Damn!! I wanted to cryo'd version in Mk IX series...What to do now?! |
Thank you, Zaikesman. Mum and smile is good. You are a very intelligent person. See you soon.
Be well. |
Thank you, Jetter.
Yes, you are right - he did not understand. But not because he isn't intelligent - actually I find listening to his mind quite fun and stimilating (!). Rather, its because he sees reality through a prism. A good prism - I love science and am very thankful that we have evolved to live so securely through the power over matter - but the value of that prism should never be used recklessly (the environment and non-human life) or aggressively through the mind's absorption with its power over things(science yelling down the next possible paradigm of perception, even though their own evolutionary evidence says that it is bound to happen).
Yes, I am trying to learn how to talk better and need to learn more. I think I am getting better, but please remind me when I get self-indulgent and talk into my own mirror rather than to another person. I try to bring many different threads together to see an issue from multiple views at once, and this can make the "normal" way of thinking stop sometimes. But sometimes it is not the mind's comprehensive intelligence or vocabulary that is an obstacle, but the sight itself. Knowledge should always seek to point beyond itself. Sometimes we have to squint at first until the thinking mind becomes accustomed to what is seen.
Also, I try to add something that will catalyze a dialogue along, or make someone play fair, usually through Socratic devices that probe but do not threaten. Again, I have not always been this way; if you look at some of my older threads I could get in there and yell with the best of them! I've learned since then, and many people here have helped me with this (have been my teachers...).
Basically, smart people like you and detlof and krusty and gregm and all the others are exciting to me - in the end, regardless of the ideas, it is about meeting. Things can be discovered ("whenever two or more gather in its name..."). |
WHERE IS MY CRUSTY!!!!
Oh well.... |
Crusty, I know what you mean - I had a Defy I long ago, but with custom transformers (from Jadis too, during their development of Mk IV's that turned out too be expensive for production, so I snarfed it up).
But I've got something for ya, now step a little closer, now lean over, carefully, now ready...wire IS a filter, so is an amp, they are all "components".
How is an amp different from a piece of wire in your mind? In terms of matter, of function, of technological complexity, in how it effects the system, any of those, any I've forgotten? For your choice, tell me what is the basis of your opinion and its scientific methodological foundation. Is technology application determitive of resultant subjective experience?
Thank you.
(Maybe someone would like to warn him...)
PS Not an MIT man myself, but does sound musical in some systems. Some people who have MIT in there truly become involved with the music, so hard to knock it in those situations. |
Oh yea, I had the Jadis matched with a CAT too - and NBS Pro series wires which were very important. I don't know whether they were filtered with more appendages of rearranged matter (a "box") or were just the rearranged matter of heated, extruded metal covered by a dialectric of rearranged matter. In the end - in the end after the experiment of listening - did it matter? |
Oh Crusty, where are you? |
Krusty:
Thank you for responding.
I agree, the pre amp is the fulcrum of a system, or at least should never be relegated in consideration.
Also, we agree that "technical" arguments are important. My question is whether you consider them 1) inherently determinitive, or 2) important as a variable of consideration, but determitive in this particular instance (ie. that the scientific explanations you provide are sufficient for us as a consensual group of peers to conclude that they are dispository of subjective experience).
On your tone: you need self-reflection. When you say to someone, effectively, I've already answered that question with "technical" data/argument, so "look back and read", when you should know, and do know, that that person has read what you've said, then you are being flippant and tangentially patronizing. My position has always been that if you want to be patronizing then one should have the courage to do so without hiding behind inaccurate I-already-said-that language. If you did not intend this tone, then, given others' similar reactions, you may wish to exercise some prudence.
Why "inaccurate" circular reference?
Again, what is the basis in your assumption that "technical" arguments are sufficient? If your experience in listening had been different, would that, given your worldview, mean that the "technical" arguments were wrong, notwithstanding their linear elegance?
