Three Wise Men

The story goes as follows ...

Three men met on a flight to NYC. They landed at JFK airport and agreed to share a cab to central Park South where their three respective hotels were located. They got in a cab and told the driver of their destination. The driver asked them which way they would prefer to go. One said take the Midtown Tunnel. The second said, not at this hour, take the Queensboro Bridge. The third said, you're both nuts, at this time of day take the side streets and take the Brooklyn Bridge.

They got out of the cab and argued at length. And though they had a common point of origin, and shared the same destination, they could not reconcile a mutually agreeable route. In fact so important became the route to them, that by the end of their argument they forgot all that they shared.

So they started fighting, and others joined in and defended the route they thought was best. After cursing each other they each got in their respective cabs and took their own route convinced that their route was the only true route. And disciples of each route wrote of the virtues of their respective routes, and convinced others of its merits. They built great buildings to speak of the routes and honor the original route takers.

And they all forgot that all routes started at the same location and led to the same destination.

And now, in year 4010, 2000 or so years since the original argument, after countless deaths and immeasurable suffering as a consequence of differences of simple route variation, they are still arguing ... a lot.

It is fashionable to declare that it's not the destination it's the path that matters. And although that mantra is true enough, it is not entirely complete.

The whole above story seems almost too ludicrous and ridiculous to even contemplate ... that is if it hadn't happened before and wasn't happening now.

Star and flag for this. Great story and I enjoy the metaphor. We do seem to go around in circles a bit much don't we? And yet we both can see we need to be somewhere, together, way over there. What are we doing standing around?

What if these three men had a group of other men, urging and egging them on? Someone behind the scenes instigating their arguments. The cab driver for instance, who is racking up the cash in fees as they sit there and argue.

Anyway, nice thread and does make perfect sense. S&F!

--airspoon

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Wow, great story! So true. Did you write that yourself?

2nd line.

So wait, which one was the priest, who was the bartender, and which direction did the blind man choose?
J/K

Nice point.

All I know is if it's drive-time, take the side streets and then the Bridge. No cabbie in his right mind will tell you any different.

reply to post by Chamberf=6


So a priest, a rabbi and a minister walk into a bar. Bartender looks up and says "What is this? Some kinda joke?"

Thank you. Goodnight. Drive safe.

Then again...

Three wise men arguing also gave birth to most of the advances in modern physics.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Good story,I have one problem...
Where do you find three wise men?

Great moral story.

Short and sweet.

If they had but put aside this trivial separation, they could have made it to the destination in plenty of time to share some beers!

Then their friendship would be cemented upon further commonalities instead of trivial differences.

What a waste...

Good analogy, but I heard of a different ending.

Apparently once all three wise men arrived at their destination, they got together and realized that their destination was indeed the same, that they had indeed taken the same path albeit through a different experience. But see, the taxi driver who first overheard their quarrels thought of an ingenious plan! So enthralled was he by seemingly childish quarrel of the three wise men that he made up his own endings to each of their stories. He published three different books, all with underlying similarities; but the quarrel witnessed by the taxi driver inspired him to add the element of conflict and to each tale he attributed a contradictory persona compared to the other two. He became rich, rich like a whore... the whore is still rich.
...

And now, in year 4010, 2000 or so years since the original argument, after countless deaths and immeasurable suffering as a consequence of differences of simple route variation, they are still arguing ... a lot.

reply to post by schrodingers dog

schrodingers dog,

As always, a pleasure to read your thread but this one has me a bit questioning... (as always ).

I understand the metaphor but....

Three men get in a cab, they have the same destination but get into an argument over which route is the best. They eventually end up taking separate cabs etc etc....

It is fashionable to declare that it's not the destination it's the path that matters.

Indeed....so which path was the best?? One of those three men had to have been correct, right??

(please ignore my ignorance if indeed my question is really ignorant)

Peace

[edit on 18-8-2010 by operation mindcrime]

Buda, Krishna and Muhammad... I can not recall if there was a fourth guy and what was his name... hang on... Jessy Chrisura... Jesus Ventura... no no.. ehmmm... oh, I remember - Christ.

