|
|
Post by topology on May 3, 2014 21:36:11 GMT -5
Art rests on a thread of common understanding, I fundamentally disagree. For most, Art is an expression coming from some place within themselves that they do not yet understand. Art can be a form of self-exploration and a process of finding oneself. Similarly the viewer of art may go through a process of seeking to understand the source of the expression. If we all stuck to what was "common understanding", our world would not be as vibrant and varied in expression as it is. as one man's 'art' is another man's trash..  finding the authenticity to to meet on a field of neutral expression, offers escape from the rebuke of bruised egos.. 'Art' is in the eye of the beholder... Yes, which also means that we see what we want to see. So if one does not find art, but instead trash, in the expression of another ... maybe they're looking to find trash? |
|
|
|
Post by silver on May 3, 2014 21:58:13 GMT -5
 The contextual boundary of every conversation is arbitrary. What this means is that the appearance of fragmentation and isolation of dialog is a deceptive chimera. Back through the mists of time, any and every conversation can be traced, and the threads that link the conversants all eventually intersect. To declare ones words to be original in the face of this state of affairs is an amusing farce of arrogance.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 3, 2014 22:57:23 GMT -5
 The contextual boundary of every conversation is arbitrary. What this means is that the appearance of fragmentation and isolation of dialog is a deceptive chimera. Back through the mists of time, any and every conversation can be traced, and the threads that link the conversants all eventually intersect. To declare ones words to be original in the face of this state of affairs is an amusing farce of arrogance.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 3, 2014 23:02:08 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 3:15:21 GMT -5
Would those masters want us to quote them?.. If it is an adage then it's an adage.. If in YOUR sentence you're using a quote of a 'MASTER' then it better not be to back up your sentence because your sentence stands strictly on its own no matter who said it.. if you EVER quot something from a master and do so TO ANY EXTENT because it's a master who said it and that will give your own statement credibility, then stop right there. Are you your OWN master? YES AND NO Heh....ya kinda made up this whole story in your mind filled with assumptions and opinions, and ran with it... to much thinking man as an aside, i find, that generally speaking, those with the most aggressive, fixed opinions, have the least interesting things to say ;-) That your primary take away from my post, and the first thing your mind goes to, is that when someone quotes someone else it must be for the purpose of gaining credibility, tells a lot about your mental framework. Is being seen to have credibility something that is very important to you? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 4:03:02 GMT -5
This is exactly it, however I subscribe to none of your terminology haha.. why quote masters?.. and why say that a 'higher' more fundamental state informs a 'lower' more conventional state?.. INFORMS.. the wisdom is not kept secret in the experience, it's not something that can only happen spontaneously you can ponder and contemplate these things with your own intellect, in any 'state'.. Hmmmm... Did I say something about gaining wisdom from some higher place, or are you assuming that this is what I might have 'meant'? Better to ask questions than to assume in most cases, is it not? Or, you could just run with the story you came up with, in order to work through the credibility 'issues' that you seem to nurture.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 4:25:25 GMT -5
This is exactly it however I subscribe to none of your terminology haha.. why quote masters?.. and why say that a 'higher' more fundamental state informs a 'lower' more conventional state?.. INFORMS.. the wisdom is not kept secret in the experience, it's not something that can only happen spontaneously you can ponder and contemplate these things with your own intellect, in any 'state'.. It has been my experience, that once the experiencer realizes or experiences the actuality of an experience referenced by a quote, it doesn't occur to that experiencer to use the words of others to explain or describe what is known through their unique perspective.. it is the inclusion of another unique perspective that adds to the mosaic that is more comprehensive than any single perspective.. passing around used beliefs, as if they were better than authentic descriptions of the experiencer's happening, diminishes the collective clarity.. it adds placeholders where authentic accounts of direct experience would expand the collective awareness by virtue of the experiencer's included perspective..I bolded a bit of the original post that you might have missed that pertains to that bolded part of your post ;-) Tzu, sometimes your rigid beliefs about rigid beliefs drives you off into the snow blindness of the blizzard of your own opinions. Any comment on the actual content of the OP? |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 4, 2014 8:06:00 GMT -5
