a condensation of my essential messages, for critique

[David Dalton]

My messages on http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/messages.html
are a mess, I will have to condense them (perhaps by
just listing short forms on that page and having the
short forms linked to subpages with more discussion).

A condensation of what is there now would be:

I don't care what anyone believes as long as they are loving, or try to
be as much as possible within constraints of life.

The fundamental is love; however this can not be always achieved and so
one must at least strive for love. Messages that conflict with that
sentence must be discarded or edited to no longer conflict.

and (derived from the above):

1. strive towards perfect love
2. If you communicate with a someone you must know the definition of
that someone. A corollary is that, for non-atheists: if you follow a
deity name (e.g. God) do not use the name blindly but know what it
means.
3. there is no someone who is BOTH all-powerful AND perfectly good
4. there are many possible paths up a mountain
5. not taking up a path unless it truly resonates with you
6. individual responsibility to be a seed of good
7. believe anything that there is evidence for (but work to change it if
it is not loving) and don't believe something that there is evidence
against (but try to bring it into existence if it is loving) and feel
free to believe anything you like that is loving (not harmful) and that
has no evidence for or against it but don't shove such theories down
anyone else's throat but feel free to share the beauty of them.
8. we are part of nature (or the environment) and not above nature
9. some similarities between the lives (and in many cases message
overlap to some extent too) of some past major pagan and major non-pagan
figures (including Jesus) and me;
10. sex between incompatibles is an abomination, sex between compatibles
is not

I have more messages on http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/un.html
that are derived from the previous messages, but I won't
condense and list those here now.

Can you suggest any improvements in the above list?

--
David Dalton dal...@nfld.com http://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page)
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/nf.html Newfoundland&Labrador Travel & Music
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
"Here I go again...back into the flame" (Sarah McLachlan)

[{:-])))]

David Dalton wrote:

>Can you suggest any improvements in the list?

Not really. It's your list.
I am wondering though, how you define a few words.

>3. there is no someone who is BOTH all-powerful AND perfectly good

What does it mean to you to be perfectly good?

I can imagine
what some folks might think is a perfectly good
play, movie, book or game. Within this game
or book or movie or play there may be
all sorts of drama, and bad stuff.

If, in the end, as it turns out, no one was
really hurt, harmed, nor did anything bad
actually take place, that it was, as it were
some kind of dream for a spell; and if all
the parts in the play, movie, book or game
turned out to be the same all-powerful
being, that someone would be both
all-powerful and perfectly good
in some sense of the terms.

>10. sex between incompatibles is an abomination,
>sex between compatibles is not

What does abomination mean to you?

Sex does not necessarily need to be for reproduction.

I can imagine however, the idea that if the act
was not done for reproductive purposes
then it could be seen as being some
sort of other than reproductive
purpose. And if that mean
it's an abomination
then that's it.

Sex as fun, I would think,
would not need to be confined
to only those beings that are able,
reproductively speaking, to reproduce.

I'm also not sure what you mean
when you use the word, improvements.

- fwiw

[David Dalton]

In article <l1jea89p170st2pru...@4ax.com>,

"{:-])))" <being@.... --- -- .> wrote:

> David Dalton wrote:
>
> >Can you suggest any improvements in the list?
>
> Not really. It's your list.
> I am wondering though, how you define a few words.
>
> >3. there is no someone who is BOTH all-powerful AND perfectly good
>
> What does it mean to you to be perfectly good?

I guess it means to be as good as possible. So I guess
even an all powerful someone might have constraints on
it, since all-powerful does not imply infinitely
powerful or even if it does there might be a finite
power density.

> I can imagine
> what some folks might think is a perfectly good
> play, movie, book or game. Within this game
> or book or movie or play there may be
> all sorts of drama, and bad stuff.
>
> If, in the end, as it turns out, no one was
> really hurt, harmed, nor did anything bad
> actually take place, that it was, as it were
> some kind of dream for a spell; and if all
> the parts in the play, movie, book or game
> turned out to be the same all-powerful
> being, that someone would be both
> all-powerful and perfectly good
> in some sense of the terms.
>
> >10. sex between incompatibles is an abomination,
> >sex between compatibles is not
>
> What does abomination mean to you?

