quantum superposition and the way of the mage

[noname]

so i ran into this article, and i just about laughed my ass off:

https://www.livescience.com/28550-how-quantum-entanglement-works-infographic.html

their description of "quantum superposition" is exactly how the mage navigates
the multiverse:

"The rules of quantum physics state that an unobserved photon exists in all
possible states simultaneously but, when observed or measured, exhibits only
one state." [assuming i typed it in correctly from their graphic.]

replace "photon" with "universe". do the math. all possible universes exist
as possibilities within the realm called Mystery, but when Manifest, that
universe is the one you're in (and the one everybody else is in, there is
only one active universe at a time as far as i can tell, and theoretically
there only needs to be one active universe). in other words, the transition
between universes which occurs at the next change, can be considered either
a state-swap, or a transmogrification, with equal validity.

their blip about quantum entanglement is interesting too. a laser and a
funky crystal is not the only way particles become entangled. in fact every
particle in existence is entangled with one other. these pairs are in turn
entangled with one another similarly. and as the groupings become larger
the entanglements become more nebulous and less visible.

rotflmao

[dagnabit]

"noname" wrote in message
news:c22786e3-581a-428f...@googlegroups.com...

many ages ago quantum entanglement was then called Indra's net.
Indra's net is a metaphor used to illustrate the concepts of Śūnyatā,
pratītyasamutpāda, and interpenetration in Buddhist philosophy,
the interconnectedness between all things. modern science is
slowly but surely catching up with ancient philosophy.

[noname]

slowly yeah, but i'm not convinced about the surely part.

people seem to get severely entangled in every complexity they can find.

i guess that's how they learn, maybe why they have the views they do about
reincarnation; if you don't know how to move above the details, you can be
stuck in confusion for your whole lifetime, and if reincarnation is as some
think, it might take many lifetimes to figure out which strings are pulled
by one string above, reduce the complexity, and try again.

one thing people seem to miss, when they view taoism from a traditional
perspective, is how directly the subtlest sweep of a butterfly's wing does
affect the whole, and how powerfully. since people are educated and
indoctrinated to be subsumed by society, it is far more often a case of the
whole telling the wing how and when it may move. when the classical/iconic
principles of taoism are followed, the vast power of doing-without-doing, of
waiting-for-mud-to-settle, these things become self-evident. when the sage
holds fast to the center, tao returns to the world; if it does not, the sage
has lost his balance and teeters on the cliff's edge like Tarot's Fool.

a lot of it seems to be the simple fact that most people who look at taoism
never figure out what they're seeing, they think it's religious scripture
when it's more like engineering specs; since they see it as spiritualism of
a sort, they discount its reality to the level of fiction.

so it goes. when you see the thing, it's difficult not to overthink it and
conclude that humanity is a fucking waste of time. imo/etc.

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:

>so i ran into this article, and i just about laughed my ass off:

What induces laughter might be funny.

>https://www.livescience.com/28550-how-quantum-entanglement-works-infographic.html
>
>their description of "quantum superposition" is exactly how the mage navigates
>the multiverse:

Okay.

>"The rules of quantum physics state that an unobserved photon exists in all
>possible states simultaneously but, when observed or measured, exhibits only
>one state." [assuming i typed it in correctly from their graphic.]

Having cut and paste technology, hang on for an instant and in that
instant, what is perceived will have taken time yet appear in no time.

<< The rules of quantum physics state that an unobserved photon exists
in all possible states simultaneously but, when observed or measured,

exhibits only one state. ... Entanglement occurs when a pair of
particles, such as photons, interact physically.>>

Looks to be a correct type of a type.
At least, accordion to google, it plays well.

>replace "photon" with "universe". do the math. all possible universes exist
>as possibilities within the realm called Mystery, but when Manifest, that
>universe is the one you're in (and the one everybody else is in, there is
>only one active universe at a time as far as i can tell, and theoretically
>there only needs to be one active universe).

Replace any word with another word, and do the math.
All possible elephants exist as possibilities ... ... ... .

Call it what one wills.

One could call it, the realm of all possibles.
All possibles exist within the possibles.

It could be called, the Possible, and assuming there is one
and only one: all possibles exist within the Possible.

Another math equation could be:
all actuals exist within the Actual.

> in other words, the transition
>between universes which occurs at the next change, can be considered either
>a state-swap, or a transmogrification, with equal validity.

When manifest, the elephant one sees, is one
unless there happens to be a herd of them
then one sees the one herd, unless two
or more herds are seen, sum hows.

