ever come to
understanding how it is that people believe in what seems to me to be
nonsense.

And *I* don't practice Zen.  The koans are fun to read, and its even more fun
to read IBM koans, but it still looks like nonsense to me.

Jay


#: 27089 S11/Quality Sounds
    13-Feb-89  18:18:47
Fm: Craig Stark [PCMAG] 72241,102
To: Jay Ackroyd 72311,1423

Is it possible to state Plato's Theory of Forms, Aristotle's concept of ousia,
Spinoza's theory of Being, Kant's notion of the noumenon, or similar ideas
"clearly?"  If so, it is possible to state what at least some religious people
believe clearly.  What they believe may be wrong, of course, but that's
another question.  Now, if you hold that only empirical propositions or
analytic propositions can be stated "clearly," then you have simply *defined*
the notion of what is "clearly statable" in such a way as to exclude
linguistic utterances you don't care for.  That, however, is just as arbitrary
a linguistic decision as any victory by definition--including the ontological
argument!


#: 27775 S11/Quality Sounds
    17-Feb-89  12:50:18
Fm: Jay Ackroyd 72311,1423
To: Craig Stark [PCMAG] 72241,102 (X)

Whoa!!

'Twas you who wanted to state such beliefs clearly, not me.

Can I rephrase this in terms I think you will agree with?

It is not possible to state a religious belief (such as whether tubes sound
better than transistors) in such a way that the belief can be empirically
tested to the satisfaction of both the believer and the nonbeliever.

In addition to this claim, I make the further claim that it is not possible to
write a statement of any length that will, without contradiction, describe the
nature of God.   Mind you, without *internal* contradiction. Take as an
example the Christian Trinity. There are fundamental contradictions in the
notion expressed in the idea of "fully human and fully divine" that cannot be
overcome by logic. It requires an *acceptance* of internal contradiction as a
mystery or as a test of faith.

When you say "what they (religious people) believe may be wrong", you seem to
contradict your claim that I define away the question by only allowing
confirmable hypotheses as "clear" statements.  How can it be right or wrong,
if it cannot be tested?  If it can be tested, then it can be stated clearly.


#: 27776 S11/Quality Sounds
    17-Feb-89  12:50:35
Fm: Jay Ackroyd 72311,1423
To: Jay Ackroyd 72311,1423

I take it back.  One can construct a perfectly self consistent religious
argument if one starts from scratch.  I claim that Oak trees are sentient,
that they created the universe and that they will live after us.  But they are
very clever gods,and never let on that they are conscious.

This is internally unassailable -- every argument against oak tree sentience
or godhood is met by "Yep, see how clever they are!"

But it is also exceedingly unsatisfying.  It seems to me that religious belief
will always be either similarly unsatisfying, or internally contradictory or
both.

BTW, when you say that religious people "may be wrong", I think you contradict
your argument that I am defining away the problem by requiring "clear"
statements to be "empirical or analytical".  If they can be wrong, then the
question cen be stated in a testable way.  If it can be stated in a testable
way, then I am not off base is using that as a criterion.  (not that I agree
with your interpretation of my use of word "clear".  All empirically testable
statements are clear; not all clear statements are testable.  I challenge a
practicioner of a currently widely practiced religion to clearly state the
nature of his or her belief.  This is especially difficult because there are
generally authorities who define whether a given statement is true, and that
seem to incorporate unclear and contradictary ideas in the set of rules and
practices.)

jay


#: 27790 S11/Quality Sounds
    17-Feb-89  15:32:11
Fm: Craig Stark [PCMAG] 72241,102
To: Jay Ackroyd 72311,1423

I don't think we're going to get much further with this, but when I made the
assertion that "what they [religious people] believe may be wrong" I was
rejecting your proposed equation btween "meaningful" and "empirically
testable".  The rather bold Positivism of the Vienna Circle, epitomized by its
claim that "The meaning of a proposition is the method of its verification"
has seemed, increasingly, to following generations of philosophers (few of
whom would consider themselves religious) to omit too much of importance in
human experience to constitute an intellectually satisfying criterion of
"meaningful."  Quine's "The Two Dogmas of Empiricism" has poved a seminal
work; you might find it of interest if you haven't read it--certainly there
are few "harder headed" logicians than he.

Outside the "hard" sciences and mathematics (if there) I should think it would
be very difficult to write at considerable length on nearly any topic without
saying something that was (or certainly seemed) internally inconsistent with
something else said in the same document.  Beliefs about the historical
significance of events can certainly be stated clearly enough to be asserted
and denied, yet of course these are not empirically testable.

At any event, it is not my purpose to "thump the tub" for religious
assertions, as I would wish to make few if any of them myself.  On the other
hand, the kind of "wholesale onslaught" on them I sensed in your line(s) of
criticism seemed no less dogmatic.  And in no case would I equate "capable of
clear statement" with "empirically determinable."