It means a crime against nature. When I say sex between
compatibles is not I mean that sex between gay men
is not an abomination but sex between a gay man and
a woman is an abomination since they are incompatible.

> Sex does not necessarily need to be for reproduction.
>
> I can imagine however, the idea that if the act
> was not done for reproductive purposes
> then it could be seen as being some
> sort of other than reproductive
> purpose. And if that mean
> it's an abomination
> then that's it.
>
> Sex as fun, I would think,
> would not need to be confined
> to only those beings that are able,
> reproductively speaking, to reproduce.
>
> I'm also not sure what you mean
> when you use the word, improvements.

Constructive criticism, or maybe what messages you
would include if it was your list.

[{:-])))]

David wrote:

> {:-]))) wrote:
>> David Dalton wrote:
>>
>> >Can you suggest any improvements in the list?
>>
>> Not really. It's your list.
>> I am wondering though, how you define a few words.
>>
>> >3. there is no someone who is BOTH all-powerful AND perfectly good
>>
>> What does it mean to you to be perfectly good?
>
>I guess it means to be as good as possible. So I guess
>even an all powerful someone might have constraints on
>it, since all-powerful does not imply infinitely
>powerful or even if it does there might be a finite
>power density.

I don't see why there can't be a some one
who happens to be both in those senses.

People's brains are unique though.
What I can't see, you are able to.

And maybe w'hat eye seas
does knot wave in your land.

>> I can imagine
>> what some folks might think is a perfectly good
>> play, movie, book or game. Within this game
>> or book or movie or play there may be
>> all sorts of drama, and bad stuff.
>>
>> If, in the end, as it turns out, no one was
>> really hurt, harmed, nor did anything bad
>> actually take place, that it was, as it were
>> some kind of dream for a spell; and if all
>> the parts in the play, movie, book or game
>> turned out to be the same all-powerful
>> being, that someone would be both
>> all-powerful and perfectly good
>> in some sense of the terms.
>>
>> >10. sex between incompatibles is an abomination,
>> >sex between compatibles is not
>>
>> What does abomination mean to you?
>
>It means a crime against nature. When I say sex between
>compatibles is not I mean that sex between gay men
>is not an abomination but sex between a gay man and
>a woman is an abomination since they are incompatible.

I don't see any crime against nature there.
I don't know what a crime against nature would be.

>> Sex does not necessarily need to be for reproduction.
>>
>> I can imagine however, the idea that if the act
>> was not done for reproductive purposes
>> then it could be seen as being some
>> sort of other than reproductive
>> purpose. And if that mean
>> it's an abomination
>> then that's it.
>>
>> Sex as fun, I would think,
>> would not need to be confined
>> to only those beings that are able,
>> reproductively speaking, to reproduce.
>>
>> I'm also not sure what you mean
>> when you use the word, improvements.
>
>Constructive criticism, or maybe what messages you
>would include if it was your list.

Cool.
I'll see if I can go back
and find the list again.

[{:-])))]

David wrote:

> ... My messages ...

>A condensation of what is there now would be:

>*
>[ what messages you
> would include if it was your list.]
>*

>I don't care what anyone believes as long as they are loving,

Belief and my care about the beliefs of another.
It makes sense to me that love is a good rule.

I might say, wearing my Taoist hat, that as long as loving
is spontaneous and natural, that would be the best form.

To make love a rule however, might turn what was
a natural emotion into an artificial standard.

A problem with standards is they can be arbitrary
and confusing to the heart-mind. Duality may arise.

When I know that I am loving, I may also know
when I am not-loving. Not being nice. Not caring.

Sometimes I'm just a shit-head.
If my high or highest standard is to be loving
and I see that I am not, then I may feel guilty.

So then, along with not being loving I have
one more emotional difficulty to deal with.

With my Taoist hat, out may pop a rabbit
that tells me to forget about being loving.

Just be. Simply be. And there's a potential
for love to be. Spontaneously. Naturally.

> or try to
>be as much as possible within constraints of life.

When I try to reach a goal, and when I reach a goal,
my tendency is to see a bit farther and further.
I see how I could have done more, much more.

This presents me with an infinite task.

Within the constraints of life,
with my DNA and my environments, I can see
how I am always loving as much as possible.

Then, wearing that hat, I don't need to try.
I am already being. The solution dissolves
all the material that was put into it.

