🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2495@ames.arpa> yamo@orville.UUCP (Michael J. Yamasaki) writes:
>
>Greetings. Some random comments on recent issues:
>
>All philosophy is not Western, nor is it logical, and certainly formal logic
>is not the paramount of philosophy.  Please explain in the context of logic
>the notion of no mind in Zen Buddhism or the Tao.  Are these not Philosophy?

Good Luck.  About 3 years ago, I spent a very frustrating time trying
to argue that there are philosophic aspects of any religion, and got
nowhere.  There were a small but very vocal number of people who were
convinced that Buddhism (any sort) was a religion, and required a
belief in a deity, and therefore was a superstition, and therefore
could be discounted.  I hope you do better.

>Truth is not necessarily deduced truth, nor is it necessarily the result of
>causality.  Beauty is as good a criteria for Truth, as deduction and 
>experimentation is for truth. 

I know what you mean, but you are running counter to the definitions
which I am using, where Truth is epistemological truth -- and thus
largely deduced Truth.  I have a three-legged stool model of reality,
where the first leg is (deduced) truth, and the other two are beauty
and (moral) goodness. If Truth is to mean the whole stool, do you have
another word for the deduced truth leg?
-- 
(C) Copyright 1987 Laura Creighton - you may redistribute only if your 
    recipients may.

	``One must pay dearly for immortality:  one has to die several
	times while alive.'' -- Nietzsche

Laura Creighton	
ihnp4!hoptoad!laura  utzoo!hoptoad!laura  sun!hoptoad!laura