Koan from Lotos
To the reader
Brothers, if I shall hurt you, I'll do it regretfully.
Weekly Internet magazine
Attention! In Zen Helps Guram's words are marked with this blue uprights & not thick print.
Greetings all! :))) Klein. :))
"Changing boundary view" going to be is in the Second Logic' frames. So, the task of the Second Logic, besides "drawing boundaries", - is to monitor the First Logic - less intensive on the easy areas, more intensive approaching to uneasy one -, when you need, to interrupt the activity of the First Logic:)), to draw a new boundary and start again the First Logic.”
It depends on the ability of the owner to identify the moment to apply the Second Logic, as well as on his desire and firm intention.
The Second Logic controls the First formal one. It is under constant control by the Second Logic. Missing the point of "changing boundaries" you may continue to think that activity is in the frames of the old boundary and the First Logic is still being continue. And it's really will have been being continue but it will be like shooting with the closed eyes.
There is a formal-mathematical firm & invariable logic which we run into every second. Two by two - is always four. In every case gravitation force acts equally, at any condition a flipping stone falls with the same acceleration of gravity. For example, solving an arithmetical problems with formal logic for finding X value, it's value will be always equal. Making the same experiment in different condition, the result must to be equal every time. In this case the experiment is considered to be successful.
The first formal logic - it is when for the one cause you have the equal result every time. When you have done one you have always received the other. This is the Method and the principle of the first logic activity. Acting with the first logic the result doesn't depend (must not depend) from a person applies it. When the first logic acts, that who applied it could not affect on its process and result.
The first logic is a firm and safe mechanism. Solving the concrete problem in FRAMES of this concrete task the first logic is acting. (I mark some words with capital letters nonrandomly).
Imagine active area of the first logic as some projection plane on which, for example, projects such geometrical figure as a cone. (It's a favorite Klein's figure; later I understood why it is cone. - I understood, Klein).:))). On that plane the bottom and foundation are projected as a circle. Looking on the cone from the plane of the first logic you see only the circle. Leading this plane on different corner cone is projected like a triangle. But triangle and circle are not superposed on the plane. You look the circle and do not see a cone, you look the triangle and do not see a cone again. But they are projected from the same figure, aren't they? However you revolve this plane on its imagine axis circle is stay a circle, triangle is stay a triangle with the same ratio of corners, isn't it? But you can lead a numerous quantity of various planes, see you? Nevertheless on each plane cone will have different but invariable projections of lines and shapes, will he? And in the Boundaries of this projection projected figure of cone will not change its shapes.
For example, you need to take up and analyze only triangle and not other projection of the cone. First , it's important the right choice of the projection plane, right choice of the Boundaries view. In order to the frames of this boundary you can see only the triangle. Not knowing how to see spatially, not knowing about existence of the great number of other planes, a numerous never-ending number of the Boundaries View you could not chose the right plane. And here Second Logic begin it's activity and allow to Lead Boundaries Correctly and Chose the Boundary View Correctly.
The Second Logic - is the ability to see spatially and the ability to draw the boundary correctly. In the frames drawn with the Second logic the first formal logic is acting. The Second Logic - is the ability to draw the right boundaries skillfully, requisite in present moment and for the present situation. The possibility to act in these frames is prerogative of the first logic. The first logic - is a formal logic. The second logic - is not mathematical , not formalized. The second logic allows among a quantity to choose any acting model of the first logic, which can acts only in the frames of this boundary, and allows to act in this frames with the principles of first logic.
Drawing the boundaries and Second Logic - depends only from a person who apply it, from his skills and intention. Second logic is not just only this. You will find it later.:))
That is all - are very abstract examples. :) But, believe, all this is really acting in real situation. Ability correctly choose the boundaries, and ability to act correctly inside them - it is important. And "ability of correct acting" inside the boundaries - it is " to concentrate on the execution of the concrete task", it is " to stay in frames of the boundary not leaving it before you need and then change the boundary view and acting in time". Changing boundaries - it's the property and ability to manage with the Second Logic.
The Second Logic executes control over the changing of boundaries. Repeat it you again, Second Logic draw Concrete, the most precise boundaries. It is reject useless & unimportant things in present concrete moment.
A person who acts with the Second Logic is the most important thing of the Second Logic. Not the logic defines a person, but a person defines and applies it, creating "lively substance - midst - wave" based on it.
To connect, to display and sort - this is the effect of the appliance of the Second Logic. To connect and sort rather to sort and connect. To identify, delimit and connect. To understand about the existence of inexhaustible number of the boundaries and ability to act in one concrete or even several boundaries, not mixing notions and at the same time knowing that everything is interrelated, everything is in united flow. And at the same time be able to separate from this flow necessary directions, do not disturb about consequences and simultaneously to represent it clearly .
