Re: BANANAFISH digest 274
Robyn C. LeBlond (bananafysh@worldnet.att.net)
Wed, 18 Mar 1998 05:16:38 -0500
where in NYC and when?
R.
----------
: From: bananafish@lists.nyu.edu
: To: Discussions of J.D. Salinger's work <bananafish@lists.nyu.edu>
: Subject: BANANAFISH digest 274
: Date: Wednesday, March 18, 1998 4:00 AM
:
: BANANAFISH Digest 274
:
: Topics covered in this issue include:
:
: 1) godot troubled by zen (intentionally lowercase)
: by Colbourne <colby@online.net.pg>
: 2) Re: godot troubled by zen (intentionally lowercase)
: by AntiUtopia <AntiUtopia@aol.com>
: 3) Re: Of Joyce and Orchises
: by "D." <darjr@shore.net>
: 4) Re: publishing news
: by "D." <darjr@shore.net>
: 5) Re: the big field trip in NYC
: by "D." <darjr@shore.net>
: 6) Re: publishing news
: by Tim O'Connor <tim@roughdraft.org>
: 7) joyce maynard.
: by helena kim <helenak@geocities.com>
: 8) Re: the big field trip in NYC
: by CHamil6876 <CHamil6876@aol.com>
: 9) Re: the big field trip in NYC
: by Brendan McKennedy <suburbantourist@hotmail.com>
: 10) godot troubled by zen (intentionally lowercase)
: by Jaramillojp@kktv.com
: 11) Re: godot troubled by zen (intentionally lowercase)
: by Malcolm Lawrence <malcolm@wolfenet.com>
: 12) Estragon & Vladimir
: by Scottie Bowman <bowman@mail.indigo.ie>
:
: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
:
: Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 21:40:58 +1000
: From: Colbourne <colby@online.net.pg>
: To: Bananafish <bananafish@lists.nyu.edu>
: Subject: godot troubled by zen (intentionally lowercase)
: Message-ID: <350E6149.3D85CC17@online.net.pg>
:
: I have been reading a lot about Zen and Buddhism etc. and I am very
: troubled. I have lots of questions and I am told that if you look for
: answers you are already lost. I see Zen as the alternative to all
: rational, conventional, logical everything. But if Zen is about lack of
: rationality, then how does one rationally explain Zen, or it's purpose,
: or it's practise or recommend it to others? How can one argue for the
: employment of Zen when logic has been adbandoned? Couldn't it be, with
: all the unprovable, unscientific spiritual advancements that are
: allegedly achieved by meditation, that it is all no more than a case of
: the Emperor's New Clothes? These people meditate and then they say
: 'Yeah, I experienced Infinite Consciousness. It was cool, eh?'. There's
: no measurement of anything because it is all irrational, all unprovable.
: Like 'Prove that you love your father', from 'Contact'. I'm not saying
: that the whole meditation thing is a lie, what I'm saying is that if
: there are no reference points in your spiritual advancement, etc. how
: can you declare any form of progress or change? I find it impossible and
: terribly frightening (my face is visibly squirming) at the thought of
: being unable to define what occurs during meditation. I've attempted to
: meditate before, maybe there's some sense of well-being but why so? I
: thought that Zen was about the void, the unexplainable, the intangible.
: Why must it follow that meditation leads to 'the light'. Couldn't the
: void be a void of darkness? Of misery and anguish? Why must the absence
: of thought automatically imply some sense of joy? Like the old, deaf
: cigar dude in Raise High? He is happy, but why? Maybe the void is just a
: void of sheer indifference, and the joy follows from the sense of apathy
: that you alone share, while everybody else runs around concerning
: themselves with the insignigficant.