#: 27861 S11/Quality Sounds
    17-Feb-89  20:29:13
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Jay Ackroyd 72311,1423

I find "Yep, see how clever they are!" exceedingly satisfying.
 >God is Ineffable.
I will say no more about it.


#: 27842 S11/Quality Sounds
    17-Feb-89  18:00:06
Fm: Earle Robinson 76004,1762
To: Jay Ackroyd 72311,1423

Why is it necessary to discuss religious belief in terms of empiricism?  Who
says that empirical testing is to be applied to religious belief?  Why?

I'm especially perplexed at your narrowing religious belief to those who are
'practioner[s] of a currently widely practiced religion'.  Aside from the
inherent tautology in your reasoning, why exclude people with religious beliefs
who are not in a 'widely practiced religion'?  You appear to say that only
someone who 'goes' to church/temple/etc. is a religious believer.  Further you
reference to authorities in the same paragraph refers to theology not religion.
And, 'rules and practices' have nothing to do with religious belief, only the
organization of an instituionalized religion, be it christianity or another.

I'm afraid your arguments remind me of one paul blanchard, a pamphleteer some
years back, whose best known book was, "American Freedom and Catholic Power".

Reminded of quine by stark's message I'd like to quote him about religion and
tolerance:

"Here the question of a proper balance of tolerance is peculiarly delicate,
because the answer varies abruptly with the point of view.  Militant atheism
aside, religious tolerance tends to be inversely proportional to religious
faith.  If someone firmly believes that eternal salvation and damnation hinge
on embracing his particular religion, he would be callous indeed to sit
tolerantly back and watch others go to hell.

If on the other hand someone subscribes to no religion, and is appalled by the
inhumanity of religious intolerance, then his moral course of action would
evidently be to try to stamp out religion and, therewith, religious
intolerance. This puts him in the pardoxical position of religious intolerance
in turn--intolerance of all religion.  Such then is the militant atheist."
   -er
P.S.  Before we know it, there will be yet another section here, appropriately
called, 'philosophical noise'.


#: 27860 S11/Quality Sounds
    17-Feb-89  20:28:59
Fm: Ben Sano 72401,2736
To: Jay Ackroyd 72311,1423

Please be careful the doctrine of the Trinity is _NOT_ the same as that of
the hypostatic union.


#: 27887 S11/Quality Sounds
    17-Feb-89  22:25:09
Fm: Earle Robinson 76004,1762
To: Ben Sano 72401,2736 (X)

Good point!  I missed that on my first read of his message.   -er


#: 27137 S11/Quality Sounds
    13-Feb-89  22:31:07
Fm: Sheryl Smith 76117,2063
To: Jay Ackroyd 72311,1423

Zen, as I understand it, is not a belief.  Zen is a technique for producing a
certain psychological state.  After that, you're on your own.


#: 27164 S11/Quality Sounds
    14-Feb-89  01:09:51
Fm: Craig Stark [PCMAG] 72241,102
To: Sheryl Smith 76117,2063

I think you're right, Sheryl


#: 27202 S11/Quality Sounds
    14-Feb-89  08:08:34
Fm: Neil Rubenking [PCMAG] 72241,50
To: Sheryl Smith 76117,2063

Sheryl,
       Yup, you summed it up.  The whole thing is basically an instruction
manual.  So-called Zen Masters are the illustrations.  But TRUCKLOADS of junk
have been generated to explain the "Zen belief".  Weird, eh?  Me, I don't know
much about "Zen belief", but I followed the instructions for many, many years.
       -- Neil


#: 27877 S11/Quality Sounds
    17-Feb-89  22:05:08
Fm: Joe Salemi 71121,3273
To: Neil Rubenking [PCMAG] 72241,50

That's why I always prefered "The Way of Zen."  Problem is, when you get one
of those forms that asks for religon, TWoZ is kinda long to fit in the little
space they give you (not to mention the funny looks you get from the person
reviewing the form....)


#: 26446 S11/Quality Sounds
    10-Feb-89  08:03:01
Fm: Neil Rubenking [PCMAG] 72241,50
To: Will Zachmann [PCMAG] 72241,43 (X)

Will,
       I know where _I_ picked up all that stuff, but where did YOU?  "O
Shariputra, all dharmas are marked with emptiness; they do not appear nor
disappear, do not increase nor decrease, are not tainted nor pure".  "No eyes,
no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind."  Etc. etc.
       -- Neil


#: 26538 S11/Quality Sounds
    10-Feb-89  21:26:59
Fm: Will Zachmann [PCMAG] 72241,43
To: Neil Rubenking [PCMAG] 72241,50

Neil,
       Well, it all started one evening in front of Club 47 in 1961 (back when
it was on Mt. Auburn St. not Palmer St.) when I asked Bob Fulton (who was a
year or so older than I and therefore presumably wiser) a question (I'm not
sure exactly what it was) and he answered:  "Read Zen."  The next day I went
to the Coop and got a copy of Robert Linssen's "Living Zen" and a (if I
remember correctly) something by D. T. Suzuki and from there, as George
Gurdjieff was fond of pointing out, "one thing leads to another."

