Scottie wrote: --- I'm intrigued that the two wordiest posts in recent times should be about a way of thinking that ostensibly devalues the whole idea of verbal communication.on. --- Does the final ".on." mean you've just turned the fan, sat back and are waiting for the zen posts to hit it :) ? I'm intrigued, too, that you should be ironic (if I'm not misunderstanding you). In a recent post you pointed out that --- In the end meaning - MEANING - will need words to define it. --- So there's no contradiction in discussing Zen's meaning and adhering to its methods as there isn't contradiction in painting (a way that implies that words might be insufficient, as Zen does) and giving a picture a meaning with words. It's just like discussing music, you don't need to be a musician to contribute to the discussion (though I invariably turn to whistling). Regarding Zen as "a way of thinking that ostensibly devalues the whole idea of verbal communication", I don't think it is self-contradictory. In fact, it probably uses a meta-language made of paradoxes to show how contradictory language is, what a dream the world is. Very nice, very buddhist. And if Zen IS self-contradictory, it nevertheless might prove useful. Linguistics and philosophy were self-contradictory on the point of verbal communication until recent times, seeing -parole- as a subsidiary to -langue-, but that lead to the latter understanding of their interaction (if anyone understands Derrida). Moreover, Literature often devalues the use of communication (you know it better than me, Godot, wearing that beckettish name :) ). Literature even claimed that it trascended literature. Just my opinion. PS: Fie upon me and this off-topic post! I went back to The Books to say something OB Salinger. 1. Have you noticed how close Boo Boo's way to ease Lionel's pain is to Zoey's? So indirect, so wordy and yet never indifferent to the other person's pain. What do you all think about it? 2. Re: Hats. Boo Boo wore the same hat non-stop during three summers. Meaning?