Self-reference (was Re: The Simulation Argument)
Tang Huyen
D�j� Flu wrote:
> The very idea of "self-consciousness" is a myth. And more so in
> the Buddhist tradition when "self" is discovered to be simply a
> construction of memory and wish fulfillment. So where's the argument?
> Drinking water from an empty glass?
<<The very idea of "self-consciousness" is a myth.>>
Very fitting, coming from you who have no
self-consciousness.
By the way, your reasoning is a classic case
of literalism. That self is a mere construction
does not imply anything about any word
with "self-" in them, like self-consciousness,
and even the very word "self", which is only
a reflexive pronoun, as in: I am conscious of
myself. There is no reifying and objectifying
tendency in words per se, like in the word
"self", it is only the users of words who
invest words with essence or substance or
whatever or who refrain from doing so. It is
perfectly possible to use words without
investing them with essence or substance or
whatever. That is the way the Buddha describes
his own use of words. Words, like "self" or
"God", are not in themselves bad or evil, but
we can invest them with whatever meaning,
essence or substance or disinvest from them
any reifying and objectifying tendency as we
like. We are not inert slaves to them. That is
what freedom is.
Tang Huyen
Déjà Flu
>
> Dￜjￜ Flu wrote:
>
>> The very idea of "self-consciousness" is a myth. And more so in
>> the Buddhist tradition when "self" is discovered to be simply a
>> construction of memory and wish fulfillment. So where's the argument?
>> Drinking water from an empty glass?
>
> <<The very idea of "self-consciousness" is a myth.>>
>
> Very fitting, coming from you who have no
> self-consciousness.
Thank god for that!
> By the way, your reasoning is a classic case
> of literalism.
And your gibberish begs permission (as do most
apologists) to imbue words with some mystery
'un-meaning' without admitting to definition (without
which words are meaningless and communication is
impossible). It's a common theologian trait.
If we can't agree on a meaning for a word (say,
"enlightenment" or "god"), then the word is useless
and void. Hence my valid assertion that I'm perfectly
"enlightened" (I'd claim to be "God", but just imagine
the email volume...).
> It is perfectly possible to use words without
> investing them with essence or substance or
> whatever.
But it is *not* possible to use words (usefully)
without definition and the fallacy of that^ argument
is so blatant that it's downright silly. Consider
that the next time you make an assertion, attribute
it to someone else, and then refute it.
Lee Rudolph
>Tang Huyen wrote:
>>
>> D�j� Flu wrote:
...
>> By the way, your reasoning is a classic case
>> of literalism.
>
>And your gibberish begs permission (as do most
>apologists) to imbue words with some mystery
>'un-meaning' without admitting to definition (without
>which words are meaningless and communication is
>impossible).
>
>If we can't agree on a meaning for a word (say,
>"enlightenment" or "god"), then the word is useless
>and void.
If I recall correctly (and it's only been half an hour or
so since I read it, so there's some hope of that), Tang's
point in part of what you didn't quote was that, *even
when* there are agreed meanings for words W1 and W2, there
is no reliable procedure in natural languages (in particular,
in English) to derive the meaning of a compound word W1-W2
from those meanings, nor to go backward; in the particular case
at issue, W1="self" and W2="consciousness". The claim I am
attributing to Tang is certainly correct in general, and if
you wish to show that it's incorrect in that particular case,
your present argument doesn't seem like a very good start.
>Hence my valid assertion that I'm perfectly
>"enlightened" (I'd claim to be "God", but just imagine
>the email volume...).
You clearly lack the entrepreneurial spirit. Just think,
every year at Xmas the lastest volume of _Children's E-Mails
To Fu_ could be the new must-have stocking-stuffer! You
could get to the point where the Chicken Soup franchise would
come to you begging for handouts--say, a slim volume of
_Chicken Soup for the Dharma_ this year, _Chicken Soup
for the Hungry Ghost_ the next.
>> It is perfectly possible to use words without
>> investing them with essence or substance or
>> whatever.
>
>But it is *not* possible to use words (usefully)
>without definition and the fallacy of that^ argument
>is so blatant that it's downright silly. Consider
>that the next time you make an assertion, attribute
>it to someone else, and then refute it.
This latter quotation from Tang goes much further than the
argument I put in his mouth up above, so your dismissal of
it (which I agree with, at least on the most literal
interpretation of the quotation--and who, really, would
want any other kind?) doesn't go towards refuting the
earlier point.
Lee Rudolph
Déjà Flu
> ...
>>> By the way, your reasoning is a classic case
>>> of literalism.
>> And your gibberish begs permission (as do most
>> apologists) to imbue words with some mystery
>> 'un-meaning' without admitting to definition (without
>> which words are meaningless and communication is
>> impossible).
>>
>> If we can't agree on a meaning for a word (say,
>> "enlightenment" or "god"), then the word is useless
>> and void.
>
> If I recall correctly (and it's only been half an hour or
> so since I read it, so there's some hope of that), Tang's
> point in part of what you didn't quote was that, *even
> when* there are agreed meanings for words W1 and W2, there
> is no reliable procedure in natural languages (in particular,
> in English) to derive the meaning of a compound word W1-W2
> from those meanings, nor to go backward; in the particular case
> at issue, W1="self" and W2="consciousness". The claim I am
> attributing to Tang is certainly correct in general, and if
> you wish to show that it's incorrect in that particular case,
> your present argument doesn't seem like a very good start.
So your claim is that a compound (W1,W2) can lose all definition
and create a new one? Granted that, it would seem that (W1,W2)
would require another definition, but IMO, it would be impossible
to create it independent of the originals. If you're arguing that
some construct (W1,W2) is independent of those previously defined
words, then you're simply arguing for an new (undefined) word.
The "reliable procedure" is simply to define the construct (W1,W2),
but if it veers from the previously defined W1 and/or W2, it is
certainly suspect - someone has hidden a bunny in their hat.
>> Hence my valid assertion that I'm perfectly
>> "enlightened" (I'd claim to be "God", but just imagine
>> the email volume...).
>
> You clearly lack the entrepreneurial spirit. Just think,
> every year at Xmas the lastest volume of _Children's E-Mails
> To Fu_ could be the new must-have stocking-stuffer! You
> could get to the point where the Chicken Soup franchise would
> come to you begging for handouts--say, a slim volume of
> _Chicken Soup for the Dharma_ this year, _Chicken Soup
> for the Hungry Ghost_ the next.
As Tang has observed, I do indeed. However, I'm willing to
sign over franchise rights to you for a reasonable percentage.
>>> It is perfectly possible to use words without
>>> investing them with essence or substance or
>>> whatever.
>> But it is *not* possible to use words (usefully)
>> without definition and the fallacy of that^ argument
>> is so blatant that it's downright silly. Consider
>> that the next time you make an assertion, attribute
>> it to someone else, and then refute it.
>
> This latter quotation from Tang goes much further than the
> argument I put in his mouth up above, so your dismissal of
> it (which I agree with, at least on the most literal
> interpretation of the quotation--and who, really, would
> want any other kind?) doesn't go towards refuting the
> earlier point.
