What would a Taoist call somebody ... ?
kam...@netplace.de
No, to say he would not is not acceptable. It is naiv to
believe that a Taoist is or has to be an angel. Tao is only
harmonic in it's completeness, in its balance of tensions
and polarities. A Taoist is never more than a local
phenomena.
I would like serious answers to a serious question ;-)
So, what would a Taoist call somebody (at best in a single
word) he considered to be an asshole, a plague, a conceited
(smug, egotistical, self-important, complacent, self-
satisfied) teenager (even if he's perhaps 80 years old),
who hasn't at least got a little bit of good style?
... Kamilo
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Nathan Engle
Sigh. If you insist.
> So, what would a Taoist call somebody (at best in a single
> word) he considered to be an asshole, a plague, a conceited
> (smug, egotistical, self-important, complacent, self-
> satisfied) teenager (even if he's perhaps 80 years old),
> who hasn't at least got a little bit of good style?
No wait, I know this one... "Dennis Rodman", right?
--
Nathan Engle Electron Juggler
Indiana University Dept of Psychology
nen...@indiana.edu http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~nengle
"Some Assembly Required"
Miller Jew
ref: Subject: Re: What would a Taoist call somebody ... ?
>kam...@netplace.de wrote:
> I would like serious answers to a serious question ;-)
>>Sigh. If you insist.
> So, what would a Taoist call somebody (at best in a single
> word) he considered to be an asshole, a plague, a conceited
> (smug, egotistical, self-important, complacent, self-
> satisfied) teenager (even if he's perhaps 80 years old),
> who hasn't at least got a little bit of good style?
>>No wait, I know this one... "Dennis Rodman", right?
=====================
ROTFL!
-Z
---------
>>Nathan Engle Electron Juggler
>>Indiana University Dept of Psychology
>>nen...@indiana.edu http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~nengle
>>"Some Assembly Required"
ref: Subject: Re: What would a Taoist call somebody ... ?
>kam...@netplace.de wrote:
> I would like serious answers to a serious question ;-)
>>Sigh. If you insist.
> So, what would a Taoist call somebody (at best in a single
> word) he considered to be an asshole, a plague, a conceited
> (smug, egotistical, self-important, complacent, self-
> satisfied) teenager (even if he's perhaps 80 years old),
> who hasn't at least got a little bit of good style?
>>No wait, I know this one... "Dennis Rodman", right?
=====================
ROTFL!
-Z
---------
sabutin
kam...@netplace.de wrote:
---snipp---
>I would like serious answers to a serious question ;-)
>So, what would a Taoist call somebody (at best in a single
>word) he considered to be an asshole, a plague, a conceited
>(smug, egotistical, self-important, complacent, self-
>satisfied) teenager (even if he's perhaps 80 years old),
>who hasn't at least got a little bit of good style?
> ... Kamilo
=================================
Self.
BAXDRUM
Unfortunately, Taoists are not perfect. As a person who tries to live as
closely to the precepts of Taoism as possible, when I encounter someone
who is an asshole, I still label them an asshole. Not a perfect asshole
mind you, because no one is perfect.
Bruce
Johnny
why is it people believe that a taoist can never get angry
or impatient or tired of other peoples shit? if you think
someone is an asshole, then you think someone is an asshole.
k...@springhaven.org
being such, who can say what any given taoist would say?
not being universal, it is difficult to make a universal
blanket statement about a taoist.
> So, what would a Taoist call somebody (at best in a single
> word) he considered to be an asshole, a plague, a conceited
> (smug, egotistical, self-important, complacent, self-
> satisfied) teenager (even if he's perhaps 80 years old),
> who hasn't at least got a little bit of good style?
depends on the taoist i would think.
the perception of who is or isn't an "asshole"
or "plague" or "conceited...." or "teenager"
or lacking in "good style"
is rather subjective.
like the taoist these perceptions are a local phenomena.
* * *
what is a taoist?
who is a taoist?
you mean people who try to follow the tao?
is there only one way to do this?
peter li'ir key
k...@springhaven.org
sabutin
bax...@aol.com (BAXDRUM) wrote:
>Bruce
=============================
As long as you can resist the tempation to DISLIKE the asshole,
wish the asshole WASN't such an asshole, as long as you can
remember that the asshole has a necessary function in the grand scheme
of things, THEN you approach a correct view of the situation.
Can you do that? Consistently?
S.
P.S. Everyone (and everything) is perfect.
Including the above mentioned perfect asshole.
And yourself.
sabutin
Johnny <joh...@b-goode.net> wrote:
=======================
Why?
Because all those emotional reactions are implicit criticisms of the
net result of the evolution of the universe up to that particular
time. Recognize an asshole, yes, but also recognize that in
criticizing or wishing in some way for that asshole to be different,
you are looking at ALL of creation up to that split second of thought
and saying "You've been WRONG to create this creature in this way; I
know better."
A large antagonist to take on, the universe...and not much chance
of any success in the endeavor.
S.
P.S. A good hunter kills the tiger, if need be, but without hate or
fear.
WellBeing
>P.S. Everyone (and everything) is perfect.
> Including the above mentioned perfect asshole.
> And yourself.
So then. IMO it's time to dismiss perfection as a state that has any
more meaning or value than any other...
I'd be interested in meeting the perfect asshole. Then I could be
perfectly certain that he'd understand (perfectly) my perfect
kiss-off. What a dream come true!
WellBeing
Johnny
I hate turnips, does that mean that I'm confronting the
evolution of the universe?
I don't expect anybody to change because I dont like their
personality, I just avoid them. I still respect the fact
that they are human beings but I just prefer not to be in
their company.
sabutin
Johnny <joh...@b-goode.net> wrote:
>I hate turnips, does that mean that I'm confronting the
>evolution of the universe?
==================================
Yup.
Don't eat them...that's one thing.
Hate them...that's entirely something else.
S.
Magoo
kam...@netplace.de wrote:
>
> No, to say he would not is not acceptable. It is naiv to
> believe that a Taoist is or has to be an angel. Tao is only
> harmonic in it's completeness, in its balance of tensions
> phenomena.
>
>
> word) he considered to be an asshole, a plague, a conceited
> (smug, egotistical, self-important, complacent, self-
> satisfied) teenager (even if he's perhaps 80 years old),
> who hasn't at least got a little bit of good style?
>
>
Novice
.....Magoo
Steve Carter
kam...@netplace.de wrote:
~ So, what would a Taoist call somebody (at best in a single
~ word) he considered to be an asshole, a plague, a conceited
~ (smug, egotistical, self-important, complacent, self-
~ satisfied) teenager (even if he's perhaps 80 years old),
~ who hasn't at least got a little bit of good style?
Depends on what their name is... !?
-------------------------------------
Steve Carter, shc...@york.ac.uk, http://www.york.ac.uk/~shc103
"I'm an ex-citizen of nowhere,
and sometimes I get mighty homesick."
- Ben Rumson in Paint Your Wagon
JadelNTao
Kamilo:
~ So, what would a Taoist call somebody (at best in a single
~ word) he considered to be an asshole, a plague, a conceited
~ (smug, egotistical, self-important, complacent, self-
~ satisfied) teenager (even if he's perhaps 80 years old),
~ who hasn't at least got a little bit of good style?
Steve:
Depends on what their name is... !?
chuckling and chortling--BEST ONE YET!!!!!!!
Martin S. Stoller
>
>
> -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Nothing. I will not waste my time with such a person, unless
I happen to feel I can show them the way to become less of
a "whatever".
--
Toodely Toot!
***************************************
* Martin S. Stoller *
* Dial Computer Club Basel, Schweiz *
* ma...@datanetworks.ch *
***************************************
A sig is but a reflection of the soul...
WellBeing
On 19 Feb 1997 00:55:28 GMT, Johnny <joh...@b-goode.net> (Johnny)
expressed the following viewpoint(s):
>let's cut the over-intellectualizations of the creationary
>cosmos evolutionary.... whatever!
>
>if a taoist thinks someone is an asshole, then a taoist
>thinks someone is an asshole. yes they still treat the
>asshole according to their beliefs in taoism, but it doesn't
>change the fact that they think the person is an asshole.
>
>The word hate may not be politically correct enough for you
>so maybe we should use dislike. it seems odd that its ok to
>use the word love in this ng, but the word hate is
>completely frowned upon. it is just as bad to be controlled
>and consumed by love as it is by hate, it being the
>opposite, but equally strong emotion. any person who denies
>that they have these feelings is in for some serious trouble
>in their lives.
I propose that love and fear are opposites, to a taoist.
>
>we see one thing as beautiful, only because we see another
>thing as ugly.
... the point being that beauty drives envy and desire...
>
>love and hate
>like and dislike
certainty and confusion...
>kind and unkind
benevolence and selfishness...
>this and that
us and them, and we...
>yes and no
harmony and conflict...
>etc.
>etc.
As you see-- what is the shape of your yin~ yang?
WellBeing
Peter Merel
kam...@netplace.de writes:
>So, what would a Taoist call somebody (at best in a single
>word) he considered to be an asshole, a plague, a conceited
>(smug, egotistical, self-important, complacent, self-
>satisfied) teenager (even if he's perhaps 80 years old),
>who hasn't at least got a little bit of good style?
Depends on the effect the taoist was after. Remember: where the brave and
bold perish, the brave and subtle profit. A little subtlety goes a long
way, especially when dealing with dipshits.
--
| mailto:pe...@zip.com.au | pgp DB 3A A3 D8 A7 6A BB 25 EF 2E F4 A4 8F 29 BB E2 |
| http://www.zip.com.au/~pete/ | Give away what you don't need. |
Steven Ericsson Zenith
kam...@netplace.de wrote in article <8559879...@dejanews.com>...
> No, to say he would not is not acceptable. It is naiv to
> believe that a Taoist is or has to be an angel. Tao is only
> harmonic in it's completeness, in its balance of tensions
> and polarities. A Taoist is never more than a local
> phenomena.
>
> I would like serious answers to a serious question ;-)
>
> So, what would a Taoist call somebody (at best in a single
> word) he considered to be an asshole, a plague, a conceited
> (smug, egotistical, self-important, complacent, self-
> satisfied) teenager (even if he's perhaps 80 years old),
> who hasn't at least got a little bit of good style?
Any of the above works perfectly well; i.e., an asshole, a plague, a
conceited la de da ... English seems to work just fine - I can find a few
more besides ;-)
Steven
--
Steven Ericsson Zenith - mailto:ste...@thetemple.com
The Temple of the Immortal Spirit - The Western TAOIST -
http://www.thetemple.com/
Johnny
let's cut the over-intellectualizations of the creationary
cosmos evolutionary.... whatever!
if a taoist thinks someone is an asshole, then a taoist
thinks someone is an asshole. yes they still treat the
asshole according to their beliefs in taoism, but it doesn't
change the fact that they think the person is an asshole.
The word hate may not be politically correct enough for you
so maybe we should use dislike. it seems odd that its ok to
use the word love in this ng, but the word hate is
completely frowned upon. it is just as bad to be controlled
and consumed by love as it is by hate, it being the
opposite, but equally strong emotion. any person who denies
that they have these feelings is in for some serious trouble
in their lives.
we see one thing as beautiful, only because we see another
thing as ugly.
love and hate
like and dislike
kind and unkind
this and that
yes and no
etc.
etc.
Miller Jew
Re: What would a Taoist call somebody ... ?
>let's cut the over-intellectualizations of the creationary
>cosmos evolutionary.... whatever!
>if a taoist thinks someone is an asshole, then a taoist
>thinks someone is an asshole. yes they still treat the
>asshole according to their beliefs in taoism, but it doesn't
>change the fact that they think the person is an asshole.
>The word hate may not be politically correct enough for you
>so maybe we should use dislike. it seems odd that its ok to
>use the word love in this ng, but the word hate is
>completely frowned upon. it is just as bad to be controlled
>and consumed by love as it is by hate, it being the
>opposite, but equally strong emotion. any person who denies
>that they have these feelings is in for some serious trouble
>in their lives.
==========================
No. We're not denying your emotions nor disallowing you from penting
them up for discussing the love facet of taoism In fact, feel free,
let it loose, goforit; *beat-up* your monitor...
EVERYBODY GET-BACK !!!
--Zhou
sabutin
Peter Merel <pe...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>kam...@netplace.de writes:
>>So, what would a Taoist call somebody (at best in a single
>>word) he considered to be an asshole, a plague, a conceited
>>(smug, egotistical, self-important, complacent, self-
>>satisfied) teenager (even if he's perhaps 80 years old),
>>who hasn't at least got a little bit of good style?