What is seen by any observer, in that observer's present
is not necessarily what is seen by another observer when moving
at a given speed. Space and time, in Relativity Theory, varies
in a funny fashion and are connected in a funny way.

Time slows down for a body moving
and the faster one moves the slower time goes.
What that means for a given, so-called, now, may also change.

What occurs in one observer's present
does not necessarily occur in another's frame of reference
at the same time. To suppose there is a clock-speed frame-rate,
and click by click everything changes simultaneously,
could be supposed, and be funny. Ore
taken seriously, could be refined
to a point, as an atom of gold
until divided and then is
no longer a gold atom.

>their blip about quantum entanglement is interesting too. a laser and a
>funky crystal is not the only way particles become entangled. in fact every
>particle in existence is entangled with one other. these pairs are in turn
>entangled with one another similarly. and as the groupings become larger
>the entanglements become more nebulous and less visible.
>
>rotflmao

Quantum Mechanics is able to be funny in ways.
Relativity Theory might as wells be funny two.

To suppose there is one, and only one, now
could be compared to the one and only one, here.

Yet just as any two states of, here, differ,
so as wells do any two states of now, differ.

To create a photon pair, an entangled pair, is possible.
Then, to observe half of the single pair, stopping it, stops it.

What happens next is one immediately knows the state
of the other half of the single pair. Faster than light,
given a theory.

And yet, at the same time, the information, a
so-called real knowing, takes time.

If someone on the International Space Station and someone
on the surface of planet Earth, or Mars, or any other place,
were to synchronize their time-pieces they could measure
at the exact same time the states of their particle-pairs.

As if there were, an exact same time.
And, when in motion, time does not flow at the same rate.

In the time it takes an event to occur in two different places
can be two different times, when observers are moving.

If two measurers were two light-years apart,
and someone beamed the smallest quantity of light, the particle,
a photon, which was split into two photons, one pair of photons,
moving in opposite directions, each one for an entire year,
until each half of the pair was measured to find out
if the spin was up or down, then, it would be
found out and known.

Yep, one of them was up, and the other one was down.

Experiments may show how the observation of one half
of the pair, induced the other, immediately, to be spinning
in the opposite direction, and one may wonder, if really.

Be that as it may or might, to get that information back
to the one in the middle, between the two light-years
where the observers observed, would take another year.

Information, it is said, can only travel at light-speed
no matter how fast knowlege may be known, in theory.

A funny Ting happend when carving oxen.

One day, two space ships began to rocket their ways
moving in opposite directions from each other until a photon
pair, two photons at that point, was divided from a single one.

Each half of the pair was directed toward each ship and
the funny thing is, the ships were not moving the same speed
away from each other at any time.

One ship was moving twice as fast as the other and when
half of the particle-pair of the one photon reached the first ship
and was observed as being spin-up, it was known, immediately
that when the other half of the pair created from the one
would reach the other ship it would be spin down.

And yet, the other ship, moving at the speed of light
away from the source never did see the other photon,
the other half of the pair created from the one was not
ever seen on the view screen of the other ship.

Aye, Ting laughed that day, as he did all ways, carving oxen,
except he did not roll on the floor nor laugh his ass off.
His ass was on the one ship and he was on the other.

- don key ho tay wise farted

[{:-])))]

dagnabit wrote:

>many ages ago quantum entanglement was then called Indra's net.

>Indra's net is a metaphor used to illustrate the concepts of ??nyat?,
>prat?tyasamutp?da, and interpenetration in Buddhist philosophy,

>the interconnectedness between all things. modern science is
>slowly but surely catching up with ancient philosophy.

Quantum entanglement may appear to be holographic
and knots be sewn as it seams to a photon.

Ore an electron for that matters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe

Ancient philosophy may state there is one
and only one Self, moving without moving
pictures on a screen screening all things.

At the show, for the show, and show it goes
in the peanut gallery thowing empty shells
which float while when there are nuts
in the shells they throw better.

As the one and only one Self divides and multiplies,
as Being, the Supreme Being, the one and only One,
individuals appear on the screen to be all involved
as wells within and among the viewers viewing.

- forgetting they are, all in all, that Self

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:

> dagnabit wrote:
>
>> many ages ago quantum entanglement was then called Indra's net.

>> Indra's net is a metaphor used to illustrate the concepts of ??nyat?,
>> prat?tyasamutp?da, and interpenetration in Buddhist philosophy,

>> the interconnectedness between all things. modern science is
>> slowly but surely catching up with ancient philosophy.
>
>slowly yeah, but i'm not convinced about the surely part.