If all technology is rearranged matter in various forms, then what character of one form (wire) causes it to be fundamentallly different than another? You say, through analogy, that the base/alkaline quality of water - that differentiation on PH - is important. When that differentiation analogy is applied to the issue at hand, what is the determinitive difference between an amp and a piece of wire; what is more "alkaline" about an amp and less "alkaline" about a wire vis-a-vis each other? More/less functional, more/less complex, or what? Without another analogy, or referring back to "technical" arguments, first tell me the assumptive context of those arguments, namely, what is the "alkaline" nature of wire matter vs. amp matter?
I appreciate your offering your subjective experience with box/non-box wire and how, assumably, that experience bolstered your technical investigations. Again, I remain interested in the relative importance you apply to these modes of experience/investigation in general, or in this context (if that prioritizing changes based upon comparison of the experiment results with the prior "technical" hypotheses).
One thing to remember about boxes on wire, ie so-called passive networks. Many of these networks came about, in a technical way, as a "band-aid" for earlier SS amplification and its lack of harmonic sophistication and spatial continuity (the "tube" networks of, say, MIT only came later and are not considered state-of-the-art in tube cirles, predominantly speaking). Moreover, many of these boxed cables directed at SS systems (and its afficianados) were designed for specific components and systems, ie Watt II spkrs with earlier Spectral needed MIT to "band-aid" it in the aforementioned areas, particularly the Watts, worse from the spkr/amp combo. Did this system approach also have a marketing angle behind it? Undeniably. And should we be "technically" on guard, so to speak, when we percieve this mix of design and avarice? Of course. But none of that, or the frustration that it engenders, should lead to patronization, adversarialness, etc. in the first instance, and particularly when the context for technical arguments that, assumably, justify that attitude have themselves gone undisclosed.
Krusty, I like polemic as much as the next guy, and like to stir the pot now and then myself, but describing your subjective experiences is not "methodology" ("philosophical" or otherwise), but the results of an empiric method (listening tests). I am inquiring as to the assumptions that underly your technical methodology.
Second, looking at your subjective evidence, it appears that you too have mainly a SS orientation. Has this always been your methodological approach, ie point of methodological departure, and, if so, why?
Last, I want to share your concern that some people are harmed/harm themselves by buying expensive wire - boxed or unboxed - believing it will change their audio world, only to later find that it did not. And yes, system building does have its dynamics that involve changing priorities between electronic components and wire components as sophistication increases in the system. Your emotional response may be understood, but that momentum of emotion does not explain the assumptions of your technique, nor justify the tone of your "concern". |
Oh Jetter, Jetter, don't you know that an opinion (your "call") lacks credibilty when made summarily without reasons, support or evidence? That's a premise of method, and especially scientific method, and also dialogue. I'm sure Krusty would remind you of that...
What do you mean?
I never could figure out how someone could think they were scientifically rigorous while, at once, failing to understand the philosophical premises of which that empiric rigor depended. When did scientific method, and its resultant "technicalities", become divorced from the philosophical assumptions upon which it depends, and exists?
Perhaps, Jetter, you are not seeing as much as you think...? |
Very funny!!! Thanks guys for the chuckle.
Again, I think opinions on wire have less to do with technology and science than people's 1) emotional reaction to the exhorbitantly high prices of "exotic" wire, and 2) because of that emotional orientation - deserved or not - a heightened desire to apply scientific criteria to ameliorate that response (which must be directed, of course, to people who buy it). The problem with this is what some philosophers of science, namely, Kuhn and Popper, have noted as a bias that effects one's observation of results, or lack thereof. In this sense, objective criteria , due to the emotive response, become prioritized without reflection to subjectively percieved results, which even the rules of science says are determitive ("objective" criteria are also subjectively percieved, and hence, the term "objective" can be misleading, leading us to believe it has some independant validity, like a science-god out there somewhere, but that's another story...)
There are also other "scientific" assumptions that underly many scientific-based arguments that reveal still other biases, and that come out in wire vs. amp arguments because the matter configuration is different, not in a fundamental sense, but merely in appearance. Science, in its alliance with capitalism and the production of technology (science is not predominantly in the business of producing technology, but using it, as a tool, to find out truths about physical reality), has adopted amongst its acolytes an assumption that if the tool has more moving parts it must be more complex in function, i.e. complexity in matter arrangement equals complexity in function. In wire discussions, fueled by the emotive response, this comes out as technical arguments made based upon this assumption, but not disclosed because even the speaker is unaware of the underlying assumption within the presentation of his/her data (it derives from science's method of reduction of wholes into parts; allied with capitalism, better technolgy equals tools with more parts, more parts equals more complexity, more complexity dictates better subjectively percieved performance. You see the irrational cascade?).
