PDA

View Full Version : How can you give a thirsty man water when his cup is broken?



aspier
01-15-2008, 01:57 AM
Voila, that's it, how can you give a thirsty man water when his cup is broken? What's the right thing to do?

Shadow_Ferret
01-15-2008, 02:01 AM
Let him drink it directly from the source?

JoNightshade
01-15-2008, 02:03 AM
I'm not even sure what that means. :)

poetinahat
01-15-2008, 02:04 AM
Pottery Barn gift certificate?

NeuroFizz
01-15-2008, 02:08 AM
When I hear cup, I think of that jock-strap insert, and no, a broken cup and the man would not even be thinking of thirst...

BenPanced
01-15-2008, 02:17 AM
Find two girls!

CatSlave
01-15-2008, 02:28 AM
Give him an ice cube.

HeronW
01-15-2008, 02:32 AM
Let him drink from your hands or his hands.

DamaNegra
01-15-2008, 02:34 AM
Throw him into a fountain :D

Gehanna
01-15-2008, 06:48 AM
How can you give a thirsty man water when his cup is broken?

Set him on fire.


Sincerely,
Gehanna

Joe270
01-15-2008, 07:33 AM
Spray him in the mouth with a hose.

althrasher
01-15-2008, 07:35 AM
I feel like I'm missing a euphemism of some sort.

melaniehoo
01-15-2008, 07:45 AM
Spray him in the mouth with a hose.

That's what I was thinking.

Or ask SK, he seems to be an expert on dealing with fluids when there isn't a vessel. :D

BenPanced
01-15-2008, 09:11 AM
Give him a sip from your bottle.

akiwiguy
01-15-2008, 09:16 AM
Help him put back together the broken pieces, then fill it?

Foinah
01-15-2008, 10:04 AM
I feel like I'm missing a euphemism of some sort.

Actually, I don't think you missed much of anything ;)
:Shrug:

Susie
01-15-2008, 10:47 AM
Give him a bowl of water? :)

Finni
01-15-2008, 11:06 AM
Buy him a metal cup and fill it with water. Then ask what else he needs.

dpaterso
01-15-2008, 11:32 AM
Voila, that's it, how can you give a thirsty man water when his come is broken? What's the right thing to do?
I'd definitely seek medical help, maybe an STD clinic.

-Derek

aspier
01-15-2008, 03:13 PM
Statement has certain a priorities - that the man needs water ... ok, he does so because statement says he is a 'thirsty' man. It implies that you need a cup to drink water from; also that its a responsibility to help a thirsty man, etc. But it does lead somewhere, doesn’t it? A questioning of attitude ... and the 'impossibility' to 'help' people is in it too. A man is 'dieing' of a 'need', you recognise that need, must have experienced it yourself, etc., know of the pitiness of it all, yet there’s the impossiblity to have that need fullfill. A sad case in other words. A Christian would say 'give him your cup' but that's presumptious, don’t you think so? Suggesting your cup is the 'right one' to drink water from. A buddhist would say, 'let him die of thirst till he learns how to fix his cup', etc. That's ‘cruel’ viwed from another point of view.

I think, Gehanna's got the closest answer ... 'set him on fire' - use something else to give him hope. That's kind, no? ‘Ahhh what’ ... said the one candle to his buddy 'light my wig (set me on fire) so that I can show you the way'. Omg, how does a poet not need ‘fire’ and there’s so little people daring this!

Point is I am so fed up of this egoism and violence that rules the waves lately and how good people and super initiatives get ruined along with it. Some time ago an American violist touring Europe got to Brussels. He has put all his money into buying a Strativarius violin, starting a good thing, going all over trying to ‘make’ it in concert halls, etc. Well he parked his car somewhere and a local bloke broke into it stealing a worn jacket, some ciggarets and the violin! Omg talk of a 'broken cup' and the dire consequences of a 'dieing man' (the thief). How can you give him water? (the thief)

akiwiguy - how do you help him put it together? And why? What moral justifica tion is there to ‘help’ fix another’s bad scene?

What about orange juice ?... One can suck it straight from the peal. No cup requiered. We all become monkeys living from the trees and cup prob solved!

ona
01-15-2008, 03:37 PM
You're a strange man, Charlie Brown :).

KTC
01-15-2008, 03:44 PM
Statement has certain a priorities - that the man needs water ... ok, he does so because statement says he is a 'thirsty' man. It implies that you need a cup to drink water from; also that its a responsibility to help a thirsty man, etc. But it does lead somewhere, doesn’t it? A questioning of attitude ... and the 'impossibility' to 'help' people is in it too. A man is 'dieing' of a 'need', you recognise that need, must have experienced it yourself, etc., know of the pitiness of it all, yet there’s the impossiblity to have that need fullfill. A sad case in other words. A Christian would say 'give him your cup' but that's presumptious, don’t you think so? Suggesting your cup is the 'right one' to drink water from. A buddhist would say, 'let him die of thirst till he learns how to fix his cup', etc. That's ‘cruel’ viwed from another point of view.

I think, Gehanna's got the closest answer ... 'set him on fire' - use something else to give him hope. That's kind, no? ‘Ahhh what’ ... said the one candle to his buddy 'light my wig (set me on fire) so that I can show you the way'. Omg, how does a poet not need ‘fire’ and there’s so little people daring this!

Point is I am so fed up of this egoism and violence that rules the waves lately and how good people and super initiatives get ruined along with it. Some time ago an American violist touring Europe got to Brussels. He has put all his money into buying a Strativarius violin, starting a good thing, going all over trying to ‘make’ it in concert halls, etc. Well he parked his car somewhere and a local bloke broke into it stealing a worn jacket, some ciggarets and the violin! Omg talk of a 'broken cup' and the dire consequences of a 'dieing man' (the thief). How can you give him water? (the thief)

akiwiguy - how do you help him put it together? And why? What moral justifica tion is there to ‘help’ fix another’s bad scene?

What about orange juice ?... One can suck it straight from the peal. No cup requiered. We all become monkeys living from the trees and cup prob solved!


Show him how to cup his hands to receive the water, or let him know he can bend down and drink it like a dog drinks water. We are not superior beings...we can bend down to drink from the source. There is no mystery in your initial question. None.

Bartholomew
01-15-2008, 03:53 PM
I think this guy came into the chat room earlier. x_x

Writer???
01-15-2008, 04:20 PM
Actually your question assumes YOU KNOW that the man is thirsty in order to fit the answers you provided.

When the question actually implies the man is SEEKING, therefore my cup will serve as well as any. He is free to choose, but this is my cup, it is the one I have, if you are thirsty and seeking, drink from mine or go elsewhere.