Trying to catch a hold of one's tale the One may and mites go froth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

>people seem to get severely entangled in every complexity they can find.

Aye, the Universal Mystery tends to spin up, or spin down, and to oar
with one or two oars one may, going with or against a flow at given
rates of speed now and then again.

>i guess that's how they learn, maybe why they have the views they do about
>reincarnation; if you don't know how to move above the details, you can be
>stuck in confusion for your whole lifetime, and if reincarnation is as some
>think, it might take many lifetimes to figure out which strings are pulled
>by one string above, reduce the complexity, and try again.

In Buddhist philosophy, if that's what modern science is surely
if how ever-slowly, catching up to is the topic, there is no self
nor any Self so to speak and yet skandhas there may be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha

And, t'hats all folks.

>one thing people seem to miss, when they view taoism from a traditional
>perspective, is how directly the subtlest sweep of a butterfly's wing does
>affect the whole, and how powerfully.

Especially when all the other butterflies are ignored
and assumed to have no wings flapping, ever.

Not to mention, Zz's dream.
He dreamed he was a butterfly, until
he appeared to have awakened, until
he wondered if he did or did not or was
or was not, Zz or the butter flying.

Be that as it may, he wrote,
ore could be said to have written, in the transformation
of things dew occurs, or appear to occur, sewing two speak.

He didn't actually write what it was said above
except it may be he did, in part. Given the transformation
part of the act in the Great Play he dreamed, once up
on a time spinning. Yarns and wh'at-knots.

> since people are educated and
>indoctrinated to be subsumed by society, it is far more often a case of the
>whole telling the wing how and when it may move.

Far more often, myths fly like moths
to a light which is at times a fire.

In reality, there is only one Moth,
the one who is the photon, the electron, moving
through time back and forth very, very, very quickly
and which seams as it weaves reality to be such as it is.

> when the classical/iconic
>principles of taoism are followed, the vast power of doing-without-doing, of
>waiting-for-mud-to-settle, these things become self-evident.

Zz dreamed.
And whether he was the Moth
or the butterfly could make all the difference, in a mind sigh.

> when the sage
>holds fast to the center, tao returns to the world; if it does not, the sage
>has lost his balance and teeters on the cliff's edge like Tarot's Fool.

Especially when the sage is the world, and nonduality
replaces a state of being divided from or in two
or against the world, all in all.

>a lot of it seems to be the simple fact that most people who look at taoism
>never figure out what they're seeing, they think it's religious scripture
>when it's more like engineering specs; since they see it as spiritualism of
>a sort, they discount its reality to the level of fiction.

I don't know what most people do
who look at taoism.

Most people I've actually spoken with, saw the TTC
as being Way too far out for them to even care to ponder.

And they were actually able to read it in Chinese.

>so it goes.

Aye.
Maybe most people,
assuming there is such a group, who look at taoism
are taoists and do see it as religious scripture.

Numbers vary between 20 million

http://www.conservapedia.com/World_Religions_by_Number_of_Followers

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism#Adherents

<< The number of Taoists is difficult to estimate, due to a variety of
factors including defining Taoism. According to a survey of religion
in China in the year 2010, the number of people practicing some form
of Chinese folk religion is near to 950 million (70% of the
Chinese).[131] Among these, 173 million (13%) claim an affiliation
with Taoist practices.[131] Further in detail, 12 million people claim
to be "Taoists", a term traditionally used exclusively for initiates,
priests and experts of Taoist rituals and methods.[131]>>

> when you see the thing, it's difficult not to overthink it and
>conclude that humanity is a fucking waste of time. imo/etc.

To find out about, most people who look at taoism,
it could take some doing, and be a great waste of time.

One may survey the entire planet, and seek out all who look at taoism,
and then discover what most people see, based on the survey.

Speculation can be fun and assertions made for the making.

For me, when looking at Tao Chia, personally, it's fun
and what is seen are various perspectives.

Tao that are Tao are not always Tao,
as the phrase, in Pinyin reads: dao ke dao fei chang dao.

It may be said, there is a constant Tao, Eternal Tao,
and mention is made of Great Tao in the TTC.

Searching the Chuang-tzu for Great Tao
sounds like a plan, today, at present.