: Let us assume that you have taken a normal, run-of-the-mill teenager
: about my age and you want to show him Zen. The first thing is, you can't
: show it to him, you can't even tell him where to look, all you can do is
: ask him a paradoxical question that is designed to produce a state of
: mind that transcends logic, etc. If you turn this teenager away from all
: the conventional, picket-fence values of mainstream society and thrust
: him in front of the Zen void, is it meant to be an enlightening
: experience? Is the absence of any value, reference points, explanations
: or definitions meant to be a pleasurable acknowledgement? Must it then
: follow that Zen is all about kindness towards others, love etc? When you
: see Nothing, is the Nothing meant to be a great union of all things? Of
: nature, life, love, etc? If the Zen master asks the student 'What is the
: sound of one hand clapping?' what is the student meant to do? He is not
: MEANT TO DO anything. If he acknowledges that there is no answer, is he
: praised? Has he experienced Zen simply by attempting to address the
: koan? From what I have been told of Zen any answer you provide, even no
: answer, is always the correct one, because that's the answer that you
: did or didn't decide. So essentially, isn't Zen just asking people to
: turn away from the conventional, the logical, the material and find
: their own answers, their own values? If so, then why is it generally
: accepted that kindness and compassion are good attributes? I'm not
: saying that they're not. All I'm essentially trying to say is that, if
: Zen is about the inexplicable, intangible, nothing then why must the Zen
: followers be so damn happy? Is that what they see in the void? Is that
: what we're meant to see? Ah, but we're not MEANT to see anything, we
: just see, or we just don't see. If Zen is the not study of the not
: existent then wouldn't it be just as easy to abandon Zen and accept all
: things conventional. I know it must be hard for you to explain Zen to
: me, because it is inexplicable. I always thought philosophically, that
: using logic you would inevitably arrive at Nietzsche, and no values but
: if you followed your heart, soul, whatever, you would find love, etc.
: Salinger presents me with so many things that make me feel *something*,
: maybe it is inexplicable, but I am happier for having experienced it,
: maybe because it is inexplicable. Maybe this is Zen, but can I turn all
: my doings and thoughts to some system of living founded purely on a
: Davega bicycle? Isn't Zen just the antithesis of all things expected,
: ie, the firing squad that, having bound and gagged the condemned man,
: turn their firearms on themselves? (hey, that sounds like a good idea
: for a story). Maybe it's just humour. I've got some theory of humour,
: one constituent of which is 'inversion'. Monty Python always inverts the
: conventional, for example, the coal-miner son that comes home to argue
: with his father, the poet. Father says 'Oh, isn't poetry good enough for
: you? You're only good enough to work at the mines, eh?'. Or another
: example might be a prostitute who pulls up in a mercedes to solicit a
: business-man working the street corner. Is Zen just inversion of the
: norm? I don't think so.
:
: When you really, really, really break it down and you ask somebody what
: they experienced in their meditation, and it is allegedly inexplicable,
: then how do they answer? Do they say 'I accepted all things and I
: experienced a sense of immense well-being'? What exactly are you meant
: to meditate on? I was originally told that you were meant to think about
: nothing. This may be possible, but my school Yoga teacher said 'Don't
: meditate on a red alligator, don't meditate on a red alligator' and
: consequently, we all thought about a red alligator. What he then said
: was that you can't think of nothing, or eventually you just end up
: thinking about thinking about nothing. So he suggests that you meditate
: ON something, a mantra, a picture or something. Is this right? If I do
: this, will I experience or see Zen (the unseeable)? It reminds me of
: something Mayor Quimby once said 'It's time for us to face up to the
: un-face-up-toable'. Maybe it's just better not to face up to it at all.
:
:
: An Alternative to the above post might read:
:
:
: ZEN - Why? But there is no why? Nor how. So why?
:
:
: <<Please mail me back, is all this making any sense.
: Suerte>>>
:
: It makes sense, but I don't.
:
:
:
:
:
: Godot.