All that mattered matters no m'ore.
Energy is released, freed of its s'hells.

Paradigms per baker's dozen.
Six of one. Seven of the other.

>The fundamental is love;

I'd say the fundamental is Tao.
Th'ats cuz I'm in a Taoist group.

> however this can not be always achieved and so
>one must at least strive for love.

I'd go for Tao, personally.

With love arises not-love.
Tao lifts me out of that realm of duality
and into a more unified state of consciousness.

Tao affords me a ticket
on a ride down a river of being
able to forget about stuff
that once may have mattered.

> Messages that conflict with that
>sentence must be discarded or edited to no longer conflict.

Having a goal or a cause can be motivating.
Having an infinite goal or endless cause can be tiring.
A struggle that will never cease might be how
one must be, if that's how one feels.

Peace of mind could take place
when goals, causes, struggles and various sides
of two-edged wordswords are transcended.

>and (derived from the above):
>
>1. strive towards perfect love

1. Relax. Simply be. If you feel like doing, do.
If you feel like not-doing, that can feel really good too.
Perfect love is not something to strive for.
Perfect love is what may occur
when one lets go.

Perfect and imperfect
are two sides of a coin
of a realm of exchanging
money in one's temple,
in the mind.

>2. If you communicate with a someone you must know the definition of
>that someone. A corollary is that, for non-atheists: if you follow a
>deity name (e.g. God) do not use the name blindly but know what it
>means.

2. When attempting to communicate
be aware of semantics and connotations. It is not uncommon
for words to have many meanings and baggage tags.

>3. there is no someone who is BOTH all-powerful AND perfectly good

3. Seeing the Universe as a who, or as if there is a Law
or set of Laws of Nature that "govern" is an anthropic
way of carving up, slicing, or filtering observations.

People naturally project, often unconsciously, without
thinking about what is happening dew with language.

Seeking the ring of truth, the all powerful rule
to bind all the others, to bring them into one equation,
and think that would be a perfectly good balance,
might end up being a tipsy beam to walk.

E=M*C*C
could raise light speed to the second power
and multiplied by mass, account for all the Energy
found in the Unverse, all the power. And it may seam
to be a perfectly good equation. It might explode
as atomic bombs as well.

>4. there are many possible paths up a mountain

4. And there could be many mountains.
Each may appear to be the highest.
And may actually be, in its own right.
What's left after that can be the down-side.

>5. not taking up a path unless it truly resonates with you

5. Truth is free. That worked for me.
Those who charge for it may have it
but it can't really be bought nor sold.
Assuming there is such a thing
two begin width.

>6. individual responsibility to be a seed of good

6. Being a bit obsessive and compulsive, I found myself
conflicted by responsibilities. I usually get places too early.
May take things too seriously. What can be a seed of good
can also have germs of bad in the bag as well.

It's good to be responsible. Definitely. Able to respond.
I try not to give my word so there's nothing to break.
Instead of saying I will or I can, I'd rather say
I will try. Or I can try. To do or to be, some thing/place.

Commitments might be necessary at times.
Leave plenty of time free to be free.

The time tree leaves
me hanging.

>7. believe anything that there is evidence for (but work to change it if
>it is not loving) and don't believe something that there is evidence
>against (but try to bring it into existence if it is loving) and feel
>free to believe anything you like that is loving (not harmful) and that
>has no evidence for or against it but don't shove such theories down
>anyone else's throat but feel free to share the beauty of them.

7. To share seems to me to be very natural.
To find a wonderful bright shiny thing and want to share it
tends to be a beautiful expression of joy. Be prepared however,
not everyone will see what you see in that thing. Others
might very well think it's a plain old rock, or a stupid
idea, or a piece of shit. Ignore them.
Except if she's your mom.
Then, she's probably right.
Go wash your hands.

>8. we are part of nature (or the environment) and not above nature

8. Little children are often taught that they are individuals.
And to be responsible. This, as a result, often leads to a feeling
that one is apart from rather than as well as a part of.

Knowing how the system goes, how to be an individual
can mean: one is apart from everything else, and, that each
individual can be a part of everything else, that everything
can be seen as being one, can be to know a great deal
and to hold a great hand over the heart-mind.