- in a bamboo grove

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:18:49 PM UTC+2, undifferentiated wrote:
> noname wrote:
> > dagnabit wrote:
> >
> >> many ages ago quantum entanglement was then called Indra's net.
> >> Indra's net is a metaphor used to illustrate the concepts of ??nyat?,
> >> prat?tyasamutp?da, and interpenetration in Buddhist philosophy,
> >> the interconnectedness between all things. modern science is
> >> slowly but surely catching up with ancient philosophy.
> >
> >slowly yeah, but i'm not convinced about the surely part.
>
> Trying to catch a hold of one's tale the One may and mites go froth.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros
>
> >people seem to get severely entangled in every complexity they can find.
>
> Aye, the Universal Mystery tends to spin up, or spin down, and to oar
> with one or two oars one may, going with or against a flow at given
> rates of speed now and then again.
>
> >i guess that's how they learn, maybe why they have the views they do about
> >reincarnation; if you don't know how to move above the details, you can be
> >stuck in confusion for your whole lifetime, and if reincarnation is as some
> >think, it might take many lifetimes to figure out which strings are pulled
> >by one string above, reduce the complexity, and try again.
>
> In Buddhist philosophy, if that's what modern science is surely
> if how ever-slowly, catching up to is the topic, there is no self
> nor any Self so to speak and yet skandhas there may be.

Selfishness often coincides with idolatry. The most
selfish people are often very idolatrous. Buddha opposed
idolatry and probably therefore the idea of self was also
opposed, because idolators, when spreading their
convictions, feed off the idea of Self, in the sense of
selfishness. That implies, at Mahayana Buddhism a
contradiction could exist with regard to self and idolatry,
because Mahayana promotes idolatry, which reconciles
with selfishness. When self is considered for One world, in
relation to other selves for One world, idolatry and
selfishness are less influential.

Idolatry is about owning it all. When Jesus was taken up a
mountain and he was promised ownership of it all, he said no
thank you, because he was rational and not an idolator.
In the book of Revelation, if i remember correct, it is said
the returned Christ will be given everything. In both instances
the irrational idea of a self owning everything psychologically
influence readers. Rationality rejects that influence
consciously, but irrational maximum-profit-per-individual with
idolatry, is a root of problems. Asked rhetorically, why is a middle
ground not implemented by leaders, by capping profit-per-individual?
Communism rejected profit-per-individual completely
and capitalism espouses it to the maximum. The reason no
middle ground is implemented, is because non-profit organizations,
which were excluded from the communist system, is dependent on
idolatry and maximum-profit-per-individual in the capitalist
system.

A middle ground, with the right values being determining
factors, will reflect reality, because it will reflect
the differences among individuals with regard to the right
values. Maximum-profit-per-individual is evil, as is idolatry.

Another reason maximum-profit-per-individual should be
changed is because too much money is printed, which, due
to the system, ends up in the bank accounts of often selfish
idolators. The money
system would work better if less money is printed, and if
a cap on maximum-profit-per-individual cause more
opportunities.

[dagnabit]

"noname" wrote in message
news:5a983dc0-0c29-452d...@googlegroups.com...

> > Indra's net is a metaphor used to illustrate the concepts of Sunyata,
> > pratityasamutpada, and interpenetration in Buddhist philosophy,

in the manner that most think of as to reincarnation the you
that is thought of to be a certain way is not the you that is
reincarnating from body to body since that you that you
think yourself to be is just your current ongoing storyline
and that particular storyline won't be there at the startup
of subsequent bodies yet to come. unresolved desire energies
are positioned to re-enter a corporeal form and a new ongoing
storyline ensues. when people are hypnotized to remember
past lives it may just be cellular memories owing to that
Indra's net mentioned earlier.

[dagnabit]

"{:-])))" wrote in message
news:7jfhcd1g2hql85j0f...@4ax.com...

but if all remembered their Self-ness the grand
masquerade and all the disguises would suddenly
cease and the game would be over. this may be
what occurs in later ages when spiritual understanding
reaches an optimal absorption among most everyone.

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

TTC 50:
"The Master gives himself up
to whatever the moment brings.
He knows that he is going to die,
and he has nothing left to hold on to:
no illusions in his mind,
no resistances in his body.
He doesn't think about his actions;
they flow from the core of his being.
He holds nothing back from life;
therefore he is ready for death,
as a man is ready for sleep
after a good day's work."
http://taoteching.org.uk/chapter50.html

Above Lao Ze wrote about "The Master".
It seems he idolized himself. Being in danger,
perhaps,
he left, leaving everything behind, idolizing
his own being, above holding on to the
share he had in his library and giving or
withholding
his opinion to/from despots and trusting that
Tao will cause a rational outcome, in which
he will keep on living in the country he
shared with others.

