What's the point of Zen koans?

Karen Sanchez19 said:but since we're dividing things into an infinite number of segments: the time required to cross one of those infinitely small segments APPROACHES ZERO😉 😁

If Diogenes had just stood up and walked away,🙏 you’d see what I mean now.😁

Karen Sanchez19 said:but since we're dividing things into an infinite number of segments: the time required to cross one of those infinitely small segments APPROACHES ZERO😉 😁

I honestly don't see what part of this is hard to figure out. Two opposing forces cancel out to zero.
Two identical forces also equal zero. In fact, both scenarios just result in zero. 😍👍
Both sides collapsed. Don't you people realize that? 😍🤣🤣=0

electricdrifter68 said:What a circus!
Which goose are we even talking about?

Her. 😍

Austin Hayes66 said:I honestly don't see what part of this is hard to figure out. Two opposing forces cancel out to zero.
Two identical forces also equal zero. In fact, both scenarios just result in zero. 😍👍
Both sides collapsed. Don't you people realize that? 😍🤣🤣=0

😁

Austin Hayes66 said:I honestly don't see what part of this is hard to figure out. Two opposing forces cancel out to zero.
Two identical forces also equal zero. In fact, both scenarios just result in zero. 😍👍
Both sides collapsed. Don't you people realize that? 😍🤣🤣=0

Yes, dear. But in that case, you wouldn't write 2=0; you would write p+q=0 or A+(-A)=0.
It’s much clearer that way. The number two doesn't describe the quality of those opposites, but rather the cardinal number of the set containing them.
There are two opposites, which makes them two, not zero. However, the resultant of their actions (the sum of their qualities) equals zero.
You are being imprecise, perhaps because you struggle with logic. That is your issue, though I suppose it isn't a massive one.
My issue—and the issue for all these aimless "spiritualists"—is that they support such confused reasoning. I guess in New Age circles, it's common to babble without actually thinking about what is being said. Don't take this the wrong way: it's not that you are babbling. You simply don't know. It is those who fail to realize you don't know who are doing the babbling.

Regarding the "both have fallen" part, I assume the only person here acting like a real squad leader on an M1A2 Abrams is the one who wrote the message you are currently reading.

That’s just some methodology you’re using to hide behind... 😬 like a cloud of vapor obscuring the sky. 2=0. 👍😍

Brenda Cook4 said:😁

🙂=0

Douglas Brown4 said:Yes, dear. But in that case, you wouldn't write 2=0; you would write p+q=0 or A+(-A)=0.
It’s much clearer that way. The number two doesn't describe the quality of those opposites, but rather the cardinal number of the set containing them.
There are two opposites, which makes them two, not zero. However, the resultant of their actions (the sum of their qualities) equals zero.
You are being imprecise, perhaps because you struggle with logic. That is your issue, though I suppose it isn't a massive one.
My issue—and the issue for all these aimless "spiritualists"—is that they support such confused reasoning. I guess in New Age circles, it's common to babble without actually thinking about what is being said. Don't take this the wrong way: it's not that you are babbling. You simply don't know. It is those who fail to realize you don't know who are doing the babbling.

Regarding the "both have fallen" part, I assume the only person here acting like a real squad leader on an M1A2 Abrams is the one who wrote the message you are currently reading.

Look at you, commander... serving in the US Army... 🤣🤣

electricdrifter68 said:What a circus!
Which goose are we even talking about?

How many more pills do you need to take to get through this...😉

Teo=Tao

Hannah Wilson3 said:Teo=Tao

inlingva ☕😍🤣🤣
just use that handle all the time then... 👍😍

Douglas Brown4 said:Yes, dear. But in that case, you wouldn't write 2=0; you would write p+q=0 or A+(-A)=0.
It’s much clearer that way. The number two doesn't describe the quality of those opposites, but rather the cardinal number of the set containing them.
There are two opposites, which makes them two, not zero. However, the resultant of their actions (the sum of their qualities) equals zero.
You are being imprecise, perhaps because you struggle with logic. That is your issue, though I suppose it isn't a massive one.
My issue—and the issue for all these aimless "spiritualists"—is that they support such confused reasoning. I guess in New Age circles, it's common to babble without actually thinking about what is being said. Don't take this the wrong way: it's not that you are babbling. You simply don't know. It is those who fail to realize you don't know who are doing the babbling.

Regarding the "both have fallen" part, I assume the only person here acting like a real squad leader on an M1A2 Abrams is the one who wrote the message you are currently reading.

not 0, but rather 0/0 or 0*0
The segment is infinitely small, essentially 0, and the transition time is infinitely small, essentially 0
v=s/t; in this case, it's zero divided by zero, which is an indeterminate form when viewed through that lens
meaning
v=ds/dt
meaning the derivative is defined by a limit: in this scenario, t approaches zero

Karen Sanchez19 said:not 0, but rather 0/0 or 0*0
The segment is infinitely small, essentially 0, and the transition time is infinitely small, essentially 0
v=s/t; in this case, it's zero divided by zero, which is an indeterminate form when viewed through that lens
meaning
v=ds/dt
meaning the derivative is defined by a limit: in this scenario, t approaches zero

Oh boy, give me a break... we're trying to be Solvay Conference intellectuals here, not Caligula... 🤣🤣🤣👍

Karen Sanchez19 said:not 0, but rather 0/0 or 0*0
The segment is infinitely small, essentially 0, and the transition time is infinitely small, essentially 0
v=s/t; in this case, it's zero divided by zero, which is an indeterminate form when viewed through that lens
meaning
v=ds/dt
meaning the derivative is defined by a limit: in this scenario, t approaches zero

You're talking nonsense.
Using "infinitesimally small" doesn't mean what you think it means in this context.
Here is the issue:
If you have a certain property and its exact OPPOSITE, those properties cancel each other out. However, the cardinal number of a set containing both those properties is still 2. Therefore, you can't claim that 2 (the cardinal number) equals 0 (the product of those two interacting properties).

Douglas Brown4 said:A goose in a bottle... Rika, a high-ranking official from the Tang dynasty, poses a question to
Zen Master Nan-zen:
- Long ago, there was a man who kept a goose in a bottle. It grew larger and larger
until it could no longer fit through the opening; he didn't want to break the bottle, nor did he want to
harm the goose—how would you get it out?
The Master shouted: - Official!
To which Rika immediately replied: - Yes!
- There, it's out! - said Nan-zen

Comments....

Absolute madness!

🤣

Paul Campbell3 said:Absolute madness!

🤣

What happened?

Well, there it is, 🙂 😉

Paul Campbell3 said:Well, there it is, 🙂 😉

but honestly, his whole world just exists inside some tiny little glass jar... 😍🤣

Austin Hayes66 said:but honestly, his whole world just exists inside some tiny little glass jar... 😍🤣

I don't have any geese or chickens, for that matter.

Douglas Brown4 said:I don't have any geese or chickens, for that matter.

exactly why... 😂😂😂😂😂