Mark, I mistakenly jumped to the conclusion that you had written one of your zen-like, "automatic writing" posts, and thought you'd appreciate my response. I was mistaken on both counts. I meant no harm.
Marsha On Aug 24, 2011, at 7:06 PM, 118 wrote: > Marsha, > Got it. I am simply projecting as usual > Mark > > Mark > > On Aug 21, 2011, at 11:31 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> Mark, >> >> Nothing to forgive, of course. The reference to a potato chip was >> my poor attempt at a zen reply, like pointing to a bamboo plant. >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 22, 2011, at 12:17 AM, 118 wrote: >> >>> 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