It has been my experience, that once the experiencer realizes or experiences the actuality of an experience referenced by a quote, it doesn't occur to that experiencer to use the words of others to explain or describe what is known through their unique perspective.. it is the inclusion of another unique perspective that adds to the mosaic that is more comprehensive than any single perspective.. passing around used beliefs, as if they were better than authentic descriptions of the experiencer's happening, diminishes the collective clarity.. it adds placeholders where authentic accounts of direct experience would expand the collective awareness by virtue of the experiencer's included perspective..I bolded a bit of the original post that you might have missed that pertains to that bolded part of your post ;-) Tzu, sometimes your rigid beliefs about rigid beliefs drives you off into the snow blindness of the blizzard of your own opinions. Any comment on the actual content of the OP? Return to shoshin, let go of the structure.. let the still-minded clarity informed by the relationship of mushin/zanshin inform you of the happening.. it is the great failing of formal Zen, the great belief structures, contradicted by the admonition for empty mind.. The tree is just a tree.. i sense that many philosophies are enamored with their awareness that "the map is not the territory", and their advocates incorrectly believe that others don't 'get' that.. i don't know anyone that believes the organic happening we label 'tree' is the label.. people defend their 'path' as if others are inferior, rather than examining their 'path' to find the commonalities with the understandings of others, with the openness to reveal the 'substance' of that which 'is'.. The awareness that "the map is not the territory" is the portal to clarity.. to experience what is happening, rather than what the experiencer 'thinks' is happening, or what the experiencer has been conditioned to believe is happening.. that openness, allowing the experience to reveal itself completely, won't happen in that way for the experiencer that is shaping the information to conform with preconceived structures.. Where is the boundary between the river and the whirlpool.. both exist, both are experience-able, but objects get trapped in whirlpools as the river flows by.. it's difficult to 'let go', with the structure of a clenched grasp.. Philosophies are generally 'self-perpetuating' structures.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 9:05:08 GMT -5
I bolded a bit of the original post that you might have missed that pertains to that bolded part of your post ;-) Tzu, sometimes your rigid beliefs about rigid beliefs drives you off into the snow blindness of the blizzard of your own opinions. Any comment on the actual content of the OP? Return to shoshin, let go of the structure.. let the still-minded clarity informed by the relationship of mushin/zanshin inform you of the happening.. it is the great failing of formal Zen, the great belief structures, contradicted by the admonition for empty mind.. The tree is just a tree.. i sense that many philosophies are enamored with their awareness that "the map is not the territory", and their advocates incorrectly believe that others don't 'get' that.. i don't know anyone that believes the organic happening we label 'tree' is the label.. people defend their 'path' as if others are inferior, rather than examining their 'path' to find the commonalities with the understandings of others, with the openness to reveal the 'substance' of that which 'is'.. The awareness that "the map is not the territory" is the portal to clarity.. to experience what is happening, rather than what the experiencer 'thinks' is happening, or what the experiencer has been conditioned to believe is happening.. that openness, allowing the experience to reveal itself completely, won't happen in that way for the experiencer that is shaping the information to conform with preconceived structures.. Where is the boundary between the river and the whirlpool.. both exist, both are experience-able, but objects get trapped in whirlpools as the river flows by.. it's difficult to 'let go', with the structure of a clenched grasp..Philosophies are generally 'self-perpetuating' structures.. Fascinating...it is a very eloquent post, I really enjoyed reading it, and I agree with almost everything you wrote there :-) However, you still did not write anything about the content of the OP, rather, you wrote about your own beliefs about beliefs again, it was basically a more eloquent repeat of your first post, its as though "it's difficult to 'let go', with the structure of a clenched grasp". Philosophies are generally 'self perpetuating' structures.. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 4, 2014 9:27:36 GMT -5
Return to shoshin, let go of the structure.. let the still-minded clarity informed by the relationship of mushin/zanshin inform you of the happening.. it is the great failing of formal Zen, the great belief structures, contradicted by the admonition for empty mind.. The tree is just a tree.. i sense that many philosophies are enamored with their awareness that "the map is not the territory", and their advocates incorrectly believe that others don't 'get' that.. i don't know anyone that believes the organic happening we label 'tree' is the label.. people defend their 'path' as if others are inferior, rather than examining their 'path' to find the commonalities with the understandings of others, with the openness to reveal the 'substance' of that which 'is'.. The awareness that "the map is not the territory" is the portal to clarity.. to experience what is happening, rather than what the experiencer 'thinks' is happening, or what the experiencer has been conditioned to believe is happening.. that openness, allowing the experience to reveal itself completely, won't happen in that way for the experiencer that is shaping the information to conform with preconceived structures.. Where is the boundary between the river and the whirlpool.. both exist, both are experience-able, but objects get trapped in whirlpools as the river flows by.. it's difficult to 'let go', with the structure of a clenched grasp..Philosophies are generally 'self-perpetuating' structures.. Fascinating...it is a very eloquent post, I really enjoyed reading it, and I agree with almost everything you wrote there :-) However, you still did not write anything about the content of the OP, rather, you wrote about your own beliefs about beliefs again, it was basically a more eloquent repeat of your fist post, its as though "it's difficult to 'let go', with the structure of a clenched grasp". Philosophies are generally 'self perpetuating' structures.. I wrote of my understanding of the OP, of its relationship with what is happening.. i wrote of my perception of the structures you describe, and i used terminology related to Zen, hopeful that we would find the common thread of 'isness'.. |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on May 5, 2014 14:12:03 GMT -5