Nor was it intended to. Assertions like that (as in the
assertion of god(s) are not actually arguable except from
evidence (I tend not to consider philosophical argumentation
as "real" argument). So we're again back to the definition problem.
If Tang (or anyone) wishes to use words as metaphors,
he (or they) has to at least illustrate the metaphor and
in so doing, define the word(s).
So what does, "Dismentative Physicalisticsm" bring to mind?
ps:
I once had an interesting project, using LISP, to construct a
self-defining, recursive, dictionary where one could enter
anywhere (anyword) and keep exploring the universe of definition.
It failed only because I couldn't get a free dictionary
as an ascii file.
zenworm
> =?ISO-8859-15?Q?D=E9j=E0_Flu?= <cha...@gmail.com> writes:
> >Tang Huyen wrote:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
pointlessness?
ah yes
the dog took it
ZN
Keynes
>Lee Rudolph wrote:
>> =?ISO-8859-15?Q?D=E9j=E0_Flu?= <cha...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Tang Huyen wrote:
Words, words, that impossible breed.
They say what they say and not what we need.
Prick your finger. OK
Finger your prick. Oh no.
It rains. What is 'it'?
Body/mind awareness is so called self-awareness.
But what is it that's aware of body/mind if there is
no self? Think about it all you please, and you
wind up with a thinker of the thought. It's only
logical/lexical, the resolution of paradox to keep
the head from exploding.
After all everything Must make sense even if it doesn't.
Allen Barker
> Lee Rudolph wrote:
>> =?ISO-8859-15?Q?D=E9j=E0_Flu?= <cha...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Tang Huyen wrote:
Shirley you know that natural languages are not formal
languages, and that terms are never precisely and
unambiguously defined in natural languages. Even
if they were, the meanings of natural-language
sentences cannot in general be built-up from the
individual meanings in the parse-tree nodes...
The languages of Lisp and set theory are not the
same as the languages used, for example, by Robert
Frost and Mumon Ekai. They aren't even the same as
semi-formal legal language, or the language we use
at the grocery store. There are similarities, which
are illustrative. There are also differences, which
are illustrative.
Tang Huyen
Hidden Draggin wrote:
> That is the basis of dreaming and part and parcel
> of all visualization: suspension of disbelief which
> in essence is self-hypnotism.
>
> Oh-my-gosh...what if almost all that Buddha
> says really involves turning off our suspension
> of disbelief...TOTALLY.
>
> Are we onto something here?
>
> Does samsara mean that we look at reality
> the same way we look at a movie, constantly
> filling in the blanks and gaps until we change
> what is into something it is not?
>
> OH MY GOSH! MENTAL FREAKING SQUEEKA!!!
If anything, the Buddha teaches that faring-on
(samsara) is what we impose on what happens,
and blowing-out (nirvana) is just to receive what
happens in the raw, without interpretation. Iow
samsara is the layer of interpretation that we
impose on top of what happens, and nirvana is
just the bare reception of what happens. As
Norbu says: Just look and do not judge!
In a way, what you say is correct: <<Does
samsara mean that we look at reality the same
way we look at a movie, constantly filling in
the blanks and gaps until we change what is
into something it is not?>>
Nirvana is just looking without filling in, mere
reception and disinvesting from everything,
leaving what happens to be itself, untouched,
from its own side.
That's all there is to Buddhism.
Tang Huyen
Hidden Draggin
So in essence, samsara is what we do while dreaming,
but we do it awake. In dreaming, the critical portions
of our mind are shut down, allowing our notions
and subconscious ideas to manifest as reality in
a way we cannot tell the difference. While physically
awake, we also allow these notions, preconceptions,
and attachment to views to color our perceptions
to a great extent. What begins as a tool for managing
our perceptions of reality (interpretation) gets out of hand
and many notions that have no basis in reality get
control of what we perceive.
Like I said, we watch a sad movie and suspend our
disbelief voluntarily in order to have the experience.
The heroine in a movie dies and some of us cry,
we are moved by bloodshed and events, but none
of these things exist.
We have these convenient models that we use to
make sense of things, but they become more important
than what is actually there because to a greater extent,
there is no way of making sense of things without
coloring them subjectively.
--
Hidden Draggin - Gilbert Hanford
Don't join dangerous cults, practice safe sects!
http://twitter.com/hiddendraggin
Kitty P
"Hidden Draggin" <an...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h4snur$bpb$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Unless for survival, is there a real need for us to even try to make sense
of most things (entertainment purposes aside)? Doesn't our subjectivity skew
and twist things to the point that it is far more disorienting than trying
to navigate without attachment to interpretations?
Kitty
brian mitchell
<tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote:
> As Norbu says: Just look and do not judge!
Easy to say and impossible to do because the judgements which matter,
the ones which hold the personal world in place, are all made
subconsciously before anything is registered in consciousness. How
then does one distinguish perception from judgement?
In an interesting programme (BBC Radio4/"Word of mouth") on language
and perception a linguist reported that speakers of languages which
have no general words for direction, such as 'left' or 'right', but
which instead specify compass directions, such as 'the house
South-West of the large oak', have a perfect and reliable inbuilt
sense of geographical orientation whereas those who make use of the
general direction words do not. Other such instances of how language
affects sense perception were given.
Déjà Flu
Isn't that backward? Wouldn't sense perception influence
language instead?
brian mitchell
wrote:
>Unless for survival, is there a real need for us to even try to make sense
>of most things (entertainment purposes aside)?
Yes, because we don't live in a material world, we live in a mental
world, the parameters of which are all to do with meaning, sense,
significance, and so on. Human beings have done very little else but
ponder and speculate about these things (apart from kill each other).
Tang Huyen
D�j� Flu wrote:
> brian mitchell:
>
> > Tang Huyen:
>
> >> As Norbu says: Just look and do not judge!
>
> > Easy to say and impossible to do because the judgements which matter,
> > the ones which hold the personal world in place, are all made
> > subconsciously before anything is registered in consciousness. How
> > then does one distinguish perception from judgement?
> >
> > In an interesting programme (BBC Radio4/"Word of mouth") on language
> > and perception a linguist reported that speakers of languages which
> > have no general words for direction, such as 'left' or 'right', but
> > which instead specify compass directions, such as 'the house
> > South-West of the large oak', have a perfect and reliable inbuilt
> > sense of geographical orientation whereas those who make use of the
> > general direction words do not. Other such instances of how language
> > affects sense perception were given.
>
> Isn't that backward? Wouldn't sense perception influence
> language instead?
Careful, dear! The Jewish mythologists would
retort to you that the Jewish God must be in
your perception before he reaches your concepts.
And he must be the one and only God because
you concede exclusivity to him.
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
D�j� Flu wrote:
> If we can't agree on a meaning for a word (say,
> "enlightenment" or "god"), then the word is useless
> and void. Hence my valid assertion that I'm perfectly
> "enlightened" (I'd claim to be "God", but just imagine
> the email volume...).
