Just because it's eastern thought doesn't mean it's a foreign concept ...none of this was in anyway alien or hidden. In the same way, my decision to not dwell on the eastern bias was done so for a clear reason you apparently missed, which was of course to keep the focus on the arguement and it's own merit, and not any historical or cultural influence.
If you haven't already noticed, I prefer to start threads not with a completed, well-thought out arguement and just sit around accepting feedback and criticism, but rather to instead give a thread it's own life as it were, by starting with a simple idea or concept and moving ahead in whichever direction anyone wishes to take it.
Creating a dialog in this way leads to much more interesting observations, dialog, and conclusions. Had I grounded it completely in Ch'an, it would have went over the majority of heads as there is a lot of history, culture and language and interpretational discrepancy behind these ideas, which would only have served to distrupt and distort a clear path of discourse.
For example, the "monkey philosophy" thread, as you bring up. My intention again was to start with an idea, and pose it in an interesting manor to see what response I got. It was less about me having some preconceived notion about how I wanted this to play out or what I was really saying, but from my position, it was much more interesting to see what others would read into it and continue the dialog from there.
Then you came along, much the same way you happened to show up in this thread. By the way, it's curious though that since my reasoning and topics are all inane by your incredibly high standards, that you continue to be among the first to reply. Anyway, that aside, you came along and you started talking about a book you just read that just happened to be about eastern thought, something I recall you scoffing at in a previous thread aswell. But to finally get to the point, you came along above all else, with the naivity to think a one book read is all there is to Buddhism and Taoism first of all, and that your comments of course would fit, thinking (wrongly) that I was of course babbling about eastern thought ..but now, you felt you were "in the game" enough to take a stand, a position of understanding. My post was never grounded in eastern thought at all, and this was your first mistake. Like all subjects, ideas cross-over, my intention was not eastern else I would have made it completely clear.
So basically you went ahead on your own and took a turn I tried to avoid, which was the direction of eastern philosophy. It's fine to bring it up, but when you think you have my point (coming from an eastern understanding) you really don't ..and on top of it all, you completely mischaracterised the Buddhist so ..I ask you, how then was I to respond to someone who not only missed the point of the thread completely, but wrongly ascribed an eastern interpretation that was ultimately incorrect, and unrelated?
I don't expect anyone to "get" eastern thought on the first go, as it certainly cannot be grasped by sheer intellectual effort, or a quick read, but if you want to talk eastern thought and in eastern terms, create a thread, don't try and take my thread in a direction it was never intended and then accuse me of misrepresenting or glossing over the topic.
