Hi Marsha, I am not sure what you mean. I present things to entertain, not to be special. Nothing that I say is new, I try to present it in a different way each time. I presented the Zen poem to give you some awareness of "self" as it relates to Zen. (I am not sure if it was a translation, it was something I heard Alan Watts say years ago). In Zen terms, such a self is not a thinker of thoughts, why do you think you are supposed to "empty your head of thoughts to experience Zazen? To say that a self is a thinker of thoughts just does not make sense, unless you are subscribing to some kind of modern day misguided physical psychology nonsense. It is like saying a that someone at a concert is actually producing the music.
Besides, I presented something that I personally find important, and all I get is some snide remark about potato chips. What the hell is that all about? Is it to be a cutesy little dumb blond? If you did not understand it, at least keep your trite little nonsense to yourself. If you do understand, then tell me where I have gone wrong. You seem to dangle fish in front of everybody to make them jump through hoops. What is that fish? Why, it is others desire to be Right. Not very often do you support what others are saying, but speak in platitudes that have no relation to the subject at hand. But, I know, this is just your way, I am just pulling your covers. If you do not feel you do this, just ask yourself if you would post on a forum that you never got answers to. I highly doubt it. This is your form of ego entertainment, there is nothing that may be meaningful to you in it. Bait and switch, present the football then pull it away. Some like this game, but please spare the potato chip remarks for them. It is just plain silly. There, I have had my vent. Please forgive me. Cheers, Mark On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 4:42 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark, > > Grrrrr to you. > > Was your presenting the little English translation of the Zen poem an > exception to your rule because what you present is special? Or was it a kind > of 'do what I say and not what I do' moment? > > > Marsha > > > > > > > On Aug 21, 2011, at 2:13 PM, 118 wrote: > >> BZZZZ >> >> Is that worth one of your dangling fish that I jump through hoops for? >> >> Mark >> >> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 10:29 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> You bet it's worth a peanut! >>> >>> >>> How about: >>> >>> There once was a bee that sat on a wall, >>> it said bzzzz, and that is all. >>> >>> >>> >>> Marsha >>> >>> >>> On Aug 21, 2011, at 1:09 PM, 118 wrote: >>> >>>> Marsha, >>>> >>>> There was a young man who said tho' >>>> It seems that I know that I know >>>> What I would like to see >>>> Is the "I" that knows me >>>> When I know that I know that I know >>>> >>>> Zen >>>> >>>> That is worth at least a peanut >>>> >>>> Mark >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 10:05 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Mark, >>>>> >>>>> Would you like another potato chip? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Marsha >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 21, 2011, at 12:03 PM, 118 wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Joe, Ham, Marsha, perhaps Ron, Arlo and whomever else is stuck in >>>>>> this two dimensional web, >>>>>> >>>>>> Let's stick to logic for a second, for this is how philosophy works. >>>>>> Let's not get caught up in semantic misdirection and consider what we >>>>>> can logically create. >>>>>> >>>>>> When Joe speaks of emotions, he gets caught up in a self-referential >>>>>> circle. He defines emotions as indefinable. Why are they >>>>>> indefinable? Because they are emotions! I am not sure how far this >>>>>> logic will take one. Logic is structure, it is something we build on >>>>>> assumptions. Such structures can stretch to the stars, or down to the >>>>>> atom. We always begin in the middle of these. >>>>>> >>>>>> Emotions, or as Ham prefers, pre-Rational sentiments, create >>>>>> definitions. So we logically begin with "that which creates >>>>>> definitions". Our assumption is therefore that there is something >>>>>> which results in definitions and start the logical process. We can >>>>>> call this assumption anything we like. >>>>>> >>>>>> From this assumption, we can logically work our way up into high level >>>>>> math, or down into mystical realities. We can define such results as >>>>>> Illusions, Delusions, Fantasy, Creativity, Evolution, Devolution, etc. >>>>>> Let us assume that all these things are what we have. So I will >>>>>> simplify all those words into one: Reality. Therefore in the first >>>>>> instance, we have "that which creates Reality". I am of course >>>>>> referring to our individual realities, or as Ham would state, our >>>>>> "sensibilities". >>>>>> >>>>>> While I enjoy reading Ham's reflections on what he sees, I do not >>>>>> agree with his assumption that "man is the measure of all things". I >>>>>> would say that "all things are the measure of man". By this, I mean >>>>>> that man operates within a world that is provided him. Man's >>>>>> measurements are simply a byproduct of existing measurements. Man >>>>>> harnesses these things and uses them for his own good. He cannot >>>>>> create them. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am not sure who started this thread, but the nature of the subject >>>>>> title seems to point to Marsha. The "agent" I would assume is similar >>>>>> to Ham's agent. I did not have the time to read the quotes that >>>>>> Marsha provided since I am more interested in personal contributions, >>>>>> and I do not need to read another interpretation of the Diamond Sutra >>>>>> written in English. I will say, however, that I disagree that the >>>>>> Self can create thoughts or action. I therefore prefer Ham's >>>>>> "witness". If somebody can demonstrate to me a logical or causal >>>>>> connection between the Self (our unique personal awareness), and >>>>>> thoughts (the action of the brain), I would most appreciate it. For >>>>>> example, what is the mechanism by which the Self creates thoughts? >>>>>> Where does this First Action lie? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, I enjoy the posts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mark >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ___ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list >>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >>>>> Archives: >>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >>>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >>>>> >>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list >>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >>>> Archives: >>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >>> >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> >>> >>> Moq_Discuss mailing list >>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >>> Archives: >>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html >>> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html > > > > ___ > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