As for the violinist, any idiot that buys a strat and leaves it in the back of a car doesn't deserve to own a strat in the first place.

"set him on fire"!?!?!? Some people have a very strange way of looking at things.

KTC
01-15-2008, 04:25 PM
And yes...I agree. Who would leave a strat unattended in a car? Someone who isn't thirsty at all.

poetinahat
01-15-2008, 04:32 PM
"set him on fire"!?!?!? Some people have a very strange way of looking at things.
But if you saw someone on fire, what would you do? Throw a bucket of water, perhaps.

Creative solution, I thought.

I'm kind of ashamed of my answer now. I like this exercise.

JJ Cooper
01-15-2008, 04:32 PM
Seek medical assistance. The guy probably has some mental issues carrying around a cup that doesn't hold water. No wonder he's thirsty.

JJ

Finni
01-15-2008, 05:47 PM
A Buddhist would not say let the man die of thirst, or to have him fix his own cup. The Buddhist would wonder why the man is clinging onto a broken cup and tell the man that is the source of his suffering...he is clinging to that which is broken. The Buddhist would have compassion for the man, because the Buddha taught there is no truth to be found in deliberate deprivation or in luxury. A Buddhist would show the man to water.

Perks
01-15-2008, 06:04 PM
Convince him he's not thirsty and sell him the latest gadget. That's the modern way.

Unique
01-15-2008, 06:18 PM
But if you saw someone on fire, what would you do?


That would depend.

Two choices here, A or B.

Someone I liked - throw water
Someone I disliked - throw gas (even at $5.00/gal)

Now aren't you glad I like you? :D

NeuroFizz
01-15-2008, 06:29 PM
That would depend.

Two choices here, A or B.

Someone I liked - throw water
Someone I disliked - throw gas (even at $5.00/gal)

Now aren't you glad I like you?
Bottled water comes out to be more like $8.00 a gallon.

brokenfingers
01-15-2008, 06:31 PM
Drag him to the water and throw his ass in. The rest is up to him.

CatSlave
01-15-2008, 09:26 PM
Tell him to sell his story to PublishAmerica.
They'll pay him a dollar, and with that dollar he can buy another cup. :D

davids
01-15-2008, 09:36 PM
Especially a Violist-now leaving his Viola in the car would be silly but what the hell would a violist want with a violing-same principle Aspier. Of course the person seeking is the one who knows the answer he has not yet found-the question is does he really need us to give it to him. There is a stark difference between want and need. If one truly understands what one needs then one wants for nothing!

jenngreenleaf
01-15-2008, 09:47 PM
Voila, that's it, how can you give a thirsty man water when his cup is broken? What's the right thing to do?Use Mighty Puddy.

aspier
01-16-2008, 02:35 AM
Actually your question assumes YOU KNOW that the man is thirsty in order to fit the answers you provided.

When the question actually implies the man is SEEKING, therefore my cup will serve as well as any. He is free to choose, but this is my cup, it is the one I have, if you are thirsty and seeking, drink from mine or go elsewhere.

As for the violinist, any idiot that buys a strat and leaves it in the back of a car doesn't deserve to own a strat in the first place.


Writer, you got two interesting points here. There is that ambiguiety in the statement between semantical categories of different planes. The 'pretentious knowing' and the 'needing (seeking?) man'. But the valid point you make is 'it is my cup'. The man has the responsibility to conform to your drinking habits (your cup) if he needs water. The 'poor bugger with a broken cup' is really totally wrong way to approach a man with a 'broken cup'. 'Sharing water' is asking for a reciprocative obligation. God, I never saw that. (And I almighty in Education for Mutual Understanding once for the Council of Europe in Belfast!) The question wobbles. It isn't a valid one at all as KTC said ... no mystery!

Your second one is the man not deserving the strat - ok, violinists aren't exactly the most streetwise creatures of this earth, but never te less, he was completely responsible for his own misfortune. This example too plays on various levels ... the feeling sorry for the guy and the responsibility he has to walk about with such an expensive quality instrument. Him and the thug stealing it, they both had broken cups.

aspier
01-16-2008, 02:39 AM
That would depend.

Two choices here, A or B.

Someone I liked - throw water
Someone I disliked - throw gas (even at $5.00/gal)

Now aren't you glad I like you? :D

Of course dearest! You are a practical woman with beautiful feet firmly in your shoes!

aspier
01-16-2008, 02:51 AM
A Buddhist would not say let the man die of thirst, or to have him fix his own cup. The Buddhist would wonder why the man is clinging onto a broken cup and tell the man that is the source of his suffering...he is clinging to that which is broken. The Buddhist would have compassion for the man, because the Buddha taught there is no truth to be found in deliberate deprivation or in luxury. A Buddhist would show the man to water.

Interesting what you added, yes, true. But I think there's more to it. (the thing about Buddha said ... I don't view that as a valis argument, but never mind). I once had an interesting discussion with a Korean Zen man. We had it over the misuse of buddhism, New Age etc. I told him that I had read somewhere from a real Master that if one uses the word 'Buddha' one has to wash your mouth for seven years. He said to me 'There is no mouth'. That freaked me out for many years. My worry was 'Who is the one then that says wash the mouth'. What mouth is saying there is no mouth. So in this sense the 'broken cup' would be no broken cup ... it would be nothing like the question.

Who comes up with an idea (question) such as 'How can you give a thirsty man water when his cup is broken'. Its absolutely rubbish.

'Wash mouth! Wash mouth!'

Are you a Buddhist? I'd like to hear more. I appreciate your response.

aspier
01-16-2008, 02:59 AM
Another thing ... why does the Question takes it for granted that there is a 'right thing' to be done? What is 'right'? And is the right thing a negative thing or a good thing?

Ahhh man, it all started when someone poured me coffee into a paper cup with a leaking seal at the bottom of it!

Unique
01-16-2008, 03:32 AM
aw, see... i thought your poetry muse ran off with the bookkeeper.

sometimes a cigar IS just a cigar. ;)

Magdalen
01-16-2008, 03:53 AM
Even a broken cup can still hold some water. You can still give him what he needs, it just takes longer.

Writer???
01-16-2008, 05:59 AM
Another thing ... why does the Question takes it for granted that there is a 'right thing' to be done? What is 'right'? And is the right thing a negative thing or a good thing?

Ahhh man, it all started when someone poured me coffee into a paper cup with a leaking seal at the bottom of it!