Did Krusty do this? Maybe, I can't tell, that's what I was trying to find out (you see, Jetter, even science is a philosophy. That you don't think so may be a point of departure for self-reflection on another scientific assumption that is untrue...).
Science is a valuable tool of the mind directed towards matter and, because of that, makes great widgets (and, at its best, catalyzes awe). But it is not ultimately determitive of subjective results.
Are Krusty's technical arguments sufficient to negate the use of networks in toto? No.
Does he make a point that the technology in boxes does not justify people paying that much for them, even though he may not state this? Perhaps. But calling people stupid - the underlying emotive demeanor - and using scientific technicalities to bolster that argument is not the same issue as negating one technology from another based on scientific evidence.
Does Krusty's subjective evidence further bolster his technical argument? Yes, but as pointed out above - and of all people Krusty should understand this - his methodology appears flawed. Namely, as detlof cited, his sample is too small and not representative. This leaves only Krusty's undisclosed emotive demeanor as bias towards favoring strictly technical arguments based on complexity assumptions - or that likelihood given his silence on the inquiry of his assumptions of his method, his emotional demeanor and the insufficient sample to that methodology.
Does Krusty have a point about boxe wire? Perhaps. But it needs to be presented in a different way if it is to be successful.
Krusty, on the chuckle, you show commendable constraint. Perhaps a jumping off point to answer the last question... |
Jetter:
Krusty is in the circle, whether he knows it or not. You're the only one who is not, and by your own choice.
Now, can someone hand me the fly swatter... |
No, detlof, Popper did not, from what my admittedly limited knowledge of his ideas can tell (oh my God, Jetter, here's where we could, just could, veer into Jung!!!! Stooooone the witch!!!).
I'm not sure about his personal life, but, basically, in the end, in his philosophy he still defaulted to an assumption that the systematic analysis of science redeemed it as a method, even though his own critique on that method - that science is always finding new truth, so how can they ever say they have The Truth - undermined that hope, in a logical sense. I would say he had an intuition that this had to be the case and so adopted it. I feel the same BTW, to an extent, that extent tempered by my knowledge of what science IS, its limitations, and the true ground of science.
From what I know of the LSE philosophy dept, where Popper ensconsed himself, the quantification of reality (the progeny of British empiricism, Hume, Berkely, et al) was perhaps, in its lingering influence, not quite as far away as he might have thought. I think Popper was simply part of the general deconstruction of science - seeing its limitation through an application of its own reductionist rules to itself - that has been going on for quite a while now (you see, WilBishop, I do know how old some of this is....). He saw a facet of that limitation, but like all deconstructionism, never looked beyond that reduction to see a solution. Maybe that accounts for his ultimate default to science's systematic rigor for a grounding, and thus avoiding the conclusion of nihilism (the consequence of groundless-ness). Given that his own observations seemed to contradict that conclusion, perhaps that was, in the end, a personal choice of belief, perhaps one adopted in fear of what he believed to be its logical contra (without some ground in logic, reality becomes ground-less)
[except that reality is not grounded by logic...]
There are certainly some people out there who know more than that and can, perhaps, add or correct what I've said (OH MY GOD!! There it is, Jetter, the possibility, rearing its head like a regression to religion, like a hydra, of this thread going out of control, out of control of the thinking scientific mind towards some so-called creativity or dialogue that keeps us from controlling the truth, making it serve our purpose! Oh God, save us!!)
Detlof, if you know about Popper, perhaps - while we wait for Krusty to come back and for Jetter to think - I would be interested to know what you know. Anyone else too.
WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CABLE?!