:
:
: ------------------------------
:
: Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 07:02:46 -0500 (EST)
: From: AntiUtopia <AntiUtopia@aol.com>
: To: bananafish@lists.nyu.edu
: Subject: Re: godot troubled by zen (intentionally lowercase)
: Message-ID: <2c8ec1de.350e6668@aol.com>
:
: Good, passionate, honest post about Zen, Colby. I won't speak
particularly
: and specifically for Zen in American, but I think buddhism is about the
: negation of things represented by linear logic and empirical perception
for
: the sake of attaining "things" (bad word) that transcend linear logic.
It's
: like ignoring the top layers of the cake to get to the bottom of the damn
: thing. It's About the loss of the boundaries of the self to achieve
union
: with the One Self.
:
: I'm no buddhist, however. Again, this is an outsider talking.
:
: I have run into a few people that can talk about Zen intelligently and
: meaningfully and make enough sense about the loss of sense to at least
point
: to an immediate goal (we attain this in stages). Others I've run into
are
: just morons who deny the validity of rational thought to hide the fact of
: their stupidity.
:
: Jim
:
: ------------------------------
:
: Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 08:34:15 -0500
: From: "D." <darjr@shore.net>
: To: bananafish@lists.nyu.edu
: Subject: Re: Of Joyce and Orchises
: Message-ID: <3.0.32.19980317083415.006961cc@nsa.ecosoft.com>
:
: At 08:01 PM 3/16/98 -0800, you wrote:
: >I just found this and thought I'd share it with the Joyce fans on the
: >list. Towards the very end of the piece you'll see a reference to
: >Orchises (of "Hapworth" fame).
: >
: >I'd also mention the bit about the new book of Pynchon's letters that I
: >saw in Salon but I figure that those who would be interested in such a
: >thing are probably already aware of it.
: >
: >Malcolm
:
: Thanks, Malcolm. But, being the literary Fiend that I am, I saw both
of
: these articles before you posted. Hardly anything news-worthy in the Lit
: World escapes these eyes! Ha!
:
:
: Cheers,
:
: D.
:
:
: >-----------------------
: >
: >Is it in the public domain?
: >
: >Ulysses has turned 75, but
: >not everyone is celebrating
: >
: > NEW YORK (AP) -- This
: > year, James Joyce's
: > "Ulysses" officially turned 75. But for
: >publishers, the anniversary
: > of one of the century's greatest novels is
: >threatening to become a
: > very private party.
: >
: > According to American copyright law, "Ulysses"
: >should now be
: > in the public domain, which applies to books that
: >have
: > completed their 75th calendar year since
: >publication. That means
: > anyone who wants to release "Ulysses" could do so.
: >Outside the
: > United States, where laws differ, rival editions
: >have appeared in
: > previous years.
: >
: > Joyceans in the United States have waited a long
: >time for this.
: > There's still no agreement on the correct text of
: >"Ulysses," and
: > the copyright expiration means differing versions
: >now can be
: > made available. Several publishers, including W.W.
: >Norton &
: > Co. and Penguin Putnam Inc., are hoping to put out
: >books.
: >
: >
: >
: > From the beginning, "Ulysses" has been among the
: >
: > most acclaimed and controversial of novels. The
: >
: > explicit language led to numerous censorship
: > problems, helping to delay its U.S. publication,
: >even
: > as its energetic irreverence and revolutionary
: >style
: > transformed 20th-century literature.
: >
: >
: >
: > But the Joyce estate, which uses Random House as
: >its American
: > publisher, insists the copyright has not expired.
: >It claims the
: > starting date is not 1922, when "Ulysses" was
: >published in Paris,
: > but 1934, when the book was first legally
: >distributed in the
: > United States.
: >
: > "They haven't taken any steps against me, but
: >we're all sort of
: > waiting for the other shoe to drop," said John
: >Kidd, head of the
: > James Joyce Research Center at Boston University
: >and the
: > editor for Norton's intended volume of "Ulysses."