I'm not sure "why" the question takes for granted that there is a "right" thing to do. Probably because you phrased as "How do you...", rather than "Should you...", or maybe because you prefaced it with "Viola, it's that simple" or something like that.

And, I think most would jump to an assumption of human kindness on the surface of the question. I don't think most would assume some great metaphor for the water, the man, or the cup. They would see a man, thirsty and in need of help, and give him some water. Only in subsequent discussion has the "deep meaning" of this water and cup come to light.

Regardless, the water, as you have pointed out, is different for every one (or group, as in Christian, Buddhist,etc.).

The water, in your question would be the "thing" ( a philosophy, religion, whatever), so the cup would therefore, being the vessle to bear the water, represent the mind. The thing which is able to hold, carry and deliver said thing.

Therefore, your question implies someone with a broken mind.

Who's to say WHAT "water" would satisfy them. :D And the "right thing TO DO" would probably be vastly different for the "man with the broken cup" compared to what most would do for him.

Now, being of broken mind, isn't this imaginary "he" ours to do with as we see fit for the benifit of him AND society? Wouldn't the societal "we" repair his cup and fill it with the generic "normal" water?

That being done, the man is free to go out and seek the water of his choice. The bottom line still remains - if a man has no cup and no water, he can either partake of what is offered or move on. Though sometimes that "moving on" is not an option.

Philosphical musings are fun, but in the end they must always be reduced to reality of actual situations. I mean, when your coffee cup was leaking, I'm pretty sure you just wanted some help, some napkins, a"good" cup, . :D Would it have mattered if the napkins were recycled, eco-friendly? Would it have mattered if the new cup was a different color, or larger, or smaller?

Or maybe someone, seeing you needed help and could use some napkins should have thrown a scalding pot of coffee on you ("set you on fire") instead, knowing, or thinking, that this would bring someone with napkins to your aid.

Akuma
01-16-2008, 07:31 AM
I'd realize I wouldn't care and would act on my apathy and walk away, wondering at the contradiction of the phrase "acting on apathy".

Gravity
01-16-2008, 07:51 AM
Give him a sip from your bottle.

At first glance, I thought you said, "give him a sip from your hottie."

Which I suppose would work too.

aspier
01-16-2008, 11:30 AM
But if you saw someone on fire, what would you do? Throw a bucket of water, perhaps.

Creative solution, I thought.

I'm kind of ashamed of my answer now. I like this exercise.

No, that would be medically seen the wrong thing to do, I think, no? Water, fire. But if you take the issues deepening the question now, you come up with this illogiciticy. A suicide bomber ... he doesn't want water, he wants petrol! Imagine one coming into a pub, playing it cool as they always do, walking his rambo style pace up to the bar saying 'hi you guys' to the poets sitting there and to the barman 'glass of water please, straight'. And then he ignites his button. No way, he would rather go to a petrol station and say 'cup of petrol plse'.

Rediculous but the issue is that the statement cum question doesn't define what this 'water' is. Is there a 'my water' and a 'his water'? I think the question is an orobos going into circles. I wonder what Wittgenstein would have said about it. Probably 'Aw, whut-up' ... Do we have here an example of the inadequacy of language? Are there any linguistics in here? Or only just our fool poets?

Unique
01-16-2008, 06:09 PM
I'd realize I wouldn't care and would act on my apathy and walk away, wondering at the contradiction of the phrase "acting on apathy".

You know i'll be thinking about that all day now. :cry:

aspier
01-16-2008, 06:41 PM
This is how a serious thread unravels ...


Said the Garage Boy to the Suicide Bomber "Sir, we don't sell petrol per cup". The Bomber wasn't happy with that.
"Look, Dude", he said to the Garage Boy "gimme petrol or I'll blow up your garage".
"Hey, you can't do that, its only recently been painted."
"I don't care! Gimme a cup of petrol" he screamed.
He was quite tense because they (his Holy Masters) had told him that it was going to be his big day today, etc.
"You just wait and see...' they had told him.
He fumbled under his puffed duffle coat and produce an empty Mac Donald's paper coffee cup. All wrinkled up.
Anyway, long story, and cup's seam had become undone, etc. Broken cup, that sort of thing.
Meanwhile his buddy at the pub with the poets, suicide bombers work in pairs - one to hit the target and the other to hit the ambulances. Its a kind of code they honour, etc. Now this buddy at the pub with the poets at the bar discussing the 'broken cup' hypothesis of the famous poet Spier, was getting restless. It was his big day too the Masters had told him too. Virgins and stuff. So he phoned his friend at the garage ... but as you know, these cell phones of Suicide Bombers are inter connected and connected to the treasures the hide strapped around their waists ...

Oh, bummer! The deal at the garage was almost done! The Garage Boy had fetched a coke bottle ... etc.

Writer???
01-16-2008, 06:42 PM
The only inadequacy of language is that of the author asking about cups and water, when you don't mean cups and water at all.

You said: "Statement has certain a priorities - that the man needs water ... ok, he does so because statement says he is a 'thirsty' man. It implies that you need a cup to drink water from; also that its a responsibility to help a thirsty man, etc."

here you have defined the question and made it possible to answer. It is only when you continue and morph the water and the cup to other things and begin to reshape the question applying to it a philosophical, spiritual, moral, quality does the inadequacy begin to creep in. And now has evovled to the point (through further questions posed by you) where water is not water. It is not a philosophy, religion, or set of moral values. In fact you have now declared it undefined. So,

Yes, if one keeps changing the meaning, then language will be inadequate.

However, as far as I can tell, you haven't changed the fact that the original question implies a "recognized need", therefore the water would at least be something we recognize and are familiar with, as you said earlier. So yes, it would still come down to a mine/his situation. This, whatever "this" is, is what I have to offer, if it suits your needs you are welcome to partake, if not, you are free to move on and seek elsewhere.

A simple rephrasing of your original question that clarifies WHAT the need is would solve any inadequacy of language. but either way, "fool poets" who see metaphor in everything, or plain speaking folk who took it at face value, your question has been answered, and quite well actually, by many.

Now, if you want to change the parameters again we can continue. If not, as poetinahat has said, this has been fun. :D

Writer???
01-16-2008, 06:52 PM
"The Garage Boy had fetched a coke bottle ... etc."

and so you answer your own question. And, I assume the suicide guy would have been willing to accept what the garage boy had to offer? Hmm.

ETA: How is this "garage boy" scene any different from the answers you were given about fixing "his" cup, or buying him a new one? Seems like this has been a long way aorund the barn to get to where we've been. In the end even you simply replaced the "cup".