A lot of philosophy is about leaving
or staying in a place. Being wanderer or
wonderer.

[{:-])))]

MDP:

> Asked rhetorically, why is a middle
>ground not implemented by leaders, by capping profit-per-individual?

A reason could be, economy.

A word might be, incentive.

- as a market may bear, or be a bull

[{:-])))]

On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 11:02:07 -0400, "dagnabit" wrote:
>"{:-])))" wrote in message

Cud be.

>this may be
>what occurs in later ages when spiritual understanding
>reaches an optimal absorption among most everyone.

- namaste

[noname]

yeah, not a bad way of trying to explain it. i can't come near explaining
squat, it's too simple to squeeze into words.

[noname]

only one seed need remember itself for the fields to become full again.

[noname]

apprentice, journeyman, master; those are the three stages of education
within an apprenticeship program.

the journeyman is one who has demonstrated
full mastery of his skill, the master is a journeyman who has gone enough
further/beyond other journeymen that s/he teaches them a higher level of
their skills.

the word "master" is also used in Buddhism and in that context it is roughly
equivalent to the word "sage". it's tech jargon, not magic. it doesn't have
to do with self-aggrandizement or idolatry.

> Being in danger,
> perhaps,
> he left, leaving everything behind, idolizing
> his own being, above holding on to the
> share he had in his library and giving or
> withholding
> his opinion to/from despots and trusting that
> Tao will cause a rational outcome, in which
> he will keep on living in the country he
> shared with others.

blah blah blah: imo your greatest weakness as a philosopher is that you
leap from incorrect assumptions to incorrect conclusions.

>
> A lot of philosophy is about leaving
> or staying in a place. Being wanderer or
> wonderer.

a lot of survival is about recognizing whether you are a Lord, a minion, or a gypsy.

[{:-])))]

It does not seem that way to me at all.

Translations vary.
Mitchell's interpolation is not a translation.

http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap50.htm#top

Of the 23 different renditions above, Mitchell's is unique.

Feng's version, below, also differs from Mitchell's.

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap50

Even using Mitchell's idea, the term need not mean
any master of a craft idolizes himself or herself.

It may simply mean, be in the moment.

The wise stay in the present.
Sage advice could be, be here now, etc.

Deal with the situation at hand.
Don't worry about tomorrow.

>Being in danger,
>perhaps,
>he left,

Or, not being in any danger, he left.

>leaving everything behind, idolizing
>his own being, above holding on to the
>share he had in his library and giving or
>withholding
>his opinion to/from despots and trusting that
>Tao will cause a rational outcome, in which
>he will keep on living in the country he
>shared with others.

Speculations on why a keeper of the Royal Archives
decided to leave the country may vary.

>A lot of philosophy is about leaving
>or staying in a place. Being wanderer or
>wonderer.

<< Fifty

Between birth and death,
Three in ten are followers of life,
Three in ten are followers of death,
And men just passing from birth to death also number three in ten.
Why is this so?
Because they live their lives on the gross level.

He who knows how to live can walk abroad
Without fear of rhinoceros or tiger.
He will not be wounded in battle.
For in him rhinoceroses can find no place to thrust their horn,
Tigers no place to use their claws,
And weapons no place to pierce.
Why is this so?
Because he has no place for death to enter.>>

Taoism, given the texts, may speak of a beyond,
beyond duality, beyond life-death, beyond good-bad.

Transcending duality may be impossible for nine out of ten.

- statistically, fwiw, etc.

[dagnabit]

"noname" wrote in message
news:eaf55005-688a-4c09...@googlegroups.com...

methinks that that is the bulk of science, religion and philosophy, no?

[{:-])))]

MDP quoted and wrote:
> noname wrote in response to:

>
>> TTC 50:
>> "The Master gives himself up
>> to whatever the moment brings.
>> He knows that he is going to die,
>> and he has nothing left to hold on to:
>> no illusions in his mind,
>> no resistances in his body.
>> He doesn't think about his actions;
>> they flow from the core of his being.
>> He holds nothing back from life;
>> therefore he is ready for death,
>> as a man is ready for sleep
>> after a good day's work."
>> http://taoteching.org.uk/chapter50.html
>>
>> Above Lao Ze wrote about "The Master".
>> It seems he idolized himself.
>
>apprentice, journeyman, master; those are the three stages of education
>within an apprenticeship program.