: >
: > Kidd and others say there is no 1934 copyright and
: >they back
: > up their argument with Joyce's own words. In a
: >letter sent to
: > Random House publisher Bennett Cerf, the author
: >wrote he was
: > unable to get a U.S. copyright because the law
: >requires "the
: > republication in the United States of any English
: >book published
: > elsewhere within a period of six months. ..."
: >
: > The estate is run by Joyce's grandson, Stephen,
: >whose
: > protectiveness of the family legacy is reflected
: >in one of his
: > favorite sayings: "I am a Joyce, not a Joycean."
: >Several years
: > ago, Stephen Joyce infuriated Joyceans by
: >destroying a pile of
: > letters by the author's daughter, Lucia.
: >
: > No legal action has yet been taken, but publishers
: >are not
: > anxious to risk anything. Oxford University Press
: >issued an
: > edition last year but has withdrawn it, pending a
: >resolution of the
: > copyright issue. Norton and Penguin Putnam also
: >are holding off
: > publication.
: >
: > A book of energetic irreverence
: >
: > From the beginning, "Ulysses" has been among the
: >most
: > acclaimed and controversial of novels. The
: >explicit language led
: > to numerous censorship problems, helping to delay
: >its U.S.
: > publication, even as its energetic irreverence and
: >revolutionary
: > style transformed 20th-century literature.
: >
: > The novel still annually sells thousands of copies
: >and has
: > influenced countless writers, including William
: >Faulkner, Samuel
: > Beckett and William Burroughs. Joyceans around the
: >world
: > continue to celebrate June 16 as "Bloomsday,"
: >marking the date
: > Leopold Bloom made his famous fictional odyssey
: >around
: > Dublin.
: >
: > While scholars commonly argue over the accuracy of
: >such
: > classic old texts as "Beowulf" and "The Canterbury
: >Tales," it's
: > unusual for a 20th-century book, especially one
: >published in the
: > author's lifetime, to lack a definitive edition.
: >
: > But then "Ulysses" has an unusual publishing
: >history, thanks
: > mostly to Joyce, whose writing habits could be as
: >challenging as
: > his prose.
: >
: > Joyce worked for several years on the novel, first
: >serialized in
: > 1918 and issued in its entirety in France in 1922.
: >He was
: > constantly revising the manuscript, right up to
: >the final days
: > before publication. Notes were crammed in the
: >margins and his
: > linguistic innovations, such as removing
: >punctuation or running
: > several words together, were often lost on his
: >French-speaking
: > typesetters.
: >
: > A lifetime of corrections
: >
: > The first printing of "Ulysses" was filled with
: >mistakes. Despite
: > efforts by Joyce and others to amend the text
: >experts believe
: > they'll never produce an "accurate" version. Half
: >of the original
: > manuscript is lost and, because Joyce made so many
: >changes
: > over the years, it's virtually impossible to
: >figure out what he
: > wanted.
: >
: > But what may seem like hairsplitting to the
: >average reader is the
: > stuff academic careers are made of. Scholars are
: >constantly
: > fighting over "Ulysses." (One Web site, fittingly,
: >is called "The
: > Joyce Wars.") In the mid-1980s, for example, a
: >German
: > academic named Hans Walter Gabler received
: >permission from
: > the Joyce estate to put out a "Critical and
: >Synoptic" edition, only
: > to have Kidd vehemently, and effectively,
: >discredit it.
: >
: > "What he did was make as many changes as humanly
: >possible,
: > for the sake of making them" said Kidd, whose
: >criticisms
: > inspired many others to attack Gabler's
: >scholarship. "If he could
: > find a manuscript that said something different
: >from the original
: > book he made the change."
: >
: > The best-selling version of "Ulysses" remains an
: >edition compiled
: > in 1961, two decades years after Joyce's death.
: >Now, Kidd has
: > his own version planned, and he says he's working
: >on a
: > CD-ROM deal with an unnamed "multibillion-dollar
: > corporation."
