[MD] A formalised Code of Art

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: Squonkonguitar at aol.com
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] A formalised Code of Art
>Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 23:11:00 EDT
>
>Hello everyone
>
>You would perhaps know that better than I would. Yet  in my experience 
>there
>is no intellectual basis to zen.
>
>Mark 15-10-06: Hello Dan.
>I haven't mentioned Zen. I simply suggested the Buddha used intellectual
>patterns to undermine social patterns.
>Hardly ground shaking stuff?
>Zen developed hundreds of years after the Buddha lived.

Hi Mark

The poem we're discussing is a zen poem.

>
> >Re  Suffering: Drop cast system and stop treating some as less than human
> >(no divisions)
>
>Dan:
>As you have obviously studied this matter, could you please provide  a 
>sutra
>(along with your commentary) that supports your hypothesis?
>
>Mark 15-10-06: Oh i see. I have to provide support all of a sudden do  i?
>And what about you?

Support for what? You're the one saying RMP is wrong, not me. I should think 
it is up to you to provide support. Just read LILA and you will have my 
support. Let's have a vote. Does Mark owe us some support here? All in 
favor, raise your hands...

>
> >The, 'lack of division' argument is an  argument after all. If you read 
>the
> >Pali cannon t
>he arguments are  there to undermine those who insist they know
> >they  are right simply  because they have social convention on their 
>side.
> >It's
> >most  effective.
>
>Dan:
>Again, as my interpretation is bound to differ from yours, perhaps  you 
>might
>be good enough to provide a quote along with your commentary for  
>discussion
>here.
>
>Mark 15-10-06: The Buddha wasn't born in a vacuum. He dealt with what he
>found.
>And what he found was severe ritual in day to day life.
>I haven't got the time or energy to start providing a course in Indian
>philosophy.

Thank you. And they say there isn't a loving god!

>
> >Any empirical experience of a lack of division cannot be  encapsulated in 
>a
> >'lack of division' argument because such arguments may  be challenged.
> >The point is, in order to challenge the lack of division  argument, you 
>have
> >to behave intellectually.
>
>Dan:
>I don't see this as a valid point to what we're discussing.
>
>Mark 15-10-06: All i'm saying is the Buddha utilised intellectual patterns.
>He also stressed one see for oneself - empirical  experience.

We agree.

>
>Dan:
>Teachings aren't the person.
>
>Mark 15-10-06: I'm not arguing otherwise.

We agree.

>
> >Mark 14-10-06: I did not say this. I said i don't think  i'm
> >intellectualising to the extent you portray, which is to say,
> >'Intellectualising  it into
> >something that runs on and on  like a monkey chasing a monkey.' In  other
> >words, i
> >am  insisting there is an aim to what i am saying which makes   sense.
> >It's too easy to dismiss anything as pointless.
>
>Dan:
>What is your aim? I am missing it and I am interested in  this.
>
>Mark 15-10-06: Simple: The early Buddhist teachings - those said to be the
>Pali canon - utilise intellectual patterns to undermine social patterns.
>They did so in a particular cultural setting which to a great degree shape
>them in the first place.
>This is not to say don't have value in other cultural  contexts.

Yes but that isn't to what the poem refers.

>
> >Dan:
> >I'm like that too. Still,
> >often times I  find that instead of endlessly  chattering and running 
>around
> >with  my "monkey mind" looking for that which I  have yet to find, I  
>simply
> >settle down.
> >
> >Mark 14-10-06: Now look here mate,  lets leave the Monkey mind to those 
>who
> >chitter chatter without any  coherent intellectual or informed aim.
> >I'm not insulted, but i'm  beginning to get the idea that you're right up
> >your own arse.
>
>Dan:
>There's the squonk we all know and love!
>
>Mark 15-10-06: Much imitated, but you know the original is  best.

Of course!

>
> >
> >Dan:
> >Once I sit for a while I see it's right  there in front of me
> >and has  been all along. One day you'll see  that too.
> >
> >Thanks for your   comments,
> >
> >Dan
> >
> >Mark 14-10-06: Yes. You are indeed  right up your own arse.
>
>Dan:
>Oh yeah? Well...well... you're a dork, so there! (My, aren't we  being
>constructive!)
>
>Mark 15-10-06: It seems to me you enjoy passing yourself off as a 500
>book-a-year polymath and sage with Craig Sterling like powers to assimilate
>information, who can read a page almost as fast as he turns it. Well, i 
>would
>suggest moving up from the 'Janet and John' blue book series and give, 
>'Spot's
>first Christmas' a go.

Hey, anyone can learn to speed read, or haven't you heard? And you're the 
one who has several academic degrees, right? Mark, Mark, Mark. Don't you 
know I love you? Why are you being like this to me? You're going to make me 
cry. Is that what you want?

>
>Dan
>
>ps remember boys and girls: drugs are  wrong!
>
>Mark 15-10-06: Where the hell has this come from Dan?

Platt's peyote smoking. Yeah I know I am cross posting but as they say in 
France... mangez mes shorts. At least I'm not sending 187 posts a day... 
right?