And Rob, it would seem that although not expidient, your first answer was perfectly acceptable and nothing to be ashamed of given the end result here. :D

Williebee
01-16-2008, 07:04 PM
"There is no spoon."

aspier
01-16-2008, 07:10 PM
The only inadequacy of language is that of the author asking about cups and water, when you don't mean cups and water at all.

You said: "Statement has certain a priorities - that the man needs water ... ok, he does so because statement says he is a 'thirsty' man. It implies that you need a cup to drink water from; also that its a responsibility to help a thirsty man, etc."

here you have defined the question and made it possible to answer. It is only when you continue and morph the water and the cup to other things and begin to reshape the question applying to it a philosophical, spiritual, moral, quality does the inadequacy begin to creep in. And now has evovled to the point (through further questions posed by you) where water is not water. It is not a philosophy, religion, or set of moral values. In fact you have now declared it undefined. So,

Yes, if one keeps changing the meaning, then language will be inadequate.

However, as far as I can tell, you haven't changed the fact that the original question implies a "recognized need", therefore the water would at least be something we recognize and are familiar with, as you said earlier. So yes, it would still come down to a mine/his situation. This, whatever "this" is, is what I have to offer, if it suits your needs you are welcome to partake, if not, you are free to move on and seek elsewhere.

A simple rephrasing of your original question that clarifies WHAT the need is would solve any inadequacy of language. but either way, "fool poets" who see metaphor in everything, or plain speaking folk who took it at face value, your question has been answered, and quite well actually, by many.

Now, if you want to change the parameters again we can continue. If not, as poetinahat has said, this has been fun. :D

Yes, I agree! But the morphing potential was in the original dormant I think. Because of the unusual setting of the question. Its something asked wham out of the blue. This sets on to 'playing' with the meanings. Maybe one should rephrase continuously what one utters. That makes of language a 'process of seeking'. Meanings then only possible via the Heglian Thesis, Anti-thesis then new synthesis. But also when 'water' is refered to ... nobody understood it as H2O consisting out of Hydrogen and Oxygon. I think you have a very important point here ... meaning appears when words are morphes and 'deeper' meaning arises when categories are mixed. Many poets aren't aware of this ... and much can be read into verse they write.

It would be a challenge though to rephrase the question as to be exact and so that it doesn't allow any plus meaning to it.

I think lesson is also 'speak and then shut up' ... I remember one sentence of the Dalai Lama. He said "...when you speak, pray that your karma has brought you to a state that others may learn from your clarity" Or something like that.

You have very valid input, thanks.

aspier
01-16-2008, 07:15 PM
Smile. No, they are not different. Same ... but on second thoughts I am not so sure whether the question is solved by it. Maybe its a question without an answer? Can you live with that?




"The Garage Boy had fetched a coke bottle ... etc."

and so you answer your own question. And, I assume the suicide guy would have been willing to accept what the garage boy had to offer? Hmm.

ETA: How is this "garage boy" scene any different from the answers you were given about fixing "his" cup, or buying him a new one? Seems like this has been a long way aorund the barn to get to where we've been. In the end even you simply replaced the "cup".

And Rob, it would seem that although not expidient, your first answer was perfectly acceptable and nothing to be ashamed of given the end result here. :D

Writer???
01-16-2008, 07:32 PM
Yes I can live with that. I suppose all questions ultimately have many answers AND no answer at all. Hence the phrase, "Duh, I don't know."

Finni
01-16-2008, 10:51 PM
(the thing about Buddha said ... I don't view that as a valis argument, but never mind). .
I wouldn’t use religious beliefs as a valid argument. I said that because Buddhists take very seriously what the Buddha said, and this post was about ‘what a Buddhist would do.’


I had read somewhere from a real Master that if one uses the word 'Buddha' one has to wash your mouth for seven years.
There are many quotes like this in Buddhism. One quote says, “if anyone says the name of Jesus they should wash their mouth out for 7 years.” Another says, “If I ever say Buddha’s name I wash my mouth out for three days.”
That last quote was followed by another monk saying, “If I ever saw the Buddha I would beat Him to death.”
(I think the writer of this last saying was making fun of the followers of a certain sect in Buddhism.)


. He said to me 'There is no mouth'. .
Those words don’t exist.
On a serious note, let me say that nothing exist, that’s what Buddhists believe. Look at a tree. It doesn’t exist. It is there only in relation to other things. The cup, the mouth, the tree, this computer…this is all impermanent. They aren’t real. The only thing that is real on this earth is relation…the connections that keep everything in place. The tree needs the sun, the sun needs the gravity of other stars, the stars need the gravity of galaxies…and so on. In the same way, trees give animals food, which give other animals food…all the way to a single celled organism. The tree exists only in that it is part of this.
So the mouth only exists in that it made you think for years on what that man said to you.

So in this sense the 'broken cup' would be no broken cup
There would be no thirsty man either. They exist in relation to each other. The cup exists because the man clings to it. Clinging means the man doesn’t see it is impermanent to begin with. For example, I have a wonderful relationship with someone I love deeply. It is impermanent, she is impermanent. I must not cling. Even if she were to die today I must not cling. If she were to leave me today, I must not cling. If she were to tell me she loves me now and forever, I must not cling. She is always changing and I am too. We are impermanent. We exist in relation…we are bound by that. The source of suffering is not knowing this, which makes people want to cling to things or get things or avoid things.
So the source of the thirsty man’s suffering is that he clings to a broken cup. He wishes it was permanent and that it wasn’t broken.

I hope I am explaining this correctly and in a way you understand.


Are you a Buddhist?
Yes I am.

aspier
01-16-2008, 11:50 PM
Yes I understand and you have explained it well. And when you answered that last question I thought 'of course' because of the absolute well beated patience you showed throught the whole of your answer. When I worked with this koan, the broken cup (someone told me its really from Greek Mythology ... the Vessel of the Danaeiden - they tried to fill a 'cup' that had no bottom) I thought about its validity as a 'koan'. There are elements of 'being a koan' in it yet I think its 'western' and not really a koan that brings you to a higher level of understanding (leaving the previous behind). That's why I 'added' that last bit about 'what is the right thing to do?' to it. I suppose this is the danger of a layman 'making' a koan = it leads nowhere. See Writer's comments about 'morphing'. As is I am not 'through' this one ... and I don't really think an answer such as 'its a question without an answer' is satisfactory.