>Depends on the effect the taoist was after. Remember: where the brave and
>bold perish, the brave and subtle profit. A little subtlety goes a long
>way, especially when dealing with dipshits.
================================
A first !!!
Dipshit + subtle in the same paragraph !!!
Y'see, the problem lies in how to stop critcizing the universe, and
the identification of ANYONE as a "dipshit", at least within your own
being, immediately precludes that possibility.
AFTER you succeed in stopping that kind of inner identification,
(Good luck; very few ever do...) MAYBE there MIGHT be a situation
somewhere, sometime, where the word use of the word "dipshit" might
be a tactical necessity, but as soon as you believe it within
yourself, any chance of being at one with the rest of creation is
lost.
Nice effect, though...
S.
Alaric
Rick Joseph wrote:
>
> In article <5ef88r$q...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
> sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >Peter Merel <pe...@zip.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >>kam...@netplace.de writes:
> >
> >>>So, what would a Taoist call somebody (at best in a single
> >>>word) he considered to be an asshole, a plague, a conceited
> >>>(smug, egotistical, self-important, complacent, self-
> >>>satisfied) teenager (even if he's perhaps 80 years old),
> >>>who hasn't at least got a little bit of good style?
> >
> >>Depends on the effect the taoist was after. Remember: where the brave and
> >>bold perish, the brave and subtle profit. A little subtlety goes a long
> >>way, especially when dealing with dipshits.
> >
> >================================
> > A first !!!
> >
> > Dipshit + subtle in the same paragraph !!!
> >
> > Y'see, the problem lies in how to stop critcizing the universe, and
> >the identification of ANYONE as a "dipshit", at least within your own
> >being, immediately precludes that possibility.
> >
>
> > AFTER you succeed in stopping that kind of inner identification,
>
It is a dipshits nature to be a dipshit. That is their way. No need to
lower oneself by engaging in name calling.
Alaric
tnbs...@wt.net
li
Johnny wrote:
>
> let's cut the over-intellectualizations of the creationary
> cosmos evolutionary.... whatever!
>
> if a taoist thinks someone is an asshole, then a taoist
> thinks someone is an asshole. yes they still treat the
> asshole according to their beliefs in taoism, but it doesn't
> change the fact that they think the person is an asshole.
>
> The word hate may not be politically correct enough for you
> so maybe we should use dislike. it seems odd that its ok to
> use the word love in this ng, but the word hate is
> completely frowned upon. it is just as bad to be controlled
> and consumed by love as it is by hate, it being the
> opposite, but equally strong emotion. any person who denies
> that they have these feelings is in for some serious trouble
> in their lives.
>
> thing as ugly.
>
> love and hate
> like and dislike
> kind and unkind
> this and that
> yes and no
> etc.
> etc.
=====================
johnny b goode, you be so baaaad!
you have a valid point.
i sorta love you and sorta hate you, but not too much of either.
there!
blah blah blah.
read something on another list yesterday that balance is
B-O-R-I-N-G
whassup with that?
li
sabutin
r_jo...@ix.netcom.comX (Rick Joseph) wrote:
>In article <5ef88r$q...@camel1.mindspring.com>,
>sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>Peter Merel <pe...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>kam...@netplace.de writes:
>>
>>>>So, what would a Taoist call somebody (at best in a single
>>>>word) he considered to be an asshole, a plague, a conceited
>>>>(smug, egotistical, self-important, complacent, self-
>>>>satisfied) teenager (even if he's perhaps 80 years old),
>>>>who hasn't at least got a little bit of good style?
>>
>>>Depends on the effect the taoist was after. Remember: where the brave and
>>>bold perish, the brave and subtle profit. A little subtlety goes a long
>>>way, especially when dealing with dipshits.
>>
>>================================
>> A first !!!
>>
>> Dipshit + subtle in the same paragraph !!!
>>
>> Y'see, the problem lies in how to stop critcizing the universe, and
>>the identification of ANYONE as a "dipshit", at least within your own
>>being, immediately precludes that possibility.
>>
>Right. Nothing a frontal lobotome can't cure.
>> AFTER you succeed in stopping that kind of inner identification,
>You're joking, right?
>--
>Rick Joseph
>r_jo...@ix.netcom.comX
>To email me, remove the X
=============================
You're joking about me joking, right?
S.
Peter Merel
sab...@mindspring.com wrote:
>Peter Merel <pe...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Depends on the effect the taoist was after. Remember: where the brave and
>>bold perish, the brave and subtle profit. A little subtlety goes a long
>>way, especially when dealing with dipshits.
>
>================================
> A first !!!
>
> Dipshit + subtle in the same paragraph !!!
Surely not a first, but I'm glad you get a bang out of it.
> Y'see, the problem lies in how to stop critcizing the universe, and
>the identification of ANYONE as a "dipshit", at least within your own
>being, immediately precludes that possibility.
I don't see why a taoist would prefer not to criticize the universe. All
experiences are only abstractions, so why pick and choose?
ObMetaphor: experiencing is like dancing; a good dancer doesn't try to
advance or to retreat, but to accept his partner. If he ignores his
partner's dance, he's not dancing: he's shoving. Or being shoved.
sabutin
Peter Merel <pe...@zip.com.au wrote:
===snip===
>> Y'see, the problem lies in how to stop critcizing the universe, and
>>the identification of ANYONE as a "dipshit", at least within your own
>>being, immediately precludes that possibility.
>I don't see why a taoist would prefer not to criticize the universe. All
>experiences are only abstractions, so why pick and choose?
====snip=======
Do not criticize...neither the universe, nor the banana peel upon
which you slip, nor yourself for slipping.
(Easier said than done.)
S.
Nathan Engle
Johnny wrote:
> let's cut the over-intellectualizations of the creationary
> cosmos evolutionary.... whatever!
Where do you think you are, guy?
> it seems odd that its ok to use the word love in this ng,
> but the word hate is completely frowned upon.
Yeah, we really hate it. Oh... ooops. Sorry.
Sorry gang.
> it is just as bad to be controlled and consumed by love as
> it is by hate
Well ok, if you say so. Personally if I had my druthers
I'd much rather live next door to the guy consumed by love.
> it being the
> opposite, but equally strong emotion. any person who denies
> that they have these feelings is in for some serious trouble
> in their lives.
I've got news for you, guy. Ain't none of us gonna get
through this life without a *lot* of serious trouble.
> we see one thing as beautiful, only because we see another
> thing as ugly.
Probably correct, but I'm afraid I'm not quite ready to
give up stealing peeks at beautiful things quite yet. I
would certainly agree that the distinction only arises out
of arbitrary preferences, but I also think that preferences
are just as real as anything else in this world.
--
Harry Flashman
Nathan Engle (nen...@indiana.edu) wrote:
: Well ok, if you say so. Personally if I had my druthers
: I'd much rather live next door to the guy consumed by love.
Until he flips out from unrequited love and ends up on his roof with a
magnum.
: I've got news for you, guy. Ain't none of us gonna get
: through this life without a *lot* of serious trouble.
A lot? Depends on what you consider "trouble". some people try not to let
things bothers them, and guess what? if you ask them, they thing life is
pretty trouble free.
: Probably correct, but I'm afraid I'm not quite ready to
: give up stealing peeks at beautiful things quite yet. I
: would certainly agree that the distinction only arises out
: of arbitrary preferences, but I also think that preferences
: are just as real as anything else in this world.
Beauty is stil in the eyes of the beholder though. To label something as
beautiful is to define it, and to create the concept that somethings are
more beautiful then others. However, Chuang Tsu reminds us...
`There lives a women who all men say is the most beautiful woman in the
land. Yet, the birds still fly away when she approaches and the fish still
swim away when they see her shadow pass by.'
Beauty is relative, therefore the label becomes meaningless. Perhaps not
the appreciataion, but it is by no means universal.
Scott
Johnny
I think I owe sabutin an apology. I did not mean to be so
over-enthusiastic, or to insult, injure or otherwise
disrespect you or your opinions. shall we say, open mouth,
insert foot?
Nathan Engle
Harry Flashman wrote:
> Nathan Engle (nen...@indiana.edu) wrote:
> : Well ok, if you say so. Personally if I had my druthers
> : I'd much rather live next door to the guy consumed by love.
> Until he flips out from unrequited love and ends up on his roof with a
> magnum.
Hmmm, that doesn't sound much like love to me. I dunno what
you've heard about Indiana, but while it's true that we do have a
trade surplus of loonies I think it also bears remembering that we
aren't all armed loonies.
> : I've got news for you, guy. Ain't none of us gonna get
> : through this life without a *lot* of serious trouble.
> A lot? Depends on what you consider "trouble". some people try not to let
> things bothers them, and guess what? if you ask them, they thing life is
> pretty trouble free.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable limiting the investigation to spoken
testimonials of the living. Dead men tell no tales.
> : Probably correct, but I'm afraid I'm not quite ready to
> : give up stealing peeks at beautiful things quite yet. I
> : would certainly agree that the distinction only arises out
> : of arbitrary preferences, but I also think that preferences
> : are just as real as anything else in this world.
> Beauty is stil in the eyes of the beholder though. To label something as
> beautiful is to define it, and to create the concept that somethings are
> more beautiful then others.
Right, I'm aware of that but on reflection I've come to the
conclusion that the fact that preferences are arbitrary need not
necessarily deter us from having preferences. It's reasonable
to bear in mind that the preference is arbitrary, but when the
waitress is standing there waiting for you to place your order
it's possible that she might not share your admiration for
philosophical ambivalence. Just get the tofuburger for cryin'
out loud.
> However, Chuang Tsu reminds us...
>
> `There lives a women who all men say is the most beautiful woman in the
> land. Yet, the birds still fly away when she approaches and the fish still
> swim away when they see her shadow pass by.'
Right, although not noted for High Intelligence those birds
and fish still have the advantage of keeping their brains in their
heads rather than in their trousers.
> Beauty is relative, therefore the label becomes meaningless. Perhaps not
> the appreciataion, but it is by no means universal.
Ah, but I never claimed that beauty was universal, only that
it's reasonable for each person to accept and embrace their own
preferences (even while bearing in mind that the preferences are
arbitrary). "Beauty" as a label is NOT meaningless - it might
very well be personal and relative, but it is not meaningless.
Peters...@worldnet.att.net
Cosmic Coincidence center dropped me onto this posting.
k...@springhaven.org wrote:
> not being universal, it is difficult to make a universal
> blanket statement about a taoist.
>
> > word) he considered to be an asshole, a plague, a conceited
> > (smug, egotistical, self-important, complacent, self-
> > satisfied) teenager (even if he's perhaps 80 years old),
> > who hasn't at least got a little bit of good style?
>
>
> the perception of who is or isn't an "asshole"
> or "plague" or "conceited...." or "teenager"
> or lacking in "good style"
> is rather subjective.
>
> like the taoist these perceptions are a local phenomena.
>
> * * *
>
> what is a taoist?
> who is a taoist?
>
> you mean people who try to follow the tao?
> is there only one way to do this?
>
> peter li'ir key
> k...@springhaven.org
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
I usually for economy would just call someone who was all that an
"ASSHOLE":):):):)
Bill
--
* *
* * *
* <|
|
* /|\
* / | \
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
<| / | \
| / | \
/| / T-27 | \
/ | / | \
/ | / 3 | \
/ | / | \
/ | / | \
/ | / | \
/ | / | \
/ | / | \
/ | /_________________| \
/_________| --------------|_______ \
____| [ 0 0 o \ \
\ |===========================================?
~~~~~ \ / ~~
~~~~~~~~|_____________________________________________/ ~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[[ ENCHANTED FLING ]]
Markus
---snip---
> > SCOTT WROTE
> > Beauty is stil in the eyes of the beholder though. To label something
as
> > beautiful is to define it, and to create the concept that somethings
are
> > more beautiful then others.
> NATHAN REPLIED
> Right, I'm aware of that but on reflection I've come to the
> conclusion that the fact that preferences are arbitrary need not
> necessarily deter us from having preferences. It's reasonable
> to bear in mind that the preference is arbitrary, but when the
> waitress is standing there waiting for you to place your order
> it's possible that she might not share your admiration for
> philosophical ambivalence. Just get the tofuburger for cryin'
> out loud.
Sorry Scott, have to give this one to Nathan.
ROTFL Nathan! What ever you do don't loose that sense of humor!
Markus
Markus
WellBeing <ster...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote in article
<330a78b6...@news.ucs.ubc.ca>...
