Finding the Ground of Morality
Part 1
Back to my home page: www.suzaki.has.it
Contents
Part – 1 (This file)
Finding the ground of Morality, etc.
Difference between Having and Not Having the Ground
Part – 2 (See the separate file)
Questions of SWM on Zen and Morality
SWM’s Experience: Bubbles on the surface of Boiling Soup
About H-max, Wholesome Act, and Utilitarianism
Find your own solution! The job has to be done by each individual
This dialogue addresses the subject of morality and its ground for us to make a good judgment. It took place mainly between SWM, Wilbro and myself at the Yahoo! Group, wisdom forum, in May-June, 2003. In a broader sense, this is not just about morality or moral judgment, it includes subjects like how we think, decide, act, and move on with our life in the sanest manner.
SWM was a main person to have the dialogue on this subject. Wilbro, whom I became acquainted with in the last few years, joined at occasion. They have had a lengthy discussion prior to my involvement. I jumped in with curiosity to see if we can develop any meaningful understanding.
After the Part–1, and corresponding to the brief pause then, the discussion was oriented to the subject of ground, tied to the essence of Zen (as I see it) in a commonly used language. If there is anyone stumbled into this file, and would like to share any comment or critique, please address it in the yahoo group, my guest page, or else. Have a good day!
- Kio Suzaki (July, ‘03)
P.S. As my custom, I will use the capital letter and underline the area that seems important especially for those and for myself to read this file in a hurry. Also, my comments I added when I created this file is in parenthesis ((..)).
#3910 by wilbro
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/#PP
…….
Veil of ignorance: my
interests are to be protected, but if my
interests are an integral part
of a whole, where I can not
particularize, then I must
protect the whole to protect myself. Given
that original position, if
it is to work, there would have to be some
sort of "allness"
that must operate if this original position is to
applicable to all who take the
position.
----willy
#3921 by me
Hi,
just stopping by... ((I have not had any dialogue for perhaps two years.))
Willy,
- what sort of
"allness" would that be?
- how do I know my
"allness" and your "allness" are the same?
- if we found they are the
same, would it result in any conclusive
outcome that others understand?
* As I was only skimming few
posts and noted this, please do not
take my question seriously. (I
am not planning to jump onto the
moving wagon... just curious, that
is all.)
Take care! Good day!
Kio
----
#3922 from Wilbro
Kio san, how did you find your
way in here? Did I happen to mention it
when you were by the other day?
You are more than welcome to join in.
The description of the club
mentions the Buddha and I would deem it a
pleasure to bat the Buddha
around a bit with you here. Your question
is, of course, our question.
How do we know if we see the same thing?
I think I have for a long time
figured that the best way to do that is
to discuss the distinction
between the seeing and the not seeing.
There would be the process of
coming to see and there would be the
form of the difference that
process would reveal that results in an
understanding of the process.
If that "allness" were the same, that
transition from the particular
to the general would surely have a
commonality about it that not
only could be communicated, but also
recognized.
As to an understanding of the
understanding reached, I would think
that would require the first
understanding before the second, the
communicated understanding,
could be understood, even if it were
oneself coming to an
understanding of the understanding. We have
discussed this here under the
guise of recognizing an insight, and how
communication can reveal access
to the same insight. I'll stop my
wagon any time you wish to go
for a wild ride. ----brother will
--
#3923 by me
I'll stop my
> wagon any time you wish to
go for a wild ride. ----brother will
>
Hi, wilbro san,
For a retard like me, as my son
and my wife certainly attest, this
forum seem to give me more
headache than I can handle. (Yes, you
mentioned this group and I
happened to remember to search on google.)
It seems that I need to take
English and many other subjects before
I can follow the discussion,
although intuitively, I may know what
may be going on here.
So, I think it wise for me to
find my own field to play the game
rather than joining a wild
wagon ride. Although your title like "(unknown)"
may inspire me to stop by in
the future - with dictionary in my hand
(seriously).
By the way, this site may be of
interest for some:
http://geocities.com/suzakico/thesupremespiritualideal.html
Good day!
Kio
--
#3924 by me
Warning! Your group has
exceeded its message storage limits of 32 MB
by 0.0 MB.
If you don't remove messages,
older messages will be deleted to make
room for new ones.
- so the warning sign says.
It is as if to indicate to me
that if we empty out, we
know/see/experience the
(unknown) allness-whole.
- monologue of a retard...
--
#3925 by me titled, “sorry for interruption”
Gentleman;
Have I made a sarcastic (?!)
comment to stop the flow of various
dialogues in progress? The
stillness felt in this group in the last
few days may point to that. If
so, I am sorry for the rude
interruption.