: >
: > Another "Ulysses" contender is the small,
: >Virginia-based
: > Orchises Press. J.D. Salinger fans may recognize
: >Orchises as the
: > publisher that has yet to reissue an old Salinger
: >story promised a
: > year ago. Orchises, however, is currently offering
: >the Joyce
: > book. Press founder Roger Lathbury says he has
: >sold a small
: > number of mail order copies, mostly to academics.
: >
: > "I suspect sooner or later I will hear an
: >imprecation of some kind
: > from the Joyce estate," said Lathbury, whose
: >publication of
: > "Ulysses" is a $75 hardcover facsimile of the
: >original 1922
: > printing.
: >
: > "To intimidate somebody without any fact is simply
: >to bluff. I
: > want to know what facts he has. I'm not looking
: >for a court
: > battle; I just think there's no case. So maybe I'm
: >a fool, or
: > maybe I'm a courageous man. Maybe they're the same
: >thing."
: >
: >
: >
:
: ------------------------------
:
: Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 11:05:04 -0500
: From: "D." <darjr@shore.net>
: To: bananafish@lists.nyu.edu
: Subject: Re: publishing news
: Message-ID: <3.0.32.19980317110503.0069a1dc@nsa.ecosoft.com>
:
: At 12:10 AM 3/17/98 -0500, you wrote:
: >
: >A recent copy of Publishers Weekly carried a news column that mentioned
two
: >interesting pieces of news. Doubleday (The House That John Grisham
Built)
: >had a book under contract by Paul Alexander -- a new biography of J.D.
: >Salinger that had reaped the author an advance of $100,000. [Thanks to
: >Renee Zuckerbrot for pointing out the PW article of March 9, page 19.]
:
: House That Grisham Built? I like that, but, ultimately, my solar
plexus
: disdains wants to revolt at the mere mentioning of Grisham.
:
:
: >The book was cancelled, with the abrupt explanation that the draft
: >submitted was "not editorially acceptable." Significantly or not, the
book
: >was killed the day the Joyce Maynard article appeared in New York
magazine.
: >And who was the author of that magazine article? Yes: Paul Alexander.
: >
: >It's hard to know whether this is good news or bad. The Joyce Maynard
: >article in New York magazine, early in February, was rather unpleasant
to
: >many readers, considered by some to be an appalling bit of journalism.
:
: No argument here. Appalling is a *nice* way of saying it, no doubt.
:
: >However, it still remains a challenge to see a first-rate biography of
the
: >Salinger by a genuine biographer. Not an intrusive, lurid, tacky,
: >tabloid-style book, but a reasonable and mature examination of the
: >circumstances that made Salinger the kind of writer he was.
:
: I agree. I think we'd all like to see a responsible,
: non-sensationalized version of a potential Salinger bio, but I, for one,
am
: not going to fill up my cheeks with air waiting for this to happen.
: Hamilton's is ok, but hardly generous enough in terms of giving us some
: ideas of what influenced Salinger during his life without getting too
: overly analytical about it.
:
: >Alexander's agents are shopping it around, but nearly every house is
leery
: >of legal entanglements, after the catastrophic judicial ruling against
Ian
: >Hamilton and Random House regarding "In Search of J.D. Salinger."
Whatever
: >the merits of the biography or its author, most historians, archivists,
and
: >biographers I've spoken with agree that the Random House case has had a
: >chilling effect on the art of biography, since no sane biographer or
: >publisher wants to have distribution of a book halted at the last
moment,
: >or be called into court so that the author can literally count the
number
: >of words quoted from source material.
:
: Leery? That could well qualify as the understatement of the day. Given
: the recent knowledge of the Pynchon letters surfacing, I think most
: Literary biographers are going to start to find that any source material
: that comes directly from the Author may be avoided or handled like a
: recently de-pinned grenade. Salinger's lawyers didn't waste any time, and
: there's some speculation that Pynchon's lawyers are contemplating some
: blocking suit, particularly in relation to the availabilty of those
letters
: in the Morgan Library. I've already heard that it will take what equates
: to a court order just to view the Pynchon letters: a formal application
to
: view, a letter of refernce, and then, once at the library, at least two
: library workers watching your every move while the letters are in your
: possession.