Originally posted by serbsta
Good analogy, but I heard of a different ending.

The ending is still pending no?



A couple of folks have pointed to the fact that the metaphor isn't precise and is somewhat incomplete. That is by design ... for if it was complete it would be an exercise in historical recording rather than an abstract parable, if one can call it that..

In fact the metaphor isn't restricted to the suffering caused when man focuses on religious dogmatic variations rather than our common underlying spiritual substance. If my intent was to restrict the pointer to religion the beginning of the story is inaccurate. For the great spiritual teachers upon who's teachings 'route' religions were built upon neither fought nor differed in their fundamental message. This in fact makes the realities of their followers subsequent actions in history more 'sinful' (missing the mark) and much more tragic than my little story points to.

Fact is the story is meant to point, perhaps unsuccessfully, that as humans most of the differences we suffer through and fight about, are simple variations in routes or vehicles driven rather than differences of true substance. And although this dynamic manifests clearly within the context of religions, should one choose to look around, they might note that said dynamic is present across human interaction.

It was really just a simplistic message to point to remembering the things we all share rather than focus on the different routes we travel to and from them.

Originally posted by operation mindcrime

Indeed....so which path was the best?? One of those three men had to have been correct, right??

No path is better than another, they are simply different.
Which one is 'correct' for each one of us is a matter of personal preference, no more no less.


[edit on 18 Aug 2010 by schrodingers dog]

On a side note, some would say that the origin and the destination are one and the same and that neither routes nor travel are required ... but that's for another thread.

Thanks for the explanation Schro..

No path is better than another, they are simply different.
Which one is 'correct' for each one of us is a matter of personal preference, no more no less.


Contrary to what you might think I did get the metaphor but the problem I have is that in your metaphor their is an absolute best path to travel.

Each man gives a reason which can be verified thus validating the argument.



Mod Edit: Content returned upon request after accidental member edit. Jak

[edit on 19/8/10 by JAK]

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
One said take the Midtown Tunnel.

Everyone knows that by checking the three following resources with the free JFK Wifi after having landed the Midtown Tunnel is far and away the most obviously efficient means of navigation to Central Park South...

new.mapquest.com...

www.traffic.com...

www.weather.com...

And I'm from Los Angeles...

reply to post by sesquipedalian asshat


Why would three wise men even get into such a purile argument? Personally, I'd question their wisdom if they became so absorbed in the argument that they couldn't reconcile the issue with a puzzle, a drink or some sort of monkey impressions.

Oh great...I'm being ignored. The only point I am trying to make is that the metaphor, as it stands, is flawed.

One said take the Midtown Tunnel. The second said, not at this hour, take the Queensboro Bridge. The third said, you're both nuts, at this time of day take the side streets and take the Brooklyn Bridge.

Now, in the original story the argument for taking an other route is based on the knowledge that a certain route will get you stuck in traffic. At least two of the three men use this argumentation and we can only guess what the first man's motives are.

But the fact of the matter is that one of these three men is correct about the route that should be traveled in the least amount of time.

No path is better than another, they are simply different.
Which one is 'correct' for each one of us is a matter of personal preference, no more no less.

Not in your metaphor, as it stands, one path is better then the other options.

Allow me to molest your work in order to bring my point across...

One said take the Midtown Tunnel, I really like the sights along the route. The second said, take the Queensboro Bridge, it gives the best view of New York. The third said, you're both nuts, the side streets and take the Brooklyn Bridge, this will really give you a good impression of this city

Now no path is better than another because the motivation for a certain route is based on personal preference and not fact....

You guys are no fun at all. This is still the philosophy and metaphysics discussion forum, right??

Ahh forget it....

Peace

reply to post by operation mindcrime


Nothing is really implied about the correctness or betterness of any route. The men (apparently) each have different parameters that they would like to optimize but it's not always possible to optimize all of them simultaneously. Nothing rules out one being better than the others, but "better" must be defined and agreed upon before attempting to find a more suitable solution without falling victim to the Nirvana Fallacy.

See also Perfect Solution Fallacy.


[edit on 8/19/2010 by EnlightenUp]