[MD] Language

[Arlo Bensinger]

[DMB]
I think that's an important point. Language has it's limits.

[Arlo]
What's amazing to me is that this is still Shocking Revelation to 
some. True story, years ago (I mean over a decade), I was sitting in 
our local college bar (Zeno's, "located directly over the center of 
the earth") and someone brought up Zeno's paradox, but I mean brought 
it up but didn't say "this is Zeno's paradox", just describe it (the 
Achillies-Tortoise race). A friend of mine was like "Oh my god! Why 
has no one thought of this before!!!" I really thought that right 
there, on that spot, my friend was going to stop believing in motion. 
It was like a short-circuit to him, like everything he was told 
before hand was a fabrication. But this, THIS, exposed the TRUTH.

I hear so many echoes of that in Platt's ongoing heralding that 
self-referential statements PROVE there are absolutes! Like a little 
kid who stumbles on Zeno, and while not fully understanding it, goes 
off to preach that this Revelation proves "movement" does not exist.

I think the Zennies got it, and I think that's where the MOQ lays a 
better foundation. Trying to answer "does a dog have a buddha 
nature?" only serves to diminish your own, only serves to cement you 
in a false expectations about what "language" can offer. So while 
some write endless theses or construct elaborate arguments or 
tenaciously cling to a feel-good answer trying to "prove" the dog has 
(or does not have) a buddha nature, the MOQ sides with the enlightened "mu".

[DMB]
Yea, that's it. It's too soulful to be technically correct, too 
musical to be a form of logic.

[Arlo]
I had someone say to me once that words are like colors, when put 
together certain ways, in certain contexts, create beautiful 
"paintings" of experience. Cezanne arranged colors on a canvas, 
Yoshikawa arranged words on a piece of paper. And in both cases the 
end result was an artful extension of meaning and understanding.