🚀 go-pugleaf

>A Zen story:
>
>	Two monks were walking along a path and began to cross over a 
>	small creek.  The first monk stopped and pondered aloud, "What
>	a life it must be as a fish."  The second monk responded, "Who
>	are YOU to presume you know the nature of fishness."  To which
>	the first monk responded, "How arrogant of you to presume I
>	*don't* know the nature of fishness."  At which point both monks
>	walked on, enlightened.

	This is purely an OLD joke in eastern culture. You might as well add
"The second monk responded 'How arrogant of you to presume I don't know you
don't know the nature of fishness.' The first monk responded 'How arrogant of
you to presume I don't know you don't know I don't know the nature of 
fishness'". 
	If you believe the philosophy presented in the story, you are believing
NOTHING is understandable, and NOTHING can be generalized. If that is true, all
the philosophers should die, because whatever a philosopher says, there will
be some idiot coming out and say, "how presumptious you say that! how do you
know what others think!" (as if every statement has to be agreed by every
human being to be true) 
	Based on such a philosophy, instead of saying "Mike is sick", you will
have to say "Mike says he is sick"; instead of saying "Marry is beautiful", you
can only say: "Marry thinks she is beautiful." Oh! Man! What a terrible world
that would be!
	Everybody, including you and I, can make any generalization 
about any characteristics of the whole human race without the need of 
consluting every human being on this earth. Such a statement of generalization
can be right or wrong, but it will not be "presumptious" or "arrogant" only
because you don't know what others think, unless you really don't understand
the nature of generalization. You got it?

Shuofeng