Under Construction

New Website Under Construction

But feel free to visit: kevbot.org 

Where is the path to Mount Tai?

Shameless self promotion/Funny meme: https://www.reddit.com/r/zen/comments/8fbm3d/where_is_the_path_to_mount_tai/

Neodharmic Kanzen

 Kanzen is the new dharma. It has been thousands of years since the days of Siddarta. There has been near unlimited changes in the way we live, and how we deal with the trouble of existence. As The Dude would say, 'New shit has come to light, man.' No truer words were ever spoken. Everyday brings new light, and new revelations.

The understanding of our world has changed fundamentally since then, but yet we still discuss the old ways of Buddhism with Karma, skandas, and No-self. While it brings a lot of solid training to the fields of human existence and how to work with the flowing abundance of life, but it is outdated and greatly requires the routine maintenance that is required for those things which we wish to keep.


This is why I think we need this new concept. We need verbiage to manufacture the ability to describe what already exists, to help us wrestle with 'perfection'. We also required it to 'break the wheel' as one must to bring modern from the traditional. Creation, through destruction of what is unnecessary. We need to fully employ Occam's Razor., that when presented with competing hypothetical answers to a problem, one should select the one that makes the fewest assumptions.This Kanzen also means continuous perfection. Rid yourself of the shackles of those things that curry no favor. To remove the assumptions of our fore-bearers, we must first investigate and assess what they are and what they contain. And finally, judge if we need it.


Let us find a mutual starting point, Karma. Karma's literal Wikipedia definition: 'action, work or deed'. Innocuous at first, no? Karma is a name for 'verbs', things that are done or accomplished. Actions in this world. This simple definition is fine, and for many thousands of years it was enough. But that definition is not what it used to be. Common folks use karma as a sort of currency these days. It is thought that Karma is a system of rewards and punishment for actions taken in this life. Karma has become something beyond the simple definition. Karma is attached to one subject and carried. A package to be judged, like Osiris and his scales.
This is not karma. Karma is not monitored by Gods, or Buddhas. Karma is not an inventory to be tracked, an inventory to show one's worth or the situations in which they will be reborn. Karma is the pattern of The Weave (forgive me I have been reading The Wheel of Time series). Would you ever blame the ground you were born for the actions of your tenth year? Would you blame your childhood room for your adult follies?



If there is Karma and Anatman (no-self), then who's karma is it?


Let us next look at Anatman, the Buddhist doctrine of Non-self. Wikipedia Definition: 'that there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul or essence in living beings.' While you may agree, or disagree with this idea, engage your philosophical mind around it. Our cells regenerate every so many years, our thought patterns and feelings change from moment to moment, our passions, our dreams, they all are in constant movement, and thus constant change. 





To be continued...

Plato: Philosophical Shaman of the West

We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.

Plato was a great many things; teacher to Aristotle, student of Socrates, and he is even written about in some remote blog on the edges of the commercially dominated ethosphere some 2400 years later. Plato was influenced by the best philosophy the world had to offer up until this point; Pythagoras, Parmenides, Heraclitus and, Socrates (the 'Wisest Man'). Plato continued their similar lineage. He, in turn, influenced Philosophy for generations. His philosophy is full of mysticism and has a religious aura. This is a beautiful hark back towards our origins and forwards to the Catholic Church. On many things, people still agree with Plato, reality itself is eternal and made up of only that which can be observed with the senses. This last part is illusory and non-permanent. There is a multitude of strangeness as well, as is known to come with such a wild path.

Less agreed upon is his operation of 'the Good' which like reality, is eternal, overshadowing the senses. 'The Good' is like the Oort cloud, existing somewhere just outside our observation. To be good, you must know 'The Good'. While that makes perfect logical sense, Plato states that it is only found through the intellect (if you are lucky enough to be born with such) or moral discipline (if you are a dullard by birth). That does not include that fact that no matter what, you must be constantly educated in order to distill what Plato calls 'wisdom' and 'good' from the everyday phenomenal world. This seems quite difficult for both the common person and the rich, for in our century the common man has not the money, and the rich has not the time. Where could one find the time for such vigorous study for moral aptitude, let alone in the tumultuous era that Plato lived. Most of our society now does not grasp how to be moral (see here, here, or here), and becoming a gentleman is a full time job when cultivating gravity, decorum, and courage. I think this view is a bit extreme. Education in schools is required in tandem with a more natural, outside education involving physical activity and survival (camping). I would never learn how to create a fire in a school classroom, or if I did they probably did not like it all that much.