> On 19 Feb 1997 00:55:28 GMT, Johnny <joh...@b-goode.net> (Johnny)
> expressed the following viewpoint(s):
>
> >let's cut the over-intellectualizations of the creationary
> >cosmos evolutionary.... whatever!
> >
> >if a taoist thinks someone is an asshole, then a taoist
> >thinks someone is an asshole. yes they still treat the
> >asshole according to their beliefs in taoism, but it doesn't
> >change the fact that they think the person is an asshole.
> >
> >The word hate may not be politically correct enough for you
> >so maybe we should use dislike. it seems odd that its ok to
> >use the word love in this ng, but the word hate is
> >completely frowned upon. it is just as bad to be controlled
> >and consumed by love as it is by hate, it being the
> >opposite, but equally strong emotion. any person who denies
> >that they have these feelings is in for some serious trouble
> >in their lives.
>
> I propose that love and fear are opposites, to a taoist.
>
> >
> >we see one thing as beautiful, only because we see another
> >thing as ugly.
>
> ... the point being that beauty drives envy and desire...
>
> >
> >love and hate
>
> >like and dislike
>
> certainty and confusion...
>
> >kind and unkind
>
> benevolence and selfishness...
>
> >this and that
>
> us and them, and we...
>
> >yes and no
>
> harmony and conflict...
>
> >etc.
> >etc.
>
> As you see-- what is the shape of your yin~ yang?
>
> WellBeing
Well said.......WellBeing!
Is LOVE the extreme or the perfect balance?
Markus
Peter Merel
sab...@mindspring.com (sabutin) writes:
>>I don't see why a taoist would prefer not to criticize the universe. All
>>experiences are only abstractions, so why pick and choose?
>====snip=======
> Do not criticize...neither the universe, nor the banana peel upon
>which you slip, nor yourself for slipping.
Nor yourself for criticizing? Look at it another way: the world and the
self are one, so denying any shapes or colours that occur in the world
is just denying a part of yourself. Even when the shapes are ugly
and the colours dark.
Accepting seems a lot easier than not criticizing.
rcma...@netcom.com
In <01bc212b$236408c0$LocalHost@quantex1>, "Markus" <Markus....@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>
>Is LOVE the extreme or the perfect balance?
>
>Markus
>
>
There is love and then there is Love. Not the same thing at all.
Rosemarie
rcma...@netcom.com
In <5eobvq$o...@the-fly.zip.com.au>, Peter Merel <pe...@zip.com.au> writes:
>
>Accepting seems a lot easier than not criticizing.
>
>--
Actually, we do not really have to accept, only to 'allow'.
Rosemarie
Markus
> >Is LOVE the extreme or the perfect balance?
> >
> >Markus
> >
> >
>
> There is love and then there is Love. Not the same thing at all.
> Rosemarie
Yes.....and there is lOve and loVe and lovE and LOve and loVE and LoVe
and lOvE and LovE and lOVe and LOVe and lOVE.
And then there is LOVE......the perfect balance! :-}
When asked about his premises the Q replied,
"Silly human....I make them up as I go!"
MarKus
sabutin
Johnny <joh...@b-goode.net> wrote:
-----------------------------
I took no offense.
Didn't hate it at all.
S.
sabutin
Johnny <joh...@b-goode.net> wrote:
>let's cut the over-intellectualizations of the creationary
>cosmos evolutionary.... whatever!
>if a taoist thinks someone is an asshole, then a taoist
>thinks someone is an asshole. yes they still treat the
>asshole according to their beliefs in taoism, but it doesn't
>change the fact that they think the person is an asshole.
>The word hate may not be politically correct enough for you
>so maybe we should use dislike. it seems odd that its ok to
>use the word love in this ng, but the word hate is
>completely frowned upon. it is just as bad to be controlled
>and consumed by love as it is by hate, it being the
>opposite, but equally strong emotion. any person who denies
>that they have these feelings is in for some serious trouble
>in their lives.
>we see one thing as beautiful, only because we see another
>thing as ugly.
>love and hate
>like and dislike
>kind and unkind
>this and that
>yes and no
>etc.
>etc.
====================
No.
We see one thing as beautiful,
And another thing as ugly,
Only because we do not see that they are both part of a greater
thing ,which is beautiful beyond description.
One who is "controlled and consumed" by love, by real, nonspecific,
unconditional love, is free of ALL this yes or no, hate or love
palaver.
Hard to achieve, but worth attempting.
S.
sabutin
Peter Merel <pe...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>sab...@mindspring.com (sabutin) writes:
>>>I don't see why a taoist would prefer not to criticize the universe. All
>>>experiences are only abstractions, so why pick and choose?
>>====snip=======
>> Do not criticize...neither the universe, nor the banana peel upon
>>which you slip, nor yourself for slipping.
>Nor yourself for criticizing? Look at it another way: the world and the
>self are one, so denying any shapes or colours that occur in the world
>is just denying a part of yourself. Even when the shapes are ugly
>and the colours dark.
>Accepting seems a lot easier than not criticizing.
=============
Accepting and not criticizing...
How are they different?
S.
Markus
sabutin <sab...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<5er74t$a...@camel4.mindspring.com>...
Bravo Sabutin! I give it two thumbs up! The love that comes not just from
glimpsing the the big picture but feeling it as well. Knowing we are part
of
the whole we call Tao.
Markus
Miller Jew
ref: Subject: Re: What would a Taoist call somebody ... ?
Johnny <joh...@b-goode.net> wrote:
sabutin <sab...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
Markus (Questor) wrote:
Johnny wrote:
> >let's cut the over-intellectualizations of the creationary
> >cosmos evolutionary.... whatever!
>
> ...snip...
> >we see one thing as beautiful, only because we see another
> >thing as ugly.
>
> >love and hate
> >like and dislike
> >kind and unkind
> >this and that
> >yes and no
> >etc.
> >etc.
Sabutin:
>
>No.
>
>We see one thing as beautiful,
>
>And another thing as ugly,
>
>Only because we do not see that they are both part of a greater
>thing, which is beautiful beyond description.
Certainly blissful. Yet in the beginning one has to take footsteps to
recognize that there is this dual aspect within one's greater "thing"
first, before there events a supercession. How do you know where to
see when you don't know where you where?
>One who is "controlled and consumed" by love, by real, nonspecific,
>unconditional love, is free of ALL this yes or no, hate or love
>palaver.
I would characterize this, within one's recognition, that empathy is
recognized and integrated within one's reasoning also. One is
consumed, yes, and yet in control of this consuming. Nonetheless, s/he
is free of ALL because s/he has understood that ALL are aspects of
one's reality.
>Hard to achieve, but worth attempting.
>
>S.
Certainly worth the attempt.
Markus:
>Bravo Sabutin! I give it two thumbs up! The love that comes not just
>from glimpsing the the big picture but feeling it as well. Knowing
>we are part of the whole we call Tao.
Yes feeling that whole Markus is part of that ardor. In addition
consciously identifying with it too. It's not enough just to feel it,
you have to know what it is you're feeling too. Or else you'll keep
trippin'.
Ouch! :)
--Zhou
Peter Merel
sab...@mindspring.com (sabutin) writes:
> Accepting and not criticizing...
> How are they different?
If you accept what's happening, you have to accept your own critical
thoughts. If you refrain from critical thought, you're not accepting
what's happening, and that'll make it hard for you to go with the flow.
Lao #32 notes:
The Way is shaped by use,
But then the shape is lost.
Do not hold fast to shapes
But let sensation flow into the world
As a river courses down to the sea.
If criticism is a shape, the application here, I guess, is not to do
without criticism, but to forgive.
sabutin
Peter Merel <pe...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>sab...@mindspring.com (sabutin) writes:
>> Accepting and not criticizing...
>> How are they different?
>If you accept what's happening, you have to accept your own critical
>thoughts. If you refrain from critical thought, you're not accepting
>what's happening, and that'll make it hard for you to go with the flow.
---snip---
====================
And here we (once again) run smack into the basic dichotomy of
binary thought.
ONE way to break up that massive mental logjam is to consider that
in any situation that seems to call for criticism (INCLUDING the
criticism of, the wish to do away with, the continuous stream of
criticism w/in), there exists an entire universe that has absolutely
no take on the matter one way or another. Everything else in the
infinite expanse of being is (almost) completely uninvolved with the
problem you may be having with a rude bus driver, your neglectful
spouse, dog shit on the sidewalk, or even your continuing, automatic
criticism of yourself, a concept which extends naturally to your
criticism of your own tendencies to habitually criticize.
One ( VERY difficult, VERY rarely achieved) step away, into a kind
of identification with everything else, INCLUDING that which is being
criticized (and that which is doing the criticizing), and critical
thought is IMMEDIATELY replaced by acceptance.
Until you step in the next pile of shit...then you have to start
all over again.
Repeated successful attempts to do this (and there are as many
"methods" to reach this point as there have been real teachers of
whatever this is we're all trying to figure out...so-called " Yogic"
approaches, Zen, Taoist methods, Sufism, 4th Way, religious
disciplines by the thousands...) eventually bring the person
attempting it to a state where there IS no "criticism", because there
is no "out there" to criticize.
Thus...
Accepting and not criticizing...
How CAN they be different?
S.
peter li'ir key
> > critical thoughts. If you refrain from critical thought,
> > you're not accepting what's happening, and that'll make
> > it hard for you to go with the flow.
the way of an encultured human is to use language.
language and culture are tied very strongly together.
to turn from one way to go to another, is this the
imperative of the tao-way?
the flow of man is to use all that he has,
be all that he is, all of himself.
limiting man to only a part of his totality
is natural, perhaps, but is to deny the
whole.
sabutin uses the following terms:
> "massive" "almost" "rude" "neglectful"
and sabutin later writes:
> eventually bring the person attempting it to a state
> where there IS no "criticism", because there
> is no "out there" to criticize.
the moment of criticism, critique begins when the whole
is divided into a "this" and "that".
this is more massive than that.
this is almost like that.
this was rude to that.
this was neglectful of that.
> Accepting and not criticizing...
> How CAN they be different?
"i" am accepting "that".
"i" am not criticizing "that".
both accepting and criticizing require a
"this" and "that".
but i assume that sabutin means "accepting into oneself"
or "unity with" by "accepting". in which case
then there is no "this"/"i" to critizie "that"/"not-i".
but "not criticizing" still seems to imply a "this"
and a "that".
after removing "this"/"i" and "that"/"not-i" then
you are left with "this"/"i" and "that"/"i".
that is to say, the cartesian "sum", the "i" that
perceives itself. "cogito ergo sum". "i perceive
myself thinking, therefore i exist." "i see me."
when all things are one (how taoist), there is nothing left
to see (how buddhist).
gate gate paragate boddhisvaha.
but so what? "i"'m still talking to "you".
what comes after? what's happening now?
Harry Flashman
Nathan Engle (nen...@indiana.edu) wrote:
: > Until he flips out from unrequited love and ends up on his roof with a
: > magnum.
:
: Hmmm, that doesn't sound much like love to me. I dunno what
: you've heard about Indiana, but while it's true that we do have a
: trade surplus of loonies I think it also bears remembering that we
: aren't all armed loonies.
You said "consumed with love". Anything consumed is destroyed. Even the
TTC says, "Only but not loving, can you truely show love." In my mind this
is a warning that being consumed is not beificial.
: I'm not sure I'm comfortable limiting the investigation to spoken
: testimonials of the living. Dead men tell no tales.
I do not understand the menaing of this comment.
: Right, I'm aware of that but on reflection I've come to the
: conclusion that the fact that preferences are arbitrary need not
: necessarily deter us from having preferences. It's reasonable
: to bear in mind that the preference is arbitrary, but when the
: waitress is standing there waiting for you to place your order
: it's possible that she might not share your admiration for
: philosophical ambivalence. Just get the tofuburger for cryin'
: out loud.
Is it true that she doens't share my preferences, or is it only that she
thinks her preferecnes are more important then mine. The danger in
preferences is when you assume they are important. Just because the
waitress can't wait to leave work because she wants to go out dancing,
dones't mean I have to hurry through a meal. She thinks her aggenda is
more important because they are hers, and she assumes that everyone would
feel the same. Haven't you ever noticed in stressful situations like this,
that people always blurt out, "But I have to be somewhere!" or "My girlfriend
is waiting! Hurry up!" as if there "preferecne" is going to be
universally understood in importance. It is a failure to see other's
preferences because you are blinded by your own.
Now on the other hand if nether she or I had aggendas, and didn't place
preferences on things. Then perhaps she would find we might actually have
a chance to get along and interact, outside of the patron/customer pidgeon
hole.