To see all things, all people, all events as natural
might be one more artificial filter or standard
used to exonerate being less than.

This too, can be seen as being
simply natural.

>9. some similarities between the lives (and in many cases message
>overlap to some extent too) of some past major pagan and major non-pagan
>figures (including Jesus) and me;

9. Everyone is the same in many ways.
Everyone is similar in many ways.
Everyone is different in many ways.

As being not-apart-from, there can be a sense within
which one actually is all that is, one is one, everything.
In that sense, one is everyone. One was, all that.
All those past figures are what one was.
Ultimately, there is only one One
when seen in a unified light.
When playing tag
you can be it.

Life is often a game of tag.
When you are it, everyone else runs.
They run away, won't let you near.

When you think you are it, all that,
be prepared to pay for that thought.

>10. sex between incompatibles is an abomination, sex between compatibles
>is not

10. Sex can be fun. Sex can also be deadly.
Emotions can be released that have unanticipated
consequences. Uncontolled emotions may emerge.

There has been advice given on how to have fun,
how to protect oneself in the process.

10a. If it's only for fun it may not mean much.
And it may mean a whole lot of not-fun stuff.
What seemed like a good idea might turn out
to be a really bad idea later on.

10b. Go slow. Find friends if possible.
Go steady. Be exclusive. Get engaged.
Form a partnership. And after a long time,
like, more than just one night, then go on
a honeymoon. That might seem to be a way
to avoid many of the pitfalls of sharing love
physically and emotionally.

10c. Being intimate can be to be involved.
When involved, one may be open, vulnerable.

10d. Ships tend to sail out to see. A journey
of a n'ocean can begin with a single wave.
After a voyage is over, after being involved,
a process may include being evolved.

10e. Being evolved, one may be on higher ground,
be more inclusive once again, have more wisdom,
be able to sea further, farther, even, oddly,
over the horizon's fine lines in between.

>Can you suggest any improvements in the above list?

It's a never-ending list of lists
in my book of books and views of views.

They cycle and recycle as seasons.
Variations on a theme. The hat, aye, callsits
a form of Taoism, for lack of utter terms.

- thanks!

[David Dalton]

In article <72iha8hr509du3kjj...@4ax.com>,

"{:-])))" <being@.... --- -- .> wrote:

> David wrote:
> > {:-]))) wrote:
> >> David Dalton wrote:
> >>
> >> >Can you suggest any improvements in the list?
> >>
> >> Not really. It's your list.
> >> I am wondering though, how you define a few words.
> >>
> >> >3. there is no someone who is BOTH all-powerful AND perfectly good
> >>
> >> What does it mean to you to be perfectly good?
> >
> >I guess it means to be as good as possible. So I guess
> >even an all powerful someone might have constraints on
> >it, since all-powerful does not imply infinitely
> >powerful or even if it does there might be a finite
> >power density.
>
> I don't see why there can't be a some one
> who happens to be both in those senses.

Maybe there can be, but there isn't, or things
would be better.

Compatibility is part of nature, so to go against
compatibility is a crime against nature.

>
> >> Sex does not necessarily need to be for reproduction.
> >>
> >> I can imagine however, the idea that if the act
> >> was not done for reproductive purposes
> >> then it could be seen as being some
> >> sort of other than reproductive
> >> purpose. And if that mean
> >> it's an abomination
> >> then that's it.
> >>
> >> Sex as fun, I would think,
> >> would not need to be confined
> >> to only those beings that are able,
> >> reproductively speaking, to reproduce.
> >>
> >> I'm also not sure what you mean
> >> when you use the word, improvements.
> >
> >Constructive criticism, or maybe what messages you
> >would include if it was your list.
>
> Cool.
> I'll see if I can go back
> and find the list again.

[David Dalton]

In article <fdiha89lcp234jul3...@4ax.com>,

"{:-])))" <being@.... --- -- .> wrote:

> David wrote:
>
> > ... My messages ...
> >A condensation of what is there now would be:
> >*
> >[ what messages you
> > would include if it was your list.]
> >*
> >I don't care what anyone believes as long as they are loving,
>
> Belief and my care about the beliefs of another.
> It makes sense to me that love is a good rule.
>
> I might say, wearing my Taoist hat, that as long as loving
> is spontaneous and natural, that would be the best form.
>
> To make love a rule however, might turn what was
> a natural emotion into an artificial standard.