Are you channelling Lee Rudolph? He said:
<<Well, as I suggested, to me "supreme being" is a supremely meaningless
phrase (partly because I have no idea what a "being" is supposed to be,
but mostly because I can't assign any non-fatuous meaning to the notion
of any hierarchy among such "being"s which is such that there need or
could be any "supreme" member of that hierarchy); however, assuming as
before that "supreme being" makes sense, why couldn't a clockwork automaton
do the job? (If the answer is "it's not *alive*", then we have fallen
back into the molasses-pit of tautology. Not that that isn't a tasty
place to hang out!)>>
But his version of God -- fatuous, supremely
meaningless, and he calls it a phrase and not
a being -- is diametrially opposed to yours, as
you subscribe in a rock-hard manner to the
unique God of Jewish mythology.
In your own language, if you claim to be God,
then you are the one and only God possible,
the God of Jewish mythology. Praise be!
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Kitty P wrote:
> I'm going to have to agree that there is something
> magically special, not only about human life, joy,
> creativity and free will - but all life right down to
> the single cell organism. I see it in Ned's art too.
> Since it's not the case with everyone, so I can't say
> that my thoughts are any more or less valid than
> anyone else's thought.
>
> Maybe we all have filters when we're looking at
> the world depending on our life time of outside
> input. Two people can look at a stone, and one can
> see heartbreaking beauty in the stone and another
> the stone killing another person (with everything
> in-between). It's probably always been that way.
> Maybe none of how we view the world is true
> reality if we feel too angry, busy, blissed out on
> mind altering drugs, or any other reason to not be
> mindfully in the present.
It all depends on us (and not on what is objectively
out there, including matter, God or whatever). In
the moment, we can open up, receive it in rapt
attention and utter devotion, in total and absolute
faith (this faith has no content, other than in the
mere act of opening up and what follows from it,
but does not put any condition on the opening up
or on what follows it, it merely opens up in dumb
faith, without any probing of whatever kind in any
direction), and in doing so, we make the moment
holy, right there and then, without any other
accoutrement. It is purely between what happens
in the moment and us, without any mediation,
and in such overture, the moment also reciprocates
by opening up, and it (the moment) reciprocates
with eternity (the abyss calls the abyss), without
anything in between, which is how wonders come
to be. It is free fall. We don't do anything, other
than opening up, and are rewarded with serenity
and grace, and are so rewarded because we don't
do anything, as anything at all will perturb the
flow. Mystery unfolds, and it unfolds because we
leave it free to do so, from its own side.
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
D�j� Flu wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> > It is perfectly possible to use words without
> > investing them with essence or substance or
> > whatever.
>
> But it is *not* possible to use words (usefully)
> without definition and the fallacy of that^ argument
> is so blatant that it's downright silly. Consider
> that the next time you make an assertion, attribute
> it to someone else, and then refute it.
Calm down, dear. When I say:
<<It is perfectly possible to use words without
investing them with essence or substance or
whatever.>>
I am merely paraphrasing what you said:
<<This ('self and other') - the "in here and out there" mistake -
is what causes discussions like this. "Objects" are what you
create to decorate your mind with. There really aren't any
such things.>>
You say that you should pay attention to my headers.
The subject heading here is "Self-reference".
Tang Huyen
Allen Barker
Which came first? The egg-chicken interface!
Kitty P
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:_4OdnZHFC6Npt-_X...@supernews.com...
Beautiful~
Déjà Flu
<gag!>
And Deepacked Chopsticks has some books he wants to sell you.
zenworm
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
yes
unfolding Mystery
all there is
is
right now
else/other - absurdities
an unfolding
*Totality*
ZN
Kitty P
"D�j� Flu" <cha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:t56dnSZpH6sGr-_X...@posted.toastnet...
Ah man - poetry is poetry.
Evelyn
news:_4OdnZHFC6Npt-_X...@supernews.com...
>
>
Tang you are in rare and excellent form! :-)
--
Evelyn
"Even as a mother protects with her life her only child, So with a boundless
heart let one cherish all living beings." --Sutta Nipata 1.8
Evelyn
news:t56dnSZpH6sGr-_X...@posted.toastnet...
Oh Fu, give credit where credit is due!
brian mitchell
I'm sure it works that way too, but the gist of the argument as I
remember it was that accurate orientation is a catered-for faculty of
the human organism but, in those cultures which developed higher-level
abstract and generic concepts, it became redundant and lapsed.
herbzet
Keynes wrote:
> Words, words, that impossible breed.
> They say what they say and not what we need.
I like this! I'm copying it down.
--
hz
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."
herbzet
Allen Barker wrote:
> Shirley you know that natural languages are not formal
> languages, and that terms are never precisely and
> unambiguously defined in natural languages. Even
> if they were, the meanings of natural-language
> sentences cannot in general be built-up from the
> individual meanings in the parse-tree nodes...
>
> The languages of Lisp and set theory are not the
> same as the languages used, for example, by Robert
> Frost and Mumon Ekai [...]
Yes -- interesting how we in fact process natural language.
I know nothing about the subject -- I'm guessing it's terribly complicated.
--
hz
Hidden Draggin
You must have read Pirsig: "Quality is the interaction between
subject and object."
Tang Huyen
daletx wrote:
> Ned Ludd:
>
> > Well, even before the bird-dino theory was proposed, the correct
> > question was still, Did the first chicken's parents lay eggs?
> >
> > Or, to put a fine point on it, do you really think that the final
> > evolutionary mutation from the last near-chicken to the first
> > real-chicken was a complete change in reproductive system
> > from non-egg laying to egg-laying?
> >
> > Probably not. You be the judge, but it was probably something
> > smaller - a feather, a claw, a beak, whatever you can find in the
> > evolutionary record. But the idea that whatever avian being you
> > put your finger on and say "This was the first chicken", became
> > that being through a radical change in reproductive process is
> > highly unlikely.
> >
> > So, we weren't there, but the answer to the question, Did the
> > first chicken's parents lay eggs, is probably yes.
>
> Logically speaking, I agree with you completely. But that
> would totally ruin the "God wouldn't want to sit on an egg"
> joke.
At that level of communication, probably only
jokes will do, if they do.
And if you want to get above and beyond that,
then the only thing left is the Stoic teaching,
to disinvest from everything. Then, there is no
problem, question or issue left to bother about.
One strokes one's belly.
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Kitty P wrote:
> "Hidden Draggin":
To the various replies from liaM and leebert
on religion -- replies which are much
appreciated -- I would like to say this: your
focus is on the masses and the effect of religion
on the masses, but (sorry to sound elitist, but
this also applies to some people in the masses)
my focus is on the few people who go all out
for liberation (which intention does not imply
that they must work like hell, because they may
just want to relax and be serene and thus get
liberated for cheap), and for those, one of the
universals that I have found that are common
to Buddhism, Daoism, Stoicism and negative
theology is the total giving up of survival.
Now let me back up and explain myself.