: Right, although not noted for High Intelligence those birds
: and fish still have the advantage of keeping their brains in their
: heads rather than in their trousers.
Or perhpas the problem really lies int he fact that society, has put too
large an emphasis what's int he tousers. If oyu have ever seen fish and
birds during mating season then you would see that can be just as ardent
as humans. But by placing an over emphasis on sex in society, we have
perhaps made it out to seem more important to everyday life, then it ought
to be. This is a classic example where preferecnes have overruled common
sense. What we have labeled desirable has grown out of proportion.
: Ah, but I never claimed that beauty was universal, only that
: it's reasonable for each person to accept and embrace their own
: preferences (even while bearing in mind that the preferences are
: arbitrary). "Beauty" as a label is NOT meaningless - it might
: very well be personal and relative, but it is not meaningless.
Are you sure you are talking about labels here, or concepts. If I have a
piece of fruit, I can label it sour. But if you pick it up and bite it,
and say, "Hey this isn't sour it's sweet" if have to rethink my label. Is
it a good label? You and I both understand the concept of "sweet" and
"sour" but the label is meaninless because it is not acurrate. The concept
is valid, but the as a label it is meaningless because it appears
not true in some cases: arbitray.
Therefore, you have to qualify in terms of concepts. "This tastes sweet to
me." Not label in definitives; "This is sweet." Because it is not to
everyone.
Scott
opb...@aol.com
> We see one thing as beautiful,
> And another thing as ugly,
> Only because we do not see that they are both part of a greater
>thing ,which is beautiful beyond description.
>
We see this as that, and that as this....Change the to the (thee)(thu).
None is more beautiful, it is just beyond description.
Johnny
One who, preferring light,
prefers darkness also
Is in himself an image of the world
And, being an image of the world,
Is continuously, endlessly,
The dwelling of creation
without sadness, would we know any such thing as happiness?
do not lean to far to the left(love), do not lean to far to
the right(hate), but keep to the center.
in one of Deng Ming Dao's books (sp?) there was a part when
two taoist apprentices were bringing the boy saihung to the
mountain temple but were held up on one part of the road by
some other travelers. one of the apprentices went forward
to announce his annoyance at being delayed while the other
held back, not criticizing the other because he knew that
the tao is as impatient and aggressive as it is patient and
passive.
the lion and the hyena are mortal enemies,continuously
fighting over the same hunting grounds and game. could it
not be said that they do not like each other?
"lao tzu, saddened by by men's tragic perversity, their
indisposition to accept the way.......rode away alone...."
even the old man recognized his own feelings.
Johnny
>limiting man to only a part of his totality
>is natural, perhaps, but is to deny the
>whole.
my point exactly.
Nathan Engle
> : you've heard about Indiana, but while it's true that we do have a
> : trade surplus of loonies I think it also bears remembering that we
> : aren't all armed loonies.
> You said "consumed with love". Anything consumed is destroyed.
Quite to the contrary - anything consumed is merely
transformed.
> Even the
> TTC says, "Only but not loving, can you truely show love." In my mind this
> is a warning that being consumed is not beificial.
Huh. And I thought being consumed was just inevitable.
> : when the
> : waitress is standing there waiting for you to place your order
> : it's possible that she might not share your admiration for
> : philosophical ambivalence. Just get the tofuburger for cryin'
> : out loud.
> Is it true that she doens't share my preferences, or is it only that she
> thinks her preferecnes are more important then mine.
I suspect it's mostly that she just has lots of other
customers who don't give two squats about your preferences.
> The danger in preferences is when you assume they are important.
True. That's a danger in anything.
> She thinks her aggenda is
> more important because they are hers, and she assumes that everyone would
> feel the same.
I think it's mostly because restaurant managers are funny
about their waitresses spending inordinate amounts of time
getting some deep philosopher's order.
> Haven't you ever noticed in stressful situations like this,
> that people always blurt out, "But I have to be somewhere!"
> or "My girlfriend is waiting! Hurry up!" as if there "preferecne"
> is going to be universally understood in importance.
Working in a psychology department I find that happens
to me practically every day. But d'ya know what? No matter
how much I wish otherwise somebody is always going to be
telling me their preferences and dumping their problems and
frustrations in my lap. That's why I get paid for what I
do, and it's why I accept those condition as an inevitable
part of the job.
My primary response to people's preferences is typically
NOT to tell them that their preferences are meaningless.
> It is a failure to see other's
> preferences because you are blinded by your own.
Well I can't argue with that. I'm really not advocating
being blinded by anything. I just don't think that having
preferences is the same thing as being blinded by them.
Harry Flashman
Nathan Engle (nen...@indiana.edu) wrote:
: Quite to the contrary - anything consumed is merely
: transformed.
When something is consumed it is taken up, broken apart and dissolved. It
is no longer an individual it has become dispersed, and is this weaker
then it was. If you work in psycology, isn't it not advised that to love,
you must still retain individuality? If I tosss a piece of paper in a
fire, I get a brief flare of light and warmth, but then all I get is ash
and smoke, and the paper is gone.
: Huh. And I thought being consumed was just inevitable.
How so?
: I suspect it's mostly that she just has lots of other
: customers who don't give two squats about your preferences.
Which is ultimately their problem with dealing with life. So I should
respect this preference?
I would suggest that their "squats" are not as important as their swelled
heads seemed to indicate. Their "urgencey" is purely artifical.
: I think it's mostly because restaurant managers are funny
: about their waitresses spending inordinate amounts of time
: getting some deep philosopher's order.
Again, which is a reflection on the manger's outlook and not reality. If
he wasn't so worried about his Beemer and his two houses, would he really
care? He has labeled these things as important, and I have not. Even in
your responses, through your tone, you are suggesting more weight to his
preferences then mine. As if the idea that "this is how it is" makes it
right. Everything you have mentioned I have observed, you are merely
pointing out things I can already see. But as a Taoist, it doesn't mean I
have to give weight to them. I see his values as hallow and therefore, I
do not have to except his preferences have any more weight then mine. I
understand why he is this way, I just don't accept his labels as acurate
or even necessary, and don;t feel he needs to be this way.
: Working in a psychology department I find that happens
: to me practically every day. But d'ya know what? No matter
: how much I wish otherwise somebody is always going to be
: telling me their preferences and dumping their problems and
: frustrations in my lap. That's why I get paid for what I
: do, and it's why I accept those condition as an inevitable
: part of the job.
Fine. You would not have choosen this career I susecpt, if you were not
curious about peoples preferecnes. I do not, on the otherhand, get paid
for hearing people's preferecnes. As I Taoist, I value the impartiality of
nature. Therefore, if person nearly causes an accident by cutting me off,
because he is late for a date, I do not have to accept this as a
meaningful reason. In others words the gamble with my life and safety he
decided to make because of his warped preferecnes doens't not have to
carry any weight with me, because I can see that his preferences are puny
compared tot he "bigger picture".
: My primary response to people's preferences is typically
: NOT to tell them that their preferences are meaningless.
Which is your job. However, if someone were to ask me if their preferences
were meaningful I might say they were not. I am able to accept the fact
that somethings really do not matter in the scope of the world and the
universe and the value placed upon them is purely artifical and and
arbitrary. I do not consider the gain of wealth and stature as important.
And therfore if someone were to describe this preferecne to me, I would
state that this is simply not necessary or even condusive to the Tao.
Regardless of whether this is meaningful to them or not, in the Tao it is
not. Therefore, it is not.
: Well I can't argue with that. I'm really not advocating
: being blinded by anything. I just don't think that having
: preferences is the same thing as being blinded by them.
I'm not arguing that either, but I am not advocating having them in the
first place. One of the strongest tenets of Taoism is imparitality. If you
do not place undo importance on something, then this thing will not blind
you. Anything you name, whether labeled by society as "good or
"bad" has the tendency to blind you. Sex, Love, Wealth, Food, People,
Music, Entertainment, Study, ect. All these things in quanties that
consume the user, blind him or her to the others. If you are truely
impartial then all things carry equal weight, and you can experience all
things.
You have made it sound that since it isn't this way, (i.e. the
waitress and manager) that it must not be true. But I am trying to tell
you that irregardless of people's preferences there is a higher
impartiality, which negates this. Hence the labels man puts on things do
not change the balance of nature, and hence are meaningless. Thjerefore,
what is the use of continuing to label, and place importance on things, if
they don't amount to much int he end.
I understand that some people will continue to do this, but what you fail
to realize is also, that others have transcended this tendency. YOu seem
to suggest that things are the way they are and questioning this is silly.
But in fact those who have questioned this things are the one who became
the Maters like Lao Tzu.
Scott
Nathan Engle
> When something is consumed it is taken up, broken apart and dissolved.
Yes?
> It is no longer an individual it has become dispersed, and is this
> weaker then it was. If you work in psycology, isn't it not advised
> that to love, you must still retain individuality?
Probably so, but please bear in mind that why I work for
psychologists I'm not one myself. I would certainly agree
that it's reasonable to retain a measure of individuality
(personal preferences).
> : Huh. And I thought being consumed was just inevitable.
> How so?
When we die the molecules of our bodies will be returned
to the earth from which they came.
> : I suspect it's mostly that she just has lots of other
> : customers who don't give two squats about your preferences.
> Which is ultimately their problem with dealing with life. So I should
> respect this preference?
Yes, I think so. You could demand that the waitress
devote her full undivided attention to you for as long as
you want to sit in her section of the restaurant, but IMO
that would simply be petty and selfish.
> I would suggest that their "squats" are not as important as their swelled
> heads seemed to indicate. Their "urgencey" is purely artifical.
So in order to demonstrate a point to them are you arguing
that it's ok for you to use the waitress as a prop in a pointless
amorality play?
> : I think it's mostly because restaurant managers are funny
> : about their waitresses spending inordinate amounts of time
> : getting some deep philosopher's order.
> Again, which is a reflection on the manger's outlook and not reality. If
> he wasn't so worried about his Beemer and his two houses, would he really
> care?
Maybe not. I just don't see how after your deep
philosophical antics get your waitress fired you'd have all
that much high ground on which to feel superior to that manager.
You're both perfectly willing to sacrifice somebody in the
middle to make your point.
> He has labeled these things as important, and I have not. Even in
> your responses, through your tone, you are suggesting more weight to his
> preferences then mine.
The manager's preferences *do* have far more bearing on
the life of that waitress. If you were paying her paycheck
then it would be your privelage to tell her how unimportant
she is - he who calls the tune pays the piper.
> As if the idea that "this is how it is" makes it right.
Right? I don't have much interest or talent in hashing
out what's "right". I suspect you don't either. It seems to
me that you're just interested in making an abstract point
that very few people are equipped or inclined to make any
use of.
> Everything you have mentioned I have observed, you are merely
> pointing out things I can already see. But as a Taoist, it doesn't mean I
> have to give weight to them. I see his values as hallow and therefore, I
> do not have to except his preferences have any more weight then mine. I
> understand why he is this way, I just don't accept his labels as acurate
> or even necessary, and don;t feel he needs to be this way.
I'm curious. Have you ever managed a restaurant? I haven't
done it myself so I'm not really prepared to tell that manager
what he should or shouldn't do.
> Fine. You would not have choosen this career I susecpt, if you were not
> curious about peoples preferecnes. I do not, on the otherhand, get paid
> for hearing people's preferecnes.
Thank heaven for that.
> As I Taoist, I value the impartiality of nature.
And as a Taoist I also value that impartiality. I just don't
expect to see it in every nook and cranny of human nature, nor do
I turn my back on those whose individual choices don't agree with
my philosophical druthers.
> : My primary response to people's preferences is typically
> : NOT to tell them that their preferences are meaningless.
> Which is your job. However, if someone were to ask me if their preferences
> were meaningful I might say they were not. I am able to accept the fact
> that somethings really do not matter in the scope of the world and the
> universe and the value placed upon them is purely artifical and and
> arbitrary.
That isn't the same thing as saying that personal preferences
are meaningless. If you were to say that they're unimportant then
I would certainly agree, but when you say that they're meaningless
I'm afraid I disagree. IMO meaning is almost by definition a
personal thing. Individuals are entitled to say whether their
preferences are meaningful for themselves.
> : I'm really not advocating
> : being blinded by anything. I just don't think that having
> : preferences is the same thing as being blinded by them.
> I'm not arguing that either, but I am not advocating having them in the
> first place. One of the strongest tenets of Taoism is imparitality.