-At first site you can decide that the Second Logic is the constitutive and most important. But it is not at all. Not correct and out of place appliance of the Second Logic in time when the First logic must acts is too dangerous as well as blind following for the first logic.
- not at all. Really the first logic is more simply, in a sense that its appliance needs less concentration , less force-consumption. :)). The Second logic - is always true. Just when you need to solve a task with more simple method - you need not to apply more difficult subtle special technologies. Analogy: it is not correct to charge qualified auditor with the work of the junior accountant…- just like that…:))
All is to be in a right place. Brief: premature and not correct change of the boundaries - is bad.:)
- It's not a vice of the Second Logic, it's inability to apply it. :)))
- but conversely: if drawing boundaries and non-formalized logic depends from a skill and desire of its owner, so this owner, on his desire and at any time, could stop the acting of the first logic, draw new boundaries and start the first logic. At his own desire.
- not at all. The Second Logic just allows you to increase ADEQUACY of the reaction, but do not allows you to cut proceedings at you own view…:))) "Reactions" - i.e. reply to the milieu's change."
- So, he will not depends from any situation.
- He will not "depends from any situation" in conception of the fist logic owner . :)) Increased twice reactivity allows him overcome obstacles more effective 10-100 times better, mainly at the expense of non-entering to the flows of obstacles (worries), but not overcoming them, i.e. at the expense of recognition perils before it comes. But not when stones begin to fall on your head. :)) But! - he begins to have such kind of problems which the simple owner of simple do not have. :))) At the account of the increase scope of plans and pretensions.:)))). Analogy: you study best of all and go to Moscow to enter the best University, but lagging student enters to secondary school on the next street, for example, :))) of your small town. He entered but you - not. :))) And so on. So you do not become all-powerful, you just increase you scope. And smth. more…:))))). This "smth" is a "chance" - very small - very! - a chance enter to the zone of "all-powerful"! :))))
- …because he can create any situation himself and acts inside it using the first logic. The owner of the Second Logic just not only adapts toward smth/smb but also adapts to himself. As well as toward his base, as you say, towards to his "absolute rate of reference".
- 1. No the any. :))) 2. Plus the chance to enter the "any" zone. :))
- recurring to our conversation….:)). Looking for your "base" - is an absolute rate of reference. Yours. :))))) There is no any other rates for you. There is no.
- … do you know? …. Klein, I know. I really know.
- Remember in the "Sutra of the Six Patriarchy"? and in the "Diamond Sutra"? And on the page of "×àíü" (about Bodhiharma). Remember, - "who will not be fear will not be afraid of", and I asked everybody there "what he will be fear? What he will be afraid of?" :))) And did not receive an answer. :)))
- I have read it before I found your site. And reread it on your site again, and it's my defect that I did not pay attention on your question and did not answer you.
- Is this will not afraid of !… When he will understand that there is NO support!…:))) And all supports, which he saw-perceived like supports, - is illusion.
- What did I afraid of all this time and why I stopped afraiding of it? I do not tell "almost" stopped afraid of. Not almost. I don't afraid. And for today it doesn't matter whether you consider my words bragging or you believe me, because I'm just not only know what I'm talk about. The more I was afraid of the better I'm not afraid of for today.
- Yes. I see it.
- The absence of the support do not deprive of the soil. Vice versa, it gives the firmest soil.
- Exactly! :))))
- And gives a boundless freedom of action. There is no common idea of the support. And the first logic do not exists in a singular. Characteristics of all first logics come to firm causal- investigator relations. But in different situations and in different degrees this firm characteristics are changed for the other one, the same firm causal-investigator relations. Which can act only in this boundaries and do not in other.
- Yes, it is! :)))
- It's difficult for me, really, not to be afraid, but I'm not compel myself "not to be afraid of".
- Yes, I see.
- Comment , please - (..disclosure and identification of what, that must will happen…), I mean - hOw?
- By no means! :). There is no any conjuration's and magic motions or searching of crystal ball for this…:))) Every second a thousand of possible "consequences" and "variants" pass by us, fly over, crawl besides us, through us, near us, every second . :) Again, - correct choice of the boundaries! Every step determines the next one. Doing the first step the same time you are making a quantity of the next steps. If you make the first step correctly you can see correctly the consequences of thise step and you have possibility to take it or to avoid it. When you clearly represent consequences you could not to care for it. :)) In united flow: "everything happens however it is " & "life is full of improvisation." :))
- Creation of cone - is a final result of the dialectic. It is his destination as an instrument. Creation of cone - is an art of a wisdom. In general, :))) - is an art of the Second Logic.: ))
- It is also the comprehension of fight and cooperation, mutual augmentability and mutual exclusions of the antithesis and the taking of the result of this fight-cooperation not only as a single result, but as a result of the indissoluble component of the mutual result.