Daoism is famous for rejecting knowledge
and learning, and even morality, all of which
belong to the toolkit that we humans evolve
to keep our species going -- to ensure survival
for the species (but for the species to survive,
the individuals in it must survive also, so that
there is enough of a critical mass to keep the
species going). Buddhism, like Daoism, teaches
non-doing (an-abhisamskara, wu-wei), the
suspension of all activities, and of course,
whilst such a state is normally entered
occasionally, it would lead to death if sustained
for a long time, because obviously enough it
scarcely helps in survival (and here it is
individual survival).
One commonality that I find in Buddhism,
Daoism, Stoicism and negative theology is the
disregard for survival, regardless of specifics.
The cultivator deactivates his entire legacy for
survival, and finds peace, serenity and grace
by doing so. Before he starts teaching, the
Buddha finds that the Law (Dharma) that he
is about to teach goes against the stream,
which in modern terms means that it is
counter-intuitive, and sure enough, it offends
common sense, because it denies the self and
the person. Many people who are otherwise
drawn to Buddhism are repelled by its denial
of the self and the person, and they are so
surprised about it that they deny that it is part
of the Buddha's teaching, because to them
the rest of the Buddha's teaching is so
reasonable (iow intuitive).
If we stop for a moment and reflect on the
Buddha's denial of the self and the person,
we can see that it scarcely helps survival. The
self is the centre of convergence for survival,
it is where we coordinate our activites to
ensure our survival, and not to have one would
imperil us in our effort at survival.
In rejecting knowledge and learning, Daoism
also negates the genetic legacy for survival.
Whether it leads to bliss or not is another
matter. At face value, it threatens survival. It
throws caution to the wind and gives up on
survival.
In Chinese society, Buddhism and Daoism
are known as "world-exiting religions", whereas
Confucianism is known as "world-entering
religion". This contrast means that by Buddhism
and Daoism, one goes out of the world, and by
Confucianism one goes into the world. The
imagery is crude, but it says something
significant: by Buddhism and Daoism one leaves
the world behind, which is a way of saying that
one does not care for survival. By Confucianism,
one enters the world, which means that one
cares for survival.
What I find with Buddhism, Daoism, Stoicism
and negative theology is that, regardless of
specifics, the programme of mental culture
systematically deactivates our genetic legacy
for survival and leaves only consciousness, and
we can easily imagine how fragile survival is
when only consciousness is active. All our
skills (and they are survival skills) are temporarily
put in abeyance, and we are liable to death
because we do not defend ourselves. It is ironic
that on one hand mental culture would seem to
make us very fit for survival, as it helps us pull
ourselves together to act as one, in single focus, in
total action, and on the other, it deactivates all
our skills for survival, included in the knowledge,
learning and morality that Daoism rejects.
Stoicism teaches us to disinvest from everything,
which is another way of saying that it teaches us
to disregard survival, as survival would reside in
investment. But be disinvesting from everything,
therefore in disregarding survival, peace, serenity
and grace ensue, and they cannot be found when
we chase survival.
Evolution prepares us for survival in our ceaseless
mental chatter, in which we consider one option
after another, in feedback and feedforward, round
and round, and mental culture quiesces this
pursuit of survival and relieves us of this endless
search for making sense of our situation, of
ourselves. But in giving up making sense of our
situation and of ourselves, we also give up on
survival, and *thereby* attain to peace, serenity
and grace. That is the tradeoff of mental culture,
regardless of specifics. No God or higher power
needs be involved.
Tang Huyen
Tara
Tang, I respectfully ask you and hope for an honest straight reply: Do
you apply these non-survival common universals that you have found in
Buddhism, Daoism, Stoicism and negative theology in your personal life?
Do you practice this? Does it work for you? Have you found peace,
serenity and grace?
Also, please explain how a Mother or Father can 'disinvest' in their
child's well being and future, survival or otherwise? Or, for that
matter why they would want to reject this innate and powerful instinct,
even if it brings suffering to the parent? I, for one, am grateful for
the privilege of investing in my child's survival and that ironically
gives me the peace, serenity and grace that you speak of.
Tara
Tang Huyen
Tara wrote:
> Tang, I respectfully ask you and hope for an honest straight reply: Do
> you apply these non-survival common universals that you have found in
> Buddhism, Daoism, Stoicism and negative theology in your personal life?
>
> Do you practice this? Does it work for you? Have you found peace,
> serenity and grace?
>
> Also, please explain how a Mother or Father can 'disinvest' in their
> child's well being and future, survival or otherwise? Or, for that
> matter why they would want to reject this innate and powerful instinct,
> even if it brings suffering to the parent? I, for one, am grateful for
> the privilege of investing in my child's survival and that ironically
> gives me the peace, serenity and grace that you speak of.
There is something called commitment: once
one starts something like a marriage, one gets
children, then one gets ... trapped. So in the
Indian society, people leave the home life to
devote themselves to liberation (or whatever).
When Buddhism got transmitted to China,
there was massive resistance, because the
Chinese were supposed to marry and have
kids to continue the family (really to support
the parents in old age). In China, for a family
not to have kids was and is a disgrace. So,
in order to give up on survival, one has to
commit to ... not getting trapped in
investment, like kids. However there are
people who become liberated even in family
life.
As to whether I practice what I preach and
attain anything by it, I leave it to others like
you to judge. It's fluff to me.
Tang Huyen
luchayana superfly del pseudomodo
wrote:
Hey Tang,
I learned something here, thanks for taking the time to write that up.
In practice I would assume that most votaries don't "let go" to the
level of exiting, of essentially surrendering survival of self to
fate. If one does not fear for one's future then one can be open to
all risks with far less anxiety. Perhaps Buddhists might object to
such a characterization under the principle of the middle way that
this is necessarily a wholely ascetic path.
Perhaps with Christianity we see a mix of the entering and exiting
paths of Confucianism and Buddhism. The actual teachings of Jesus are
far more spare, so much is left to interpretative expansion.
/leebert
Déjà Flu
Yeah - it's more of a bank account thing. Think "bailout".
But, "...in giving up making sense of our situation and of ourselves,
we also give up on survival, and *thereby* attain to peace, serenity
and grace" is total bullshit. It's a rationalization, a formulation
of zen that Tang himself just disallowed a few posts back and then
proceeded to set it in concrete here - along with himself.
Don't mind me, though. I'm the bad cop.
Tara
You talk norms and standards. I talk about love. Love isn't a trap.
>
> As to whether I practice what I preach and
> attain anything by it, I leave it to others like
> you to judge. It's fluff to me.
`You protect yourself from loving and the suffering that love can bring.
Tara
>
> Tang Huyen
>
Lee Rudolph
>You talk norms and standards. I talk about love. Love isn't a trap.
Anything--any process--can be (used as) a trap; trappers (which include
ego) are very adept improvisers.
A first move that might occur to someone, maybe not you, invested in
denying (or refuting, or merely questioning) my assertions above could
be to say "'love' that's a trap isn't real love". And my response to
that could be, fine: anything--any process--can be (used as) bait for a
trap. And so on.
===
THE CHILDREN
Not everyone built them,
but his parents did,
and hers, and his: traps.