Ok, if you say so. I don't have to agree with you to respect
that opinion or your conclusions about its implications.
> If you are truely
> impartial then all things carry equal weight, and you can experience all
> things.
>
> You have made it sound that since it isn't this way, (i.e. the
> waitress and manager) that it must not be true.
No, actually what I would say is just that Tao is as much
a part of those people and their preferences as it is of a
philosopher who's spent years trying to convince himself that
all preferences are meaningless.
> But I am trying to tell
> you that irregardless of people's preferences there is a higher
> impartiality, which negates this. Hence the labels man puts on things do
> not change the balance of nature, and hence are meaningless.
So "global warming" isn't going to change the balance of
nature? That's a relief.
> I understand that some people will continue to do this, but what you fail
> to realize is also, that others have transcended this tendency.
No, I realize that some few people have talked themselves
out of having preferences, and I accept that they're better off
for not taking themselves so seriously. It's just that I still
live in a world where most people do have preferences and
sometimes take themselves most dreadfully seriously. It's
my suspicion that being told their preferences are meaningless
would just further enrage them.
The truth or falsehood of the statement is much less
important to me than its lack of constructive effect. Perhaps
you are a great philosopher, but IMO you're also a lousy
salesman.
> YOu seem to suggest that things are the way they are and
> questioning this is silly. But in fact those who have
> questioned this things are the one who became the Maters
> like Lao Tzu.
If you say so. At the end of his life Lao Tzu is said to
have ridden off into a desert, so regardless of his philosophical
prowess I would surmise that he still had at least a mild
preference for peace and quiet (which I share most sincerely).
Harry Flashman
Distribution:
Nathan Engle (nen...@indiana.edu) wrote:
: Yes, I think so. You could demand that the waitress
: devote her full undivided attention to you for as long as
: you want to sit in her section of the restaurant, but IMO
: that would simply be petty and selfish.
Exactly. But *I* would not expect her to devote her complete and undived
attention to me. So why would I be expected to allow her to do so for
someone else.
: So in order to demonstrate a point to them are you arguing
: that it's ok for you to use the waitress as a prop in a pointless
: amorality play?
Not at all. You totally misunderstand. I would not do that. However, your
orignal statements were to the effect that other people have preferecnes
and therefore the implication was I should adjust my behgavior because of
them. I merely am pointing out that some of these "important" preferecnes
you site, are not. If the waitress wants me to hurry up my mind, what
makes you think I am taking too long. Perhaps she is just unhappy in her
job. That is not my problem, but just because she is unhappy, doens't mean
I have to alter my preferecnes. Hers do not outweigh mine.
: Maybe not. I just don't see how after your deep
: philosophical antics get your waitress fired you'd have all
: that much high ground on which to feel superior to that manager.
: You're both perfectly willing to sacrifice somebody in the
: middle to make your point.
What a minute. I am not perfoming antics. I have done nothing. You
mentioned that the waitress wanted me to hurry. You did not say why. I
would not be performing antics in the first place.
: The manager's preferences *do* have far more bearing on
: the life of that waitress. If you were paying her paycheck
: then it would be your privelage to tell her how unimportant
: she is - he who calls the tune pays the piper.
Her life? I see this as a job. If she can not seperate herself fromt he
job, she has a fundemental problem. "Just do your work and walk away" says
the TTC. If she thinks the man has control over her, then it is only
because she allows it. In the scheme of things the manager is just and
unimportant as the waitress. If she can not allow this to roll off her,
then she will suffer stress. See how much easier it ould be if people did
not behave in this manner. If thew manager didn;t perfer to throw his
weight around like that she would not stress out. But he alos would not
stress about her inadequcies.
: Right? I don't have much interest or talent in hashing
: out what's "right". I suspect you don't either. It seems to
: me that you're just interested in making an abstract point
: that very few people are equipped or inclined to make any
: use of.
Perhaps. I don;t know. i certainly believe that no one is perfect. But if
this abstract point you refer to is a goal then perhaps the closer we get
to it, the more fruitful our lives would be. After all I have not
mentioned anything that is not covered in the TTC. There are plenty of
"abstract points" there about work, and governing that apply tot his very
arguement.
: I'm curious. Have you ever managed a restaurant? I haven't
: done it myself so I'm not really prepared to tell that manager
: what he should or shouldn't do.
Not a restaurant, but I am currently in a supervisory position where i
work. And I am finidng (although like everyone else I am not perfect) that
many of the concepts of Taoism are applying nicely. Especially the "When
the Master takes command the people say, 'Look we did it all by
ourselves.'" Supervising, by not supervising works. The plus is that
stress is down. The "minus", although i do not consider it such, though
society sure does, is that the limelight shines on the group not me. I see
it a a method of making work efficient. We are actually proud when we get
work done, not relieved, and I actually find that people want to be
challenged by hard projects because they enjoy their jobs.
: Thank heaven for that.
This seems below you for some reason.
: And as a Taoist I also value that impartiality. I just don't
: expect to see it in every nook and cranny of human nature, nor do
: I turn my back on those whose individual choices don't agree with
: my philosophical druthers.
I don't expect. impariality is a goal, perhaps unattinable, but definatley
worth a try.
If a person comes up to me and says, "All 'generic racial slur' are
inferior." I would most certainly turn my back on them. Because the
concept is ridiculous. So why is turning my back on a materialistic person
any different of their concepts are just a ridiculous to me. And I'm not
so sure i agree witht he phrase "turning my back". I'm not excluding these
people, I'm merely trying to point out that you sound as if you are
implying that just because some one has a particular preferecne I have to
excpet this as meaningful (actually I mean important, see below). I am
pointing out that that even in Chuag Tzu he refers to people who are
foolish, or ignorant. Chuang Tzu recognises these people's motavations but
reserves the right to denie their importance. I do to.
: That isn't the same thing as saying that personal preferences
: are meaningless. If you were to say that they're unimportant then
: I would certainly agree, but when you say that they're meaningless
: I'm afraid I disagree. IMO meaning is almost by definition a
: personal thing. Individuals are entitled to say whether their
: preferences are meaningful for themselves.
OK, I'm willing to relent and agree that meaningless was a poor choice of
words on my part, and perhaps I misundersatood you use of it. Meaning to
me in this context implied importance.
: Ok, if you say so. I don't have to agree with you to respect
: that opinion or your conclusions about its implications.
Precisely. But in the example above (if you are willing to be the waitress
for a moment) if you were to decide to tell me to shut up and just get to
the point, I should not have to feel that I am sorry I have these
opinions merely because they annoy you. Which was my point to begin with.
My preferences carry no more weight then yours and vice versa. The fact
that you have not told me to shut up, merely means you do not consider
your preferences to superceed mine, and you understand that they are
*equally* important even if they are not yours. If i were to prevent you
from voicing your opinions by telling you to shut up beacuse, "Well he was
just annoying me." then I would be quilty of placing my preferences over
yours in importance. this was what i was trying to point out.
: No, actually what I would say is just that Tao is as much
: a part of those people and their preferences as it is of a
: philosopher who's spent years trying to convince himself that
: all preferences are meaningless.
Not meaningless, just not important. the TTC clearly says, and I believe
it to be true, that "If there was no emphasis on material things, there
would be no crime." Clearly this is an indication that a preference is
mistaken as important when it is not (a common problem in society today).
You can not tell me that to follow a materialistic lifestyle is the way to
the Tao. Or more precisely you can say this, but you will never convince
me of it. Therefore, I feel the perference to be non-important,
and unneccessary.
: So "global warming" isn't going to change the balance of
: nature? That's a relief.
Global warming? I'm afraid You've lost me. Global warming is caused by the
Green House effect. the Green house effect was responsible during the
formationof gasses on this planet for actually cooling down and allow
liguid water to appear. This may have lead to the formation of life. Now
if I were to "label" the Greenhouse effect as "bad" is it? Is it good if
it is the cause of Global Warming? If i were a cockaroch and I was likely
to survive Global warming on the dead humans is this bad? This is my
arguement for the meaninglessness of labels. Global Warming is a term man
apply to something. The inherent proerties of that something do not change
dependant on the labels. The something is neither good nor bad because we
apply that label to it. It is what it is. That is impariality.
It is like a big circle. If the deer is killed by the tiger, the tiger
lives but the deer suffers. But the rest of the herd grows stronger with
the weak removed. But then it is spreads to fast and eats up all the
vegatation and they start to die off. Then the tiger comes and culls them
back again and the cycle starts a fresh. This is impariality. Who are you
or I or decide that the tiger is "bad" and the cute little deer is "good".
The Tao doesn't even decide what is good or bad. So how much worth do my
labels carry?
: No, I realize that some few people have talked themselves
: out of having preferences, and I accept that they're better off
: for not taking themselves so seriously. It's just that I still
: live in a world where most people do have preferences and
: sometimes take themselves most dreadfully seriously. It's
: my suspicion that being told their preferences are meaningless
: would just further enrage them.
I live in the same world. And I am part of this world, because I am
flawed in my own ways. So is everyone. But I have progressed very far over
the years in taking myself less and less seriously, and I am far better
off for it. and you are right that being told their preferecnes are
meaningless would enrage them. And I confess there was a time when tis
might have been so for me too. But now i am much more inclined to shrug
and say, "So be it."
Or maybe just launch into a long-winded, but hopefully polite
philosophical disscussion. But there is nothing wrong with that. :)
: The truth or falsehood of the statement is much less
: important to me than its lack of constructive effect. Perhaps
: you are a great philosopher, but IMO you're also a lousy
: salesman.
Yes this is probably true. But then again, no one sold me. I sold myself.
So perhaps there is no real salesmen. After all the last time I bought
something from a great salesman, it was something I didn't need.
: If you say so. At the end of his life Lao Tzu is said to
: have ridden off into a desert, so regardless of his philosophical
: prowess I would surmise that he still had at least a mild
: preference for peace and quiet (which I share most sincerely).
Me too. I am an avid hiker. But I do like the sound of conversation
because it is evidence to me that some thoughts, no matter the origin, as
so compelling that we can not keep them to ourselves. And this is
really a remarkable thing, very akin to wanting to place pen to paper and
record ideas, only fleeting.
Bye.
Kamilo
Tue, 25 Feb 1997 07:53:56 GMT
in <5eu5qk$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>> > Accepting and not criticizing...
> > How are they different?
A: welcome
C: "push away" / attack.
> If you accept what's happening, you have to accept your own critical
> thoughts. If you refrain from critical thought, you're not accepting
> what's happening, and that'll make it hard for you to go with the flow.
Seems mixed up to me. It seems like playing with
symbols, not catching their meaning.
> Lao #32 notes:
>
> The Way is shaped by use,
> But then the shape is lost.
> Do not hold fast to shapes
> But let sensation flow into the world
> As a river courses down to the sea.
>
> If criticism is a shape, the application here, I guess, is not to do
> without criticism, but to forgive.
Well, hard to follow. But if I stick with it, I'd say
criticism is a "shape" better not to hold on to.
Perhaps criticism is (conditioned) attitude (of mind).
Kamilo
--
( Why should we be in such desperate haste to succeed, )
( and in such desperate enterprises? )
( If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is )
( because he hears a different drummer. -- Henry David Thoreau )
Kamilo
Wed, 26 Feb 1997 01:09 GMT
in <5f02gm$nqu$1...@cobra.minn.net>
Johnny <joh...@b-goode.net> wrote:
>
> One who, preferring light,
> prefers darkness also
> Is in himself an image of the world
> And, being an image of the world,
> Is continuously, endlessly,
> The dwelling of creation
>
> without sadness, would we know any such thing as happiness?
> do not lean to far to the left(love), do not lean to far to
> the right(hate), but keep to the center.
>
> in one of Deng Ming Dao's books (sp?) there was a part when
> two taoist apprentices were bringing the boy saihung to the
> mountain temple but were held up on one part of the road by
> some other travelers. one of the apprentices went forward
> to announce his annoyance at being delayed while the other
> held back, not criticizing the other because he knew that
> the tao is as impatient and aggressive as it is patient and
> passive.
Ah, at last someone who also has a sense that Tao is not
all about one big loving harmony, at least not on a human
scale. That pain will not be banished here and now, nor in
the foreseeable future, not in this dimension. The sun
gives life energy, and sometimes destroys life.
> the lion and the hyena are mortal enemies, continuously
> fighting over the same hunting grounds and game. could it
> not be said that they do not like each other?
Well, perhaps they are simply in competition over the same
recourses. Maybe this is the source of all quarrel and
wars, the lack of recourses for all creatures that are
born. This brings to mind something that keeps amazing me.