Will


#: 26556 S11/Quality Sounds
    10-Feb-89  23:11:06
Fm: Craig Stark [PCMAG] 72241,102
To: Will Zachmann [PCMAG] 72241,43

Actually, the lines you quoted *do* make much very clear.  Such intentional
"paradoxes" (the circle is a square, the square a circle; being is naught and
naught is all--or any other similar gibberish) are not attempts to express
propositions, but rather to urge the cessation of mental activity. A Western
philosopher (if I may use that phrase of myself) is immediately inclined to
urge that it is then impossible to distinguish between the mental state
achieved by the enlightened sage and the mental state of a snail, a stone, an
empty closet, or the like.  This will be met with an insufferably patient and
patronizing smile, and the (quite correct) rejoinder that he is still
attempting to employ the categories of discursive thought.  The rejoinder is
only apt, however, if there is a difference between "attempting" and "not
attempting" to employ those categories.  In the end, only the smile
remains.--Craig


#: 26617 S11/Quality Sounds
    11-Feb-89  08:02:59
Fm: Will Zachmann [PCMAG] 72241,43
To: Craig Stark [PCMAG] 72241,102

I dunno, Craig.  Sound like a kinda intellectual interpretation to me.  You
sure those lines don't simply mean *EXACTLY* what they say?

;-)  or rather )

"silence to say good bye..."(and a copy of ZEdit to the first person to
correctly identify the author of the quote).

Wily Z


#: 26952 S11/Quality Sounds
    12-Feb-89  21:20:29
Fm: Craig Stark [PCMAG] 72241,102
To: Will Zachmann [PCMAG] 72241,43 (X)

If the lines you cited do "mean *EXACTLY* what they say," they are neither
true nor false, but *meaningless*.  If "The cat is on the mat" is compatible
with "The cat is not on the mat," it expresses no proposition whatever.
Sentences that *look* as if they attempted to express propositions may, of
course, have another function, which I tried to suggest.  The cessation of
thought, brought about by the "defeat" of the intellect by presenting it with
contradictories is a well-known "meditative" technique common to Buddhism and
Hinduism.  Tends to drive Western-oriented philosophers of religion nuts. --A
certified cashew


#: 27016 S11/Quality Sounds
    13-Feb-89  07:07:49
Fm: Will Zachmann [PCMAG] 72241,43
To: Craig Stark [PCMAG] 72241,102 (X)

Ludwig...?  Ludwig...?  That you out there Ludwig?  So how's your sister and
how is the architecture business in Vienna these days?  Ludwig...?


#: 27090 S11/Quality Sounds
    13-Feb-89  18:19:18
Fm: Craig Stark [PCMAG] 72241,102
To: Will Zachmann [PCMAG] 72241,43

I just pulled her up on the ladder behind me, Will.


#: 27107 S11/Quality Sounds
    13-Feb-89  20:36:03
Fm: Loren Jenkins 72261,213
To: Will Zachmann [PCMAG] 72241,43

z,
       Doubt rests only on that which is beyond doubt.
                                                       -- Ludwig


#: 26323 S11/Quality Sounds
    09-Feb-89  11:00:55
Fm: Guruka Singh Khalsa 71500,34
To: Craig Stark [PCMAG] 72241,102

Well, as Baba RAM DOS says: "Idiots think, saints do."


#: 26558 S11/Quality Sounds
    10-Feb-89  23:11:32
Fm: Craig Stark [PCMAG] 72241,102
To: Guruka Singh Khalsa 71500,34

>"Idiots think, saints do."<

Is there a difference between asserting and denying that proposition?


#: 26611 S11/Quality Sounds
    11-Feb-89  07:28:57
Fm: Guruka Singh Khalsa 71500,34
To: Craig Stark [PCMAG] 72241,102 (X)

No, there's a difference between asserting OR denying that proposition and
 
DOING IT.
 
@;-)##


#: 26791 S11/Quality Sounds
    12-Feb-89  03:34:46
Fm: Andrys Basten 72137,2176
To: Guruka Singh Khalsa 71500,34 (X)

Enjoyed your self-portrait (?) there, Guruka.


#: 26798 S11/Quality Sounds
    12-Feb-89  05:45:27
Fm: Guruka Singh Khalsa 71500,34
To: Andrys Basten 72137,2176

ASCII doesn't do me justice, Andrys, but it's all we got.
Glad you enjoyed it.