I am a Christian (cum half buddhist ... through the publications of the Dalai Lama I discovered the meaning of the 10 Commandments in the Bible for the first time - buddhism has made me a Christian. its kind of 'what I am' and nearer to my 'true self'). I have also a touch of humanism due to the 'pluriform' society where I live. But saying it is crappy. A Christian cannot say he is a Christian, others must say it, say if he is worth it to be a Christian or Humanist, etc. Anyway, these two facets of my inner setup makes it impossible for me to appreciate justifications such as this or that holy man said that or this and therefore beware, etc. The explanation you gave 'that Buddhist seriously use Buddah's name as ultimate truth claiming argument, etc.' ... mmm, you know, its not satisfactory. So ok, we delete all Buddha has said and became our own masters. What do you think of my 'western koan'? How can we make it a koan that leads somewhere and doesn't only has the function of amusing us in here due to utter boredom? How can we get away from this 'commercial' and entertaining side of it? Is it possible to create a koan by one self?


With the references you made towards impermanence ... yes, ok? But its a concept that's very hard for 'westerners' to grasp. Personally I can get into concepts such as 'transparancy' ... things that 'moves' in layers. I saw that the other day in Köln on the station as the trains and people on the platforms mingle. Every train and platform was a se-through 'plastic' layer ... like palimsests. 'Reality' is imprinted ontop of other scripts of reality. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw it ... it was like 'the bottom falling from a bucket of water'. A relevation. (You do know this concept?) Palimsests in relation to one another ... I am not as far as to see the 'impermanence' of inter-related existences of matter (and non matter = thought). Rather the constant moving, appearing and disappearing. I find it beautiful but constant.

Pssst - re the 'no mouth mouth' issue ... it scares me (still). It takes away my voice and confronts me to my naked empty soul. (buddhists might say there is no soul, ok etc.) Plus ok, I know about the 'space' in the emptiness and have wandered it in meditation ... but to have no voice! (mouth) OMG! If you'd care to read what I wrote about it, here is a link to some storytelling cycle of short stories. Its the last chapter I am refering to = http://users.skynet.be/spier/2008asstrainhtm.htm

Very nice meeting you - actually you are only collective mind ... and in Cyber Nothingness. So am I. Smile!

aspier
01-16-2008, 11:54 PM
So the source of the thirsty man’s suffering is that he clings to a broken cup. He wishes it was permanent and that it wasn’t broken.



Yes I am.

I've checked that link (previous post) = is hard to find. Chapter is called 'On the verge' ... it has something of that 'mouth no mouth' that freaks out every writer.

Here is it =

On the verge

Its making me itch
Its making me bad
I think I get out of here
where I can run as fast as I can.
P!nk, Just like a pill

I am as close to you as you are close to me
Buddhist Slogan



What really felt good was that I had come to the decision to stop with writing all by myself and that it was taken in all free will. Nobody had forced me to take it. I had designed it all by myself in sobriety and with the necessary responsibility to face such a life changing decision. And as I stood there above the world and watched from the heights the friendly face of the scenery around me I felt very contented and sure of myself.
'Atlantis may be down there! Mermaids…'
I stood firm on the hillside. Behind me was the First Tower of the bay of Cap Gris-Néz and my feet were firmly rooted and secured in the white clay of Normandy. Towards the left of me and across the 15 kilometres crow flight distance the second tower's silhouette etched itself into the sky like big pointing finger warning for an omen. Cap Blanc. Below me there was the grey steel coloured seabed of the Channel between France and England. It looked unearthly silver as it stretched itself out across the 50 odd sea miles between the continent and the island. On the side of Great Brittany the whitened Cliffs of Dover lit up, splashes of paint in a still life.
I had made up my mind. I would never write a single word of literature ever again.
'Not ever again! Too spooky … writing!'
And while I thought about it I envisaged myself as a heroic figure standing on the verge of a new frontier. An armoured knight, one with a great history behind him. One with a rough and haggard past but a warrior who was now returning home. It was a nice thought.
'A Ring leader hero… Francis Bacon style' I mused and smiled at my own musing 'I have made it!'
And I straightened my back standing proud. I felt the firmness of my feet on the ground. My work was still selling well and the amount of stories I had accomplished… 'Oh, I could live off it for years to come still'.
Above me was the sky with its clear day message. The air in it was fresh and scented with sea smells. It was so wide and open, an ocean of wealth laid out especially for me. Looking up I watched it in wonderment.
I lowered my head to watch the Cliffs of Dover again.
'The distance between the two landmasses wasn't so great after all' I thought.
Then my eyes shifted closer to the shore on which I stood. There were the broken chunks of cliff in front of me. And the old disregarded World War One and Two German bunkers. The shoreline formed a rugged diagonal line stretching from Calais right down to the second Tower in the upper right corner. Cap Gris-Néz. On both hills the Towers were standing guard. My eyes followed the rugged coastline. In between there were small overgrowth and patches of sparse thickets cuddled into save groups bracing against constant exposure of the sea winds. Nearer to where I stood there was also grass and small white and poppy red flowers.
Then I watched the white stones some meters away from me. They marked the safe ground on which to stay behind. And I saw my feet in front of me. My neatly polished black shoes contrasted sharply with the yellowish clay on which I stood.
I smiled.
'Spanish leather…'
I saw the bottom of my Armani charcoal pants. The rough-ironed lines in them lead upwards. My eyes followed the lines. I saw my dark brown crocodile belt with its expensive buckle. It matched with the pants. My gaze went upwards towards my lemon coloured silk shirt and the maroon tie.
'No belly…!'
And I followed the tie up its length towards my neck… And then I got a fright! I realised I couldn't look further up myself! I couldn't see my chin or neck! I thought of my face, I couldn't see my face either!
'My god!' I thought in disgust 'Where is my face? What if I have no face?'
Heathen alarm and anaemic disquietude bolted in me. There was a spider jumping for a kill. I stood there with my head on my chest with straining eyes to look at my neck and was full of naked fear.
'I am neck-less!' I thought 'Where is my face?'
I moved my tie away with one hand searching. But there were only the lemon shirt and its buttons. My hand touched upwards and I counted three buttons. Then I felt the ruff of the shirt and above it soft flesh.
'Was it my neck?'
I felt towards my head with both hands. There was fluffy stuff like hair on it. I touched around my head. I felt my brim and my eyebrows. And sockets below it with round things in them.
'Eyes?'
Then I touched my nose and below it I felt at my mouth. My fingers went into a hole. There was oozy wetness in it.
'Saliva?'
I looked at the gluey substance on my fingers and a cold maddening shiver ran down my spine. I pictured myself standing there in my neat city clothes. I was on the hill at Cap Gris-Néz and I had no face, no head and no eyes. Where my face was supposed to be, I saw only a gaping wound of a mouth with slime oozing out of it.
'Blood! Oh my god! A knight with a chopped off head and a figure of a body looking from a hilltop and having no neck, chin and face!'
I wanted to run!
But I told myself to not do it obviously. There were the Towers. I shuffled backwards towards the car and then couldn't help it but got into it hastely and locked the doors.
I needed air. I swallowed. Took a deep breath.
'Relax! Relax!'
I put on the safety belt and started the car. Then I drove off.
'Holy Mother of Christ!' I whispered 'Am so glad I had made that decision!'
My voice was coming from the gaping wound in my face. I gave gas. And when I stole a glance in the hind mirror I saw another dark gaping hole! It was in the side of a bunker to the side of the tower. It was a hole made by British artillery in 44. They had hit the bunker and took out the whole of the German command in it. I gave more gas and ran the car up the culvert but quickly managed to get back onto the road again.
'I am out of here!'
History was behind me … like my career. I was racing towards the second Tower and a different scene closing the cycle of Cap Gris-Néz as fast as I could.
'Young Responsible Driver … my arse! Was…'