Humans still by far apparently haven't enough wit, or
whatever it takes, to keep their own population down to a
reasonable number. There is hardly any contemporary problem
in today's world that doesn't relate to this.
> "lao tzu, saddened by men's tragic perversity, their
> indisposition to accept the way.......rode away alone...."
> even the old man recognized his own feelings.
:)
Kamilo
Tinman
> Is LOVE the extreme or the perfect balance?
>
> Markus
I would say not...at least not according to Lao Tzu. I would think that
perfect balance according to the Tao would be more like apathy than love,
since love involves both desire and fear of being without.
One of the great paradoxes of the Tao.
Also, oddly enough, it turns out that apathy (and not hate) is the exact
opposite of love.
][ Tinman ][
Johnny
been doing a little research on the subject and here is
something I found that might be of interest.....
"Beings inevitably affirm something, so they inevitably
approve something. No one does not affirm, so no one does
not approve.
For this reason, we may bring up the horizontal and the
vertical, the ugly and the beautiful, the enormous, the
suspicious, the deceitful, and the strange, and the Way
comprehends all as one. when there is division, there is
definition, but whatever is defined also disintegrates.
whenever there is no definition or disentegration, all
things again are resolved into unity.
only the enlightened know how to comprehend all as unity.
therefore they do not act except in the context of the
totality. the totality is what works; work is efficiency,
efficiency is attainment. when you reach attainment, you
are near. it is just a matter of depending on this, which
is so without our knowing why; this is called the Way."
The Essential Tao, translated and presented by Thomas
Cleary.
sabutin
"Tinman" <mgh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>][ Tinman ][
===================
Opposites
Are only possible
In a binary world.
S.
opb...@aol.com
In article <8570124...@dejanews.com>, Kamilo <Kam...@WriteMe.com> writes:
>Humans still by far apparently haven't enough wit, or
>whatever it takes, to keep their own population down to a
>reasonable number. There is hardly any contemporary problem
>in today's world that doesn't relate to this.
>
>
See the mold on the orange?
Does it have the wits to keep its population down?
It's contempoarary problems seem inconsequential to people.
How much more so for ours.
opb...@aol.com
>only the enlightened know how to comprehend all as unity.
>therefore they do not act except in the context of the
>totality.
Does anyone know an enlightened one?
Who acts only in context with the totality? Not us all?
When you 'do', you don't realize it.
Life is the same as a rock or a river.
Show me how to comprehend all as unity and I will show you a rock.
Pu
Nathan Engle
> This seems below you for some reason.
No need to get your panties in a bunch, dearie. One of the
major causes of stress in life in being in a type of job that
you're not attuned to. We're both very fortunate to be in our
element. Thank heaven for it. And straighten out those panties
mister.
> Or maybe just launch into a long-winded, but hopefully polite
> philosophical disscussion. But there is nothing wrong with that. :)
Polite philosophical discussion is an oxymoron.
Johnny
I have read recently that the fastest growing sector of the
population (at least in the US) is the 50 and older group.
our population is mostly getting bigger because less people
are dying.
Glenn A. Gustitus
Johnny <joh...@b-goode.net> wrote in article
<5fa99k$prb$1...@cobra.minn.net>...
So what would you have us do Johnny?
My time will come, but I'm in no hurry.
>
lisa
> > Is LOVE the extreme or the perfect balance?
> >
> > Markus
>
Tinman>>> I would say not...at least not according to Lao Tzu. I would
think that perfect balance according to the Tao would be more like apathy
than love, since love involves both desire and fear of being without.
>
> One of the great paradoxes of the Tao.
>
> Also, oddly enough, it turns out that apathy (and not hate) is the exact opposite of love.>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I tend to agree with you, Tinman. Unless you have gotten so far past ego
and transcended the need and want to be attached, fear and desire go hand
and hand with love. Yet Lao tells us to step outside of these things.
Yes, it is a paradox.
On an up-note, I seem to recall a story where a person died in a village.
A mourner came in for visitation and found the village sage at the side
of the corpse, crying and very sad. The mourner said, "Why do you cry
for this person? You are a sage. You are supposed to be above such
things." The sage answered, "How am I to know what to transcend unless I
am able to experience those things." or something to that effect.
>
The Pseudosophist
Our roving reporter, sabutin <sab...@mindspring.com> writes:-
>Johnny <joh...@b-goode.net> wrote:
>
>>why is it people believe that a taoist can never get angry
>>or impatient or tired of other peoples shit? if you think
>>someone is an asshole, then you think someone is an asshole.
>=======================
>
> Why?
>
> Because all those emotional reactions are implicit criticisms of the
>net result of the evolution of the universe up to that particular
>time. Recognize an asshole, yes, but also recognize that in
>criticizing or wishing in some way for that asshole to be different,
>you are looking at ALL of creation up to that split second of thought
>and saying "You've been WRONG to create this creature in this way; I
>know better."
>
> A large antagonist to take on, the universe...and not much chance
>of any success in the endeavor.
True. And something else to consider. Beware labelling someone else an
asshole (or anything else). In my limited experience, most of the
people that I have disliked in the past exhibited several of my worst
character traits. Or, put another way:- We often dislike in others that
which is most prevalent in ourselves (did someone mention a mirror?)
--
Trevor Clarke, aka The Pseudosophist
Ps...@u537.demon.co.uk
The Pseudosophist
Our roving reporter, Steven Ericsson Zenith <zen...@nc.com> writes:-
>
>
>kam...@netplace.de wrote in article <8559879...@dejanews.com>...
>> No, to say he would not is not acceptable. It is naiv to
>> believe that a Taoist is or has to be an angel. Tao is only
>> harmonic in it's completeness, in its balance of tensions
>> and polarities. A Taoist is never more than a local
>> phenomena.
>>
>> I would like serious answers to a serious question ;-)
>>
>> So, what would a Taoist call somebody (at best in a single
>> word) he considered to be an asshole, a plague, a conceited
>> (smug, egotistical, self-important, complacent, self-
>> satisfied) teenager (even if he's perhaps 80 years old),
>> who hasn't at least got a little bit of good style?
>
>Any of the above works perfectly well; i.e., an asshole, a plague, a
>conceited la de da ... English seems to work just fine - I can find a few
>more besides ;-)
>
How about American? Or Steven Ericsson Zenith? Or Trevor Clarke?
Duncan Craig
Can anyone tell me the name of the current Taoist Pope?
Thanx, Duncan
Tinman
> > > Is LOVE the extreme or the perfect balance?
> > >
> > > Markus
> >
> >
that
> > perfect balance according to the Tao would be more like apathy than
love,
> > since love involves both desire and fear of being without.
> >
> But if we accept love as something in our lives, and take the discussion
> on to the level of: How can Taoism help us make love more rewarding and
> fulfilling (or rather, how can having a knowledge of Taoism....) then we
> get into another interesting conversation.
>
> I feel I have met the man I want to marry and spend my life with. And
> when I think of that relationship in terms of Taoism, it makes me sigh
> because everything makes sense.
>
> Leanna L. Bartram -- Biology Goddess
I am happy for you that you have fallen in love, and rejoice with you (if I
may)! I do agree that love is wonderful state to be in. I've fallen there
myself! Perhaps I should restate myself: maybe the _pursuit_ of love (or
avoidance of love) is what is counterproductive in terms of enlightenment.
But if it "happens" to us, then one should accept the love of another and
actively participate in that love. Love is a positive energy, and to waste
it is a shame and source of regret.
IMHO, the pursuit of enlightenment (which has always seemed a Taoist
oxymoron to me) opens us to love and happiness. When one is at one with
the Tao, one experiences love.
> He is so much like this. I find it refreshing, exhilarating, and it
> amazes me that he isn't a follower of the Tao or any other Eastern
> philosophy.
Congratulations!
> Maybe he was a Taoist in a previous lifetime!
....Which brings up that whole reincarnation thread
> Anyway, my point is....love in its ideal state, granted, is more of an
> extreme, but if we accept love as part of life, we can perhaps use our
> knowledge of the Tao to guide us to find the most ideal and "in balance"
> love that we can...
Agreed. Acceptance of love can bring about a wonderful, euphoric feeling
of balance. But remember: it is in precisely that state, when our guard
is down and our attention is focused on our emotion, that our balance can
be most easily and dramatically tipped.
][ TINMAN ][
Nathan Engle
Duncan Craig wrote:
> Can anyone tell me the name of the current Taoist Pope?
Yes but if we told you we'd have to kill you.
eas...@aol.com
in article <331A0E...@king.cts.com>
on Sun, 02 Mar 1997 15:33> Thanx, Duncan
take me!
or how about mr. zenith or mr. wellbeing?
would they like that? do they want that?
seriously though, the idea isn't even compatible with taoism.
why?
et..
eas...@aol.com
in article <rwossHA$QbGz...@u537.demon.co.uk>
on Sun, 2 Mar 1997 17:09
sometimes, for moments, i am one of the biggest assholes around.
nothing to be proud of. but then pride is no good anyway.
sometimes it is simply fun to be one.
et.
Duncan Craig
Nathan Engle wrote:
>
> Duncan Craig wrote:
> > Can anyone tell me the name of the current Taoist Pope?
>
>
> --
> Nathan Engle Electron Juggler
> Indiana University Dept of Psychology
> nen...@indiana.edu http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~nengle
> "Some Assembly Required"
Uh-oh! Never mind. I found it. Chang En-Pu is the sixty-third Heavenly
Master, although he has probably been succeded by the senior Chang of
the patrilineage by now. My hunch is that man would be the newly retired
Chancellor of UC Berkeley. The Changs have headed the jade cartel for at
least two thousand years; much like DeBeers and diamonds. There, now you
Indiana ninjas will have to garrot a lot of people. Uhhh...honey, what
was that noise outside?
Duncan Craig
> >Can anyone tell me the name of the current Taoist Pope?
>
> take me!
> or how about mr. zenith or mr. wellbeing?
> would they like that? do they want that?
>
> seriously though, the idea isn't even compatible with taoism.
> why?
>
> et..
No, it isn't compatible with new age, sixties, revisionist Taoism. If
I may quote from Kristofer Schippers landmark work, "Taoist Body"..."In
recent years the world has seen the development of a kind of ficticious
Taoism which is propagated in popular kung fu movies. There also is
nowadays a form of purely theoretical Taoism adhered to by
intellectuals, therapists, acupuncturists, and public service officials
of the Chinese government. But true Taoism is not merely a cult, nor a
system nor a thrapeutic technique. It is, above all, the liturgical
structure of local communities; it therefore belongs to the daily life
of the people."
The head of this "liturgical structure", the T'ai Ping Heavenly
Master, is commonly referred to as the 'Taoist Pope' Any comparison of
Catholic and T'ai Ping liturgies only reinforces that label.
So, dear friends, Mr. wellbeing or Mr. Zenith could not be the Taoist
Pope, unless their last name is Chang.
Duncan
Nathan Engle
Duncan Craig wrote:
> No, it isn't compatible with new age, sixties, revisionist Taoism.
Yo! Oops, sorry. Present.
> But true Taoism is not merely a cult, nor a
> system nor a thrapeutic technique. It is, above all, the liturgical
> structure of local communities; it therefore belongs to the daily life
> of the people."
"True Taoism". Yessir, I wanna git me some o' that.
> The head of this "liturgical structure", the T'ai Ping Heavenly
> Master, is commonly referred to as the 'Taoist Pope' Any comparison of
> Catholic and T'ai Ping liturgies only reinforces that label.
So this master is a "Pope" just because some intellectual wags
said it's so? Why does that not surprise me?
> So, dear friends, Mr. wellbeing or Mr. Zenith could not be the Taoist
> Pope, unless their last name is Chang.
> Duncan
Neato. I guess I'm off the hook too.
!
opb...@aol.com:
# Does anyone know an enlightened one?
setting the bar high enough, the hurdle is always beyond our ability
never trying on account of inescapable failure, we have need of no excuse
# Who acts only in context with the totality? Not us all?
context without books ignores the hub of the wheel
# When you 'do', you don't realize it.
# Life is the same as a rock or a river.
# Show me how to comprehend all as unity and I will show you a rock.
reaching out, extending his arm until it was hundreds of feet long,
Chang Tao-ling saved the youth who was trapped on the cliff face
JadelNTao
johnny b reports:
> our population is mostly getting bigger because less people
> are dying.
>
glenn quips:
So what would you have us do Johnny?
My time will come, but I'm in no hurry.
:::major chuckling::: yer a natural.