Yes, rather than a law of love I now call it a
recommendation of love.

Thanks for your feedback, it was thought-provoking.
Maybe it will cause something to pop out of me eventually.

[{:-])))]

David wrote:
> {:-]))) wrote:
>> David wrote:
>> > {:-]))) wrote:
>> >> David Dalton wrote:
>
>> >> >3. there is no someone who is BOTH all-powerful AND perfectly good
>> >>
>> >> What does it mean to you to be perfectly good?
>> >
>> >I guess it means to be as good as possible. So I guess
>> >even an all powerful someone might have constraints on
>> >it, since all-powerful does not imply infinitely
>> >powerful or even if it does there might be a finite
>> >power density.
>>
>> I don't see why there can't be a some one
>> who happens to be both in those senses.
>
>Maybe there can be, but there isn't, or things
>would be better.

Hmm.
What if things can't be better?

What if everything is as good as it can be,
and that makes everything perfectly good,
seeing as how that's as good as it can be?

What if, in order to have order
there must be disorder. And the order
is as orderly as order can be, given how
disorder is part of the equation?

Kinda like up and down.
Or inside and outside.
Front and back.
That sort of deal.

If there is a some one and it is as good as possible,
call the Universe a who in this rendition, and also
all the power that is, is constrained within it,
seeing as how there's nothing outside it,
then that some one is both, and
things can't be any better.

Calling the Universe, or Everything, a who
tends not to be fashionable at this stage
of how thought-games are called
on account of reign.

Everything might be more of a what or a how
given the now of the current of thought.

>> >> >10. sex between incompatibles is an abomination,
>> >> >sex between compatibles is not
>> >>
>> >> What does abomination mean to you?
>> >
>> >It means a crime against nature. When I say sex between
>> >compatibles is not I mean that sex between gay men
>> >is not an abomination but sex between a gay man and
>> >a woman is an abomination since they are incompatible.
>>
>> I don't see any crime against nature there.
>> I don't know what a crime against nature would be.
>
>Compatibility is part of nature, so to go against
>compatibility is a crime against nature.

So, e.g., oil and water are an abomination
when put into the same glass of water?

[David Dalton]

In article <uq5ja8dnf19pb2k70...@4ax.com>,

"{:-])))" <being@.... --- -- .> wrote:

> David wrote:
> > {:-]))) wrote:
> >> David wrote:
> >> > {:-]))) wrote:
> >> >> David Dalton wrote:
> >
> >> >> >3. there is no someone who is BOTH all-powerful AND perfectly good
> >> >>
> >> >> What does it mean to you to be perfectly good?
> >> >
> >> >I guess it means to be as good as possible. So I guess
> >> >even an all powerful someone might have constraints on
> >> >it, since all-powerful does not imply infinitely
> >> >powerful or even if it does there might be a finite
> >> >power density.
> >>
> >> I don't see why there can't be a some one
> >> who happens to be both in those senses.
> >
> >Maybe there can be, but there isn't, or things
> >would be better.
>
> Hmm.
> What if things can't be better?

I think they can, and I intend to try and make them better.

> Calling the Universe, or Everything, a who
> tends not to be fashionable at this stage
> of how thought-games are called
> on account of reign.

I define the Universe as spacetime and its contents
which I say is a subset of ALL. So I don't define
Universe as Everything but as a subset of Everything.

> Everything might be more of a what or a how
> given the now of the current of thought.
>
> >> >> >10. sex between incompatibles is an abomination,
> >> >> >sex between compatibles is not
> >> >>
> >> >> What does abomination mean to you?
> >> >
> >> >It means a crime against nature. When I say sex between
> >> >compatibles is not I mean that sex between gay men
> >> >is not an abomination but sex between a gay man and
> >> >a woman is an abomination since they are incompatible.
> >>
> >> I don't see any crime against nature there.
> >> I don't know what a crime against nature would be.
> >
> >Compatibility is part of nature, so to go against
> >compatibility is a crime against nature.
>
> So, e.g., oil and water are an abomination
> when put into the same glass of water?