Teeth, that could lay open flesh,
bare bone. Weights and bars.
Or nooses.
The children are grown.
This one's strange, chewed off a part
and left it behind
so he could go free. It can't
ever grow back;
but the grown child's clever,
has parts missing and no one
can see.--This other
is big, is strong,
strong enough hardly to notice
the drag of the ingrown iron.
She hears the chain constantly.
And one more: who could slip loose
but could not find where to run
and be safe, and so came back,
to the same noosed trap;
the rope was the bait.
At night he ties himself
and his love in knots. In his pockets
he carries spiders and starfish,
to remind him of something.
====
Lee Rudolph
Tara
> Tara <jackpine@{removethis}.net> writes:
>
>> You talk norms and standards. I talk about love. Love isn't a trap.
>
> Anything--any process--can be (used as) a trap; trappers (which include
> ego) are very adept improvisers.
>
> A first move that might occur to someone, maybe not you, invested in
> denying (or refuting, or merely questioning) my assertions above could
> be to say "'love' that's a trap isn't real love". And my response to
> that could be, fine: anything--any process--can be (used as) bait for a
> trap. And so on.
"Can Be", yes.
There are some wise old fish in the lake who can recognize what is
underneath that bait and might even take a little nibble to be sure, and
then spit it out before they are hooked.
Nice!
Tara
liaM
Chinese men of old often left home after having succesfully raised their
kids, leaving the keys to their wives to be free to travel through China
visiting well known beauty spots and temples where sages hold court.
They thus completed their journey through life.
This in no way negated their love for their concubines and their
children, to which they might (or might not) return.
In the west we are much more constipated. Such things are looked down
upon. Men, especially in America, are tied to powerful umbilical
chains. This is why I especially enjoy looking at engravings showing
Chinese men of letters. Their robes seem like clouds lifted by
gentle winds.
>
>
>
> Tara
>>
>> Tang Huyen
>>
Tara
sounds ok to me, especially since you say "after having raised their
kids" But what does that have to do with now and dis investing?
I don't see what that has to do with what Tang answered?
>
> This in no way negated their love for their concubines and their
> children, to which they might (or might not) return.
That was a different world then. Somehow things always seemed
better....then
>
> In the west we are much more constipated. Such things are looked down
> upon. Men, especially in America, are tied to powerful umbilical
> chains. This is why I especially enjoy looking at engravings showing
> Chinese men of letters. Their robes seem like clouds lifted by
> gentle winds.
ahhhh...the myth of freedom.
tara
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Tara
>>>
>>> Tang Huyen
>>>
liaM
Let me explain it another way. Chinese mandarins would wear silk
garments, a modest plain black on the outside. Hidden from sight,
fanciful colorful embroidered figures decorated the lining,
behavior exactly opposite from the usual ostentious western
approach, all show on the outside and dire poverty on the inside.
As to Tang Huyen, I must say I sometimes wonder as to his origins..
he's such a show-off yet he obviously keeps much to himself.
>
>>
>> This in no way negated their love for their concubines and their
>> children, to which they might (or might not) return.
>
> That was a different world then. Somehow things always seemed
> better....then
>>
>> In the west we are much more constipated. Such things are looked down
>> upon. Men, especially in America, are tied to powerful umbilical
>> chains. This is why I especially enjoy looking at engravings showing
>> Chinese men of letters. Their robes seem like clouds lifted by
>> gentle winds.
>
> ahhhh...the myth of freedom.
>
Why "myth" ? Don't you feel free ?
>
> tara
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tara
>>>>
>>>> Tang Huyen
>>>>
liaM
>>> Chinese men of old often left home after having succesfully raised
>>> their kids, leaving the keys to their wives to be free to travel
>>> through China visiting well known beauty spots and temples where
>>> sages hold court. They thus completed their journey through life.
A notable example is Chuang Tzu, the wisdom freedom-loving philosopher
who liked to kid Confucius about the latter's insistance on strict
observance of traditions. Chuang Tzu is one of the earliest (400 BC)
inventors of the use of sock-puppets to make philosophical points,
most notably putting a caricatural Confucius on stage in his books.
Chuang Tzu left home age 50 I believe..
Julian
Have you read Wiki?
The validity of his existence has been questioned. Russell Kirkland writes,
"According to modern understandings of Chinese tradition, the text known
as the Chuang-tzu was the production of a 'Taoist' thinker of ancient China
named Chuang Chou. In reality, it was nothing of the sort. The Chuang-tzu
known to us today was the production of a thinker of the third century CE
named Kuo Hsiang. Though Kuo was long called merely a 'commentator,'
he was in reality much more: he was the actual creator of the 33-chapter
text of Chuang-tzu ... Regarding the identity of the original person named
Chuang, there is no reliable historical data at all."
Tara
Seems to me that both are hiding something. Why bother hiding anything.
>
> As to Tang Huyen, I must say I sometimes wonder as to his origins..
> he's such a show-off yet he obviously keeps much to himself.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> This in no way negated their love for their concubines and their
>>> children, to which they might (or might not) return.
>>
>> That was a different world then. Somehow things always seemed
>> better....then
>>>
>>> In the west we are much more constipated. Such things are looked down
>>> upon. Men, especially in America, are tied to powerful umbilical
>>> chains. This is why I especially enjoy looking at engravings showing
>>> Chinese men of letters. Their robes seem like clouds lifted by
>>> gentle winds.
>>
>> ahhhh...the myth of freedom.
>>
>
> Why "myth" ? Don't you feel free ?
Pretty much. I make my choices and take (and am aware of) the
consequences one way or the other.
What I meant by myth is that you see a kind of freedom in the old
Chinese ummm..privileged, I suspect, because they could wander around
and enjoy whatever. And you see contemporary men as tied. Freedom I
think has nothing to do with conditions and everything to do with being
able to love where you are.
Also, another thought....those 'free' men of letters had a pretty good
deal in those days. I wonder how society then would have reacted to a
woman doing the same thing. She probably had to stay home and help take
care of her grandchildren. ;
tara
>
>
>>
>> tara
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tara
>>>>>
>>>>> Tang Huyen
>>>>>
liaM
I studied chinese philosophy with a noted translator of the Chuang Tzu
(James C. Ware). I must say he had no problems (as I don't either,
having read the text) with ascribing a "person" as the autobiographical
author. In my case, I'm absolutely sure of my facts. I hear a person.
There's a voice to the texts ! Wiki, as so often happens, shovels
facts. A shovel is a shovel. You can't expect it to be deeply refined
or sensitive to subtleties.
liaM
I think you put much too much emphasis on "love" not that I object ;)
I too believe in love, in fact I am a major lover and have loved many
and my wife, too ;)
But freedom to me is much more untied to emotions related to events like
copulation, having kids, marriages and couples growing old together.
Freedom to me relates to natural phenomena such as the wind,
river-runs.. being one with the flow, letting it blow where it may.