There, all served up, just like a baseball on a tee, just like when you were five. |
Oh, detlof, when are we going to get that thread you promised on musicality? We must be sure to invite Krusty and Jetter. Remind me then. |
I get the impression that Krusty does have experience that is valuable to our discussion, and for that reason I will miss him, assuming that his promise is sincere. The problem is that I don't think he's leaving because of the reasons he states. Knowing that Krusty could not addresss these issues given his departure point in argument is why I entered the post the way I did, and why, you will note, he chose not to respond to me directly.
The symptomatic aspect of krusty's posts, if you look at them carefully, is that he was never able to respond to my inquiries, soon claiming that opinions contrary to his own are per se regressions, and, importantly, religious regressions with Judeo-Christian overtones ("infidels", "Bible", "walk on water").
I have said this before, but I would ask, politely, if you could all listen just this once. Many people who make scientific arguments whose assumptive premises are questioned make very similar responses - ones that don't answer the question and whose patterns can be predicted. How? Because, interestingly, krusty's progression of argument mirrors the discipline of science's own response to such questions over the past two hundred years. When questioned, science has responded, in an historical cascade, that 1) any knowledge not scientific knowlwedge does not exist, then 2) even if knowledge exists outside science, that knowledge is inherently unknowable, then 3) even if knowable, if you claim you know, then you are irrational because...Well, there is no "because", because at this point science merely says that they are going to quit discussing it, go back to their rulers and, as they go out the door, mutter that you are merely regressing to some mytho-magical delusion. Why always the medieval religious references? Because science arose out of the previous ruling paradigm of Judeo-Christian doctrine, and sees that doctrine as its enemy, and so it, and its acolytes, naturally posit any claims of irrationality in Judeo-Christian terms.
And this, symptomatically, is exactly what Krusty did. First he posited a "technical" (read: scientific) theory where subjective criteria were reduced, the operation of that reduction being the ascendancy of his scientific arguments, even though, by the rules of empiric methodology, the subjective is primary to the technique, ie. "technicalities" are the primary knowledge (#1 above). He then stated that some people may have subjective knowledge outside his technicalities, but that they are relegated as a matter of course to his own, without offerring why (# 2 above). Then, when his assumptions were questioned using the same scientific methodology he applied to others (an argument mirroring the deconstruction of scientific exclusivity over the past fifty years), his response was that he was quitting and stormed out uttering his mytho-magical accusations.
This is denial, and the emotion behind it ("senioritas" as a way of saying that other posters are lacking in verility) is not symptomatic of a frustration that ideas were not listened to, but that the primary exclusivity of scientific assumptions was questioned. A worldview was questioned, one that tells you that if you just reduce things into "technicalities" enough, then you will find the truth and be safe. This is a safe matrix of ideas to exist within - just like medieval Judeo-Christian doctrine was a comfortable delusion to stay within - and when it is questioned, the exclusivity of the worldview is questioned. Just like the medieval church, the bearers of the present exclusivity to Truth react combatively when questioned. This is not a coincidence, and the accusations of regression in religious terms then only becomes paradoxical, if not ironic.
Science and its "technicalities" are tools of the mind. Does this mean that MIT cable networks are immune from technical questioning? No, the tool should be used, but not to beat other people over the head with because you choose to believe that science is your primary God. That is ideology fueled by the ego, not science. The medieval church had little to do with Jesus; scientism has little to do with science. The recoil of either had/has little to do with the truth of ideas and more to do with the ego's need to adopt an ideology that can make one feel safe and then taken out into the world to be used against others. |
Maxgain, haven't read 'ol Jacques in many moons. Even gave me a headache back then to be honest. Literary deconstruction says some things, but uses too many words to say that words have no foundation, then doesn't offer ideas on the way ahead. Just more post modern existential disassociation. That horse has been beaten dead by now (the poor thing). I am not talking just about deconstruction of form - literary, semiotics, etc. - but its reintegration; reducing into parts to learn from that, putting it back together to learn from that, stepping beyond the need to do either to see what is. I don't think Derrida and his brethren were much concerned with the last two.
Don't read philosophy anymore. Working on watching; working on "how" to stop working on watching...
Talking and thinking is fun though. And, like I said, makes great widgets, and helps me find my way to the forum. |
Oh, and thank you very much, Sean.