Miller Jew
ref Re: Taoist Pope?
Duncan Craig <dun...@king.cts.com> wrote:
...snip....
"...No, it isn't compatible with new age, sixties, revisionist Taoism.
If I may quote from Kristofer Schippers landmark work, "Taoist
Body"...
(Duncan cites Schipper) "...It (Taoism) is, above all, the liturgical
structure of local communities; it therefore belongs to the daily life
of the people."
===================
Thank You Duncan!
It is an excellent book and supplies an enormous amount of information
about Taoism that the majority of other Taoist books do not discuss --
and perhaps-- its authors chose to ignore or I dare say, is ignorant
about. It is as you say a "landmark" text for westerners about the
"roots" of Taoism.
If I may quote also, from Schipper, and then relate: "The human body
is the image of a country," say the Taoists. "There they see mountains
and rivers, ponds, forests, paths, and barriers, a whole landscape
laid out with dwellings, palances, towers, walls, and gates sheltering
a vast population. It is a civilized state, administered by lords and
their ministers."
In his title "the Taoist Body", please note "The human body" as the
"image of a COUNTRY"-- is NOT about Taoism critiquing Confucian
governing! It is about our internal governing first, then our embrace
on the rest.
In relating, I will note that the Tao Te Ching, the Chuang Tzu,
Chinese poetry and many other texts express such terms in such
environmental poetics (as I have quoted above). I believe these see-rs
are "arcane-ly" focusing on the ecology of the "human body" -- and to
it's relationship with its mind, its soul, its spirit, the environment
and NOT about critiquing public governing. They are soliciting the
collectivity of our internal realms.
We imho have preferenced our ways of understanding Taoism without
understanding its roots. Why?
Thanks again, Duncan!
moretocome
--Zhou
"From the highest to the lowest, self-development must be deemed the
root of all, by every "jen"-w/man. When the root is neglected, it
cannot be that which springs from it will be well-ordered."
--Confucius / 2500 AD
>In recent years the world has seen the development of a kind of
>ficticious Taoism which is propagated in popular kung fu movies...
Non-Plussed
> No, it isn't compatible with new age, sixties, revisionist Taoism. If
>I may quote from Kristofer Schippers landmark work, "Taoist Body"..."In
>recent years the world has seen the development of a kind of ficticious
>Taoism which is propagated in popular kung fu movies. There also is
>nowadays a form of purely theoretical Taoism adhered to by
>intellectuals, therapists, acupuncturists, and public service officials
>of the Chinese government. But true Taoism is not merely a cult, nor a
>system nor a thrapeutic technique. It is, above all, the liturgical
>structure of local communities; it therefore belongs to the daily life
>of the people."
i disagree. schipper is biased by his academic background. Schipper treats
taoism a set of cultural beliefs, lacking any intrinsic worth and
only valuable within their original cultural context. This is, imho, a
rather dubious anthropological assumption. It rests on the belief that
cultures are fundamentally different, that the purpose of religion is primarily social
and that practices/beliefs from one culture can not be assimilated by
people from another culture. If this were the case, asians would have never been able to adapt, say,
western scientific thinking, and anthropologist and orientalists would
be unable to write about asian religion in the first place.
There are more problems with the view expressed in the quote. For one
thing, it ignores the intellectual aspects of taoism that have been with
it for ages. it would be hard to deny that taoism had an influence on
chinese medicine, martial arts and thinking in general. Schippers book
is ok as far as it goes, but it isn't the final word on what is and isn't
taoism.
Even more disturbing is the opposition against the alleged "pseudo-taoism"
of westerners. This kind of criticism tends to come from two parties:
western academics and traditional religious hierarchies. Both have
something to gain by speaking out against westerners who put these
teachings in practice without permission. for the traditionalists, this
is simply a matter of power and influence. They want to protect their
organisation and their influence. The western academics often feel they
have to defend traditional western culture. Studying the east as academic
is ok, emulating it is not.
In both cases, the motives are profoundly conservative. Let's face it,
those who oppose taoism (and other oriental philosophies)
coming to the west do so because they are hostile to the changes this might
cause in our culture and society. a lot of this criticism is a thinly
concealed attack on aspects of modern western (counter)culture.
Lastly, western taoism is bound to be different from chinese. Chinese
taoism also underwent changes throughout its history. Neither was or is
it a monolithic tradition. there were, and still are, numerous sects in
chinese taoism, and this isn't likely to change.
There never was any pure and eternal taoist tradition,
and there never will be. Who has the right to decide who is, and who
is not a "true" taoist anyway?
Miller Jew
ref Subject: Re: Taoist Pope?
In article <331B3B...@king.cts.com>, Duncan Craig
<dun...@king.cts.com> says:
>No, it isn't compatible with new age, sixties, revisionist Taoism. If
>I may quote from Kristofer Schippers landmark work, "Taoist
>Body"..."In recent years the world has seen the development of a kind
>of ficticious Taoism which is propagated in popular kung fu movies.
In all respects, your well-intentioned broadstroking will need much
articulation on this NG.
But just to start methinks this the "new age" is a western term that
seeks alternative ways of reaching out for spiritual values. I.e. non-
traditional-Christian. Hint? -->"NEW". My educated guess is that this
seeking within the field of Taoism is not simply a 'happening' that
just happens --let me say-- for the pursuit of one's harmonious living
in our world, but, could it have began with a religious conflict that
lead for the search for something more meaningful? Perhaps it is a
subconscious and conscious awareness and sensation towards an
"unhappiness" with our traditional western religion (and it's
culture)-- Christianity. Yes? No?
>There also is nowadays a form of purely theoretical Taoism adhered to
>by intellectuals, therapists, acupuncturists, and public service
>officials of the Chinese government.
Certainly apt. In looking back, China, in late 19th century, realized
the need to match western military power, and eventually gained that
match-up, or else the complete encroachment of western colonization.
Today, China's intense focus, equally, on "expanded" western things are
even stronger now because they have a love affair with western things
for never having it before! And sustaining this, otherwise it would not
have the competitive might it has today. I don't know how the "purely
theoritical Taoism" will play itself out there in the future; it's a
hard "political" nut to crack.
Regards,
--Zhou
peter li'ir key
someone wrote
> In recent years the world has seen the development of
> a kind of ficticious Taoism which is propagated in popular
hee hee hee
are the trapping of traditional taoism important
to taoism?
is the ficticious taoism worse than the the traditional
taoism?
what is it that taoism pointing at?
can that be pointed at only one way?
taoism as the chinese/asian tradition is a very
complex weave of religion, philosophy, culture,
lifestyle.
what part of the weave is necessary, and which
part is decoration?
* * *
this is not to say that understanding the full weave
is useless. taoism is largely originated in china,
and as such it is useful to understand it in its
context.
peter li'ir key
k...@springhaven.org
V. Lore
Nothing is fiction.
Except our attempt to speak the truth.
Our description of truth is fiction.
In fiction, is truth.
Fiction and truth are two split halves
of the same fallen apple.
Virginia Lore
sabutin
"V. Lore" <vl...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>Virginia Lore
=============
Here we are, all binaried up again...
What of that which in neither fiction OR truth?
Or both...?
S.
V. Lore
> >Nothing is fiction.
> >Except our attempt to speak the truth.
> >Our description of truth is fiction.
> >In fiction, is truth.
> >Fiction and truth are two split halves
> >of the same fallen apple.
>
> >Virginia Lore
> =============
Maybe it's the fallen apple we should be more concerned with?
VL
V. Lore
>
> What of that which in neither fiction OR truth?
>
> Or both...?
>
> S.
I guess I'm saying fiction is a construction of the truth, but the idea of
truth is also a construction. Everything knowable is a construction of
that which seeks to know, the mind. Nothing is truly knowable by the mind
alone. So nothing is label-able. The question I was half tongue-in-cheek
addressing was about fictitious taoism (a la Kung Fu) versus traditional
taoism. And I'm saying people always write from what they see. And
practice from what they see.
Tradition gets a lotta good press in religion and philosophy. In the
sciences, other, better-known scientists are always being referenced. As
if to observe a phenomenon were not enough! Ooops. That academic
verification stuff is probably a can of worms I don't wanna open. My main
point (of view): there is nothing inherently untruthful about fiction,
even if it doesn't line up with tradition.
Virginia
k...@springhaven.org
"V. Lore" <vl...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > >Nothing is fiction.
> > >Except our attempt to speak the truth.
> > >Our description of truth is fiction.
> > >In fiction, is truth.
> > >Fiction and truth are two split halves
> > >of the same fallen apple.
>
*laugh*
does it taste good?
peter li'ir key
k...@springhaven.org
ps the world is delightful
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Johnny
my post was in response to the idea that our population was
growing because people were continually having children. my
point was that the birth rate is not growing very rapidly,
but the death rate has slowed down considerably. consider
the fact that 300 yrs ago, most people did not live past 50.
fsph...@aol.com
Perhaps it would help not to limit the thought of love to just balance or an extreme but to consider if the feeling or condition brings serenity. If one is experiencing a serenity of being, then it does not matter if what brings it is balance or an extreme.
IMHO only...
fss
Kamilo
Mon, 03 Mar 1997 12:59 -0800
in <331B3B...@king.cts.com>
Duncan Craig <dun...@king.cts.com> wrote:
[...]
> The head of this "liturgical structure", the T'ai Ping Heavenly
> Master, is commonly referred to as the 'Taoist Pope' Any comparison
> of Catholic and T'ai Ping liturgies only reinforces that label.
> Taoist Pope, unless their last name is Chang.
> Duncan
Well Duncan, that doesn't change anything. BTW, the
Catholic Pope isn't the head of *all* Christian churches,
and is not accepted by all Catholics as the true
representative of Jesus on Earth.
Basically though it's a completely pointless comparison,
as IMO Taoism goes beyond all concepts of God, Heaven,
Hell and whatever - it goes beyond the horizon of concepts
and values, beyond any oppositions and separations.
But if some people should want a Taoist Pope, well, why
not, and I'd even welcome it if it made people more
compassionate and tolerant to all creatures.
Kamilo
--
Kamilo
Wed, 5 Mar 1997 02:08 GMT
in <5fikjm$nl3$1...@cobra.minn.net>
Basically true, but not that simple, in fact it's too
complicated for me to propose a solution that would have
any chance of working. The whole being is dominated by all
kinds of ideology from scientific over economic and
political to (very powerful) religious - no need to
mention sex.
Yes, 300 years ago hardly anybody lived past 50. And 3000
years ago? So what? Do you want your little sister to die
of appendicitis (terribly painful)? Most of what has been
is of little use these days. One doesn't have to look into
the future to see that this planet has developed into a
somewhat overcrowded place.
"... the birth rate is not growing very rapidly, ..."
Hmm, is there such a thing as "the birth-rate"? Which
countries/continents do you mean? And don't we probably
*need* a slow global reduction in birth-rate, for the sake
of psychic and ecological health? My point is that if we
humans don't learn to regulate our population in a
civilised manner, it's going to happen anyway, only with
much more pain and suffering. Ah, then we will call it
fate, when ecological, economic, political, and who knows
what else catastrophes bring about the inevitable
reduction. So I suppose it's fate not to see where we're
going? Pity perhaps is that catastrophes are highly un
selective - the good, the bad, the rich and the beautiful
- simply anyone.
Yes, "Mould on the orange" it seems.
Funny, this mould seeking enlightenment ;-)
Kamilo
--
( Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a )
( judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked )
( by the laughter of the gods. -Albert Einstein )
Gr8tao
this is not to say that understanding the full weave
is useless. taoism is largely originated in china,
and as such it is useful to understand it in its
context.<<<<<
Excellent response ... if only we all believed that!!
Madelynn - back in action :) - weaving .........
George Henry
Kamilo (Kam...@WriteMe.com) wrote:
: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 12:59 -0800
: in <331B3B...@king.cts.com>
: Duncan Craig <dun...@king.cts.com> wrote:
: [...]
: > The head of this "liturgical structure", the T'ai Ping Heavenly
: > Master, is commonly referred to as the 'Taoist Pope' Any comparison
: > of Catholic and T'ai Ping liturgies only reinforces that label.
: > So, dear friends, Mr. wellbeing or Mr. Zenith could not be the
: > Taoist Pope, unless their last name is Chang.
: > Duncan
: Well Duncan, that doesn't change anything. BTW, the
: Catholic Pope isn't the head of *all* Christian churches,
: and is not accepted by all Catholics as the true
: representative of Jesus on Earth.
All people who claim to be Catholics may not be Catholics
according to the Pope who is infalible in matters of doctrine.