: Am I correct (correct me if I'm not), but aren't the Salinger letters
in
: the University of Texas library? I wonder if anyone has heard of any
: security measures with them these days?
:
: >Maynard's book is still scheduled for the winter of 1999, though many
: >observers doubt that she will be quoting from his letters to her, and
will
: >therefore be less likely to find herself blocked by an adverse court
ruling.
:
: Smart move if she doesn't quote them. I think it's incredulous enough
: that she's coming forward and publishing in light of her relationship
with
: Salinger.
:
:
: My quotidian $0.02 cents,
:
:
: D.
:
:
: ------------------------------
:
: Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 11:10:17 -0500
: From: "D." <darjr@shore.net>
: To: bananafish@lists.nyu.edu
: Subject: Re: the big field trip in NYC
: Message-ID: <3.0.32.19980317111017.00698a90@nsa.ecosoft.com>
:
: At 12:30 AM 3/17/98 -0500, you wrote:
: >
: >Well, just to let everyone know, we've only had responses from a few
: >people, and it looks like the 20th and 21st of March (a Friday and
: >Saturday) are the times when MOST people will overlap here in NY, so if
: >anyone wants to get in touch with me about details, call me at work and
: >leave a message: 212-998-3024. (Of course, email is OK, too.)
: >
: >If it happens that we have other people who don't overlap, there's no
: >reason we can't have a second get-together. But no visits to the
Lavender
: >Room at the Hotel Edmont!
: >
: >Anyhow, if any of our subscribers are going to be through this way
during
: >Spring Break (or whatever they call it where you are -- I know I don't
have
: >time off!), feel free to drop a line or say hello. It's always a
delight
: >on those rare occasions when I meet subscribers.
: >
: >Cheers....
: >
: >--tim o'connor
:
:
: I'd love to be there, but my current upcoming weekend schedules are
: contingent on some events that I have little control over, but I have to
be
: prepared for, and a NYC trip wholly out of the question.
: Perhaps I can attend a future gathering?
:
: A quasi-dejected $0.02 worth,
:
: D.
:
:
: ------------------------------
:
: Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 11:39:28 -0500
: From: Tim O'Connor <tim@roughdraft.org>
: To: bananafish@lists.nyu.edu
: Subject: Re: publishing news
: Message-ID: <v04003a01b134552b0ca1@roughdraft.org>
:
:
: > House That Grisham Built? I like that, but, ultimately, my solar
plexus
: > disdains wants to revolt at the mere mentioning of Grisham.
:
: Yes, that was more or less my point. He's just doing his thing, but
: everything is structured around him, it appears.
:
: > in the Morgan Library. I've already heard that it will take what
equates
: > to a court order just to view the Pynchon letters: a formal
application to
: > view, a letter of refernce, and then, once at the library, at least two
: > library workers watching your every move while the letters are in your
: > possession.
:
: Yes -- that's exactly it, as far as the most recent news goes.
:
: > Am I correct (correct me if I'm not), but aren't the Salinger
letters in
: > the University of Texas library? I wonder if anyone has heard of any
: > security measures with them these days?
:
: I've never made it to Austin (yet). 8-(
:
: > >Maynard's book is still scheduled for the winter of 1999, though many
: > >observers doubt that she will be quoting from his letters to her, and
will
: > >therefore be less likely to find herself blocked by an adverse court
ruling.
: >
: > Smart move if she doesn't quote them. I think it's incredulous
enough
: > that she's coming forward and publishing in light of her relationship
with
: > Salinger.
:
: Indeed -- but one's perspective changes over time, and old loyalties, I
: guess, can die off. Which is sad. But real.
