isn't all of this a journey with no destination? Doesn't the "no-self" principle promote that? We don't have a "self" because it implies distinct entities? If we don't have a self, my essence (which I'm not sure if it differs from a soul), is the same as your essence, the essence of my coffee mug, the coffee within it, etc (Side note: I think quantam physics . It will continue being after the form that contains my essence is long gone. In that way it's all a journey, right?

Correct. I really don't think there is a destination, for anything. Life, and everything in it, is only what is infront of you at that moment. But again, going back to the modern life, I unfortunately do have to look into the future a bit when it comes to my family, my finances, and my career. So there is a certain separation there that I cannot escape in my life, and there are "destinations" or certain things that do have to matter in a modern life like ours. Also it's funny you mention quantum physics in there, because the buddhist thoughts on dualism even talk about it, and talked about it even before quantum physics was a real thing. They called them Buddhist Building Blocks, and are referenced in texts that predate atomic sciences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism#In_Buddhist_philosophy

And again, I agree there is no self, which I simply referred to as ego in my last post. It's very important in buddhism to shed the self, or the ego. Shedding the "me" and the forced description internally of ones self is important. We're just our bodies and minds. I am not special, my name isn't really my name, we're just objects like everything else in life. Thinking and higher reasoning is a great thing, but it also over complicates things in life, starting with how we see and describe ourselves in our own heads. Alan Watts finds the question "Who are you?" silly for this reason, because you'd start with a bunch of stuff that is all completely pointless, "Well, my name is Ryan I work in IT, I play guitar and juggle, and am married". And like my waterfall example below, he'd stop you and say "You stopped being you the moment you started to answer my question."

They'd be able to validate these thoughts as true or false (or both?).

They would answer you with something like "There is no true or false, there is only the way it is." Zen masters are against claims of almost any kind. They would also tell you Zen is more about what it isn't, then claim to say what it is. Claiming what it is NOT, is acceptable, claiming what it IS would violate the very nature of Zen itself. They would explain, with metaphors, why this is the case. I've met a few zen masters, but never studied with them. But one once told me "Trying to explain Zen would be like trying to capture a waterfall in a bucket. Once you capture it in the bucket, its no longer a waterfall. It's just a bucket full of water." A real Zen master won't tell you what you are doing wrong or right, other than your zazen posture, they can only keep poking your mind to come to the correct conclusion, and the correct conclusion, like the waterfall example, can't r eally be expressed into words or descriptions.

If you want to follow Zen specifically and strictly, you should find a master. I follow zen for zazen, but I do not follow it strictly, though I have debated finding a master in my area. But outside of the East and West coast, there's not a lot of Zen masters here in Minnesota.

Zen is a very funny thing.