>
> Also, another thought....those 'free' men of letters had a pretty good
> deal in those days. I wonder how society then would have reacted to a
> woman doing the same thing. She probably had to stay home and help take
> care of her grandchildren. ;
>
Shame on you to think that people in the past or elsewhere had a better
deal. You should know better. People are born and struggle in Samsara.
No one has ever been exempt from it.
As to women who in history have grabbed the freedom normally assigned
to men-kind for themselves, they are as noble and notable as their
masculine equivalent. Sapho. Gertrude Stein. Queens Elisabeth I and
Catherine the Great. Lysistrata. Jane Fonda. Hilary Clinton. Alexandra
David-Neel. Ruth Crawford Seeger. Madonna. Evita Peron. Marianne
Amacher. Sarah Bernhardt. Isadora Duncan. Jane Austen. Janis Joplin.
Josephine Baker. Maya Angelou.
oxtail
If he created the inner chapters,
he would be too proud not to mention it somewhere.
--
oxtail
Julian
Actually it was published by Routledge (a good reputation IMO) not Wiki.
Julian
...and her parents, and her husbands parents... no peace for the wicked! ;-)
liaM
So Chuang Tzu has his Francis Bacon, has he !?
liaM
Good point. Applies to U as well.
Nobody in Particular
Julian
I don't know.
Lee Rudolph
>So Chuang Tzu has his Francis Bacon, has he !?
Sort of. Except it was Charles Lamb, not Chuang Tzu. And it was roasted
pork, not Francis Bacon.
Lee Rudolph
Tara
Maybe because I was brought up to believe that Jesus taught love and
that "God" is love. I have gone full circle over the years and have
come back to a simple - Love is the answer, love is all there is.
And that's enough for me now.
> I too believe in love, in fact I am a major lover and have loved many
> and my wife, too ;)
;)
>
> But freedom to me is much more untied to emotions related to events like
> copulation, having kids, marriages and couples growing old together.
> Freedom to me relates to natural phenomena such as the wind,
> river-runs.. being one with the flow, letting it blow where it may.
So freedom is subjective, eh. Which means that there is no real freedom.
>
>
>>
>> Also, another thought....those 'free' men of letters had a pretty good
>> deal in those days. I wonder how society then would have reacted to a
>> woman doing the same thing. She probably had to stay home and help
>> take care of her grandchildren. ;
>>
>
> Shame on you to think that people in the past or elsewhere had a better
> deal. You should know better. People are born and struggle in Samsara.
> No one has ever been exempt from it.
>
> As to women who in history have grabbed the freedom normally assigned
> to men-kind for themselves, they are as noble and notable as their
> masculine equivalent. Sapho. Gertrude Stein. Queens Elisabeth I and
> Catherine the Great. Lysistrata. Jane Fonda. Hilary Clinton. Alexandra
> David-Neel. Ruth Crawford Seeger. Madonna. Evita Peron. Marianne
> Amacher. Sarah Bernhardt. Isadora Duncan. Jane Austen. Janis Joplin.
> Josephine Baker. Maya Angelou.
Read what I said before. We were referring to the old China.
You said: > Chinese men of old often left home after having succesfully
raised
>>>>>> their kids, leaving the keys to their wives to be free to travel
>>>>>> through China visiting well known beauty spots and temples where
>>>>>> sages hold court. They thus completed their journey through life.
cheers,
Tara
Tara
>>
>> Also, another thought....those 'free' men of letters had a pretty good
>> deal in those days. I wonder how society then would have reacted to a
>> woman doing the same thing. She probably had to stay home and help
>> take care of her grandchildren.
>
> ...and her parents, and her husbands parents... no peace for the wicked!
> ;-)
;)
tara
halfawake
always nice to have a male-dominated culture where the women "are free
to wander" after the man takes off. From Gautama to the present, these
happy men can wander where they will, have a second career and leave
wife and children behind. I say 'fuck 'em'. You think we are
constipated? I think the urge to take off and leave your family behind,
or to see compassion as a disease, is sociopathic. Not giving a shit
about other people is nothing to brag about, and is no sign of freedom,
just pure assholiness.
I remember walking down the road in Kenya, watching a few happy skinny
men chatting and joking as they walked down the road. A few steps
behind, their wives, covered in hot robes, carried hundreds of pounds of
junk on their heads, while the men had a party. Oh happy men, who can
ignore the suffering of their wives and not even lift a finger to help.
Here in the U.S. and in Europe, we are not quite so overt. Up to 50% of
the men in our culture wait until they're behind closed doors and then
beat the shit out of their wives. You think that's pretty cool?
Robert
= = = = = = = = = =
halfawake
yeah, probably just rising billows of gas from their bloated egos.
Robert
- - - - - - - -
halfawake
ooo, aren't we modest... and don't we know it!
>
> As to Tang Huyen, I must say I sometimes wonder as to his origins..
> he's such a show-off yet he obviously keeps much to himself.
hm...a strange admixture of introvert and extrovert. maybe he's got a
split personality!
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> This in no way negated their love for their concubines and their
>>> children, to which they might (or might not) return.
>>
>>
>> That was a different world then. Somehow things always seemed
>> better....then
>>
>>>
>>> In the west we are much more constipated. Such things are looked down
>>> upon. Men, especially in America, are tied to powerful umbilical
>>> chains. This is why I especially enjoy looking at engravings showing
>>> Chinese men of letters. Their robes seem like clouds lifted by
>>> gentle winds.
>>
>>
>> ahhhh...the myth of freedom.
>>
>
> Why "myth" ? Don't you feel free ?
hell, I guess I would feel free if I didn't give a shit about who I left
behind, what would happen to them, or any of my other responsibilities.
free as any average asshole.
halfawake
after turning into a butterfly....
robert
halfawake
whatever name he was called, he still wrote the book, didn't he?
to quote another guy whose identity was disputed,
"a rose by any other name..."
halfawake
> liaM wrote:
>> Why "myth" ? Don't you feel free ?
>
>
> Pretty much. I make my choices and take (and am aware of) the
> consequences one way or the other.
>
> What I meant by myth is that you see a kind of freedom in the old
> Chinese ummm..privileged, I suspect, because they could wander around
> and enjoy whatever. And you see contemporary men as tied. Freedom I
> think has nothing to do with conditions and everything to do with being
> able to love where you are.
>
> Also, another thought....those 'free' men of letters had a pretty good
> deal in those days. I wonder how society then would have reacted to a
> woman doing the same thing. She probably had to stay home and help take
> care of her grandchildren. ;
no she could leave, as long as she didn't mind being executed!
Robert
= = = = = = = = =
halfawake
I hate facts. They're so unrefined, so blase�.
Robert
= = = = = = = = = = = =
halfawake
tell it to the Taliban.
halfawake
One of my very favorite publishers, and quite a bit more sophisticated
than most.
halfawake
ha ha ha, yeah, those damn women, inherently evil they are, taking care
of everyone and doing all the work. to hell with 'em.
Robert
= = = = = = = = =
Nobody in Particular
zenworm
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Off with their heads!" - the Queen of Hearts
ZN
liaM
>> I think you put much too much emphasis on "love" not that I object ;)
>
> Maybe because I was brought up to believe that Jesus taught love and
> that "God" is love. I have gone full circle over the years and have come
> back to a simple - Love is the answer, love is all there is.