Detlof, 6ch, are you there? |
Zaikesman, thank you for asking so politely, or seemingly so (ie conclusory claims of "digressive ramblings", unsubstantiated, is hardly an effort at diplomacy...)
Yes, I've said this before, and knew that the Derrida comment might elicit a few sighs of recognition, but I usually only ramp it up when the other person has begun to hide behind derision, or has tried to use intellectualism to retreat - and, trust me, it is still put rather simply by academic standards. And, as I said, I wasn't as good at it before. That said, the above is perfectly understandable and concise.
The question then becomes, is it relevant? I think a lot of people conclude that what I'm saying isn't relevant because they don't want to take the time to read it - which is, of course, their choice. But recoil from ideas on the part of the reader is not the same as obfuscation on behalf of the writer. Granted, I do make certain assumptions concerning cognitive agility, but I think most all people here can understand what "cognitive agility" is. Now, ask yourself, be honest, did you RESENT me using those words - the moment they hit your mind - even though you understood them? Is it the ideas you don't want, or the words?
Hmmm...
What I said about Derrida is that he said some things about what words were not, removing their foundation of meaning, but never pointed to a solution beyond his deconstruction. If you have read my posts closely you will see that they are always integrative in approach, the opposite of Derrida (he was a French philosopher). Anyone who has studied Derrida, or Popper, or Kuhn, or Wilber, or Maslow, or Jung, would cringe at the level of simplicity I use here. When discussing deeper concepts, it is sometimes necessary to use bigger words. That does not make them "bad".
But here's the real reason.
Some people look at this forum as entertainment, and, yes, I would agee that it is and should be that. Others want it ONLY to be entertainment. Others vascillate between the poles, their resistance to whatever "seriousness" they find varying with their inclination at the time, chiding others for the same things that they themselves do at times, many times that "mood" determined by whether they agree with the poster, or, when they don't think they can "win" that argument (the I'm-pissed-because-I'm-not-smarter syndrome).
What I've seen is some very smart people who like to use their intelligence in dialogue as a club, usually a scientific club, and don't like it when someone takes it away from them. Many times to get it from their grip, one must use a level of dialogue that gets their attention and which they have difficulty hiding from. Intellectual precision, as it were. Their resentment invariably takes the form of claims of obfuscation, or regression, or "digression", or "irrelevancy", without offering any reasons for their conclusion.
Digressive, irrelevant? By Joe, Zaikesman, what could you possibly mean?
You know, Detlof got it, krusty saw it, Jetter came around, Gregm gets it. What's up?
Hmmm... |
Thank you everyone above for responding. They were very sincere and they will make me look at closer how I choose to communicate in various contexts, something that I've been working on in all contexts this year.
Yes, Zaikesman, contexts...if you take a look at when I come into a thread in this way, it is (within the past three months) always when others have gone on for quite awhile and the arguments are becoming circuitious. For example, in this thread the dialogue had been played out. Most recently, in another thread, I came in after bwhite and audeng had had a similar dialogue after @ 100 posts and had sputtered out. I don't think its inapproriate to resusitate a discussion at that point that, perhaps, seeks to go deeper. Also, I only enter when I think the discussion has sputtered out for a reason; namely, the circuitousness can be explained by one party's arguments being flawed before it even got started. This invariably deals with the assumptions to people's positions. Assumptions have assumptions and when the first is misplaced, many times unconsciously, you sometimes have to pull them back with a bit more force of the mind to make them see it. It can be done better in person, much simpler then, so the remoteness of this medium does have its limitations in that regard. On Derrida and Jung, I use it as filler until others start again, and besides, while they are off thinking, why shouldn't detlof and I use that time to get closer?
On repetition: yes, a concern. But you will note it is shorter and shorter all the time. Did you know what I was saying in then beginning, do you know now? Graduated repetition works on the brain, its the way we are wired. Learning multiplication tables is not fun sometimes, but you know them. Granted, I'm not too keen on talking about them myself (see below). Also, please note that it would be unfair to respond to someone like krusty who I'm taliking to for the first time and essentially challenging in a fundamental way with such ideas in too rough a form simply because others have already heard them.