This leads Plato to discussing 'Utopia', specifically Plato's version (his own form of schoolboy fires). This version is horrific, rigidly censored, and full of practices that humans today find very immoral (ironically). Plato starts by discussing how to treat children. It goes horribly, as you can imagine. You must never show children evil or death, like that in Homeric poetry (doh). If they are eventually to serve, they must not be afraid of death (they must be ignorant of it). True, but inhumane. They must never been shown weakness or vice, no mourning, no weeping. Plato even goes so far as to claim Utopia shouldn't have 'loud laughing' and it therefore should be forbidden. No gratuitous display of emotion is something I totally understand but these reactions are involuntary in social life. They would probably give me shackles on day one, it makes me laugh to think of my more dramatic friends. There is much more that is forbidden, but just these facts outline a Utopia with which we are far too familiar in the political climate of the modern world.

This Utopia of Plato appears to me only as an incubation, a tyrannical cocoon to protect from extreme feelings. To create a dependence on these wide spread lies, a truth that is completely removed from 'Truth'. This wolf in nationalist clothing can be seen in most modern nations; U.S., Russia, China, and North Korea, just to name a few. All they request is you sing the national anthem, conform to societal norms, and teach these 'alternative facts'. It truly disgusts me and stagnates new thought, progressive action, and the very dreams our forefathers had for this great nation.

There are some, admittedly, more communist portions of Utopia. It is most likely that Marx pulled some of his ideas from these very passages. This includes the use of communal goods, training both boys and girls (together), common houses and meal halls, even wives are communal. The last was thought to help free the children of knowledge regarding their parentage thus creating in them unlimited potential. This also allowed for the creation of simple eugenics (the leaders could pick people to mate for specific qualities or attributes). While alone, some of these ideas are great, together they combine into a totalitarian government so complete it would frighten the Nazi's. But, they studied Plato, and it is possible that this idea intrigued them.

They even got rid or poets:

"We must inform [the poet]...the law will not allow them. We shall send him away to another city."

While considered on the Platonic side to be a kindness, it is a bit fantastic to restrict thought so directly. No one would feel it towards this poet in their society. If poets are outlawed, they would be dealt much harsher treatment.

There are many reasons that I don't consider myself a Platonist, but here is the base reason.

'No one is to eat fish, or meat otherwise than roasted.' (Plus no sauces!) 

After the removal of such things, fun is removed. There is a power-gap that is mischievously (or maliciously) filled with communal lies and 'alternative facts'. Grilled meat is far superior than any ideas that Plato outlines in his Utopia.

In conclusion, this Utopia is a great idea. It is well thought out and full of new insight for the developing world. But, it is stuck in the mud with everyone else. The idea that everyone together can create something was bestowed upon his student Aristotle, of him I will speak of next. 

  

Socrates - Wisest Man Around

"All I know is that I know not."

Having only a small amount of information on the historical Socrates, I have used Socrates from 'The Apology' as the most accurate description. 

Socrates is such a mythical character, and if it weren't for his multitude of writings and reviews by his peers he would have his place in the Pantheon of Grecian demi-gods. He was intelligent, without a doubt. He was also described as ugly 'with a crooked nose' usually 'ill-clad and barefoot', a true sage. But his inquiring nature alone is something remarkable, unending and as most viewed bull-headed. 

 Of Athenian origin he traveled abroad to teach the youth of general inquiry. He strangely would take no monetary recompense. This is a direct correlation with the Sophists, whom he despised. He was notorious for asking hard questions. Most of which he didn't know the answer. 

'Who should mend the Ship of State?'

Socrates, in The Apology, is accused as being 'an evil-doer and a curious person, searching into the things under the earth and above the heavens; making the worse appear the better cause, and teaching all this to others'. Sounds like an honorable man to me. His eventual conviction was of 'not worshiping the Gods of the State' and 'inventing new gods and teaching them to the young and corrupting them'. In modern time we would call it a witch hunt.

His first defense is stating that he is not a scientist, for he does not make 'physical speculations'. Thusly, he does not 'search into things under the earth'. He also, as I mentioned earlier, does not take drachma for his teachings. So he states,

'Why am I called wise and have such an evil fame?'

He then goes on to tell a (slightly) fantastic story of his life. This story paints him as a forefather and a hero of philosophy. 

The Oracle of Delphi was once asked if there was a man wiser than Socrates. She said there was not, and left the philosopher puzzled. He was sure that he knew nothing, but even more secure in his belief that a God could not tell a lie. From then on he began his philosophical venture to examine this prophetic truth while hoping to relieve himself of this perceived paradox. 