In any case, and not meaning to
further stir up the pot, I
hesitantly submit the following
words of Daisetz Suzuki I read this
morning: "The
awakening should not end by itself. It should be
acted upon. In other words,
this is to be affirmed in the world of
intellect." "What
this means is that our production, economy, and
political life need to be
functioning based upon "the principle."
The foundation of such movement
is in education. This is the
direction that needs to be
worked out." (translated by me from the
book called, Myokonin; p.15)
How we use our brain (and talk
about morality for example) is a very
interesting subject to me and
may fit to the title of this forum.
The discussion of the
wholeness, allness, etc. and awakening is a
tricky subject to communicate
(as may be backed up by 'some'
experience). Still, if that is
what is being addressed, I wish the
best of luck for the success -
as I am sure with determination,
truth will reveal itself.
Sincerely,
Kio
--
#3026 by swm
It's nothing you've done or
said (or not done or said) I assure you.
We have been trying over and
over again to get a genuine discussion
going on the nature of moral
goodness (among other issues) but it
seems we all come from many
different venues and have been unable to
establish a lingua franca in
which all are comfortable. Perhaps it is
not just a matter of common
vocabulary, but that, at least, is also
needed here before we can move
forward. If you are genuinely
interested in this issue,
perhaps you can offer us a bit of
background on your own
perspective to start things off? I can assure
you that I, at least, will be
attentive. – SWM
--
#3028 by me
> If I may ask, what is the
original question? Is it about morality,
> moral goodness, or how it
should be practiced????
>
> I do not know if I can be
of any help, but if you are curious about
> my contribution (although
I do not know if I can...), I/we need to
> know the core
question. Perhaps, you can refer me the post or
> better yet summarize the
discussion to a key point or two.
> Hopefully, such effort may
clarify things - to find the "starting
> point". (Sorry, but I
cannot picture myself reading all of these
> posts)
>
> Good luck, and take care!
> Kio
#3029 by swm
Don't
blame you. Can't manage to go back and read them myself.
The question is really several:
1) What does moral goodness
really entail (i.e., what is its core
meaning, if it has one)?
2) Why should we ever choose
the moral good over any other kind of
goodness in any given
circumstance?
3) Are there some situations
which are specifically demanding of a
moral choice (choosing a moral
option over one that represents some
other kind of benefit)?
4) Is there really such a thing
as moral goodness as distinct from
any other type?
5) Is there an aspect to moral
goodness that requires some step
beyond the day-to-day
understanding of the world that we have? (That
is, is there some
"spiritual" dimension to this idea?)
6) Can moral goodness ever be
successfully argued for or is it always
just a matter of personal
feelings (either reflecting individual
sensibilities or species
pre-disposition or choices as convention
made and enforced by societies
and/or social institutions)?
I think that about sums up the
various issues we've tried to handle
here.
Note that we've been all over
the map, from modern analytical
philosophy to existentialism,
to Kantian categorical reasoning, to
Buddhism to Christianity and to
Islam. We've also touched on
questions of Humean skepticism,
John Mills utilitarianism and modern
questions of metaethics (i.e.,
what we are doing when we make moral
claims and statements).
Finally, we've spent a bit of time on
Wittgenstein's way of seeing
philosophy, knowledge and the world
though I, at least, have
concluded that he offered us very little in
the way of clarification of
these moral questions.
SWM
---
#3930 titled, “Finding the ground/(unknown)(??!!)”
Thanks for the summary. Although I could not follow up the various theories you referred to because of my lack of knowledge, I sense these questions may be summed up to the issue of “judgment.”
Then, the issue of judgment may be incorporated under the subject of “problem-solving.” It is about choosing A or B...., etc. or to come up with resolution, or perhaps bringing with new insight.
So, if we understand how each of us solves problem, following the law of nature/ in a rational way, we may be able to address the morale issues, etc. as well.
Of course, since each of us having various backgrounds and value system tied with that, the value we attach to any event will vary. Accordingly, each one’s choice may vary. So, we need to consider such an issue as well. (Each one’s universe and value basis may be most likely different from the others. Cats like to eat fish, but dogs may not, for example at the animal’s level. Or, my grey cat prefers to drink water with his paw wet. The black cat, however, likes to drink directly with his tongue.)
Considering these differences, never mind the difference in the “image” associated with words or “understanding” of theories, what I would like to find next is the common denominator, so to speak. Because, without the basis cleared, everything seems to be more like a mirage of building - perhaps an ivory tower.