It is against their nature to mix so I guess you
can say a mixture of oil and water is an
abomination but two layers of oil on top
of water is not. But I think the word
abomination is too strong there. However in
terms of compatibility two straight men having
sex is an abomination but two compatible
gay men having sex is not.

[{:-])))]

David wrote:
> {:-]))) wrote:
>> David wrote:
>> > {:-]))) wrote:
>> >> David wrote:
>> >> > {:-]))) wrote:
>> >> >> David Dalton wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> >3. there is no someone who is BOTH all-powerful AND perfectly good
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What does it mean to you to be perfectly good?
>> >> >
>> >> >I guess it means to be as good as possible. So I guess
>> >> >even an all powerful someone might have constraints on
>> >> >it, since all-powerful does not imply infinitely
>> >> >powerful or even if it does there might be a finite
>> >> >power density.
>> >>
>> >> I don't see why there can't be a some one
>> >> who happens to be both in those senses.
>> >
>> >Maybe there can be, but there isn't, or things
>> >would be better.
>>
>> Hmm.
>> What if things can't be better?
>
>I think they can, and I intend to try and make them better.

What if things could not have been better,
and thus cannot be better at the moment?

A point being,
better and worse are two
sides of a coin minted, fabricated, in a realm
of duality. Cause-effect are like-wise unwise
in terms of a paradigm transcending duality.

>> Calling the Universe, or Everything, a who
>> tends not to be fashionable at this stage
>> of how thought-games are called
>> on account of reign.
>
>I define the Universe as spacetime and its contents
>which I say is a subset of ALL. So I don't define
>Universe as Everything but as a subset of Everything.

What part of Everything or ALL is outside the Universe?

Assuming Everything, or ALL, to be a who,
given your definitions, the same scenario applies.

I took the who to be possibly a figurative term,
since you included an, "it" in the picture.
A who is not generally described as an it,
except maybe in terms of a baby.

That's also why I separated some from one
in writng about some one that is BOTH/AND.

Normally, in m'eye-speak, I'd capitalize One
and probably change some to sum.

Aye, wood-phrase it as, for instance,
there is no sum One that is ... ... ... .

But, otoh, I doubt if I'd stipulate that
as being a tenable position out the Gate.

If, by definition, you are axiomatically stating
that there simply is no who, then that's your view.
No problem. No someone who is BOTH all-powerful
AND perfectly good. A premise. Taken for granite.

In that case, by definition, I'm speachless.
It's the pits for me. No improvement possible.
Nothing to add nor subtract. Nothing to critique.

>> Everything might be more of a what or a how
>> given the now of the current of thought.
>>
>> >> >> >10. sex between incompatibles is an abomination,
>> >> >> >sex between compatibles is not
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What does abomination mean to you?
>> >> >
>> >> >It means a crime against nature. When I say sex between
>> >> >compatibles is not I mean that sex between gay men
>> >> >is not an abomination but sex between a gay man and
>> >> >a woman is an abomination since they are incompatible.
>> >>
>> >> I don't see any crime against nature there.
>> >> I don't know what a crime against nature would be.
>> >
>> >Compatibility is part of nature, so to go against
>> >compatibility is a crime against nature.
>>
>> So, e.g., oil and water are an abomination
>> when put into the same glass of water?
>
>It is against their nature to mix so I guess you
>can say a mixture of oil and water is an
>abomination but two layers of oil on top
>of water is not. But I think the word
>abomination is too strong there. However in
>terms of compatibility two straight men having
>sex is an abomination but two compatible
>gay men having sex is not.

Looking up a definition of the term, abomination,
it appears to connote, if not denote, disgust
or hatred. Particularly hatred.

A problem I have with using that term,
in terms of Nature, is that Nature, in my view,
does not particularly hate anything. Nature is
not emotional per se.

In Taoist terminology, I'd say Nature
is not-compassionate. She treats all things
akin to straw dogs. Nourishes them, and then
tramples them under her feet. And she has
really big feet. So to speak.

I would tend to think that your endeavor,
to, "try" and make the world a better place,
is not particularly a Taoist gambit.

Particularly given TTC 29.
You are familiar with the text, yes?

Although, it's more the Way its done
rather than the what of its being done.

If your wu-wei or wei-wu-wei is smooth
as silk, particularly untinted by dye, then
it could fall under a Taoist umbrella, with ease.