Digression: you have to tell me whether you think the ideas themselves are digressions (and in that case irrelevancy is the right word) or the way I put them (conciseness/lucidity). I think, from parts of your response, you mean both. On the later, see above. On the former, again, you chose not to be specific. Which brings me to what i think are the real issues, which if you don't mind I will try to frame for you:
1. Who the hell are you, Asa, to TEACH me? What arrogance rises that would concieve that I have anything to learn from you. Even if I do have something to learn, a broader, deeper perspective let's say, and assuming it is relevant, what "God" appointed you my teacher?
2. This is an audio site, and although "deeper" ideas are always welcome at the, er, right-timed times - and, yea, yea, yea, we know its a free country - but you know, there has to be a LIMIT, because, as you yourself Asa have conceded, there is an entertainment value here that people are entitled to. Its seems your diatribes (isn't that the word you wanted to say, zaik...) INFRINGE on my right to come here and just lighten up, talk to some audio buds and just chill! Yea, yea, I can turn the channel, but hey, my finger hurts from even doing that. Asa, you claim that you are interested in my edification or whatever, and our coming together, but isn't getting in the way of my enjoyment pushing me away?
Two questions:
1. Do you know more? Do you see music differently, in a much larger context in your mind? If not, be honest, were you ever listening (not just hearing)? Ideas are Music too (do you know where they come from?). Are you ready for even deeper ideas, or still resenting finding the first? Is pleasure primary to meaning (is your head hurting again!!)
But...........
2. We are here, talking. Not just as gentlemen. Are we closer than before the thread began? You are here and I am here. When we talk again tomorrow will we start from a place closer together, not just the ideas, you and me? How did that happen? Are you farther away? What pulled you here, now? Hmmm.
Smart people need to be pulled with the smart part of their mind. Because they are smarter than most all people they meet, they get used to using their mind to fend off anything that makes them move, and so they don't like it. The only way to make them forget that part of their mind is to spin it, reach below the thoughts to their assumtions and pull them. When they finally spin fast enough, they stop in a center that is quieter. You can talk to them then...
Hi, Zaikesman. Hi, Maxgain. Hi krusty (yes, especially krusty), Hi 6ch, wherever you are.
There is a painting in my mind, like a Dali dream, and we are all standing together, swirled into the dream to this place - which is not a dream.
Its not surreal at all, unless you think it is, then its true for you. Argue for your limitations and, sure enough, they are yours. The "what is" is very accomodating that way. :0)
Thank you again for listening - and coming here, now. |
Question: the quiet part of the mind, below the thoughts we throw at each other, isn't it the same quiet place where we deeply hear the music, after we've been listening to the melody, and it seems to have become us and the world falls away? We coming closer to the Music/ we coming closer here. Are they the same spaces? If so, what does that mean?
Zaike, what does this have to do, by God!, with MIT boxed cable....
:0)
6ch said: :0) 123, :0) 6254.5, :o) 0, :O) +0, :0) -0....... |
6ch:
Run away? Where can he go?
No call-ing, but you just called...? :o)
One Eye, no lid; quiet guy/battle guy, same eye, as long as looks straight, don't know.
Zurich, Damascus, where are you NOW?
Don't eat so much candy!!
To all, have nice wkend. |
6ch, invited you, not called you. Don't say - the first thing out of mouth that someone carries too much water - just say "Hi!". Not saying Hi! is, um, carrying too much water...
Gregm says Hi, from where he is sitting, and from where (you think) you are sitting, tell him No! Who is sitting where? Just say Hi!
Pulling you "in", see it? Stop!!! Where are you NOW? What do you say? :0) HI! :0) HI! :0) 123 :0) 456.54 :0) +0 |
Hi, 6ch. Glad you are happy. Now, here's some real a choppin'(!!)...
Detlof, you won't take my bread on the water...Question:
If we move from the noise of the active analytic mind while we listen intially and then move towards the silence of the receptive mind as we sink deeper into the music, and yet, we also follow the same dynamic as we get closer to each other (will towards being-to-being permeability, let's call it, or just empathy), are these silences related? Is the silent space of deep music listening in the mind the same space of silence that we are "in" when we see a sunset, or myriad waves on an ocean, or in finally meeting each other?