That's the way the Catholic game is played.
You may call me Bobby or you may call me Zimmy
: Basically though it's a completely pointless comparison,
: as IMO Taoism goes beyond all concepts of God, Heaven,
: Hell and whatever - it goes beyond the horizon of concepts
: and values, beyond any oppositions and separations.
: But if some people should want a Taoist Pope, well, why
: not, and I'd even welcome it if it made people more
: compassionate and tolerant to all creatures.
Hmm.. it wouldn't be up to you and I'm sure compassion and
tolerance would have next to nothing to do with the selection.
just kidding..
---geo
--
Duncan Craig
(Non-Plussed) wrote:
>
> In article <331B3B...@king.cts.com>, Duncan Craig <dun...@king.cts.com> says:
>
> > No, it isn't compatible with new age, sixties, revisionist Taoism. If
> >recent years the world has seen the development of a kind of ficticious
> >nowadays a form of purely theoretical Taoism adhered to by
> >intellectuals, therapists, acupuncturists, and public service officials
> >system nor a thrapeutic technique. It is, above all, the liturgical
> >structure of local communities; it therefore belongs to the daily life
> >of the people."
>
> i disagree. schipper is biased by his academic background. Schipper treats
> taoism a set of cultural beliefs, lacking any intrinsic worth and
> only valuable within their original cultural context.
Hey, gimme a break. I only asked a simple question and got quips. I
see a lot of metaphysical hairsplitting, and very little on the history
or liturgy of the Taoist church. I quoted Schipper to establish that
there IS a liturgy and the Heavenly Master is widely known as the Taoisy
Pope. If this were a Christian Philosophy NG, the participants, at least
one of them, would know the name of the Catholic Pontiff. I didn'yt
know if the sixty-third Tien Shih had been succeded yet. But I don't
mind defending Schipper. Not too tough. How is it possible that
Schipper would spend his entire professional life and write books on a
subject that he saw as having "no intrinsic worth"?
This is, imho, a
> rather dubious anthropological assumption. It rests on the belief that
> cultures are fundamentally different, that the purpose of religion is primarily social
> and that practices/beliefs from one culture can not be assimilated by
> people from another culture. If this were the case, asians would have never been able to adapt, say,
> western scientific thinking, and anthropologist and orientalists would
> be unable to write about asian religion in the first place.
You paint with a very broad brush, my friend...and extrapolate quite a
bit from one small quote. If you indeed read the whole book, I applaud
your perseverance in wading through views that you disdain.
> There are more problems with the view expressed in the quote. For one
> thing, it ignores the intellectual aspects of taoism that have been with
> it for ages.
It is this imbalance, i.e. lack of discussion about history and
liturgy of Taoism, that the question, "Who is Taoist Pope?, sought to
address.
it would be hard to deny that taoism had an influence on
> chinese medicine, martial arts and thinking in general. Schippers book
> is ok as far as it goes, but it isn't the final word on what is and isn't
> taoism.
I agree wholeheartedly...and suspect that Schipper would, also. His
book is titled "Taoist Body", not Taoist Body, Mind and Soul".
>
> Even more disturbing is the opposition against the alleged "pseudo-taoism"
> of westerners. This kind of criticism tends to come from two parties:
> western academics and traditional religious hierarchies. Both have
> something to gain by speaking out against westerners who put these
> teachings in practice without permission. for the traditionalists, this
> is simply a matter of power and influence. They want to protect their
> organisation and their influence.
Political Rhetoric. I am a product and instigator of the sixties
counterculture, and have railed against conservative, tenured academics
for many a year, but I'm also aware of the Viet Nam era Inspired guilt
that tended to accept anything from the East as automatically good, and
this uncritical acceptance is just not right..Taoism has its
conservative intransient forces; its shamans, priests and Popes that
prey as they prey...just as western religions. It is all well and good
to speak of the waterway and enlightenment and how many holy hermits can
dance on the head of a pin, but it gets a bit polly-annish if the
discussion is devoid of all historical and liturgical context. I didn't
fall off the incense truck yesterday.
The western academics often feel they
> have to defend traditional western culture. Studying the east as academic
> is ok, emulating it is not.
> In both cases, the motives are profoundly conservative. Let's face it,
> those who oppose taoism (and other oriental philosophies)
> coming to the west do so because they are hostile to the changes this might
> cause in our culture and society. a lot of this criticism is a thinly
> concealed attack on aspects of modern western (counter)culture.
This is pretty simplistic, but I'll bite. It can be said with just as
much validity...that in western counter-culture, it is ok to emulate the
Chinese, but not to study them academicly.
> Lastly, western taoism is bound to be different from chinese. Chinese
> taoism also underwent changes throughout its history. Neither was or is
> it a monolithic tradition. there were, and still are, numerous sects in
> chinese taoism, and this isn't likely to change.
The Heavenly Masters sect, T'ai Ping, can be traced back to Chang Tao
Ling, circa 134 ad, and probably goes back much further into the mists
of time. The oldest tracable tradition in mankinds history. The Shu
Hai Ching tells of the travels of Ta Chang, a geographer in search of
jade in 2300 bc, and dosn't end with a Chunese- American (John Wen Ti
Chang) purchasing wWyomings entire ten ton discovery of nephrite jade in
1944, for the Taiwan consortium. Fits my definition of a monolithic
tradition.
> There never was any pure and eternal taoist tradition,
> and there never will be. Who has the right to decide who is, and who
> is not a "true" taoist anyway?
At the risk of jumping on the obvious with both feet, of course. Not
I, not the Tien Shih, although he will for a fee, and not someone who
posts anonymously. Thank you for your input, it got me going. Regards,
Duncan
Nathan Engle
Duncan Craig wrote:
> I see a lot of metaphysical hairsplitting, and very little on the
> history or liturgy of the Taoist church.
And? This *is* Usenet. If you want facts firmly held in
place by the weight of the tomes in which they'd written then
I'd think you'd prefer a source that wasn't such an ephemeral
dance of electrons and magnetic charges.
> I quoted Schipper to establish that there IS a liturgy and the
> Heavenly Master is widely known as the Taoist Pope.
I suspect that to the only people who really matter he's
simply the Heavenly Master. To me "Taoist Pope" sounds like
an attempt to project a western social construct into an
eastern context where it doesn't appear to serve anyone's
purpose.
> How is it possible that
> Schipper would spend his entire professional life and write books on a
> subject that he saw as having "no intrinsic worth"?
There's a section in _The Dilbert Priciple_ which addresses
that question. Basically what it boils down to is "People Are
Idiots."
> > There are more problems with the view expressed in the quote. For one
> > thing, it ignores the intellectual aspects of taoism that have been with
> > it for ages.
> It is this imbalance, i.e. lack of discussion about history and
> liturgy of Taoism, that the question, "Who is Taoist Pope?, sought to
> address.
That's a shame. In mere days this thread will come to an end
and the articles will roll off their newsservers never to return.
And when it does things will get back to our regularly scheduled
bickering and back-biting. I suppose I have some vague sympathy
for your desire to briefly raise our level of conversation, but
I just have no confidence that anything you do will result in a
lasting change.
> > Lastly, western taoism is bound to be different from chinese. Chinese
> > taoism also underwent changes throughout its history. Neither was or is
> > it a monolithic tradition. there were, and still are, numerous sects in
> > chinese taoism, and this isn't likely to change.
> The Heavenly Masters sect, T'ai Ping, can be traced back to Chang Tao
> Ling, circa 134 ad, and probably goes back much further into the mists
> of time. The oldest tracable tradition in mankinds history.
So aside from the fact that they appear to be stuck in a rut,
is that supposed to impress us? This is America, guy. We aren't
*supposed* to give a squat about history. This is the place where
we believe that if you aren't changing social norms fast enough to
become disoriented then you just aren't trying hard enough.
> The Shu
> Hai Ching tells of the travels of Ta Chang, a geographer in search of
> jade in 2300 bc, and dosn't end with a Chunese- American (John Wen Ti
> Chang) purchasing wWyomings entire ten ton discovery of nephrite jade in
> 1944, for the Taiwan consortium. Fits my definition of a monolithic
> tradition.
Suit yourself. I would have said it was still just a bunch
of individuals.
Nathan Engle
Duncan Craig wrote:
> I see a lot of metaphysical hairsplitting, and very little on the
> history or liturgy of the Taoist church.
And? This *is* Usenet. If you want facts firmly held in
place by the weight of the tomes in which they're written then
I'd think you'd prefer a source that wasn't such an ephemeral
dance of electrons and magnetic charges.
> I quoted Schipper to establish that there IS a liturgy and the
> Heavenly Master is widely known as the Taoist Pope.
I suspect that to the only people who really matter he's
simply the Heavenly Master. To me "Taoist Pope" sounds like
an attempt to project a western social construct into an
eastern context where it doesn't appear to serve anyone's
purpose.
> How is it possible that
> Schipper would spend his entire professional life and write books on a
> subject that he saw as having "no intrinsic worth"?
There's a section in _The Dilbert Priciple_ which addresses
that question. Basically what it boils down to is "People Are
Idiots."
> > There are more problems with the view expressed in the quote. For one
> > thing, it ignores the intellectual aspects of taoism that have been with
> > it for ages.
> It is this imbalance, i.e. lack of discussion about history and
> liturgy of Taoism, that the question, "Who is Taoist Pope?, sought to
> address.
That's a shame. In mere days this thread will come to an end
and the articles will roll off their newsservers never to return.
And when it does things will get back to our regularly scheduled
bickering and back-biting. I suppose I have some vague sympathy
for your desire to briefly raise our level of conversation, but
I just have no confidence that anything you do will result in a
lasting change.
> > Lastly, western taoism is bound to be different from chinese. Chinese
> > taoism also underwent changes throughout its history. Neither was or is
> > it a monolithic tradition. there were, and still are, numerous sects in
> > chinese taoism, and this isn't likely to change.
> The Heavenly Masters sect, T'ai Ping, can be traced back to Chang Tao
> Ling, circa 134 ad, and probably goes back much further into the mists
> of time. The oldest tracable tradition in mankinds history.
So aside from the fact that they appear to be stuck in a rut,
is that supposed to impress us? This is America, guy. We aren't
*supposed* to give a squat about history. This is the place where
we believe that if you aren't changing social norms fast enough to
become disoriented then you just aren't trying hard enough.
> The Shu
> Hai Ching tells of the travels of Ta Chang, a geographer in search of
> jade in 2300 bc, and dosn't end with a Chunese- American (John Wen Ti
> Chang) purchasing wWyomings entire ten ton discovery of nephrite jade in
> 1944, for the Taiwan consortium. Fits my definition of a monolithic
> tradition.
Suit yourself. I would have said it was still just a bunch
Michael Wilson
: Duncan Craig wrote:
: > Can anyone tell me the name of the current Taoist Pope?
Ahem, that would be me my son.
Good news, in addition to that, I am now accepting donations, gifts, and
worship, throughout the spring and summer. Also I am having a special
this week; two blessings for the price of one. Email for more info.
George Henry
opb...@aol.com
In article <331E17...@indiana.edu>, Nathan Engle <nen...@indiana.edu> writes:
>lasting change.
Ooooh, from the Englemeister himself?
from OPBuzz ( the everlasting changeless... until Friday anyway, or maybe Saturday)
JadelNTao
Nathan responded to Duncan:
I suppose I have some vague sympathy
for your desire to briefly raise our level of conversation, but
I just have no confidence that anything you do will result in a
lasting change.
Come on, buck up, little camper.
It IS Friday and supposed to be a beautiful weekend.
As to the list, hope springs eternal!
Lisa
Nathan Engle
JadelNTao wrote:
> Nathan responded to Duncan:
> >I suppose I have some vague sympathy
> >for your desire to briefly raise our level of conversation, but
> >I just have no confidence that anything you do will result in a
> >lasting change.
> Come on, buck up, little camper.
>
> It IS Friday and supposed to be a beautiful weekend.
Why Lisa, I'm shocked. We have all these Weighty Important
Things to ponder and all you can think about is the sunshine,
gentle breezes, and little flowers peeking out of the ground?
I have a cat who seems to share Duncan's feelings about
flowers - when our crocuses started blooming last week Sydney
spent several minutes sniffing them before unceremoniously
devouring them.
> As to the list, hope springs eternal!
Fair enough. FWIW I hate to seem like I'm trying to pee
on Duncan's parade. If the bug up his butt actually pans out
into an ongoing widespread interest in history then that's
fine with me.
I just wouldn't bet on it.