So, what is the foundation or basis? Whether we can agree this or not, what I sense/propose as the core foundation is “LIFE,” or creative force that drives us to live and move forward - moral or scientific advancement included.. In other words, the subject of problem-solving is incorporated under LIFE. Also, I sense that this has to be tied to the way the universe functions. (as obvious as it may be…)
So, the point is; unless we “understand” this framework, and be able to capture what LIFE is, we may be deluding ourselves. (Although whether or not we can get to this point is by itself an interesting question…..In fact, Zen master may point out; “that” is the original face before your parents are born. My wish is that we can at least discuss this at least conceptually.)
Before I go any further, I wonder if what I said up to this point is still in line to your interest - although this may be already addressed in this forum in a different manner. Any feed back is very much appreciated. (And, by the way, sorry for my level of English…also, I am not quite sure as to how much further I may be able to go – just in case you are wondering…. :-) )
Sincerely,
Kio
==
#3931 by swm
Perhaps
we should start with an actual moral question or two.
1) Why should I care about
other human beings?
2) Was it wrong for the 19
hijackers on September 11th to commandeer
the planes they took and fly
them, with all their innocent
passengers, into buildings with
other innocent civilians, causing the
deaths of so many?
What kind of claims can be
adduced to assert a reason for the first
question and to affirm the
wrongness of the second?
Why should such reasons be
compelling to one who doesn't want to
accept either?
SWM
#3932 by me
>Perhaps we should start
with an actual moral question or two.
As much as a runway is needed
before the plane to take off, perhaps
we might consider finding the
ground before asking these questions,
i.e., "What ground
was there to ask these question?"
I wonder if we can go into this
direction.
Good day!
Kio
--
#3934 by swm
By
the phrase "what ground", are you asking if there's any basis at
all for thinking that moral
questions make sense (or are meaningful
in some peculiarly moral way)?
Certainly moral valuing could
be reducible to something else, e.g.,
matters of self-interest. It
could be the case, for instance, that
any moral claim we make is
really just a socially acceptable "nice"
way of talking about our own
self-interest. Thus, saying we should be
concerned for the well-being of
others, for instance, might really be
nothing more than to say that
if we act in this way, others will like
us or we will stand to gain
something from society for such
behaviour, etc.
My thinking at this point,
though, is that such a position vitiates
any real moral claim, rendering
morality a kind of chimera because it
means that if we do not stand
to gain, if we can do something
contrary to this (i.e., act in
a way that harms the well-being of
others) and get away with it,
then there is no reason not to do that!
(See the Socratic dialogue,
Gyges Ring.)
Or, if circumstances arise
where we actually benefit from hurting
another (or have good reason to
think we will benefit) then we should
go ahead and act in a way that
we would normally consider immoral!
Now, the issue with the 9/11 hijackers
is a little different. In
their case, they definitely
appear to have thought they were doing
the right thing (acting in the
interests of Islam and Allah). So the
question there is why is their
view right or wrong and is there any
reason that can be given that
spans societies and particular
viewpoints which has a
universal kind of authority? Or is everything
more or less relative and, if
you think you have moral authority on
your side, then you do?
It seems to me these are the
critical questions in any moral inquiry
and addressing them kicks up
the kinds of issues which must
ultimately be addressed in any
effort to determine if there is really
something called moral valuing
as distinct from the normal kinds of
valuing we all, without thinking,
routinely engage in.
SWM
----
#3935 by me
> By the phrase "what ground", are you asking if there's any basis at
> all for thinking that moral questions make sense (or are meaningful
> in some peculiarly moral way)?
I am talking about the “ground” before such thinking or questioning takes place. Because depending on the ground, your thinking or questioning may be corrupt. The ground that makes us to think coherently, or intelligently is what we need, so I think….
Also, here is another thought that popped up in reading your post - connecting to the discussion on the “ground”:
We do what we do, whether to laugh, cry, scratch, kill, love, think, question, sleep, etc., because "that act" we do - whether consciously or unconsciously - is the best act that can come about at that moment given the situation. You are reading this post, or you are doing this or that. And in that moment to moment act of your mind-body’s functioning, there is a process that tries to optimizes the outcome. This process is functioning at all time in living our life to do what is "right" otherwise we are not doing that. So, any act or outcome represents such optimization process.
Now, if we view that everything we do is "right” from that standpoint, I see the murderers of 9-11 certainly did the "right" thing from the basis that each of them acquired up to that point. Otherwise, he should have done something else. (By the way, if this act was not a wholesome act, or not good for our society so it appears, it is the whole society, including you and me, that failed to exercise the “Right” idea, i.e., we are responsible some way or the other for that act to happen - ultimately.)
