XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   Ummmmmmm  wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Clear wood has no knots.   Without knots the pattern of growth can be seen,   
   the knots are places where that changes for new growth, but to someone   
   unfamiliar with wood, the knots are only in the way, they confuse the   
   newbie.   
      
   This is the egoic lure to false esotericism, the idea that one can be   
   superior by looking superior by confusing the rubes so their pockets can be   
   picked.  The fancy stuff is made with plenty of burl, some companies used   
   to put it on the dashboards of the more costly cars.  It impresses the   
   poor.  On the other hand, knotty language can be useful to the writer,   
   since responses to it show which path the reader jumps to.   
      
   I'm not averse to double-meanings, at times it's the only way to   
   communicate something.   
      
   Howl sever eye sea it as ruining away with the dog's tale.   
      
   >   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
      
   Books can provide clues, even if few and far between, that lead to the   
   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.   
      
   No, I don't think that's the root of the pickle, but do I agree that the   
   many religious rulebooks are contributory to peoples' tendency to submit to   
   power.  The thing is, the world isn't in a pickle of any kind, the world is   
   perfect, it's precisely as people tell it to be, when they speak in a   
   language they were never taught.   
      
   --   
   email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)