:
: --tim
:
:
:
: ------------------------------
:
: Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:50:30 +0000
: From: helena kim <helenak@geocities.com>
: To: bananafish@lists.nyu.edu
: Subject: joyce maynard.
: Message-ID: <350F1A56.25AC@geocities.com>
:
: okay, i just want to clear something up.
:
: my former english teacher once taught creative writing at nyu. she had a
: female student who wrote a letter to the ny times about something or
: other. jds read the letter wrote her privately, and asked if she'd come
: and stay with him awhile, which she did. he turned out to have a little
: writers workshop/commune going on out there. later, said student became
: a celebrated author.
:
: is this joyce maynard, or someone *completely* different?
:
: has she got any other major literary/journalistic achievements besides
: the whole jds connection?
:
: again, if anyone can answer this, gracias.
:
: :helena
:
: --
: (((((((((((((hork productions)))))))))))))
: @ http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/4801/
:
:
: ------------------------------
:
: Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:04:52 -0500 (EST)
: From: CHamil6876 <CHamil6876@aol.com>
: To: bananafish@lists.nyu.edu
: Subject: Re: the big field trip in NYC
: Message-ID: <4592025a.350f1db7@aol.com>
:
: I will be in new york this summer and i would just love to stop by and
see
: you all. it would be Fantastic. I will be sure to get in touch with you
as
: soon as possible.
:
: Thank You
:
:
: ------------------------------
:
: Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:55:03 -0800 (PST)
: From: Brendan McKennedy <suburbantourist@hotmail.com>
: To: bananafish@lists.nyu.edu
: Subject: Re: the big field trip in NYC
: Message-ID: <19980318045504.7812.qmail@hotmail.com>
:
: My girlfriend and I will be in New York for the day on April 18th, but
: it'll be a pretty full day; we're going to look at galleries for her Art
: classes...but if anyone wants to meet us at a gallery and follow us
: around the city, I'd love to meet you all. Of course, we won't really
: know what galleries we'll be visiting until we get there, but you can
: maybe make a guess. How many galleries are there in Soho anyway...five?
: Six?
:
: Brendan
:
:
:
:
: ______________________________________________________
: Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
:
: ------------------------------
:
: Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:48:36 -0700
: From: Jaramillojp@kktv.com
: To: bananafish@lists.nyu.edu
: Subject: godot troubled by zen (intentionally lowercase)
: Message-ID: <0EQ00000D85JJD@acf3.nyu.edu>
:
: I see Zen as the alternative to all
: rational, conventional, logical everything.
:
: My thinking used to be totally as yours. I was lost trying to make some
: logical sense of something that completely seems free of reason. I mean
: a Zen master would say we are already in touch with the answers we're
: just bogged down in so much shit we can't see. Bare with me but to
: meditate is to free yourself of all the trivialities of thought. Instead
: of focusing in on abstract theories such as math or language or even
: reason itself is to break away from the structure or
: compartmentalization of reality. To link all the pieces. I know this is
: reaching and I don't always get this about Zen study but to meditate is
: to free your mind of thought itself. Don't get me wrong I know how dumb
: this sounds but think of this. You cannot have a thought or a notion or
: anything clear to our dumb western minds without using reason. I mean
: it's important right, reason is the ultimate pragmatic tool or strategy
: that we have. I mean what is the justification of reason itself is that
: it works and it has worked for me for you for Aristotle for Descartes.
: Even the idea of western thought vs. eastern thought or reason is
: another compartment of our western type of thinking. We think in
: language we think in patterns connections deductions inductions and all
: that clouds what a Zen would say is true reality. Now the statement, I
: think that reality, for me, on a basic and in its simplest terms without
: faith or a dated written dogma is the flow of immediate experience
: itself. So the moment of enlightenment we are trying or that anybody
: meditating is trying to reach is a moment of not nothingness but
: synthesis, a moment where the mind sees not boundries but in fact
: connections and an organic oneness, this is the most important point,
: not a mystical or fake moment but a moment of direct experience. Not
: experience of nothingness or anything defeating like that but of higher
: perspective in that one is experiencing true reality as an immediate
: flow of experience.