Being in the moment, whatever the moment brings,
I have found myself this morning arranging for a plumber.

Not being a Master Plumber, nor a journeyman, nor
an apprentice, many jobs are above my pay grade.

When the Master Plumber arrives, he shall ascertain
what might be the best Way to go about fixing things.

>the journeyman is one who has demonstrated
>full mastery of his skill, the master is a journeyman who has gone enough
>further/beyond other journeymen that s/he teaches them a higher level of
>their skills.

With me and plumbing, problems arise.
Being smart, maybe too smart, I figured our high-pressure problem
was a result of a failed expansion tank, which it may have been,
along with another problem, which made two or perhaps
there was only one to begin with.

Reasons vary, from hot to cold, and if it were the cold
water at various times I'd not have thought the hot
was any problem in terms of expansion.

>the word "master" is also used in Buddhism and in that context it is roughly
>equivalent to the word "sage". it's tech jargon, not magic. it doesn't have
>to do with self-aggrandizement or idolatry.

Not being any sort of sage, especially when plumbing is involved,
myself yet diagnosing what I figured was the problem
could have created a fix that didn't need fixing
or maybe it did need fixing and the Mystery
continues to be the Mystery, or some
other word could be found to solve
why things occur, per the haps.

>> Being in danger,
>> perhaps,
>> he left, leaving everything behind, idolizing
>> his own being, above holding on to the
>> share he had in his library and giving or
>> withholding
>> his opinion to/from despots and trusting that
>> Tao will cause a rational outcome, in which
>> he will keep on living in the country he
>> shared with others.
>
>blah blah blah: imo your greatest weakness as a philosopher is that you
>leap from incorrect assumptions to incorrect conclusions.

He tends to see idol worship
about as often as he sees caiaphaci lurking
and maybe that's a result of his experiences or
some abstract concepts he found in his abstract reality.

>> A lot of philosophy is about leaving
>> or staying in a place. Being wanderer or
>> wonderer.
>
>a lot of survival is about recognizing whether you are a Lord, a minion, or a gypsy.

Being able to survive without water can be a chore.
At least, without indoor plumbing, for a spell.

- today being one of those, beer is on hold

[{:-])))]

dagnabit wrote:
> noname wrote in response to MDP saying:

>
>> blah blah blah: imo your greatest weakness as a philosopher is that you
>> leap from incorrect assumptions to incorrect conclusions.
>
>methinks that that is the bulk of science, religion and philosophy, no?

Probably yes, would be my guess except with science, proof
could be found in various degrees using experiments to prove
a guess or hypothesis and then a theory built to explain it.

Exactly what constitutes proof may vary
from striking a match to prove a proof of, oh, say, rum
while religion might insist the spirits were or were not friendly.

- accordion to moose and squirrel

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

Tao/Logos exists. The ideas, which make it up were partly formed
by people who are idolized. Without moving away from focusing
primarily on the idols, to comprehension of the ideas they formed,
self stays an idolator.

[{:-])))]

MDP wrote:

>Tao/Logos exists.

Tao are Tao, or so it may say in the TTC.
I don't know if Logos is able to be plural.

What is meant by Tao/Logos could be a question.

> The ideas, which make it up were partly formed
>by people who are idolized.

I don't know who is idolized by whom.

> Without moving away from focusing
>primarily on the idols, to comprehension of the ideas they formed,
>self stays an idolator.

- hmmmmmm

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 9:26:30 PM UTC+2, undifferentiated wrote:
> MDP wrote:
>
> >Tao/Logos exists.
>
> Tao are Tao, or so it may say in the TTC.
> I don't know if Logos is able to be plural.
>
> What is meant by Tao/Logos could be a question.

In the ways of 9k Taoists there are 9k Tao/Ways,
and the 10k things. When thinking about the
ideas that make up Tao/theWays, which cause agreement
among Taoists, i think of:

1)the combination of opposites in yin/yang,
2)being invisible,
3)living in the current,
4)not being certain, being skeptic,
5)not-doing or being spontaneous/wu-wei,
6)...

Care to add some more?

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 5:37:13 PM UTC+2, undifferentiated wrote:
> MDP:
>
> > Asked rhetorically, why is a middle
> >ground not implemented by leaders, by capping profit-per-individual?
>
> A reason could be, economy.
>
> A word might be, incentive.

Applying maximum-profit-per-individual is greed/desire.
If greed/desire is the incentive of a capitalist economy,
much negativity in it is explained.

