| That's kind of where I have had a problem with the rule, even though I
think the numerous arguments that it was a valid rule have all been excellent and
convincing. I am so tempted now to agree that it is a valid rule...but! It strikes me as not functioning as a rule. As I said before it's more like a 1:1 scale map. It can't function as a map. It isn't a rule in any sense of being a distillation of what is common between all correct koans, because it is simply a list of those correct koans which furthermore is a collection of basically arbitrary, unruly relationships when NOT considered vis a vis Scrabble. It isn't any more a rule than a 1:1 scale map is really a map. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's unsolvable because there is always the magic of intuition and guessing (very very far-fetched in this case). But I still argue that the biggest rub lies in that it is reliant on the names of the colors as spelled in English and stipulated consistently by some unspoken agreement (for example, to get the rule right, you have to know that the Master is calling the Purple pieces Purple and not Violet, even though Violet is as valid a name as Purple, and that he isn't --or is-- calling both types of Blue piece Blue rather than Blue and Cyan --And what is he calling clear?). I argue that the names of the colors are not part of a koan (the colors are) and thus not part of their relationship, thus any rule that relies on them is invalid. As a rule it's problematic at best for this reason. --- On Wed, 8/3/11, Shadowfirebird <shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
|