> And that's enough for me now.
ok
>>
>> But freedom to me is much more untied to emotions related to events like
>> copulation, having kids, marriages and couples growing old together.
>> Freedom to me relates to natural phenomena such as the wind,
>> river-runs.. being one with the flow, letting it blow where it may.
>
> So freedom is subjective, eh. Which means that there is no real freedom.
>>
sartre and buddha disagree with you ;)
>>>
>>> Also, another thought....those 'free' men of letters had a pretty
>>> good deal in those days. I wonder how society then would have reacted
>>> to a woman doing the same thing. She probably had to stay home and
>>> help take care of her grandchildren. ;
>>>
>>
>> Shame on you to think that people in the past or elsewhere had a better
>> deal. You should know better. People are born and struggle in Samsara.
>> No one has ever been exempt from it.
>>
>> As to women who in history have grabbed the freedom normally assigned
>> to men-kind for themselves, they are as noble and notable as their
>> masculine equivalent. Sapho. Gertrude Stein. Queens Elisabeth I and
>> Catherine the Great. Lysistrata. Jane Fonda. Hilary Clinton. Alexandra
>> David-Neel. Ruth Crawford Seeger. Madonna. Evita Peron. Marianne
>> Amacher. Sarah Bernhardt. Isadora Duncan. Jane Austen. Janis Joplin.
>> Josephine Baker. Maya Angelou.
>
> Read what I said before. We were referring to the old China.
>
hmm. You must be talking about recent Imperial China.
Old China in BC was a land of kingdoms and tribes, of which
a few were matriarchal (then and now, I might add..)
I recently saw a marvelous documentary concerning these
on CCTV english edition.
halfawake
yup, Albania, just like I pictured it.
And then if the women get old before their time, they trade them in for
a younger, prettier model. whoops, sorry, I was thinking of Newt
Gingrich and the Republicans there...
Julian
Which guy are you talking about?
The "Chuang-tsza" of 3-400BC or Kuo Hsiang of 2-300CE?
Julian
Thank you for that SOTBO.
liaM
>
> hell, I guess I would feel free if I didn't give a shit about who I left
> behind, what would happen to them, or any of my other responsibilities.
> free as any average asshole.
>
> Robert
>
> = = = = = = = = =
It's all in your head :)
Julian
W is for women.
They're awful, mendacious,
Nasty and selfish, cruel and salacious,
As thievish as gypsies, more crazy than Celts.
Be sure you never fuck anything else.
(An Alphabet For Schoolboys by P.J. O'Rourke)
liaM
>>
>> Chinese men of old often left home after having succesfully raised
>> their kids, leaving the keys to their wives to be free to travel
>> through China visiting well known beauty spots and temples where sages
>> hold court. They thus completed their journey through life.
>>
>> This in no way negated their love for their concubines and their
>> children, to which they might (or might not) return.
>>
>> In the west we are much more constipated. Such things are looked down
>> upon. Men, especially in America, are tied to powerful umbilical
>> chains. This is why I especially enjoy looking at engravings showing
>> Chinese men of letters. Their robes seem like clouds lifted by
>> gentle winds.
>>
>
>
> to wander" after the man takes off. From Gautama to the present, these
> happy men can wander where they will, have a second career and leave
> wife and children behind. I say 'fuck 'em'. You think we are
> constipated? I think the urge to take off and leave your family behind,
> or to see compassion as a disease, is sociopathic. Not giving a shit
> about other people is nothing to brag about, and is no sign of freedom,
> just pure assholiness.
In China 400BC a man's duty to his family was fulfilled
upon having successfully raised his kids and
assured his family's future material needs.
He was free to take to the road (with a monk's bowl and robes)to seek
wisdom etc.
Julian
Then, as now, I suspect the vast majority of peasant,
servant and slave men, never "assured their families
future material needs."
Taking to the road (with a monk's bowl and robes) to seek
wisdom etc. is a rich (or single) mans' game.
Keynes
Hui Neng gathered firewood as his mother's sole support.
The platform sutra says that he arranged for someone
else to support her before he left as a young man to
become a buddhist monk.
Leaving family was a tradition in india even before the buddha.
It was one of the four vedic stations of life. It was never all that
popular in china. Rather the monkish life was a refuge of the
dispossessed as it was also in christendom.
When you think of it, the 'holy life' is an alternative for the
deeply troubled who have an uncommon outlook on 'normalcy'.
Unless one can turn his back on ordinary self and family concerns
what can he hope to ever accomplish in a different milieu?
It was only a deeply disturbing crisis in my life that gave me
a hint of anything different, and the power to persevere into
an unfamiliar otherness.
Julian
Yes, Hui Neng too was single and, relatively,
rich (10 taels of Silver) before he did a runner.
liaM
What's your point ? Is there something wrong about being rich !?
liaM
>
> It was only a deeply disturbing crisis in my life that gave me
> a hint of anything different, and the power to persevere into
> an unfamiliar otherness.
>
>
Amen!
Julian
No, being rich is quite useful when it comes to
getting ones family off ones back.
liaM
> liaM <cud...@mindless.com> writes:
>
>> So Chuang Tzu has his Francis Bacon, has he !?
>
> Sort of. Except it was Charles Lamb, not Chuang Tzu. And it was roasted
> pork, not Francis Bacon.
>
> Lee Rudolph
Ah! Wasn't it Mu Shu pork (shredded, w/hoi sin sauce and scallions) ?
You should know. Some of the best restaurants are in Boston Chinatown.
Lee Rudolph
>One of my very favorite publishers, and quite a bit more sophisticated
>than most.
Sophisticated? They don't accept manuscripts in LaTeX; but they *will*
accept manuscripts in WordStar.
http://www.routledge-ny.com/common/generic/routledge/pdf/authorinstructions.pdf
Lee Rudolph
Tara
Sheesh! the things they had to do to get that wisdom, eh? poor buggers!
tara
Tara
> Le 13/08/2009 05:09, Tara a �crit :
>>> I think you put much too much emphasis on "love" not that I object ;)
>>
>> Maybe because I was brought up to believe that Jesus taught love and
>> that "God" is love. I have gone full circle over the years and have come
>> back to a simple - Love is the answer, love is all there is.
>> And that's enough for me now.
>
> ok
>
>
>>>
>>> But freedom to me is much more untied to emotions related to events like
>>> copulation, having kids, marriages and couples growing old together.
>>> Freedom to me relates to natural phenomena such as the wind,
>>> river-runs.. being one with the flow, letting it blow where it may.
>>
>> So freedom is subjective, eh. Which means that there is no real freedom.
>>>
>
> sartre and buddha disagree with you ;)
Do they really. ;)
Tara
>>> their kids, leaving the keys to their wives to be free to travel
>>> through China visiting well known beauty spots and temples where
>>> sages hold court. They thus completed their journey through life.
>>
>>
>> kids" But what does that have to do with now and dis investing?