Some say Confucius was a Taoist.
Taoist philosophy uses him in many ways.
At times a sage. At times a dupe.

I don't recall if mention is made of sex
in the basic ancient Taoist texts.

[Linuxgal]

{:-]))) wrote:
> I don't recall if mention is made of sex
> in the basic ancient Taoist texts.

55 (Mitchell):

He who is in harmony with the Tao
is like a newborn child.
Its bones are soft, its muscles are weak,
but its grip is powerful.
It doesn't know about the union
of male and female,
yet its penis can stand erect,
so intense is its vital power.

--
Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

[Linuxgal]

{:-]))) wrote:
> What if everything is as good as it can be,
> and that makes everything perfectly good,
> seeing as how that's as good as it can be?

Sausage made from Bambi's momma is pretty good, but Bambi doesn't think
so. The difference between a hot shower and a cold one is a tiny slice
of the absolute Kelvin scale. Let go of yes and no, hot and cold, good
and evil.

[Mozzie]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 04:18:59 -0800, {:-]))) wrote:

>
>
> Looking up a definition of the term, abomination, it appears to connote,
> if not denote, disgust or hatred. Particularly hatred.
>
> A problem I have with using that term, in terms of Nature, is that
> Nature, in my view, does not particularly hate anything. Nature is not
> emotional per se.

I found this interesting and I'd be interested in your opinion of it:

Squashed philosophers edition of...

Existentialism is a Humanism - Jean-Paul Sartre:

http://sqapo.com/sartre.htm

What is 'nature' in your view?

[{:-])))]

After reading most of the way
on down thru the page, I find bears
repeating thems'elves in m'eye mind sigh.

"...existence comes before essence,
that we always begin from the subjective."

I tend to appreciate a given, axiomatically,
that some particular thing is. Given is existence.

From among my Taoist povs however,
there is also a consideration how essence
and existence arise mutually.

If I say, the tree outside exists,
there is some essence of tree I know to be.

Subjective and objective, like-wise, arise
mutually and depend upon each other,
given one of my Taoist povs.

To make an assertion
tends to take lots of abstracts for granted.

In some ways, given a nature of language,
an abstract nature, essence precedes existence.

I must know what trees are or what a tree is
prior to being able to assert anything
about the tree outside.

That tends to be a nature of language.
Of English, in this case.

Reality can be another interesting word for me.
Words, a la Zhuangzi, have meanings.
But those meanings aren't fixed.

I tend to think the keys I'm pressing
really do exist and the screen upon which
you're reading them, also really exists.

But there can be levels of perception.
And perhaps no absolute frame of reference.

To think, for example, that the words are really
little dots, pixels, or atoms consisting of electrons
and that such a level is more or less real
than any other level, I'd say is
a thought.

In other words, context tends to rule
how words are measured accordion to meanings.

I'd Capitalized Nature, above.

Prehaps I had in mind, Mother Nature.

Even though she nurtures ten-k things,
she also wipes them out without a hint
of giving them a second thought.

She doesn't hate her organisms.
Now-a-daze, for most people, she's a myth.

Her truth can be very deep.
Mother Earth might be her daughter.

A gynopocentric pov
can be as wonderful as cans
be anthropomorphic ones.

In reading thru the link you provided,
a term at times translated as nature, ziran,
of-itself-so, appeared in the French, En Soi.

I never did finish reading the page.
My nature might be to complete stuff,
but not always. Nature might be a tendency.

Nature can be contrasted with man-made.
But artificial constructs are perfectly natural.
People can be seen as being natural.

I'm not sure if any light was shed
up on or down around how I see nature.

Sometimes I feel a need to hit the hills.
To get away from the man-made stuff.
At the same time I appreciate the trails,
made by the walking of other folks.

There can be second-nature.
That's perfectly natural for people.

Existentialism.
Okay. Let me read the rest.

About the son who felt called
to stay with his mum and go to war,
I'm reminded of Watts in his talks talking
about how you are the ultimate authority
for you decide which authority to accept
and which to reject.

I find myself full of hope.

Perhaps that is my nature.
A predisposed outlook, optimistic.

Hoping for the best and being wary.

Taking whatever happens as it occurs.
Dealing with the cards. Playing each hand
as being the one dealt for the time being.