Yes! Exactly! I'll just add with the following: " comprehension of fight and cooperation, mutual augmentability and mutual exclusions of the antithesis" is to be the comprehension of organic (true) :)) arrangement of any process. It's better to have a sensation of it. :)))
By the way, any process strips on a component processes, the system - on a component systems, level - on the subtotals by means of drawing the boundaries.:)))
- The problem is only in the following: you need not only "wisdom, as an art of the thinking", but also a firmness, purity, patience, impetus and other :))) - i.e. force in all its manifestations, but not only " the force of thinking" :))".
- plus the Force to retreat when you need; the Force to admit own mistakes, the Force not to keep away from them, but to look and see them as a wise and vivid examples; the Force to use mistakes and even doubts. And the Force be ready to use available potential. A confidence + self-criticism.
- "Overlimited" :))) wisdom - it is not "very large wisdom". :))) It's just another kind of wisdom. :))) It's wisdom inserted many different superior elements melted them into united overlimited alloy, that became sparkling sky-blue sword :)))..or kind of friendly smile to all living creatures. :)))…- what is the same things. :))))))"
- "And with a sword I came"" © Christ.(rough quote) . :)
- Yes, in general…."Not piece, but sword I brought you…". The Bible as against Diamond Sutra is simpler arranged….:))) I mean the following: to understand the unity of antitethises the Bible (as a text and instrument) uses sequential (linear) presentation of now "circle", now "triangle" as a "discrepant declaration of Christ". Buddha in Diamond Sutra (as a text and instrument, and only here) from "circles" and "triangles" twirls "cone" ( "non linear" and different dimensioned ( in logarithmic scale) presentation of now "circle", now "triangle". Christ made the simpler instrument. Because the functions of the instrument were not the same. Buddha also has the more simpler texts- instruments. :)))..I've just no compared Bible and Diamond Sutra :))) - the Boundaries! :)))) Always acts in concrete boundaries!
- Guram, when Klein told about Second Logic , he gave an example with a glass (may be you have read this letter). In which, as well as I understood, the crux is in the ability to describe every thing in different ways. Not only form and the color of the glass but also , for example, it's location for the present moment relatively to the other one. What shall I do with this? Shall I need to describe them in different way?
- "What shall I do?" - To apply it. :))"Shall I need to describe them in different way?" - Yes, indeed. :) You need to describe them different way. You may to describe them different way. It is possible to describe them different way. It is important to describe them different way. You may describe things, events, the world around-inside you differently. You need this for the purpose to realize and recognize the space around-inside you correctly.
The example with the glass - it's just one of the examples, Wet Shoes. It's attempt in example to explain the activity of the Second Logic. The principle of the Second Logic which is not finished and not began with this glass. Instead of glass you can take any thing , any event, any situation, any element of the world around-inside you. If you realize it clearly you can use it at any time and apply it in any situation.
Why do I always lay stress on the "concreteness"? Because in order to examine this glass, you need to concentrate you view exactly on that verge of the glass in which you need this moment, this spatio-temporal space. Non-possession of the Second Logic will not allow you to recognize the glass as a whole. You need it, not a "glass"! And this works not only with "a glass". You want to learn? So I tell you : you could not learn all together! Begin with the concrete things! Learn to the concrete one! Learn to define concretely! Learn to draw boundaries and act in this boundaries, which are in multiplicity. And every time you need only one concrete of it. You'll not be able to choose and create one of these boundaries until you will not be able to understand that the Second Logic - is the ability to see in space, not from one plane, but exactly in space.
First, you are an observer and explorer of time-space, world, where you are. But when you could not to constitute one-self in this world you could not to act here effectively. What does it mean to act effectively? It means that there is no any advantages, it is freely of any kind of the trade. To act effectively means learning during action & while action learn the action. To learn for the sake of learn, to act for the sake of action, investigate for the sake of investigation. Not to stay always in the same plane looking for the bottom of "the glass" and imagine the whole "glass".
All you learning has one single practice value to understand how it is arrange, how it is work, how it is act, by what principle does it work. To recognize yourself and the world round you.
If you need to achieve another purpose you failed. If you achieve you will have another purpose. What you need to learn you may explain with several words: to perceive and help others to perceive.
The other purposes are aside.
And the question "why you need this?" - falls away. It is useless. It is needless. "Why do you need this" akin "what you can buy with this"? You can buy nothing with this. With this you may lose everything or may obtain everything what in itself the same. :))
Koan from Lotos
Please, I ask you, not to wipe those letters you have replied. :)) Taking into account that I receive many letters and I receive them in two different computers (at work and at home) - it's difficult for me and sometimes impossible :))) (as just now, for example) :)) to identify replies in correlation to questions, in this connection the adequacy of the reflection, which is exists immanently as a potential modus could not be connotative or in other words uptakes….
To the reader
Dear reader!Anyway try to drive in! All the best and more to you! Kl.:)))))