[MD] self: agent of action & thinker of thoughts

[MarshaV]

Mark,

I mistakenly jumped to the conclusion that you 
had written one of your zen-like, "automatic 
writing" posts, and thought you'd appreciate 
my response.  I was mistaken on both counts.
I meant no harm.  

Marsha 




On Aug 24, 2011, at 7:06 PM, 118 wrote:

> Marsha,
> Got it.  I am simply projecting as usual
> Mark
> 
> Mark
> 
> On Aug 21, 2011, at 11:31 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Mark,
>> 
>> Nothing to forgive, of course.  The reference to a potato chip was 
>> my poor attempt at a zen reply, like pointing to a bamboo plant.  
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 22, 2011, at 12:17 AM, 118 wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Marsha,
>>> I am not sure what you mean.  I present things to entertain, not to be
>>> special.  Nothing that I say is new, I try to present it in a
>>> different way each time.  I presented the Zen poem to give you some
>>> awareness of "self" as it relates to Zen.  (I am not sure if it was a
>>> translation, it was something I heard Alan Watts say years ago).  In
>>> Zen terms, such a self is not a thinker of thoughts, why do you think
>>> you are supposed to "empty your head of thoughts to experience Zazen?
>>> To say that a self is a thinker of thoughts just does not make sense,
>>> unless you are subscribing to some kind of modern day misguided
>>> physical psychology nonsense.  It is like saying a that someone at a
>>> concert is actually producing the music.
>>> 
>>> Besides, I presented something that I personally find important, and
>>> all I get is some snide remark about potato chips.  What the hell is
>>> that all about?  Is it to be a cutesy little dumb blond?  If you did
>>> not understand it, at least keep your trite little nonsense to
>>> yourself.  If you do understand, then tell me where I have gone wrong.
>>> 
>>> You seem to dangle fish in front of everybody to make them jump
>>> through hoops.  What is that fish?  Why, it is others desire to be
>>> Right.  Not very often do you support what others are saying, but
>>> speak in platitudes that have no relation to the subject at hand.
>>> But, I know, this is just your way, I am just pulling your covers.
>>> 
>>> If you do not feel you do this, just ask yourself if you would post on
>>> a forum that you never got answers to.  I highly doubt it.  This is
>>> your form of ego entertainment, there is nothing that may be
>>> meaningful to you in it.  Bait and switch, present the football then
>>> pull it away.  Some like this game, but please spare the potato chip
>>> remarks for them.  It is just plain silly.
>>> 
>>> There, I have had my vent.  Please forgive me.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Mark
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 4:42 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Mark,
>>>> 
>>>> Grrrrr to you.
>>>> 
>>>> Was your presenting the little English translation of the Zen poem an exception to your rule because what you present is special?  Or was it a kind of 'do what I say and not what I do' moment?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Marsha
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Aug 21, 2011, at 2:13 PM, 118 wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> BZZZZ
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is that worth one of your dangling fish that I jump through hoops for?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mark
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 10:29 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You bet it's worth a peanut!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> How about:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> There once was a bee that sat on a wall,
>>>>>> it said bzzzz, and that is all.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Marsha
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2011, at 1:09 PM, 118 wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Marsha,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> There was a young man who said tho'
>>>>>>> It seems that I know that I know
>>>>>>> What I would like to see
>>>>>>> Is the "I" that knows me
>>>>>>> When I know that I know that I know
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Zen
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> That is worth at least a peanut
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 10:05 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Mark,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Would you like another potato chip?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Marsha
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Aug 21, 2011, at 12:03 PM, 118 wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi Joe, Ham, Marsha, perhaps Ron, Arlo and whomever else is stuck in
>>>>>>>>> this two dimensional web,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Let's stick to logic for a second, for this is how philosophy works.
>>>>>>>>> Let's not get caught up in semantic misdirection and consider what we
>>>>>>>>> can logically create.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> When Joe speaks of emotions, he gets caught up in a self-referential
>>>>>>>>> circle.  He defines emotions as indefinable.  Why are they
>>>>>>>>> indefinable?  Because they are emotions!  I am not sure how far this
>>>>>>>>> logic will take one.  Logic is structure, it is something we build on
>>>>>>>>> assumptions.  Such structures can stretch to the stars, or down to the
>>>>>>>>> atom.  We always begin in the middle of these.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Emotions, or as Ham prefers, pre-Rational sentiments, create
>>>>>>>>> definitions.  So we logically begin with "that which creates
>>>>>>>>> definitions".  Our assumption is therefore that there is something
>>>>>>>>> which results in definitions and start the logical process.  We can
>>>>>>>>> call this assumption anything we like.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> From this assumption, we can logically work our way up into high level
>>>>>>>>> math, or down into mystical realities.  We can define such results as
>>>>>>>>> Illusions, Delusions, Fantasy, Creativity, Evolution, Devolution, etc.
>>>>>>>>> Let us assume that all these things are what we have.  So I will
>>>>>>>>> simplify all those words into one: Reality.  Therefore in the first
>>>>>>>>> instance, we have "that which creates Reality".  I am of course
>>>>>>>>> referring to our individual realities, or as Ham would state, our
>>>>>>>>> "sensibilities".
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> While I enjoy reading Ham's reflections on what he sees, I do not
>>>>>>>>> agree with his assumption that "man is the measure of all things".  I
>>>>>>>>> would say that "all things are the measure of man".  By this, I mean
>>>>>>>>> that man operates within a world that is provided him.  Man's
>>>>>>>>> measurements are simply a byproduct of existing measurements.  Man
>>>>>>>>> harnesses these things and uses them for his own good.  He cannot
>>>>>>>>> create them.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I am not sure who started this thread, but the nature of the subject
>>>>>>>>> title seems to point to Marsha.  The "agent" I would assume is similar
>>>>>>>>> to Ham's agent.  I did not have the time to read the quotes that
>>>>>>>>> Marsha provided since I am more interested in personal contributions,
>>>>>>>>> and I do not need to read another interpretation of the Diamond Sutra
>>>>>>>>> written in English.  I will say, however, that I disagree that the
>>>>>>>>> Self can create thoughts or action.  I therefore prefer Ham's
>>>>>>>>> "witness".  If somebody can demonstrate to me a logical or causal
>>>>>>>>> connection between the Self (our unique personal awareness), and
>>>>>>>>> thoughts (the action of the brain), I would most appreciate it.  For
>>>>>>>>> example, what is the mechanism by which the Self creates thoughts?
>>>>>>>>> Where does this First Action lie?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Best regards, I enjoy the posts.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Mark

 
___