And...
I have said earlier that when one sinks deeply into the music, one percieves "information" that may have existed at less deep levels, but had been less noticeable (because of the thinking noise?). Namely, at deep levels we become more concerned with the NATURE of space around players and not just the sound projections themselves. We become more sensitized to existential qualities of space, or rather, their absenses.
So, if this is true - if we more readily experience spatial continuity as a perception of the nature of silent space in deep listening - is there a relation between that fact and the fact that these silent spaces are percieved by the mind that is also silent? What is the relationship between silence inside and silence outside? Is there a convergence of silence between inside and outside as beauty is more and more deeply encountered?
And, finally, the circle: What is the relation, if any, between these silences and our perception of beauty, in the music, in the sunset, in each other?
(Zaikesman?) |
Bring on the Voodoo mirror!!
Boo!!
Didn't know detlof posted it. Will look. |
That was boo like a ghost, like a little boy on Halloween out with his father, not really scary at all, just together, another sound together - not boo like the opposite of hurray. Meant positive. Arm around your shoulder.
What is a M-79? a gun?
You like my hmmmm; want more of (my) hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Nice sound, eh? At end, it makes mind stop, sometimes; yours going? :0)
Does "LOL" mean lots-of-luck? I really don't know. |
Oh 6ch, "I" finally pulled you into the world of words, or at least admitting it (although you were there all along).
You know, I've always wondered about this Buddhist bias (lets call it) against thought (the basis of language/talking). If you sit up on a mountain all the time and *think* that going down is "bad" (mountain/no mountain), you also have a marked tendancy to say that silence is only what is and all talk is "bad". This notwithstanding that the guy who originally told you about "it" - Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tzu et al - used words to tell you. Being against thought per se is Zen sickness, as much as being attached to thoughts and their accordant desires (attachment/recoil); you are then attached to being seen as not attached...
mind,outside,see,inside,no mind,other mind,thought,word,no-word,no word,no thought,bird,call,image,bell,water... |
Yes, I know what you mean.
But, in pointing, you have to be shrewd - like an Iroquois woodsman leaving no trace - which does necessarily make you attached. Words can be leading, but they can also lead (to where?).
The only non-attachment that a Bodhisattva has is one towards saving all beings from suffering, even while not being attached to it ; desire without desire, search without search = non-search/non-desire/non-dual.
Non-search is his/her nature = saving is his/her nature-in-the-world.
It is beautiful and not-beautiful, both at once, not attached to either. To say that it is not, is itself an attachment to emptiness (attachment to absense of form, or absense of word-form).
Emptiness and form; not-Emptiness, not-form. |
Hi Zaikesman! Yes, I know, I'm pestering 6ch, watching him make words while talking against them. He has thick skin, even though says has no skin. Spin, spin :0) (how dare he think he spins "me"!). Be patient with the foolish children...
Zaike, sorry I missed what you posted. I looked too fast through everything and also thought you were someone else (sorry, 6ch, thought his face came from you! So now, do you, do you 6ch, still like my Hmmmmmmmmm....?)
Zaikes. How are you? Funny face, it is. Am I using too many hmmmm's, hmm? Not meant to be patronizing; will have to *think* of something else maybe. Hmmm (at myself)
We are yapping, yapping, yapping. Is that "bad"? I come down the mountain to talk/think; its not "bad".
Here, I'm having fun! clipping off my words to sound like a Zen Master, using lots of / and / and ! and " " and " "!!
Now everyone will know I am a Zen master from my words!
I see a bobber bobbing.... |
Ha! Motdathird, gotcha. I take your MIT and raise you a Transparent.
My God, I can't believe this thing is still going - but I am hearing a slight murmur...
BTW, 6ch, nice answer. No-nature = Nature. I think we've come to the end of words (which is, doggone it! hard to believe! Yap, yap, yap!)
Murmur, murmur, goes the opened heart.
Motda: what do you say? (I know, I'm incessant...). Do you like boxes on wire?
I duck at the thrown tomato. Then bow to my friends goodbye. |