I find myself to be apathetic at times.
Shuffles on a deck, the decks.
Of cards and ships. In relations too.

Quietistic in allowing others to choose
whatever seems best to them at the time.

Often, when I put on political glasses
and try to filter decisions to be cast on a ballot,
I am unable to reach any strong conclusion.
So I don't vote on that issue nor for
nor against that candidate.

The term, apolitical reminds me of atheism.
Recently the term, atheism, was toyed width
and at length and in sum depth. Multi-dimensional.

Most words, for me, tend to open themselves up
when I look at them in detail. Their denotations
and connotations, their contexts. Very wonderful.

My nature seams to be to wear many hats.

As a scientist, assuming there is a shared world,
a consensus reality that persists and exists prior to
and after so-called individuals appear on stages
of history, that objective reality is taken for granted.

The identity element, each individual one,
is taken as not making any difference in the product
as factors are multiplied or divisions of things are made.

Wearing another hat, an identity element
can be a place holder, a point of origin, on a grid.
As a point of origin, the co-ordinates are zero, zero,
and perhaps a third or fourth zero, taken for granted.

Adding and subtracting zero, or nothing, does nothing.
With those operations, that identity element works.

My nature appears to be to shift identity elements,
depending which operation is to be performed.

Perhaps that's the mathematician within me.

For me, materialism or physicalism is a view.
Same with a God view. Or a Taoist view.
As a metaphysician, views are as tools.
It's nice to have more than only one.
For me, at any rate. Usually.

It has appeared to me recently
how as children, youngsters are taught
that they have a choice. Taught to be able
to respond. To be response-able. Responsible.

Taught that they have a free will. And that
there are consequences of their choices.
That to make what appears to be no choice
is itself a choice to be made.

Such a paradigm can be compelling.
It might be in the nature of the so-called west
to indoctrinate its youth into being individuals,
free agents apart from all others and all else.

Perhaps in the so-called east, with a language
not so much geared into subject-predicate,
or subject/verb-object, the minds are not as
forced into thinking thoughts that identify
one as being first a first name, and then
a surname. Perhaps the reverse is true,
given the nature of a language.

Long answer, eh.
Maybe it can be squashed.

In my view there are many views.
For me, this is only natural.

Nature is a word.
As a noun, it gets reified at times.
As a verb, it is perhaps a process.
As a subject or an object, yeah.
As an adjective, that too.

To explane something,
reminds me of Euclid.
Very two-dimensional.

Out of a context
into the frying brain-pan.

A plain simple word.
At first glance.

Nature flowers.
It can be a field.

Taken for granted
as one walks within it.

Fields flower by nature.
Often taken for granted.

In the background, unseen,
when attention is captured
by a flower or a bee.

It's natural for people
to have perceptions and
their own perspectives.

- fwiw, hth

[David Dalton]

Nature has several meanings. The meaning of essence
that is in the above web page seems to jive with the
following definition from the Concise Oxford Dictionary:

nature=thing's essential qualities, person or animal's
innate qualities or character

But in my recent writings where I say someone is
ordained by nature, I mean that the person is
considered ordained by ALL, Universe, Galaxy,
Sun, Earth, and Moon or by at least one of those.
In practice that means that the individual has
gone through enough hurdles and obtained enough
training and experience to be considered ordained.
I don't think I will be ordained by nature until
I come out of the low years.

So in the above paragraph I am using the following
definition from the Concise Oxford:

nature=physical power causing phenomena of material
world, these phenomena as a whole

[David Dalton]

In article <dalton-3484CA....@news.eternal-september.org>,

David Dalton <dal...@nfld.com> wrote:

> But in my recent writings where I say someone is
> ordained by nature, I mean that the person is
> considered ordained by ALL, Universe, Galaxy,
> Sun, Earth, and Moon or by at least one of those.
> In practice that means that the individual has
> gone through enough hurdles and obtained enough
> training and experience to be considered ordained.

by at least one of the above six.

There I am assuming that at least one of the six
is a someone.

I may try to come up with a term other than
ordained by nature, but for now when I say
ordained by nature I mean ordained by at
least one of ALL, Universe, Galaxy, Sun, Earth, Moon,
who are six of my twelve main deities, which I
list on my Salmon on the Thorns web page.