The contextual boundary of every conversation is arbitrary. What this means is that the appearance of fragmentation and isolation of dialog is a deceptive chimera. Back through the mists of time, any and every conversation can be traced, and the threads that link the conversants all eventually intersect. To declare ones words to be original in the face of this state of affairs is an amusing farce of arrogance. Intersecting lines meet but once, parallel lines never meet but can be close. There is possibility for new in this universe, everything hasn't been done, you certainly haven't been done before, the farce of arrogance is to mistake the variety of life for a homogeneous blob, it's a rape of that which is most precious, art, beauty and romance. My every word is a strike of the sword, deliberately and meticulously engraved, striking the insanity of the universe, wrenching generation from entropy. To shy away from owning your words is to scurry away from the threats of ego, to worry that you lose yourself in your words. Words, thoughts, these are precious things, they're the building blocks of all existence itself, not silly molecules, atoms or strings. Words do not flow willy nilly, there's no such thing as conversation, there's only argument, only poetry, only the theater of life itself not some darn Shakespearean facsimile. But actually earlier in this thread I was fairly drunk so you'll forgive me if I wasn't perfectly clear.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 5, 2014 21:16:19 GMT -5
The contextual boundary of every conversation is arbitrary. What this means is that the appearance of fragmentation and isolation of dialog is a deceptive chimera. Back through the mists of time, any and every conversation can be traced, and the threads that link the conversants all eventually intersect. To declare ones words to be original in the face of this state of affairs is an amusing farce of arrogance. Intersecting lines meet but once, parallel lines never meet but can be close. There is possibility for new in this universe, everything hasn't been done, you certainly haven't been done before, the farce of arrogance is to mistake the variety of life for a homogeneous blob, it's a rape of that which is most precious, art, beauty and romance. My every word is a strike of the sword, deliberately and meticulously engraved, striking the insanity of the universe, wrenching generation from entropy. To shy away from owning your words is to scurry away from the threats of ego, to worry that you lose yourself in your words. Words, thoughts, these are precious things, they're the building blocks of all existence itself, not silly molecules, atoms or strings. Words do not flow willy nilly, there's no such thing as conversation, there's only argument, only poetry, only the theater of life itself not some darn Shakespearean facsimile. But actually earlier in this thread I was fairly drunk so you'll forgive me if I wasn't perfectly clear. Oh! This is you sober?? Credit and responsibility are distinct from ownership -- words and ideas aren't static things like shingles on a roof. They bounce from mind to mind in unpredictable and uncontrollable paths. They can no more be retracted than a bell can be unrung. "Precious things?"   |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on May 6, 2014 9:45:37 GMT -5
Oh! This is you sober?? Credit and responsibility are distinct from ownership -- words and ideas aren't static things like shingles on a roof. They bounce from mind to mind in unpredictable and uncontrollable paths. They can no more be retracted than a bell can be unrung. "Precious things?" Uncontrollability requires control, to say it happens 'naturally' isn't really saying much (though there's much value to finding out how it happens rather than standing in awe, almost incredulous, barely able to digest the majesty of the miracle). Words are precisely like shingles on a roof, and at the same time they're not. The beauty of words is that you can't retract them, but you can always add to them to continue the phrase, punctuation allowing. The point is, well in this case it appears to be a tangent... how I do humor myself!  (what else is there to do)
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 6, 2014 11:50:49 GMT -5
Oh! This is you sober?? Credit and responsibility are distinct from ownership -- words and ideas aren't static things like shingles on a roof. They bounce from mind to mind in unpredictable and uncontrollable paths. They can no more be retracted than a bell can be unrung. "Precious things?" Uncontrollability requires control, to say it happens 'naturally' isn't really saying much (though there's much value to finding out how it happens rather than standing in awe, almost incredulous, barely able to digest the majesty of the miracle). Words are precisely like shingles on a roof, and at the same time they're not. The beauty of words is that you can't retract them, but you can always add to them to continue the phrase, punctuation allowing. The point is, well in this case it appears to be a tangent... how I do humor myself! (what else is there to do)
The only words worth breaking the silence for defy any notion of control.  |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on May 6, 2014 12:27:02 GMT -5
I maintain that, dry as it is, my humor is better than yours.  |
|
(what else is there to do)