XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: nottony.nokingsbury@ngmail.com   
      
   On 11/10/2016 1:54 AM, {:-]))) wrote:   
   > Ummmmmmm wrote:   
   >   
   >>>   
   >>> If you want to talk with me, personally, you might not assume   
   >>> whatever it is you are assuming about me.   
   >>   
   >> I might assume that you're the person who is writing your posts - and   
   >> that you mean what you say.   
   >   
   > That would be correct, some times.   
   > The second part, that is.   
   >   
   > The first part goes without saying.   
   >   
   > At other times I'm entirely sarcastic and that goes without saying.   
   > I don't put emoticons after lots of things I say.   
   >   
   > So it's up to the reader to read into   
   > or out of, as the reader reads.   
   >   
   > Yet some people don't get the sarcasm.   
   > The irony does not unwrinkle them in any way.   
   > I find that amusing, in my own perverse idiocy.   
   >   
   > At many rates, it takes a bit of discerning to be certain   
   > that I mean eggs actly w'hat it is. I say, old chap.   
   >   
   > Would you like some scrambled thoughts today.   
   > We're serving word-salad, again, for breakfast.   
   >   
   >> Except when you fog things up with homonyms   
   >> & weird puns.   
   >   
   > I think you're referring to me.   
   > Why you skipped the citation is beyond me.   
   >   
   > I could speculate. Or presume that I know.   
   >   
   > Usually I don't do that. That would be presumptuous of me.   
   >   
   > I might ask, why did you not include an attribution?   
   > Were you being emotional at the time?   
   > Or was it on purpose? And why crosspost?   
   >   
   > Are you here? Where I am? In a Taoist group?   
   >   
   >> Then I assume you're trying to conceal meaning rather than express it.   
   >   
   > That would be a false assumption.   
   >   
   > Please allow me to attempt to make it more clear to you.   
   >   
   > Usually, when eye uses a pun, it's silly and yet is a double-entendre.   
   >   
   > The idea is not to conceal, as Tang might think esoteric crap is.   
   >   
   > It's m'ore to save on words.   
   > It packs more meaning into less words.   
      
   I'd be interested to hear others' opinion on this. To me it seems to   
   pack a lot less meaning into a lot more words. Mostly I can't be   
   bothered trying to disentangle it all - I just skip to where the English   
   language sstarts again.   
      
   >   
   > Either it dew oar it does knot.   
      
   Perhaps you can elucidate, for the benefit of the uninitiated.   
   How does "dew" (water on the grass at night) "oar" (thing for propelling   
   a rowboat) and "knot" fit into the context of, or add meaning to, the   
   conversation we're having?   
   To me it sounds like nonsense. I have to listen to the sound, and   
   translate back to "Either it does or it doesn't"   
   Why didn't you say that in the first place? Could've saved me the bother.   
      
   >   
   > It's not to conceal but to reveal   
   > how deep words' meanings may well go.   
   >   
   > Yet for those who read or skim only surface meanings,   
   > how well deep their wells are might be a mite's bit   
   > in a horse's mouth.   
   >   
   > Mixing metaphors can also be pun.   
   >   
   > Those who are only able to see one meaning   
   > tend to not see other than one meaning.   
   >   
   > And, for some minds, it takes too much work   
   > to try and see what is beneath the surface   
   > of the meanings of the words.   
   >   
   > I'm lazy. To spell out in detail a spell   
   > being put on by someone who is a put on   
   > may take away from a joke being played on   
   > what is being put on in a Usenet play.   
   >   
   > I don't know if you're familiar with stereograms.   
   > Those pictures with pictures inside them.   
   >   
   > They're not any sort of a secret.   
   > Yet they require a different sort of a focus.   
   >   
   > Being able to adjust the focal length is imperative   
   > if one cares to see what is in plain sight.   
   >   
   > The pictures are drawn to reveal   
   > to those who are drawn to sea   
   > what is not hidden at all   
   > inside of a picture   
   > of a notion.   
   >   
   > Within a picture.   
   > In a story. In a tale.   
   > Wags the old dog.   
   >   
   >> Or pretending to be Chuang Tzu II.   
   >   
   > I like the book, the Chuang-tzu, very much.   
   >   
   > Why I think I like it is because it speaks to me   
   > and reminds me of how I am naturally.   
   >   
   > It remains alive, to me.   
   >   
   > Yet, for you, this appears to be not so.   
   > You seem to think it's dead. You get nothing out of it.   
   > That's my impression. Based on your words.   
   >   
   > You seem to think books suck. Stories suck.   
      
   I'm fond of books. I write books. My grandson and I collaborate on   
   writing stories.   
      
   I just happen to know that when it comes to things that really matter -   
   consciousness, enlightenment, satori, samadhi, Tao, liberation,   
   salvation - whatever you like to call it, they're all the same thing -   
   books are no substitute for experience.   
      
   The pickle the world is in today is the direct result of people writing   
   gospels, sutras, torahs, upanishads, sacred texts and calling them "The   
   Word of God".   
   God isn't allowed to add a chapter, or say "You got that wrong" or   
   "That's a bit out of date now" Once you put your God in a straitjacket   
   you're in big trouble.   
   Once you think Tao is something you can find in a book, you're in danger   
   of finding your mind clanged shut and rusted over.   
      
   >   
   > And then you go write a story.   
   >   
   > Maybe there's something going on, in that picture.   
   >   
   > I like to joke around, as my father did before me.   
   >   
   > Prior to mine eyes having dug his words, he used to speak   
   > of how, in English, there are three words: two, to and too,   
   > and then he'd ask us kids, how do you spell the word   
   > that means all three?   
   >   
   >> I haven't quite got the knack of interpreting muddle as wisdom.   
   >   
   > I wouldn't call it wisdom, personally.   
   > I'l call it a strange way of point at something.   
   >   
   > How words have many meanings. And some don't exist.   
   >   
   > Yet when I say some, it is unclear what the word, some, refers to.   
   >   
   > Some words? Some meanings?   
   > How quickly a reader may forget. Or assume.   
   >   
   > Questions arise, in my mind, after words emerge from my fingertips.   
   >   
   > Lots of times they surprise and amuse me.   
   >   
   > And so, with a bit of whatever joy is evoked here,   
   > I continue to persist in my own puns for the sake of puns.   
   >   
   > Except when others are annoyed by them.   
   > Then I try to refrain from having so much fun.   
   >   
   >>  You seem to forget that I read the posts here for months before I open   
   >> my mouth.   
   >   
   > If I never knew that   
   > then I didn't forget that.   
   >   
   >> I know you quite well.   
   >   
   > Perhaps some of my wells you may know.   
   >   
   > The word, know, is now involved.   
   >   
   > It is possible that you informed me of your lurking for months   
   > before posting anything here. And I did forget.   
   >   
   > In another post you spun some wisdom into a me   
   > that you created in a room inside me, but it was a secret from me   
   > until you gave me the key, given your own story, you made up.   
   >   
   > Do you do that often?   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)