[{:-])))]

On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 12:59:10 -0700 (PDT), Marquard Dirk Pienaar wrote:
>On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 9:26:30 PM UTC+2, undifferentiated wrote:
>> MDP wrote:
>>
>> >Tao/Logos exists.
>>
>> Tao are Tao, or so it may say in the TTC.
>> I don't know if Logos is able to be plural.
>>
>> What is meant by Tao/Logos could be a question.
>
>In the ways of 9k Taoists there are 9k Tao/Ways,
>and the 10k things. When thinking about the
>ideas that make up Tao/theWays, which cause agreement
>among Taoists, i think of:
>
>1)the combination of opposites in yin/yang,
>2)being invisible,
>3)living in the current,
>4)not being certain, being skeptic,
>5)not-doing or being spontaneous/wu-wei,
>6)...
>
>Care to add some more?

Sure thing. Love to. Based on the Chuang-tzu:

7) Being gnarly and useless.
8) Honking when appropriate.
9) Wheelwright Pien's Tao.
10) Cook Ting's Tao.
11) Woodcarver Qing's Tao.
12) Lu Liang Swimmer dude's Tao.

Readers who read the Chuang-tzu may agree
and conclude there are many Tao, or only one Tao,
or perhaps Tao that are spoken aren't the Chang Tao,
along with an idea that no Tao is always Tao.

What any of those have to do with Logos
is unknown to me, and why Tao is slashed with Logos
might be a thing which to mean could be Jesus
and yet to someone else could have any of
many connotations if not a denotation
sewing two speak.

>> > The ideas, which make it up were partly formed
>> >by people who are idolized.
>>
>> I don't know who is idolized by whom.

The Master Plumber just left, having theoretically fixed
in actuality a problem by replacing a valve that probably failed.

If I were to have attempted the task myself, God only knows
the troubles that may have been seen or occurred unseen.

He's my new idol.
If another problem arises, he'll get a call from me, ideally.

>> > Without moving away from focusing
>> >primarily on the idols, to comprehension of the ideas they formed,
>> >self stays an idolator.

A Tao of plumbing might be, water flows down hill.

There may be many Tao of water, and in the TTC
water is iconic, not to mention the hub, emptiness,
and other ideas that float or sink along the Ways.

>> - hmmmmmm

Water expands when it freezes,
unlike various other molecules.

- hence: dao ke dao fei chang dao

[{:-])))]

On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 13:17:39 -0700 (PDT), Marquard Dirk Pienaar wrote:
>On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 5:37:13 PM UTC+2, undifferentiated wrote:
>> MDP:
>>
>> > Asked rhetorically, why is a middle
>> >ground not implemented by leaders, by capping profit-per-individual?
>>
>> A reason could be, economy.
>>
>> A word might be, incentive.
>
>Applying maximum-profit-per-individual is greed/desire.

What a market will bear it will bear.
It could be called, competition.

Theory may stipulate: with competition, prices stabilize at a minimum
which may be viewed as a maximum if one so chooses.

To see a thing as good or bad, one might.

Old Farmer would have been said to say, perhaps
a thing is good or bad or, then again, why even say.

Things are as they are.
Adding value to things taxes them, and the system.

>If greed/desire is the incentive of a capitalist economy,
>much negativity in it is explained.

Without incentives, economies might grow less and less
which sounds like a form of Taoism oar.

- knots on ropes used to count in TTC 80

[noname]

imo by "place" the author meant "opportunity" rather
than physical location.

> Taoism, given the texts, may speak of a beyond,
> beyond duality, beyond life-death, beyond good-bad.
>
> Transcending duality may be impossible for nine out of ten.
>
> - statistically, fwiw, etc.

some see good and bad as having a common parent. some see right and wrong
as having a common parent. some may even see (good/bad)/(right/wrong) as
having a common parent. for one in ten there may be very few common parents,
perhaps as few as one. new fewer than one though, else the parentage of
heaven disappears and the random factor spreads all over the floor.

[noname]

dunno about fractions, but if one can avoid all assumptions, he's less likely
to get suckered by false ones.

[noname]

one of these days i'll try to show you how that works, if i just explain it
you're more likely to send the men in the white jackets around than you are
to understand my scribblings.

suffice it to say, where below there is a symptom, above there is the disease from which it emerged as the other side of sickness. to put it differently,
shit happens, but never for no reason. that's cosmic-inertia, nothing changes
without getting kicked; momentum is a special case, like all the other special
cases that exist in leiu of a general case which is missing due to not being
needed when you're making everything from atoms instead of channel-iron or
box.

