The Discussion that Followed

      For those interested, I am posting an email dialogue Ken and I shared after the last meeting. I have written Ken's words in black and mine in red. After explaining that I did not take his comments personally but rather that I was poking fun at myself, the following perspectives were shared. Anyone having comments about our comments are encouraged to post them. If you have trouble doing so, please contact Nadine for all technical assistance.
  
Hello Bob,

      I have been thinking about your comment of my astute observation. It was not aimed at you and I am sorry if that was implied.
      What I was inarticulately trying to say is something that I learned many years ago when I worked at a science museum and had to try and explain complex stuff (lasers, holograms, biodiversity, AID’s, simple machines, dinosaurs, climate, DNA...) to the general public. The lesson was to try and explain everything in as simple a language as possible considering that the general public has a seventh grade reading and vocabulary level. Its tough but it is possible to explain the most complex and arcane topic, and avoid jargon, undefined words and concepts and ambiguity. I think the same communications concepts apply to philosophy.
      I would agree that in order to explain complex ideas to people who have little or no knowledge about the subject, it is imperative that the explanation be simplified and given in terms with which they are familiar.
      I have one caveat however that may or may not be salient. When we are dealing with an explanation for something that is part of a larger, more general subject, and is somewhat familiar to the audience (like science for instance), we can draw from ideas or aspects of that familiar subject matter in order to elucidate some arcane subject within it. This situation lends itself more easily to finding terms or ideas that are somewhat familiar to the average listener and will act as a bridge to the more difficult.
      The problem I think becomes more difficult when we are trying to address issues or subjects that are not subject to the scientific process, i.e. those metaphysical in nature. This is also what happens when we encounter terminology from different languages and cultures which point to something that might, or might not, have a word in the English language, or is not part of the lexicon of science. Oneness comes to mind here, which actually points to something that we can easily extrapolate from the results of accepted scientific process. More on that below.
       I believe that Buddhism and Zen are like other fields of human endeavor in that it is easy to get the impression that things are more difficult and complex than they actually are. I am sure that coincidently this also benefits the teaching and book writing folks. While it may not be their goal to be obtuse, it may not be in their interest to be otherwise. In some cases complexity is associated with importance and the dharma is considered very important, so it must be complex. If we told people it was simple (which I think it is) the fear is that most folks would take that as meaning trivial.
      I agree one-hundred percent with what you have said here. In the world of money, power, and prestige the human tendency is to create a situation where there is only a privileged, or erudite few who can understand. However, I don't see this as being the case with Taoist or Buddhist basic tenets and of course the highly vaunted Zen to which I am so attracted.
      The subtlety is that the concepts are simple and should (can?) be stated in simple terms, but the difficulty is completely integrating them into life, at a level that becomes second nature.
       I do agree that the difficulty of integation is the major obstacle and for the most part the simplicity of the 4 Noble Truths and what they point to is much easier to understand than to implement into daily life.
      However, I also think that for people with different modes of expression and understanding, there needs to be more in the way of explanation for them to reach the point where they can accept the teachings as worthy of integration. Now that's a very clumsy way of saying what I'm meaning here, but that further points to why some explanations are too simple to be taken seriously for some minds.
      I personally don't value anything just because it is complicated or difficult to understand. I value highly some very simple scientific notions but they do not necessarily answer questions that gnaw at me and scream for answers.
      I find that integration requires understanding first, and there are some things that Zen writings make clear for me but only after much work. And my type of "work" is not needed by everyone; it's not enjoyed by everyone, and it is in no way to be construed as being any more enlightening than someone elses belief system. We all have a "way" that is dictated by our history and the particulars of each person's biology.
      I find it hard to understand that concepts about the perception of reality should be so obscure as to be difficult to explain. Maybe I am just missing the point.
      I don't know what point it is you might be missing but let me ask some questions that are of the "gnawing" type for me and seem not to be explained in simple terms. Perhaps you can help me see it another way.
            1. Scientifically speaking we can agree (I think) that our world of vision is only partial within certain parameters dictated my our brain chemistry, as is the case for all our senses. If I accept this as fact, then two possibilites seem to arise;
                 a) what we sense is not ultimate reality because science has shown us that there is more beyond our natural ability to apprehend. It is partially real at best
                                    - or-
                 b) science lies.
      Now, if I choose to believe a) then how will I be able talk about, theorize about, or come to understand or know all that lies beyond our biology?
       Enter the world of Zen.
       It seems to me that if I must use familiar terms to describe what is now only a theory or an "imagining," I will be accused of obfuscation (for instance; self, or Self, or real-self). On the other hand, if I make up a new word for the subject of my theory, I will be further impaled on the stake of mysticism or new age fuzzy thinking at best.
       So, let me ask this; if one understands Dependent-Arising as the inter-relation of all things in the ongoing creation-destruction process which is our universe, how much simpler could it be than to use the term "Oneness" as a metaphor representing that overall process?
       And if I can understand Oneness as simply a name signifying the totality that it points to, why would it be confusing to understand that there was a culture that used the term TAO to represent that very same idea. And if this is accepted as possible, is it not a somewhat simple stretch (though again seemingly difficult) to understand what is pointed to in the statement, "the tao that can be named is not the true tao." That is, if I have a word that "stands for," (represents, points to) the totality of everything (all-things)......does it not make sense that "it" (the word that functions only as a "finger pointing") could not possibly be the real or actual totality itself?
       The "map is not the territory" catches my meaning here, but the Taoist phraseology is part of a different culture and a broader issue, or subject, that is even more nebulous to our way of thinking about life.
       The "work" I referred to earlier is, for me, the path by which I can integrate the notion of interconnectedness which leads me to compassion. It is a term (work) that I use to represent an actual process of wrestling with terminology and ideas in order to become less self-centered or perhaps one might say "ego-oriented" depending on how they process the same confusing writings. I don't think anything here is intentionally abstruse....it's the nature of the subject.
       If you can help me explain more simply the ideas represented here, I would be very grateful and bow at the feet of simplicity?
       I think I've gone off again into that fuzzy thinking you abhor but it is so clear to me, that I can't seem to avoid it. But my last - (I know, thank god!) - point - (if I've made any at all so far) is that none of this, as far as I can see, is equivalent to intentional obfuscation or the human need for money, power, or one-up-man-ship. Thank you so much for sharing your vision and understanding.
      And now your dissection is eagerly awaited.