>>
>> I don't see what that has to do with what Tang answered?
>>
>>>
>>> children, to which they might (or might not) return.
>>
>>
>> better....then
>>
>>>
>>> upon. Men, especially in America, are tied to powerful umbilical
>>> chains. This is why I especially enjoy looking at engravings showing
>>> Chinese men of letters. Their robes seem like clouds lifted by
>>> gentle winds.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> tara
>
> yeah, probably just rising billows of gas from their bloated egos.
>
> Robert
>
> - - - - - - - -
hahaha When I read: "Their robes seem like clouds lifted by
gentle winds." that was the picture I had of them: billows of hot air.
lol
herbzet
Keynes wrote:
> When you think of it, the 'holy life' is an alternative for the
> deeply troubled who have an uncommon outlook on 'normalcy'.
This is uncommon common sense.
> Unless one can turn his back on ordinary self and family concerns
> what can he hope to ever accomplish in a different milieu?
>
> It was only a deeply disturbing crisis in my life that gave me
> a hint of anything different, and the power to persevere into
> an unfamiliar otherness.
That sounds like a very personal story. Do you think there's
a screenplay in there somewhere?
--
hz
zenworm
> > children, to which they might (or might not) return.
>
> > upon. Men, especially in America, are tied to powerful umbilical
> > chains. This is why I especially enjoy looking at engravings showing
> > Chinese men of letters. Their robes seem like clouds lifted by
> > gentle winds.
>
>
> >>> Tang Huyen
>
> always nice to have a male-dominated culture where the women "are free
> to wander" after the man takes off. From Gautama to the present, these
> happy men can wander where they will, have a second career and leave
> wife and children behind. I say 'fuck 'em'. You think we are
> constipated? I think the urge to take off and leave your family behind,
> or to see compassion as a disease, is sociopathic. Not giving a shit
> about other people is nothing to brag about, and is no sign of freedom,
> just pure assholiness.
>
> men chatting and joking as they walked down the road. A few steps
> behind, their wives, covered in hot robes, carried hundreds of pounds of
> junk on their heads, while the men had a party. Oh happy men, who can
> ignore the suffering of their wives and not even lift a finger to help.
>
> Here in the U.S. and in Europe, we are not quite so overt. Up to 50% of
> the men in our culture wait until they're behind closed doors and then
> beat the shit out of their wives. You think that's pretty cool?
>
> Robert
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Do you resent sharing the earth with these "assholes"?
or do you resent their freedom to break rules you
are constrained by yourself never to transgress?
Or is this ranting a way of saying you are superior?
Or perhaps something else?
One way to ‘check’ for egocentrism is to ask:
“Am I using this emotionalism to help affect a
solution/resolution to the situation/problem/condition?”.
If yes - there tends to be a selfless rejuvenating
quality to the interaction. (love/compassion?)
If no – there tends to be a fatiguing
heaviness/resentment quality to the interaction.
Can you see this here?
Tools for serenity?
ZN
Keynes
Probably not.
I mentioned it to hint that just going merrily along
as usual generally will not get one out of the woods.
zenworm
>
> - Show quoted text -
the image of Marylin Monroe holding down her white dress...
ZN
herbzet
Keynes wrote:
OK -- not that I'm not intrigued.
--
hz
Tara
close but her hot air wasn't coming from herself.
>
> ZN
Kitty P
"Julian" <julia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:QsCdnXCKP__iTh7X...@bt.com...
Which is at least one great example of freedom rarely being
actually...well...free.
Lee Rudolph
>hahaha When I read: "Their robes seem like clouds lifted by
> gentle winds." that was the picture I had of them: billows of hot air.
Marilyn Monroe in _The Seven Year Itch_.
Lee Rudolph
daletx
>> their kids, leaving the keys to their wives to be free to travel
>> through China visiting well known beauty spots and temples where sages
>> hold court. They thus completed their journey through life.
>>
>> This in no way negated their love for their concubines and their
>> children, to which they might (or might not) return.
>>
>> In the west we are much more constipated. Such things are looked down
>> upon. Men, especially in America, are tied to powerful umbilical
>> chains. This is why I especially enjoy looking at engravings showing
>> gentle winds.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tara
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tang Huyen
>>>>
>
>
> always nice to have a male-dominated culture where the women "are free
> to wander" after the man takes off. From Gautama to the present, these
> happy men can wander where they will, have a second career and leave
> wife and children behind. I say 'fuck 'em'. You think we are
> constipated? I think the urge to take off and leave your family behind,
> or to see compassion as a disease, is sociopathic. Not giving a shit
> about other people is nothing to brag about, and is no sign of freedom,
> just pure assholiness.
>
> men chatting and joking as they walked down the road. A few steps
> behind, their wives, covered in hot robes, carried hundreds of pounds of
> junk on their heads, while the men had a party. Oh happy men, who can
> ignore the suffering of their wives and not even lift a finger to help.
>
> Here in the U.S. and in Europe, we are not quite so overt. Up to 50% of
> the men in our culture wait until they're behind closed doors and then
> beat the shit out of their wives. You think that's pretty cool?
Nope. I'd sure like to know where you got that statistic, though.
DT
daletx
And they haven't updated their instruction in eight years!
DT
liaM
a jock strap
Sevenhundred Elves
wrote:
Don't you think that the man who doesn't beat his wife or treat her
like a beast of burden really is superior to the one who does?
S.
zenworm
wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 05:37:32 -0700 (PDT), zenworm <zensp...@gmail.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The need to be superior is part of the delusion
by which people justify harming people
as is taking offence
ZN
Sevenhundred Elves
wrote:
>On Aug 14, 3:41�am, Sevenhundred Elves <sevenhund...@elves.invalid>
>The need to be superior is part of the delusion
>
>by which people justify harming people
>
>as is taking offence
>
>ZN
Aha. It might perhaps be as you say, and, as you imply, there may also
be other reasons why men abuse women. However, I wasn't talking about
any "need to be superior", I just meant it as a real question about
who actually IS morally superior, someone who beats or abuses his wife
or someone who doesn't. Simple question, really. But maybe you have
some good reason for not wishing to answer that question. I will not
pry any further.
Besides, don't you think that there may be cases when "the need to be
superior" might work the other way around, causing people NOT to harm
each other? For instance: If you feel morally superior when you find
it in you to forgive your enemies rather than have your vengeance on
them, wouldn't then a "need to be superior" cause you to actually
AVOID harming people, i. e. the total opposite of what you stated
above?
Maybe things aren't always as easy and clearcut as they seem to you at
first?
S.
Tang Huyen
Kitty P wrote:
> "Julian"
>
> > No, being rich is quite useful when it comes to
> > getting ones family off ones back.
>
> Which is at least one great example of freedom
> rarely being actually...well...free.
If you are discussing lifestyles, fine. If you are
discussing mental culture, it is very misguided and
misdirected. Mental culture has little to do with
wealth and intelligence. One needs only to calm
oneself further and further, drop further and further,
or just relax and be serene, etc. It takes nothing,
and it's free.
Tang Huyen