Finni
01-17-2008, 03:43 AM
Yes I understand and you have explained it well. And when you answered that last question I thought 'of course'
Thank you!


I suppose this is the danger of a layman 'making' a koan = it leads nowhere.
Very true. But I do not think your question leads nowhere. It can open us to the morality of people, their religious beliefs, their assumptions and it can lead us to this conversation. But as far as the purpose of the koan (to aid in deep meditation or lead to enlightenment) you have to work on the statement/question a bit for it to do that. It invites an easy answer, the koan should shock at first and confound the mind. To us living in the modern age a broken cup means a trip to the store. Maybe if you set this up as a dialogue between two or more people you can tweak it.

“A man came to me crawling on his knees because he was thirsty. What should I have done.”

“Give the man water in his cup.”

“His cup was broken.”

“Then you should have given him yours.”

“That’s what I did, but he immediately threw it to the ground and broke it.”

“Maybe he wasn’t thirsty.”

“He begged me for water.”

Or

“A man came to me crawling on his knees because he was thirsty. What should I have done.”

“Give the man water in his cup.”

“I did. He drank it all and was still thirsty.”

“You should have given him more.”

“I did. He drank the stream dry, then died of thirst.”

Or this monologue:

“A man dying of thirst came to me begging for water. I should him to the lake so he can full his cup and drink. His cup was broken so he jumped in the lake and drowned.”

Shock the mind. It will wake up and think.



I am a Christian (cum half buddhist ... through the publications of the Dalai Lama I discovered the meaning of the 10 Commandments in the Bible for the first time - buddhism has made me a Christian.

I love hearing this! I have heard many Christians, Jews, even some Muslims, and others say Buddhism has made them a better (insert religion or belief). Buddhism is universal and has no desire to change someone’s beliefs.


The explanation you gave 'that Buddhist seriously use Buddah's name as ultimate truth claiming argument, etc.' ... mmm, you know, its not satisfactory.
I’m sorry, but I do not think I said that. I only said “The Buddhist would have compassion for the man, because the Buddha taught there is no truth to be found in deliberate deprivation or in luxury.” To show why a Buddhist would not let the man die of thirst, because that’s what you stated in a previous post. I was not using ‘Buddha said…’ in order to boost up my claim, only to explain the motives of a Buddhist. Although now that I think of it I could have just said, “Buddhists believe there is no truth to be found in deliberate deprivation or in luxury, therefore they would not let the man be deprived of water since it would serve no purpose.” This is a fundamental belief for Buddhists, and so is compassion for others.


With the references you made towards impermanence ... yes, ok? But its a concept that's very hard for 'westerners' to grasp. Personally I can get into concepts such as 'transparancy' ... things that 'moves' in layers. I saw that the other day in Köln on the station as the trains and people on the platforms mingle. Every train and platform was a se-through 'plastic' layer ... like palimsests. 'Reality' is imprinted ontop of other scripts of reality. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw it ... it was like 'the bottom falling from a bucket of water'. A relevation. (You do know this concept?) Palimsests in relation to one another ... I am not as far as to see the 'impermanence' of inter-related existences of matter (and non matter = thought). Rather the constant moving, appearing and disappearing. I find it beautiful but constant.

Very nice. I like that, especially the comparison you made with palimpsests and the nature of reality. And then you said, “the constant moving, appearing and disappearing. I find it beautiful but constant.” That’s beautiful…and it explains impermanence. Think about it. After thinking about it tell me what you thought and we can discuss it more.



Pssst - re the 'no mouth mouth' issue ... it scares me (still). It takes away my voice and confronts me to my naked empty soul. (buddhists might say there is no soul, ok etc.) Plus ok, I know about the 'space' in the emptiness and have wandered it in meditation ... but to have no voice! (mouth) OMG!

You were the victim of a Buddhist ‘argument closer’ or ‘mind Shock.’ Mouth does not = voice, by the way. The use of “there is no (fill in the blank) is used a lot in Buddhism to remind others of impermanence, not to scare. It sounds like what this guy said to you might be more damaging than beneficial. There is no mouth, and there is no body, and there is no reality beyond interdependence and connectedness. Look at the Ocean. There is no drop of water in the ocean, it is all connected and interdependent.
And yes, Buddhists believe there is a Soul, the words we use for it is: Nature of Mind, the inner essence of who we are. It is buried under the ordinary mind. It is permanent and never dies. This is what that man was trying to uncover when he told you there was no mouth. Only when the mind is shocked or ‘broken’ can we get to it enough to know what it is. Through meditation we learn to uncover more and more of it, and eventually we use that mind always … if we are lucky enough to reach enlightenment that is.

I read the post below the one I am responding to. I want to think about it for a few hours and read it again before I respond. My first impression is “Wow, great writing.”

I hope this discussion continues! I have really enjoyed it and look forward to more!
;)

aspier
01-17-2008, 07:11 AM
tnx reply - smile, i too want to think about it ... its through the cracks that the light gets in (Leonard Cohen)

aspier
01-18-2008, 12:43 PM
Say the guy with the broken cup "My cup runneth over!" and he seems happy.

This thing has now morphed over to buddhism. I wonder why?

Writer???
01-18-2008, 02:40 PM
nevermind, I have to go and don't have time right now.

Finni
01-18-2008, 07:22 PM
My fault...

aspier
01-18-2008, 08:49 PM
My fault...

Ha ha no, its not a fault or your fault! We have had a good exchange! I thought much about this and I came up with only two answers which are both connected. It covers the 'relationship' between the individual and the rest of his fellow men.

