Replying to LO26359 --
Beloved Alfred,
Love your post --- its depth of sincerity. Particularly one passage
caught my heart. I will comment after---
On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 14:34:28 +0200 Alfred Rheeder writes:
> Soon ....I inevitably came face to face with a profoundly important
>question regarding complexity. Should I learn more and more about less
>and less until one day I now everything about nothing or should I learn
>less and less about more and more until one day I know nothing about
>everything? Well I chose the latter. This question is in fact I believe
>nothing else but a question of complexity regarding complexity.
I must say, your words elicited from me such a wonderful belly laugh of
delight. I believe you are posing a kind of Koan --- your question
reminds me of the kind of inquiry that is evolved from the Diamond Sutra,
wherein, speaking to his pupil Subhuti, Buddha said ----
All Bodhisattvas (Compassionate Ones) ...develop a mind which clings to
nothing whatsoever...the Tathagata (one who is Being) teaches that all
these many particles of dust are no-particles of dust and therefore that
they are called particles of dust....the world is no-world and therefore
the world is called the world...what is known as a true idea is no-idea,
and for this reason it is called a true idea.
Another way of understanding these conundrums, from a Zen maxim:
Before studying Zen, one sees mountains as mountains and waters as
waters. When one reaches a more intimate knowledge one sees that
mountains are not mountains and waters are not waters. But when one
reaches the very substance one is at rest. For then one sees mountains
once again as mountains and waters once again as waters.
So, back to the original inquiry of yours Alfred:
Should you learn more and more about less and less until one day you know
everything about nothing or should you learn less and less about more and
more until one day you know nothing about everything?
Although you chose the latter, perhpas this is a choiceless choice, if
one simply leads to other regardless of which one you choose. And I
suspect this might be the case.
You go on to ask of your original question:
> How could such a simple equation exhibit such complexity? Do I just
> confuse simplicity or complexity?
Well I would say you seem to be clear about them both. As Rumi once said:
Come to the orchard in spring.
There is light and wine, and sweethearts in the pomegranate
flowers.
If you do not come these do not matter.
If you do come these do not matter.
As for differences between simplicity and complexity, Rumi's words:
When I am with you, we stay up all night.
When you're not here I can't go to sleep.
Praise God for these two insomnias!
And the difference between them.
Simplicity and complexity --- maybe it's that they both are insomnias, and
both are literally in-formed (formed in, have unique identities) in
relation to each other only.
Thanks for your questions Alfie.
windchimes swaying, windchimes saying,
Sajeela
Sajeela Moskowitz Ramsey: President, Core Consulting
Center for Organizational Renewal and Effectiveness
Senior OD Consultant/Culture Generalist
2432 Villanova Drive/Vienna, VA. 22180
703 573 7050/ SajeelaCore @Juno.com
--Sajeela M ramsey <sajeelacore@juno.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.