So this is about cause and effect, conditioning or karma we need to understand, which in turn may lead to the discussion of free will. (Is there such a thing? or how we find and practice the free will, etc.) I do not wish to keep switching words for the same discussion. But is this not what we also mean by the “ground”? The point is that inquiring about the ground may lead us to better understand what is happening in us making judgment, solving problems, and living life. Otherwise, as much as murderer may be hypnotized, we may well be hypnotized or conditioned in our own way as well.
To this point, we may ask to ourselves: If we are unaware, how do we know we are unaware??? Was it, wilbro-san? Then, another question may be: what is the “right” conditioning given the situation that produces the “Right” outcome? Is there such a thing? In any case, to address these, we need a forum to understand the functioning of wisdom – at the ground level, do we not?
(Am I communicating anything, I wonder ???)
Kio
--
#3936 by swm
Not
quite clear enough for me. I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Agreed that all choices we make
are made because we think we are
doing the right thing. But
there are many kinds of right thing. The
right thing to maximize our
pleasure may not be the right thing for
our health or, even, what is
morally right if by this we mean concern
for others.
You speak of conditioning as
well. But I see choice as done for
reasons (though, of course, our
reasons may reflect conditioned
preferences). How does this
idea of conditioning fit in with your
notion of "ground"
and the idea that valuing is choosing?
Lastly, you seem to talk about
being able to see through an illusion
of some sort (presumably the
idea that the real lies beneath the
world we know). Can you
clarify?
As to the 9/11 hijackers, I'm
not sure what you mean when you suggest
we are all responsible for the
actions they chose. Presumably you
mean this in some metaphysical
sense. But how would that affect the
choices made by particular
individuals at a particular point in time?
Did we make them do it? And
would this be construed in some way as to
mitigate their responsibility
for the results of their actions?
SWM
--
#3937 by me
So, what is said may be paraphrased by the following question:
- How can we go beyond the “negative” conditioning (karma) that create delusion (i.e., not seeing what is going on)
- and how can we get the insight (to see what is going on; truth) to find the “Right” path.
Finding the ground is an expression equivalent to this point. Then, I sense the question of morality, judgment, how to use our brain, how to solve problem, etc. may be taken care of if we know and practice what we are talking about.
The issue of difference in memories and conditioning for each person may be addressed by clarifying the boundary/nature of the “universe” each of us possesses – so to speak. Since each of us has a different “universe” which comprises his unique set of memories, experiences, preferences, conditioning/mind programs, karma, etc., etc., the issue of finding the ground may be translated as finding the differences/ commonalities and the reasons why these are created. Unless we clarify that, we may be still trying to think, communicate, etc. without having a good framework/ground.
Again, what I am proposing is having such “awareness” and “realizing” what is actually going on is the starting point (i.e., the ground) and that such starting point is where the wisdom/insight can be generated (while delusion and errors eradicated, and “wrong” conditioning fixed because of the work of LIFE/wisdom/awakening).
As for the 9/11 hijackers, and the point I suggested that we are all responsible for the actions they chose, we can leave that discussion alone for the time being. Possibly, such idea/insight may come when we understand how “the ground” functions for us all to benefit from.
(Again, I am not quite sure if what I said makes sense or not. So, I will wait for more comment if any with the hope that we are moving in this process in a constructive manner. My limitation of writing may be overcome by your ability of reading/understanding.)
Good night,
Kio
--
#3938 by wilbro
> Kio san, nice to see you engaged here. Yes, I follow what you are
> saying. What you call the "universe" we each possess, I would call the
> Weltanschauung, or the worldview in which the viewer is included, or
> centered. It is not me and my worldview, but "worldview." This means
> that the relation to oneself must be included within it, which I have
> called here the self-to-self relation, which is "the ground," or the
> grounding, of our "universe." Correct me, please, if I misstate what
> you are saying.
#3939 by me
LOL, wilbro san...surprise! and nice to find your note and the style to go with it as always!
In my first reading, I thought I needed another dictionary and medicine to prepare for the allergy attack (kidding!). But phew! In my second reading, I sense I know what you are talking about and it appears that we may be talking the same thing.
(Note: I say this without knowing what Weltanschauung may mean and what context it was used other than what you mentioned. Still, it is interesting anyway. At the least, we may be trying to say something in common (and trying to communicate some “Meaning” through this process) perhaps. Rereading what I wrote, however, I feel I added more objective feel to it, including such things as memories, programs, etc. as opposed to see it expressed more in a subjective manner – the stance I feel you seem to be taking. Yet, it may be that you are pointing “objective is subjective” and vice versa or “observer and observed are one” in this “universe”/”world view” we are talking about. Hope, however, that this kind of mumble and added terms do not tangle up the situation nor deter the focus on finding and having the ground – to make “Right” judgment, coming up with insight, etc., etc. as previously mentioned.)