Answer 1 = 'I am'
Answer 2 = a poem from a buddhist monk in 11th century

Lying, thinkingLast night
How to find my soul a home
Where water is not thirsty
And bread loaf not a stone
I came up with one thing
And I don't believe I'm wrong
That nobody,
But nobody
Can make it out here alone

LloydBrown
01-18-2008, 09:36 PM
"set him on fire"!?!?!? Some people have a very strange way of looking at things.

Well, you know the expression: "Light a fire for a man and keep him warm for a day. Light him on fire and keep him warm for the rest of his life."

jst5150
01-18-2008, 11:58 PM
Athletic supporters are inexpensive ...

Finni
01-19-2008, 12:45 AM
Ha ha no, its not a fault or your fault! We have had a good exchange! I thought much about this and I came up with only two answers which are both connected. It covers the 'relationship' between the individual and the rest of his fellow men.

Answer 1 = 'I am'
Answer 2 = a poem from a buddhist monk in 11th century

Lying, thinkingLast night
How to find my soul a home
Where water is not thirsty
And bread loaf not a stone
I came up with one thing
And I don't believe I'm wrong
That nobody,
But nobody
Can make it out here alone


:) Thats great!! Its all about relation!

davids
01-19-2008, 12:49 AM
SO FINNI LET ME UNDERSTAND-BEER AND FINE SCOTCH EXIST BECAUSE MY TUMMY NEED THEM? OH I DO LIKE THAT AS MY TUMMY IS NEEDY-THANKS FOR HELPING ME UNDERSTAND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MY LUSTS AND MY CRUSTS-EVERYTHING SEEMS SO MUCH BRIGHTER NOW-OH HEAVEN AND JOY-THEN AGAIN-WELL NEVER MIND-JUST HAVIN A BIT OF FUN WITH YOU-THAT DAMN CUP IS SO FULL IT RUNNETH OVER-LOVE DAVE

aspier
01-19-2008, 01:11 AM
Davids, I think its worst than that ... your tummy exists because you write about it. But we are developing a terrible lobster hide-out here - there's dualism in about everything everytbody has said in here. In my own answer too! The 'me' and the 'other'. The 'tummy' and the 'beer', the 'word about the tummy' and the tummy. While Finni's 'relationship' ... well, a relationship is where the opposits are in an inter-active one kind of proces. Relationships abolish dualism or trans ubove it or something, no?

And there's that thing of the 'mouth and no mouth'. What mouth are saying the word of the tummy that creates the beer?

(You know, what I realise now? If one looks at this post what I have posted now, there is nothing! Only cyber naughts and ones presented in such a way that via some sort of agreement of code we recognise words and these words brings forth word, tummy and beer. Pour me a whiskey , man, while I'm trying to figure this out! There's NOTHING! No MOUTH! Or is there? Make it a double quick!)

KTC
01-19-2008, 01:18 AM
Or...Questions You Ask at the Doctor's Office...


Go>>>

quickWit
01-19-2008, 01:19 AM
Is this supposed to smell like this?

brokenfingers
01-19-2008, 01:24 AM
That feels awfully big for a thermometer.

KTC
01-19-2008, 01:25 AM
Don't you want me to turn my head and cough now?

cray
01-19-2008, 01:29 AM
moooon river

quickWit
01-19-2008, 01:29 AM
A matchbox car? Really? How'd that get up there?

dpaterso
01-19-2008, 01:30 AM
Why is the left one so big and hot?

-Derek

donroc
01-19-2008, 01:31 AM
Your degree is from THAT Caribbean Island?

JLCwrites
01-19-2008, 01:34 AM
Weren't you wearing a watch doctor?

cray
01-19-2008, 01:38 AM
woa.
i feel dizzy

quickWit
01-19-2008, 01:45 AM
What the?

Finni
01-19-2008, 05:43 AM
Davids, I think its worst than that ... your tummy exists because you write about it. But we are developing a terrible lobster hide-out here - there's dualism in about everything everytbody has said in here. In my own answer too! The 'me' and the 'other'. The 'tummy' and the 'beer', the 'word about the tummy' and the tummy. While Finni's 'relationship' ... well, a relationship is where the opposits are in an inter-active one kind of proces. Relationships abolish dualism or trans ubove it or something, no?

And there's that thing of the 'mouth and no mouth'. What mouth are saying the word of the tummy that creates the beer?

(You know, what I realise now? If one looks at this post what I have posted now, there is nothing! Only cyber naughts and ones presented in such a way that via some sort of agreement of code we recognise words and these words brings forth word, tummy and beer. Pour me a whiskey , man, while I'm trying to figure this out! There's NOTHING! No MOUTH! Or is there? Make it a double quick!)


I wanted to write something I read in one of my Buddism books.


Look still deeper into impermanence, and you will find it has another message, another face, one of hope that opens your eyes to the fundamental nature of the universe, and our extraordinary relationship to it.

If everything is impermanent, then everything is what we call "empty," which means lacking in any lasting, stable, and inherent existence; and all things, when seen and understood in their true relation, are not independent, but interdependent with all other things.

Think of a wave in the sea. Seen in one way, it seems to have a distinct identity, an end and a beginning, a birth and a death. Seen in another way, the wave itself doesn't really exist but is just the behavior of water, "empty" of any separate identity but "full" of water. So when you really think about the wave, you come to realize that it is something made temporarily possible by the wind and water, and that it is dependent on a set of constantly changing circumstances. You also realize that every wave is related to every other wave.

We are waves. The mouth is a wave. The cup is a wave. The thirst is a wave.

KTC
01-19-2008, 06:03 AM
Curses! Foiled again.

Unique
01-19-2008, 09:09 AM
Or...Questions You Ask at the Doctor's Office...


Go>>>


A matchbox car? Really? How'd that get up there?


Your degree is from THAT Caribbean Island?

I feel much better now.

Who keeps putting all this text in Office Party! We have standards here, you know! NURSE!

Lyra Jean
01-19-2008, 09:18 AM
Put water in your mouth and spit the water into his mouth.

aspier
01-19-2008, 10:15 AM
I think we need more booze up here ... can you tune the Nurse to bring us some? We take swigs from the bottle, we don't want to break anymore cups. Or is the bottle empty too?

Unique
01-19-2008, 10:16 AM
Put water in your mouth and spit the water into his mouth.


You Win


aspier! pity me. no wine. no whine. no scotch. no beer. no wassail. no rum. no Grand Marnier...

only one giant size can of shitbeer i bought for making bisquits.

