There Is No "Me" in "Meaning"
One koan:
A student said to the master, "I seek enlightenment, but I do not understand
your teaching."
The master replied, "But enlightenment is not understanding."
The master has stated the obvious, but the student has failed to see it.
Another koan:
A student said to the master, "I seek enlightenment, and I do not understand
your teaching."
The master replied, "And enlightenment is not understanding."
The master has stated the obvious, and the student has failed to see it.
It is possible to make false statements in English. English is inconsistent. If we were, by fiat, to disallow false statements, English would be incomplete. And what about "This sentence is false."? Is it true, or is it false? If no false statements are allowed, then is it a legal English sentence?
Gödel's famous and devastating assault on fortress Principia Mathmatica forever changed the rules of thought, in ways that are still being realized. If mathematics is the modeling language of the universe, there are some consequences. Perhaps mathematics, because it is either inconsistent or incomplete, is inadequate to the task. Or perhaps it is up to the task and the universe is inconsistent or incomplete. Maybe we shouldn't exclude the middle.
When we get close to the edges, or deep in the center, of a rational universe, things get very fuzzy. This is not simply the "It's a wave!"; "No, it's a particle!"; "It's a floor wax and a dessert topping!" mystery. It's something deeply flawed in our understanding.
Enlightenment does not come easily to the rational person.










Comments [0]