Your post raises the question of whether or not humans would be so preoccupied with accumulation in the absence of mathematical systems - I tend to think we would (thus precluding the zen scenario) - a preoccupation with the accumulation of goods is a byproduct of things like desire, memory, scarcity and existential dissatisfaction (if you will) - all of which would probably persist (and some of which might even be exacerbated) in the absence of math.
Zen-ness might still be possible, but i don’t think it would proliferate - if anything, it’s probably a response to a society preoccupied with the technology made possible by mathematics
Numbers are compared 2 is greater than 1, 3 is greater than 2 = medium is greater than tiny, large is greater than medium.
If numbers were not compared then 2 would equal 1
Counting is here is a berry there is a berry ohh look another berry = one berry, two berries, three berries. Counting does not have to be formal numbers. methodological or phenomenal, counting compares 1 and 2
counting does involve implicit comparison, that’s correct - but i think we learn to compare before we learn to count - and we can compare and relate sizes, shapes and intensities without counting.
Would they also ‘persist’ in the absence of ‘egoic insecurity’??
Without egoic moments/egoPerspective, we have ‘Zen’ (‘selflessness’).
One could say that about anything, as most of our planet’s history has included counting/numbers.
I cannot see why one cannot have, theoretically, a society of ‘Zen masters’…
How might they live? What might be the quality of life?
Do we? Then why do people and animals collect what they need? Take your squirrel for instance… it stashes nuts for winter. they bury them all over the place and they know when a stash is missing. We had a dog that loved to eat pecan stashes, the squirrells would get pissed off when they found a stash or two was missing. Missy would just lay there and watch them bury pecans, leave the yard, then she would go over and eat the pecans. Nothing like a screaming squirrell
Now if all they are doing is comparing then how did it know that it had a stash missing? Dog scent was all over it, pecan scent was gone or rather since we had 10 pecan trees That particular pecan scent would be fuddled… Jus how could it have known a stash was gone since Missy would wait for it to leave. I would say some sort of rudimentary math and counting was going on.
probably not, but i tend to think that a world without ‘egoic insecurity’ would be even MORE radically altered than a world without mathematics . . .
i won’t argue, but that’s a hypothesis and not a given (as i’m sure you realize)
again, true - but i tend to think the pursuit of Zen (and it is a pursuit, imo) does arise as a response to human nature (inherently selfish and therefore insecure) rather than as an independent alternative to that nature
I’m not saying one couldn’t theoretically have such a society, only that i don’t think purging the world of mathematics would necessarily bring us closer to it
i imagine rather utopian - but, with all due respect to your perspective (and i do, in fact, respect it), it’s not a question that interests me terribly
I would guess the squirril’s ability to recall where it put each stash of nuts is a product of intuition and raw memory, both of which can be active without any actual counting ability or mathematical sense. For instance, in my first squirril example, the mother was able to recall and remember the image of her brood inside the furrow and knew intuitively that it didn’t match up with the image of her brood on open ground, but had she been able to quantify in some way an actual NUMBER of the offspring she had, that intuition wouldn’t have led to the same confusion that drove her to keep returning to the now vacant furrow in search of more offspring that never existed. She remembered and she compared and she intuited, but she couldn’t confirm, because she couldn’t count. I think the squirril knows all the places WHERE it put the nuts, without knowing how many places it put the nuts. I can’t say for sure, but i bet if you removed one or two nuts from the larger stashes (without leaving behind any foreign smells or leaving any other noticable traces), the returning squirril would remain unperturbed.
Ahh, but again comparision is a form of mathematics. Intuitive yes but that still conforms to a form of math knowing where each stash is and knowing that is no longer there. It is quite like have a treasure map. Stash A is 10 steps from tree B at a heading of due North.
Yea, I don’t care what any “proffesional” says each dog has their own personality and quirks.
Well, then i suppose we’ll have to disagree on the intrinsicness of math to the process of comparison, and agree instead on the proposition that every dog does indeed have its own personality and quirks
The stuff of good science fiction…
Imagine… ‘submarines’! Hahaha…
If you wish to define personal experience as ‘hypothesis’, then I’m cool wit dat.
That is not the definition that I understand, though.
I understand the Perspective, and in that context, I must ‘agree’. There are many ‘reasons’ (if one’s world is full of ‘reasons’… Reasons (thought) = ego (-ic self-image), which is the ‘self’ in 'selfish, and the ‘self’ that is ‘less’, in ‘selfless’!) why people practice Zen. I wouldn’t say that an 'independent alternative to our (individual) nature is the only alternative Perspective, though.
Goodness! Do you think that is what I’m saying? My secret plan to kill off math to make way for the next level of Consciousness? Uh, … no. *__-
It is a very fruitful thought/imagination experiment that I suggest. And in that context, I feel that arguments and debates are of less value (too much ego spittle flying around) than ‘Borg’-ing it up. This is a creative endeavor, with all of us as conceptual artists.
Not that a society of Zen masters would need ‘math’, either. What kind of life might they lead? How deep? How rich? How satisfactory? How important ‘longevity’?
Jumpstarting creative thought can be an intimidating task… Sometimes there’s three inches of dust on it!
Do you refer to the question above, or the topic at hand;
Could you be saying that a ‘world without math’, from youPerspective, would/could be “rather utopian”? *__- Not very descriptive or dimensional, but it’s a start! Thanx!
I’m not asking for a complete world-view, but just the tiniest corner of life, an hour out of a day… without the ‘benefits’ of numbers as a variable, or the results a numeric system.
Is it that we would do no better then the ‘caveman’? Are we, after all, without our ‘toys’, still ‘cavemen’?
Does divvying up the universe into tidy little well classified, meticulously counted and divided little piles, all individually owned, keep us from ‘eating each other’?
So, if not interested, all’s well, just say goodnight, Gracie…
Peace
The life of a Zen master always sounded kind of boring to me, that’s all - it’s like G.B. Shaw’s description of Heaven in “Man and Superman” - if that’s what heaven is like, then i think i’ll probably have more fun in hell . . .
I was referring simply to the question of how a society of Zen masters might live. The question of a world without mathematics in fact interests me quite a bit.
No, i imagine a world of Zen Masters would be utopian - i’m still trying to imagine a world without math.
Sorry, I know. I was deliberately turning your words around in effort to aid imaginations.
But trying to imagine a ‘world’ without math might be more of a reachable goal if we can start with little bites first. ‘Bits of matal and glass make a skyscraper!’
Perhaps our ‘technology’ might be more ‘inward’ than ‘outward’?
(How about if everyone were blind? The world might be quieter… no cars? How transportation otherwise? … This sort of thing. But it might well be more of a ‘task’ creating an edifice (world) without math…)
If you want to imagine a world where there’s no mathematics then go and live by yourself in the juggle cuz that’s where we lived before we had mathematics. or go back to kindergarden where 1+2 = 4