: So one should not think of meditation as for wackos or anything
: illogical like that but as for people searching for hard fact evidence
: in immediate awareness and experience.
: Now what kind of answer is that well it can be very satisfying when you
: think in terms of trying to reach a starting point in any kind of
: epistemology or metaphysic. It can be satisfying because its as close to
: an answer as any human can come or has come in the history of
: philosophy. I've been studying for five years Zen and reason and logic
: and all I can come up with as a true statement is that causality is
: inductively true and not deductively true and is near an absolute as I
: can find. And I personally take tons of satisfaction in that because it
: isn't nothingness or nihilism or subjectivism or a goofy religion where
: they make you shave your head and wear a red towel but it is reason it
: is experience and most importantly pragmatism with all its limits and
: faults. It can be a very solid and comfortable place and also a very
: trustworthy place to stand in the cosmos. I mean for me the whole Zen
: thing we've been talking about is just about blue prints versus reality.
: And what makes the whole thing so tricky is that we use the blue prints
: to define reality. My professor once explained it to me like this: the
: universe doesn't read English. I mean in contact they said math was the
: language of the universe. Now to a Zen that would be speaking in human
: blue print terms. The universe or the cosmos or reality doesn't know
: English Spanish or anything like that it just is and we do our best to
: cut it up into little edible squares like math and language and reason.
: But to contact true reality would be to step out of those boundries or
: those bubbles. And it can be done right I mean we all thought the earth
: was flat until we broke that boundary. We all thought the earth was the
: center of the galaxy, we broke that boundary. I guess I'm trying to say
: is that this thinking along a Zens frame of mind is as exciting and
: clear as it is frustrating. Now for Salinger, he did a great job of
: translating this thinking, (as well as Hinduism which he was really into
: (Teddy) but I'm not so much into because it leaves the realm of science
: or fact and leans toward illogical prayer and dogma) in that he made it
: seeable or real if you will in the fictive space of his stories.
:
: I hope this helps.
: Suerte
: John Paul
:
:
: ------------------------------
:
: Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:23:42 -0800
: From: Malcolm Lawrence <malcolm@wolfenet.com>
: To: bananafish@lists.nyu.edu
: Subject: Re: godot troubled by zen (intentionally lowercase)
: Message-ID: <350F848D.35FF09EE@wolfenet.com>
:
: Jaramillojp@kktv.com wrote:
:
: > Now for Salinger, he did a great job of
: > translating this thinking, (as well as Hinduism which he was really
into
: > (Teddy) but I'm not so much into because it leaves the realm of science
: > or fact and leans toward illogical prayer and dogma) in that he made it
: > seeable or real if you will in the fictive space of his stories.
:
: Great post. This last bit is a good arrow: Zen is not illogical, it is
: simply no-logic. The thing it's closest to is love. Love has no logic
: either, but it's not illogical. I also think dancing has a lot to do with
it
: too. The best description I've ever seen was...was it a foreword to a
Joseph
: Campbell book? A western holy man and an eastern holy man were having a
: conversation. The western holy man asked the eastern holy man what their
: philosophy was. The eastern holy man thought for a bit and then
proclaimed
: "I don't think we have a philosophy. We just dance."Do you dance? :)
:
: Malcs
:
:
:
: ------------------------------
:
: Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 08:23:40 +0000
: From: Scottie Bowman <bowman@mail.indigo.ie>
: To: bananafish@lists.nyu.edu
: Subject: Estragon & Vladimir
: Message-ID: <0EQ0000AI9ZLJD@acf3.nyu.edu>
:
:
: I'm intrigued that the two wordiest posts in recent times should
: be about a way of thinking that ostensibly devalues the whole idea
: of verbal communication.on.
:
: Scottie B.
:
: ------------------------------
:
: End of BANANAFISH Digest 274
: ****************************