If swm san (or whoever else) is still interested to continue, I “know” intuitively that I have more ideas floating in me that any reader might help pulling them out if any comment or question is raised. But, since there is a danger of me mumbling alone without any participation of others, and merely occupying more memory space at this forum, I would like to wait and see what may (or may not) pop up from here.
Good day, and enjoy a nice early summer!
Kio
P.S. I introduced a concept called mini-company as a way of managing a company and fully utilizing the talent of everyone. (See www.suzaki.has.it for more info.) The notion of “universe” has similar element. It is something to do with self-managing and finding the destiny in what we do while the whole company and the society (eventually) to benefit from.
--
#3940 by swm
I
am still here, just thinking about what you said. Seems to me you
are pursuing a more or less
religious tack so I will seek further
clarification from you at this
point. Since you are speaking of
karma, may I assume you are
coming at this from a Buddhist
perspective? If so, perhaps you
would want to elaborate on the
Buddhist idea of morality and
what is good? I don't think we can
divorce these questions from
real events and situations however, so
anything you propose needs to
be as applicable to the actions of the
9/11 hijackers as it is to more
abstract moral questions. Of course,
on the Buddhist view, morality
is not exactly what we conceive it to
be in the Western tradition.
The whole purpose of the Buddhist
enterprise is to get beyond the
good-evil dichotomy (just as it is to
get beyond the illusions of the
real that our world is said to
consist of). I would welcome
your comments on this to see how you
would put all this into the
context of a discussion on moral
valuing. – SWM
#3942 by me
It appears that there is still a difference in our approaches. That is, I am looking at the process and the starting point of our discussion, i.e., ground, whereas you seem to be looking at the output and explanation. (I could be wrong.) As suggested, I am in the opinion of “process brings the result” and the core of the process is the utmost concern.
I used the term karma, referring to the cause and effect. But my intension was not to bring in “Buddhism” or any “-isms” here nor for me to explain what the Buddhist view on moral is compared to this or that. The intension was to use the words to communicate and explore further to come up with the understanding of the ground. If this is done, I sense it will enable us to find the source of wisdom to approach the issue of morality, etc. instead of discussing theories, religions, cultural background, etc. or work on cases without this basis.
Again, I am suggesting to find such a “ground” which is at the very bottom of various frameworks, religions, theories, etc. as it were. If we are successful in doing this, this effort should help us understand how we think, how we make judgment, how we come up with insight, etc, etc. By definition, if we were to go over the “optimization” process I pointed out (in post #3935) to bring out wisdom, there is certain resistance. But developing the awareness on all of these and being able to “creatively” address issues in life – to me, such is the LIFE’s process we may want to understand.
Having said that, let me try a different angle. Here, I will treat the ground more as a black box or “(unknown)” and see how it may function. First, there is an event, for example, 9-11 or cat peeing on the floor (my wife was upset this morning). The question here is, whatever the event is, how we deal with it.
Case (1): If we do not have an access to the ground and react to any stimuli with fear, anger, desperation, greed, or perhaps react in a conditioned manner and not looking the situation from broader/deeper/wholesome perspective, in such a state, we may be called as deluded, unable to function with intelligence. This is like something is preventing us from reaching the source of insight that enables us to take the “right” action – whatever that action is. Whether the issue is morality or living life, such approach may not take advantage of our full potentiality. This is the case of us not having the ground.
Case (2): If we have the access to the ground on the other hand, we may notice the stimuli and the reactions developed in us to the stimuli. Since the ground here encompasses the whole of what is happening as opposed to the limited scope as in the case (1), and by being able to observe the nature of our mind habit, thinking pattern, etc., etc., one does not necessarily react to the stimuli, but come up with wisdom to chose the “right” course of action. This is the case of having the ground and being able to utilize it.
These are two extremes. I am sure there are more cases perhaps between these two. Also, understanding the ground may not just help us to access the insight but also bring various other benefits to live our life. To rephrase, the question is, is it not better to understand our own functioning in relation to this ground (i.e., “Know thyself”) before comparing the theories, religions, cases, etc.? In other words, is it not meaningful to know the subjective part (us) to discuss the objects so far as they are inseparable in many ways?
(Am I making sense??? If not, let’s discover the problem, or, simply ignore. If there is something in there, then what is the next step?)
Good day! - Kio
--
#3943 by swm
Some replies interspersed below:
--- In WisdomForum@yahoogroups.com,
"suzakico" <suzakico@y...>
wrote:
> It appears that there is
still a difference in our approaches.