PITY ME.

aspier
01-19-2008, 10:28 AM
You Win


aspier! pity me. no wine. no whine. no scotch. no beer. no wassail. no rum. no Grand Marnier...

only one giant size can of shitbeer i bought for making bisquits.

PITY ME.

I only drink with davids too ... in a wave of dispair. Rosemerry's idea ... there's a lot of tongue involved there, mouth to mouth resucitation. You think the bisquits'll work better?

Unique
01-19-2008, 11:44 AM
no. if they're my bisquits you'll need even more to drink.

water. milk. coffee. tea. just to wash 'em down.

aspier
01-19-2008, 03:03 PM
Look still deeper into impermanence, and you will find it has another message, another face, one of hope that opens your eyes to the fundamental nature of the universe, and our extraordinary relationship to it.



If everything is impermanent, then everything is what we call "empty," which means lacking in any lasting, stable, and inherent existence; and all things, when seen and understood in their true relation, are not independent, but interdependent with all other things.
.

We are waves. The mouth is a wave. The cup is a wave. The thirst is a wave.


That of 'hope' is kind of dreamy, no? Stuff very hard for a poet to get into! Of course hope is positive etc. But when its put this way one always feels ... "true true, hope, he has ope etc. and I don't. So I am wrong."

I think many can get into the 'impermanence' of things, how value depreciates, how everything goes 'down', houses, computers, etc. My heating system for instance gave out yesterday (for no reason) Now inter-connectivity starts to 'come' ... heating's out so next step: its freezing cold in the house. So I have to phone fixy man, new wave appears, possibilities open, we become friends and eventually we live happily ever after. Connected and consequented. And yes, it comes like waves. Now this is ok by me. But it stays a 'mode of explanation'. There are other 'modes', scientific modes and also the so-called 'poetic mode'. When I listen to the lovely tembre of the voice of a female lecturer, I get all high on the use of her 'a's' and 'mm's' - it like music. I don't listen to the content. At the end of the lecture some woulds say, 'wow, we have learned much about the second law of thermodynamics ... things go cold and never hot. I too would say wow, but I had a different reality. I learned much about the use of a's and m's. See? Approaching and explaning 'life' can be done in a million ways. But with all the explaning there isn't 'knowing' yet. There isn't any 'truth'. Another example is death. When my mother died I read the Dalai Lama's explanation about the bardo and the change that happens with re-incarnation and how one 'develops' into another being to be reincarnated in 47 days (longest period). Oh, I was so happy my mom's ok. I just couldn't handle it that she's dead, etc. Dead in the sense that 'dead' is death. I used that 'mode' to give 'explanation' and based my 'knowing' on that beautiful illusion. I used a sneezy technique of sublimation. Ok, one has to become to grips with the fact that things break down - impermanence. Yet its more mature to have a nice time with people at a party, taking things as they are, than to accumulate Samsara, thinking you are making progress and growing wealthy. So true true, etc.

But this 'emptiness of things' ... I'd rather focus on 'transparency'. Things are very 'there' and real whether concieved via illusion or not. Dreams are 'more real' than everything. So? That's ok by me. I like this Samsara and to move among the rubbish we produce. Actually I don't know what I am saying here ... or it doesn't seem to come together ... my point. My words are water just before the wave that's going to wash you out! Voila! That's nicely put, no?

Writer???
01-19-2008, 10:15 PM
Nothing is impermanent except as to form.

Dust is but a mountain, rain is but a wave;
if he truly cares, a king is but a slave.
Impermenance, transparency
two sides of yin and yang,
but give me Christianity
where God is still the thang. :D

aspier
01-19-2008, 11:29 PM
Nothing is impermanent except as to form.

Dust is but a mountain, rain is but a wave;
if he truly cares, a king is but a slave.
Impermenance, transparency
two sides of yin and yang,
but give me Christianity
where God is still the thang. :D

mm yes, Einstein's model MC2 ... matter cannot be destroyed, etc. Good remark imo or no?

aspier
01-24-2008, 10:06 PM
mm yes, Einstein's model MC2 ... matter cannot be destroyed, etc. Good remark imo or no?

When there's no mouth ... then there is no matter. Could it be that matter is a collective illusion we all have created? Even a science to explain it, a model or mode of understanding how to deal with what we think is the matter with matter?

dpaterso
01-24-2008, 10:18 PM
mm yes, Einstein's model MC2 ... matter cannot be destroyed, etc. Good remark imo or no?

When there's no mouth ... then there is no matter. Could it be that matter is a collective illusion we all have created? Even a science to explain it, a model or mode of understanding how to deal with what we think is the matter with matter?
Be careful when replying to your own posts, what little meaning there is could easily cancel itself out, resulting in a swirling vortex of mind-numbing nothingness that eats the entire board.

-Derek

aspier
01-24-2008, 11:58 PM
Be careful when replying to your own posts, what little meaning there is could easily cancel itself out, resulting in a swirling vortex of mind-numbing nothingness that eats the entire board.

-Derek

'What's that 'happy' on your mug stand for?' Glenfeddish in it? (In Spain it cost 18.50€ for 2 Liters ... compare that to the prices in Scotland if you want to talk about 'mind-numbing'.)

The point probably to this thread (and your post now) is the question 'what is meaningful in cyber?' (And for that matter in any thought we commit überhaupt.) And the opposite of it, mind-numbing nothingness. What is that? (Numbing to whose or what minds? The collective or the freakish indivual illusive one?) The mouth concept is kind of important when one prefers a buddhistic mode of explanation (something that Finni appreciates). And imo the issue basically comes down to this - 'how can one ask a meaningful question when the issue the question is dealing with is in itself meaningless (and expresses morphing characteristics when discussed)?' And, folding this out now to to 'meaningfull threads' ... what gives meaning to whatever whoever post? Or do, when you want to deepen the question? Actually you are implying ALL threads are meaningfull should this one be mind-numbing. That's pretty mind-numbing too. Its Orobos, the snake eating its own tale. A Scot should understand this, no?

'How can you give a thristy man water when his mug is not like yours, complete?' - True, this 'circle' might be as welcome as a fart in an astronaut suit (you never get rid of your own unsubtlety) but some challence does flow from it.

Hope Finni's still around too. My post was really a response to his 'thinking'. I have the habit of thinking in rather slow hump patches. Secretes. You there, Finni?

CBeasy
01-25-2008, 02:11 AM
Set him on fire.


Sincerely,
Gehanna
Nope, doesn't work. I tried it, and I was still really thirsty. Does the trick for getting out of work though! ;)

Finni
01-25-2008, 09:37 AM
i just got back...