Since we mean to mean something,what does 'Ok boss' mean? Back door? :)
On Jul 29, 5:56 am, [email protected] wrote: > Ok boss > : ) > Sent via BlackBerry from Vodafone > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rodger <[email protected]> > > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 03:52:38 > To: Advaita-Zen<[email protected]> > Subject: Re: why we conceptualize the unconceptualizable > > Marko,from your starter post... > > Why am I writing this post? > Because I need to communicate with you. > > And in that need,that communication,is the intent to meaning. > We mean to mean something. > Otherwise,the next time you just want to communicate...simply type out > the alphabet. :) > > On Jul 29, 5:39 am, [email protected] wrote: > > What I've concluded was meant in the context of > > philosophical/religious/free time discussion, like this forum, like > > satsangs... > > Sent via BlackBerry from Vodafone > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rodger <[email protected]> > > > Sender: [email protected] > > Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 03:24:13 > > To: Advaita-Zen<[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: why we conceptualize the unconceptualizable > > > If I have understood your starter post,communication is a natural > > urge.If that is correct,no excuse is needed. > > Early on,prior to written communication,when we were out hunting > > something to eat, certain signals were used to communicate the > > presence/location of whatever it was we were hunting...or whatever > > might turn and hunt us.To possibly save you from being eaten I might > > signal you to go left rather than right.Without that excuse(as you > > call it)you might end up as food for a saber tooth.But,I signaled > > you...with intent/purpose...for a reason.Which could've been...if we > > didn't bring home some bacon,I would still have to put on in the > > pot. :) > > > On Jul 29, 4:58 am, [email protected] wrote: > > > to communicate a meaning is an excuse to communicate > > > You need something to throw if you have the urge to throw. I think the > > > searching for meaning comes from the need to communicate. If you > > > communicate meaningful shit it is like throwing to a bigger distance. > > > Sent via BlackBerry from Vodafone > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Rodger <[email protected]> > > > > Sender: [email protected] > > > Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 02:53:15 > > > To: Advaita-Zen<[email protected]> > > > Subject: Re: why we conceptualize the unconceptualizable > > > > About your conclusion,Marko... > > > > Through the written you have intended to communicate a > > > meaning,haven't you? > > > > On Jul 28, 11:27 pm, Marko Gregoric <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Words again, ooh fuck! I am boring > > > > > I found my self generating the bullshit I am going to write now and > > > > most of > > > > all I found "the source" of talking and creating all this shit. > > > > The source is as I said a million times is the urge of communication. I > > > > think that's almost an instinct of men being social animals. > > > > Did you ever notice that the world, all concepts, ideas... are in fact > > > > there > > > > just for the pure communication between people? > > > > I think the very existence of words comes out of that. > > > > I need to talk with you so I have to "word" it. > > > > Let's take the example of awareness. Where and what is awareness when > > > > there > > > > is no need to rationalize, put in words, explain. > > > > Here the point is not what is awareness or if it exists or not. I am not > > > > interested in that. What I am interested is: > > > > Why am I writing this post? > > > > Because I need to communicate with you. > > > > My conclusion is that the meaning of the written is not really > > > > important as > > > > much as is the fact the we need to talk. > > > > > ps Would there be any "Parabrahman" if gurus had not have the urge to > > > > speak > > > > to people? > > > > > So I think the source of the universe is that very social urge to talk > > > > about > > > > it.