That
> is, I am looking at the
process and the starting point of our
> discussion, i.e., ground,
whereas you seem to be looking at the
> output and explanation. (I
could be wrong.) As suggested, I am in
> the opinion of
"process brings the result" and the core of
> the
> process is the utmost
concern.
>
I think to understand what we
are inquiring about we need to look at
the actual phenomenon itself.
In this case that is moral judgements
in terms of how they actually
get made and presented when we make
them. I don't know how to do
this in any other way. I am not sure
what it means to talk about the
ground first since we must first
understand what we are seeking
the ground for, no?
> I used the term karma,
referring to the cause and effect. But my
> intension was not to bring
in "Buddhism" or any
> "-isms" here nor
for
> me to explain what the
Buddhist view on moral is compared to this
or
> that.
I think use of a word like
"karma" has certain factors and
connotations that must be
understood. The word is not an ordinary
English word or even one that
is part of the Western way of speaking.
It's unique provenance is
Eastern, reflecting its Buddhist/Hindu
derivation and usage. Thus, if
it is to be used in this discussion we
need to know something about it
and to do that we need to address it
in its context, where its
meaning derives from. You don't have to
plunk for Buddhism here, but I
think it would be useful to see the
Buddhist viewpoint laid out,
particularly since some of what you are
saying seems to be from that
background. Moreover, Buddhism has a
clear claim to be heard in this
kind of discussion, given its
concerns.
The intension was to use the
words to communicate and explore
> further to come up with
the understanding of the ground. If this
is
> done, I sense it will
enable us to find the source of wisdom to
> approach the issue of
morality, etc. instead of discussing
theories,
> religions, cultural
background, etc. or work on cases without this
> basis.
>
I'm not sure we can find any
kind of sources without looking at the
cultural background and context
of our claims.
> Again, I am suggesting to
find such a "ground" which is at
> the very
> bottom of various frameworks,
religions, theories, etc. as it
were.
> If we are successful in
doing this, this effort should help us
> understand how we think,
how we make judgment, how we come up with
> insight, etc, etc. By
definition, if we were to go over
> the "optimization"
process I pointed out (in post #3935) to
> bring
> out wisdom, there is
certain resistance. But developing the
> awareness on all of these
and being able to "creatively"
> address
> issues in life – to me,
such is the LIFE's process we may
> want to
> understand.
>
I think this is so and am
willing to explore in this direction with
you (though I am most
interested in technical philosophy as I've
indicated in the past here).
But I think you will have to take the
lead, in this case, since my thinking
goes in a somewhat different
direction (i.e., that technical
philosophy already mentioned).
> Having said that, let me
try a different angle. Here, I will treat
> the ground more as a black
box or "(unknown)" and see how it
> may
> function. First, there is
an event, for example, 9-11 or cat
peeing
> on the floor (my wife was
upset this morning). The question here
> is, whatever the event is,
how we deal with it.
>
> Case (1): If we do not
have an access to the ground and react to
> any stimuli with fear,
anger, desperation, greed, or perhaps react
> in a conditioned manner
and not looking the situation from
> broader/deeper/wholesome
perspective, in such a state, we may be
> called as deluded, unable
to function with intelligence. This is
> like something is
preventing us from reaching the source of insight
> that enables us to take
the "right" action – whatever
> that action
> is. Whether the issue is
morality or living life, such approach
may
> not take advantage of our
full potentiality. This is the case of
us
> not having the ground.
>
> Case (2): If we have an
access to the ground on the other hand, we
> may notice the stimuli and
the reactions developed in us to the
> stimuli. Since the ground
here encompasses the whole of what is
> happening as opposed to
the limited scope as in the case (1), and
by
> being able to observe the
nature of our mind habit, thinking
> pattern, etc., etc., one
does not necessarily react to the stimuli,
> but come up with wisdom to
chose the "right" course of
> action. This
> is the case of having the
ground and being able to utilize it.
>
It sounds to me like you are
plunking for equanimity in the face of
particular events, looking at
the bigger picture and not getting
caught up in the emotionalism
of the moment? If so, how do we apply
this to the question of the
9/11 hijackers? Having seen the event and
learned of all the deaths that
resulted, and learning, further, that
the group that did this
considered this action only a kind of a
downpayment in an ongoing war,
and, more, eulogized the hijackers for
their self-sacrifice for the
good of their cause and called for more
of the same from others, are
you suggesting that equanimity, as you
have seemed to describe it
above, tells us to view the events as
something other than what they
at first appeared, namely a cruel and
bloody and unprovoked attack on
innocent people in the U.S.? If so,
are you suggesting that moral
condemnation is not in order? (If not
in this case, then in what case
would it be in order?) And are you
suggesting that the claims of
the hijackers to have done the right
thing could be upheld on some
basis? (By "right thing" I mean here
some kind of moral rightness,
that is, that their actions represented
something that anyone of us
should have and would have done if we
were in the same situation and
had to make a choice whether to act in
this way or not.)