A politician was first, thought 'wise by many'. After his inquiry into the knowledge of this politician he found the man not to be wise and kindly told him so. The politician was understandably upset and hated Socrates for it. Next he went to a poet and an artisan. He didn't find their intellectual guide to be wisdom but inspiration or 'genius'. You can see how going around and telling people they are not wise could make enemies quickly. After exhausting his efforts he eventually came to a conclusion. 

'All men are wise if they understand that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing.'

This truth he, only unintentionally, spread to the youth. Ideas spread like dragonfire. So, intellectually grasping at straws, his accuser Meletus names him an atheist. Socrates refutes this with explaining his story, that he was in fact lead by a divine spirit (from the Oracle). This spirit supposedly come to him as a 'kind of voice'.

This only lead him to death, of course. As I am sure he saw coming. 

'In another world they do not put a man to death for asking questions.'

More to come!

Empedocles & the Modern Human

Alright, so this is going to go a little bit differently this time. Usually I write these little entries with more of a expository quality to them, but the combination of ideas created in my mind is so fresh that its' want to be written was strong enough to stave off the sands of sleep. I found this comparison to be a useful tool in time of turmoil, such as the one we currently seem to be living nationally, if not globally.

First, facts. But this time instead of facts we are working with ideas. Read further only with a slight suspension of ordinary person biases, and the concrete logistics of the modern world.

There once lived a man in Acragas, a city on the southern coast of the island of Sicily. He was a bright man, and enjoyed both science and politics. This, as it usually did in those days, led to a rival political faction exiling him, starting his life as a wandering sage. He is said to have performed miracles. His mysticism hiding whether by science or magic. I'll let you decided which. He eventually met his end, by choice, inside a volcano. Or so it is said. Nevertheless, in his wanderings he mused and thought. He taught that air was a separate substance by holding a bucket upside down in water, and even extrapolated this to explain respiration.

This man believed in the four elements; earth, air, fire, and water, and that each of these things was everlasting and could be combines in different mixtures to produce the phenomenal world, that which humans observe. This mixtures, 'governed by chance and necessity' (B.Russell; History of Western Philosophy : p.55), were constantly combined and separated by the forces of love and strife. In this cycle, love combined while strife separated.

While I hope a sharpened mind, without bias would find this to be [phenomenologically] outrageous. It is sometimes important in times of great chaos and fear-mongering to allow some belief in what is outrageous.

As cliche and soft as it sounds we must find this love in ourselves to combine, to lose sight of the separating strife and honor this love by finding the similarity. By uniting our common aspirations and spreading this anti-poison to reverse the effects of bigotry and small-minded selfishness.

Seeing the news and observing the act that we put on the worlds stage, I know that we must do it soon if we are going to fulfill the oath of our forefathers and foremothers. To honor our fallen, those who gave everything to fight against subversion and for liberty. We must do this if we are to make a world that our children can, or will want to, live in. A place where all humans are created equal.

So, show love. Even in the most insignificant ways, you can cultivate a combination. Hold doors. Say please and thank you. Use your blinkers. Listen more than talk. Help a neighbor. Look for the similarity, and allow your love to bring the world forward out of chaos and just maybe others will follow.

Anaximander, "The Boundless"

"What is infinite is something other than the elements, and from it the elements arise." 

-Anaximander on arche

Living in Miletus, as a possible student of Thales, Anaximander was the first to deeply study geography as well as his teacher. He also is honored as one of the first metaphysicians in his creation of 'the Boundless' or 'the Unlimited'. This was an entity without origin, it's lack of a limit lead Anaximader to believe it was a thing unborn and immortal. This is a strange and wonderful new idea for the Greeks. 

He also brought forth many ideas in the realm of astronomy;

1. The celestial bodies pass under the earth in full circles.
2. The Earth floats free and unsupported
3. The celestial bodies lie behind one another.

While these ideas are something that one may teach a child, it is all thanks to Anaximander that we even have such a broad view. In his time it was revolutionary. The focus shifts to a cosmological view, an impression that the universe (not just the Earth) is an unbound and impersonal cause. This idea stays in philosophy for generations, spoiler alert, and even is analogous to current Buddhist belief, (see: my previous post).

Anaximader's 'boundless' is revolutionary in that it postulates something outside, something always greater out there, limitless, immortal, and completely unsupported. Not only is it all of these combined, but it also supports everything in turn. This principle reminds me of simultaneously current (quantum) physics and the Christian 'God'.

Anaximander was also the first one to create a sort of map of the world, heavily simplified. You can see that below, bonus points if you can guess what city is closest to the center.

Thoughts:

Is the 'arche', in your mind, immortal? Boundless?

Would you consider Anaximander a founding Metaphysician?