Hi, Bill

Well, I am just a chemist, not a linguist.
But I have been teached the metalanguage theory of  Chomsky: all languages have 
a subjacent grammar that brain understand, process and implement, making this 
way that children could produce perfect phrases that they have never heard 
before.
So, the metalanguage exists before it is placed in the form of grammar.
Grammar would be the verbalization of the metalanguage. Not after language. 
Just the language (or just this)

The direct experience I feel that is something that could not be communicated.
Would be maybe like the sufi tales: if you do not understand them, they are not 
for you.
You feel (even beeing dualistic, I know, but I could not place in other way), 
or you feel not.
No way to explain. No way to shre. Whe moment arrives, is there.

Or maybe I am just a plain brick, very far from awareness

With best wishes

Lluís

P.D.: the non dualistic form of the haiku, at least in spanish 
Rana
Charco
Chop!

would be the lazy westerner form of : there is a frog, and a pond, and the frog 
makes plop (or my mind works this way, at least)

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: billsm...@hhs1963.org 
  To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 4:42 AM
  Subject: !QRE: [Zen] Re: FW: Quote from St. Thomas Aquinas


    
  Lluis,

  I'm not saying that Westerners, in fact all humans that manifest a
  dualistic, discriminating mind, are tied to subject/object and verbs that
  describe action. That's a given.

  What I'm saying is that there are forms of English (and I suppose other
  languages) that are utterances free from subject/object/verb, that are not
  restricted by grammar.

  In the example phrases I used below: 'Hungry!' and 'Fire!', YOU are the one
  who is interjecting the dualism. If I yell 'Fire!' or 'Duck!' you will
  first just equate the sound to DANGER and react BEFORE you mentally
  reconstruct and augment the sound to 'I have observed a fire and want to be
  sure you are aware of it.'

  Other non-exclamatory examples are in poetry, especially zen-inspired haikus
  such as Basho's famous haiku in which he attempted to communicate a DIRECT
  EXPERIENCE (Buddha Mind) he had. There are many attempts at translating
  this haiku, and the results show me whether or not the translator was
  translating with his/her discriminating mind or Buddha Mind:

  ORIGINAL JAPANESE

  Furu ike ya
  kawazu tobikomu
  mizu no oto (Basho)

  DUALISTIC/DISCRIMINATING MIND TRANSLATION

  There once was a curious frog
  Who sat by a pond on a log
  And, to see what resulted,
  In the pond catapulted
  With a water-noise heard round the bog. (Alfred H. Marks)

  MIX OF DUALISTIC/DISCRIMINATING MIND AND BUDDHA MIND TRANSLATION

  Into the ancient pond
  A frog jumps
  Water's sound! (D.T. Suzuki)

  BUDDHA MIND TRANSLATION

  pond
  frog
  plop! (James Kirkup)

  Remember when I posted about what I describe as 'zen talk' and 'talking
  about zen'? The first translation above is 'talking about an experience'.
  The second is a mix, and the third is 'experience talk' - or 'zen talk'.

  The point is that language does have the ability to be used and to
  communicate non-dualistic (no subject/object/verb) experiences. Language
  evolved, not engineered. It is not appropriate to try to superimpose a
  logical structure on an evolved system. The grammatical rules that we
  associate with languages have been developed AFTER-THE-FACT, not CONCURRENT
  with the language. For example humans could speak and communicate very well
  before anyone ever decided to categorize words into nouns, verbs, subjects
  and objects. All this grammar is imposed upon language in an attempt to
  'understand' language. 'Understand' always means 'impose a logical
  structure'.

  ...Bill!

  From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
  Of Lluís Mendieta
  Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 4:42 PM
  To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: FW: Quote from St. Thomas Aquinas

    
  Hi, Bill
   
  Hungry! has also an implied subject: I am hungry!
   
  Fire! has also one, "it" : It is in fire! (although could be also "there is
  a fire!" and that would be impersonal, I suppose)
  Ugghhhhh!
  Y only know true impersonals (no subject ) in spanish, catalan and french
   
  On vende .....
  Se vende botellas ("se venden botellas" is a pasiva refleja, not a true
  impersonal.... That drived me crazy in Bacchaloreat....)
   
  Seems that westerners are tied to sujects and verbs.
   
  With best wishes
   
  Lluís
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: billsm...@hhs1963.org 
  To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 3:39 AM
  Subject: RE: [Zen] Re: FW: Quote from St. Thomas Aquinas

    
  Lluis,

  In the example I used 'Hungry?' you are correct that the subject (you) is
  implied probably because it is a question. How about 'Hungry!'; or better
  yet 'Fire!'?. In the case of 'Fire!' there is no subject/object implied -
  just 'Fire!', Just THIS!

  It's interesting to learn that Finnish has a lot of words to define
  relationships.

  .Bill!

  From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
  Of Lluís Mendieta
  Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 4:06 PM
  To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: FW: Quote from St. Thomas Aquinas

    
  Hi, Bill
   
  I beg to differ in two non zen questions
  -Hungry? has the subject implicit. You do not place it, but it is implied.
   The werb in spanish or catalan would be also implicit, so, I suppose same
  in english.
   
  -finnish is a westerner language. And they have a lot of words to design the
  relationship within family.
   
  With best wishes
   
  Lluís
   
   
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: billsm...@hhs1963.org 
  To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 8:09 AM
  Subject: RE: [Zen] Re: FW: Quote from St. Thomas Aquinas

    
  Anthony,

  I know Thai's drop subject and sometimes even object all the time, but I
  thought it was just because they, like Westerners, are lazy.

  For example, I could ask you: 'Are you hungry?', or I could just ask by
  saying: 'Hungry?' (with a rising tone). That's just laziness, or being
  casual in your speech.

  I do think language does reveal the different values of culture. For
  example in Thai there are only 3 tenses: past, present and future; whereas
  there are many, many adjectives and pronouns that are used to specifically
  identify the speaker's relationship with the one addressed. In English
  there are many (27?) verb tenses and very few special pronouns. This I
  think shows that Westerner's value time more than Asians; whereas Asians put
  more importance on personal relationships than time.

  ...Bill!

  From: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com [mailto:zen_fo...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf

  __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
  database 5618 (20101114) __________

  The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

  http://www.eset.com

  __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
  database 5618 (20101114) __________

  The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

  http://www.eset.com

  __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
  database 5619 (20101114) __________

  The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

  http://www.eset.com


  __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
  database 5619 (20101114) __________

  The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

  http://www.eset.com




  

Reply via email to