> These are two extremes. I
am sure there are more cases perhaps
> between these two. Also,
understanding the ground may not just
help
> us to access the insight
but also bring various other benefits to
> live our life. To
rephrase, the question is, is it not better to
> understand our own
functioning in relation to this ground
> (i.e., "Know thyself")
before comparing the theories,
> religions,
> cases, etc.?
I'm not sure what is meant by
"know thyself" here. Are you suggesting
that we must first go through
some sort of self examination before
addressing the question of
making a decision as to what is right or
wrong re: so-called moral
questions?
In other words, is it not
meaningful to know the
> subjective part (us) to
discuss the objects so far as they are
> inseparable in many ways?
>
What do you mean by the
"subjective part" of us? Are you saying we
first need to examine the range
of our feelings and motives (both
explicit and implicit) before
we can make a moral judgement or a
moral decision? If so, does
this apply in every instance of moral
valuing or only in certain
particularly serious ones (such as 9/11)?
You seem to suggest this even
applies when the cat pees though I'm
not sure that, itself, is a
moral matter!
> (Am I making sense??? If
not, let's discover the problem, or,
> simply ignore. If there is
something in there, then what is the
> next step?)
>
> Good day! - Kio
My thinking is to take real
cases (such as 9/11 and others) and try
to see what we mean when we
make moral claims about such things and
what the basis (or lack of
basis) for such claims are.
I do think it's important to do
a bit of metaethical investigation
here as well, but I am willing
to put this on hold in order to pursue
this inquiry from a top down
approach such as you seem to be urging,
namely to look first at moral
valuing itself. But I have no idea how
to do this in terms of
"grounds" without looking at the actual
phenomena of moral valuing. So
I say let's start with real examples
and compare our claims about
them.
Thanks.
SWM
#3944 by me
Thanks swm for your comments. Certainly, our emphasis (interest perhaps) seems to be different. It could be that I am living in a different world. Yet, I am curious if there is anyone with any other comments, or opinions.
By the way, if there are two or more viewpoints and the difference existing among them, how can we resolve such situation as a group/society? Would this not pretty much the issue/process applicable in the case of 9-11 as well? If we were to succeed in learning the lesson from such event as 9-11 or else and find the approach that addresses the source of the problem (which I believe leads to understanding the core of human behavior), how do we do that? How do we come up with the idea to solve the problem? Also, what idea do we have to come up with ideas?
Sincerely, and take care!
Kio
(Just as a side joke, when I used to travel around to conducted seminars on management subject, I used to ask the question, “So what?” often to get to the core of the matter to find the core meaning. It even came to the point that at one company, a group of managers made a song named, “So what?” At another occasion, when a person asked a question, I asked back, “Why do you ask that question?” and the group burst out into laughter. In this way, I have a bad track record of trying to come up with the very issue so that our energy is not wasted. (However, many may have felt that we all exhausted a lot of energy in doing this.)
Having done this with various companies and traveled around the world to conduct seminars, I then quit most of my management-consulting work to focus on my inner issues (Zen, especially). Having spent about four years since then, I now see the connection of my inner issue (ground) to the subject such as management, etc. (morality included) more clearly. However, one trouble here is that communication is not easy. Yet, I am hopeful to improve this somehow. Buddha talked about shila- samadhi-prajna as a way of eliminating suffering. Shila is like right conduct, the notion that can be expanded to various subjects. If there is anyone interested, you can read a lot. I have posted a few files related to this point at my home page, www.suzaki.has.it as well.)
#3949 by me
FYI,
here is my comment to Wittgenstein and Zen:
http://www.oocities.org/suzakico/wittgenstein.html
It was very interesting to
relate to this philosopher and his
understanding contrasted to
Zen. As Ikkyu said, there are various
routes to the top of the
mountain, but we see the same shining moon.
Any comment is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Kio
#3953 by Wilbro
Hi
Kio, I have very much the same impression in reading LW as you. I
have only read his
Philosophical Investigations, but the sense I get
is the one you have evinced. The
difficulty here is that the sense we
make of it is only visible if
we occupy that sense.
The question that
remains is whether or not that
sense is common to LW, i.e., was he
writing from it, or whether it
is something we only read into it? With
Kierkegaard, I get that sense
from everything he has written,
regardless of what terms he
couches it in. In that case, I lean
heavily in favor of the sense
being the same. With LW, I can only say
that it is possible.
#??? (not posted)
Hi, Willy
If I use the image to convey what I am talking about, the moon is found in awakening (as release insight, liberation, solution, etc. to see truth as it is). For some, this may be psychological, for others, this may have intellectual component attached to it (as one reflect to what happened). Depending on how the process takes place, the experience may be a lightening kind – when we eradicate the error, or it may be felt perhaps more warm, compassionate kind or else – all in the categories of subjective experience.
When we do not need to eradicate the error, “when” we are enlightened (liberated, as-it-is-state), there is nothing to talk about. Yet, we may have a sense of going with the flow. (in your term, “with the fact,” as opposed to “after the fact”) Or, vibration felt as direct experience and no words are found to describe it as some may comment. Perhaps with slight involvement of our brain we may find that this world is nirvana as it is – intoxicating that may be.
Yet, whatever word we use, they may remain in the category of “emptiness,” absolute, or as-it-is. Buddha is also called as Tathagata (thus-come, thus-gone, thus-perfected one) also written in Japanese as Nyorai or “coming of thusness, or as-it-isness). Enlightenment is also known as “extinction,” implying the end of suffering. So, these correspond to what we are talking about. Again, from the process viewpoint, such expressions as Dogen; “realizing delusion is enlightenment.” Kierkegaard, “Truth is subjectivity.” Wittgenstein, “extinction of language.” Buddha, four noble path, Or Bankei, “the mind that listens the bird is the Buddha mind,” etc., etc. all fit well.
So, as much as aiming/searching/dualistic mind is the cause of delusion, once we gain this point, everything is taken care of. This is the position W has arrived, so I think. Hence there is nothing to talk about, or nothing that can be talked about (unless people want to create confusion among themselves as if investigating the finger – and not the moon. Also, as the Buddha pointed about, it is no use to study/carry the raft once you get the point and be able to practice this. This is his meaning of philosophy, and we can honor as such.
Anyway, this is at least a position I can understand without reading the whole of W’s work as enough leaves are pointing to this direction so that we do not have to check all to know to find which direction the wind is blowing – once we see what is happening here. And that is, I believe, what he meant to convey from his writing rather than seeing the whole world “discussing” his “philosophy” without getting this point. W then was an equivalent of Zen monk with certain flavor of his own.
You said, “The difficulty here is that the sense we make of it is only visible if we occupy that sense.” For some (or perhaps many), however, without “trained” awareness, such sense may not be recognized. This is the “conscious of unconscious” (Jp. Mufun betsu no fun betsu) in Zen expression.
By the way, I just reread good ol’ Eddy’s correspondence on basement, etc. from my file at the home page. To him, I feel this discussion may be seen as irrelevant. Yet, again and again, as Daisetz spent his life on this point, I sense finding means to share the process, and show the application is an important work. Or, just help others…..
#3953 from me
> Hi Kio, I have very much the same impression in reading LW as you. I
> have only read his Philosophical Investigations, but the sense I get
> is the one you have evinced. The difficulty here is that the sense we
> make of it is only visible if we occupy that sense. The question that
> remains is whether or not that sense is common to LW, i.e., was he
> writing from it, or whether it is something we only read into it? With
> Kierkegaard, I get that sense from everything he has written,
> regardless of what terms he couches it in. In that case, I lean
> heavily in favor of the sense being the same. With LW, I can only say
> that it is possible.
>
Hi, Willy, (this is also my monologue....with the moon)
I found from here and there that "sense" is not what many of us want, especially when one wants to play with the space and time. As much as everything is started from word as bible says, if we take that stance, the "dialogue" engine is already on to keep going whether W's intent is there or not. (This seems to be the total opposite of W's point.)
W seemed to have figured out that the right word comes from that silence as insight (This realization came toward the latter half of his life perhaps). Here, inquiry may be the word you may use, corresponding the silent/quiet center to shine its light.
Still, what level of inquiry does one go through as opposed to conditioned mind to take over and confuse the scene? Interesting, so I think. The process may be similar to DNA being reconfigured again and again to search to serve some purpose. But what is the engine to drive this? Very interesting especially when we realize the engine. If not, we may still entertain (?!) us in the dialogue, or to inquire to inquire.
BTW, this reminds me of Krishnamurti's dialogue. The point of his may be that there is no point to be reached. Yet, "the process" has to be functioning if we were to be sane. This again is like quiet center needs to be watching the dialogue as if the moon is shining (although clouds get in the way every now and then).
Have fun in keep weeding the garden!
Kio