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:

> Feng-English wrote:
>
>> He who knows how to live can walk abroad
>> Without fear of rhinoceros or tiger.
>> He will not be wounded in battle.
>> For in him rhinoceroses can find no place to thrust their horn,
>> Tigers no place to use their claws,
>> And weapons no place to pierce.
>> Why is this so?
>> Because he has no place for death to enter.>>
>>
>
>imo by "place" the author meant "opportunity" rather
>than physical location.

That works for me in various ways.

>> Taoism, given the texts, may speak of a beyond,
>> beyond duality, beyond life-death, beyond good-bad.
>>
>> Transcending duality may be impossible for nine out of ten.
>>
>> - statistically, fwiw, etc.
>
>some see good and bad as having a common parent. some see right and wrong
>as having a common parent. some may even see (good/bad)/(right/wrong) as
>having a common parent.

Three forms of aye one may as well sigh.
I may call such a parent, Tao,
or, at times, Yi, the One
which is birthed by
or emerges from Tao to eye.

Not to mention Being/Yu
which arises from Nonbeing/Wu.

> for one in ten there may be very few common parents,
>perhaps as few as one. new fewer than one though, else the parentage of
>heaven disappears and the random factor spreads all over the floor.

Then one it is.

- another one, cheers!

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:
> wu dao wrote:

>> noname wrote:
>>
>> >the word "master" is also used in Buddhism and in that context it is roughly
>> >equivalent to the word "sage". it's tech jargon, not magic. it doesn't have
>> >to do with self-aggrandizement or idolatry.
>>
>> Not being any sort of sage, especially when plumbing is involved,
>> myself yet diagnosing what I figured was the problem
>> could have created a fix that didn't need fixing
>> or maybe it did need fixing and the Mystery
>> continues to be the Mystery, or some
>> other word could be found to solve
>> why things occur, per the haps.
>>
>
>one of these days i'll try to show you how that works,

At times, washers simply wear out.
It could be said, nothing lasts forever.
And if capitalized, as Nothing, one may have something.

> if i just explain it
>you're more likely to send the men in the white jackets around than you are
>to understand my scribblings.

Aye. Miracles do happen as dew condenses at times,
if and when only one were to hold one's mouth right
or some other thing that matters, butter flying wise.

>suffice it to say, where below there is a symptom, above there is the disease from which it emerged as the other side of sickness. to put it differently,
>shit happens, but never for no reason. that's cosmic-inertia, nothing changes
>without getting kicked; momentum is a special case, like all the other special
>cases that exist in leiu of a general case which is missing due to not being
>needed when you're making everything from atoms instead of channel-iron or

Sometimes plumbing is just plumbing.
Faucets are faucets and valves are valves.

- unless, the caiaphaci lurk about

[dagnabit]

"noname" wrote in message
news:465c8ded-2040-42e1...@googlegroups.com...

so one might be behooved to assume that avoiding all assumptions
is beneficial?

[noname]

On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 4:08:14 PM UTC-6, undifferentiated wrote:
> noname wrote:
> > wu dao wrote:
> >> noname wrote:
> >>
> >> >the word "master" is also used in Buddhism and in that context it is roughly
> >> >equivalent to the word "sage". it's tech jargon, not magic. it doesn't have
> >> >to do with self-aggrandizement or idolatry.
> >>
> >> Not being any sort of sage, especially when plumbing is involved,
> >> myself yet diagnosing what I figured was the problem
> >> could have created a fix that didn't need fixing
> >> or maybe it did need fixing and the Mystery
> >> continues to be the Mystery, or some
> >> other word could be found to solve
> >> why things occur, per the haps.
> >>
> >
> >one of these days i'll try to show you how that works,
>
> At times, washers simply wear out.
> It could be said, nothing lasts forever.
> And if capitalized, as Nothing, one may have something.

the point is not that a washer wears out, but that it wears out when it does
and in the way that it does. kinda like when the power goes out during the
final play of the superbowl game or something, i don't follow sports.

>
> > if i just explain it
> >you're more likely to send the men in the white jackets around than you are
> >to understand my scribblings.
>
> Aye. Miracles do happen as dew condenses at times,
> if and when only one were to hold one's mouth right
> or some other thing that matters, butter flying wise.

tis a matter of need.

>
> >suffice it to say, where below there is a symptom, above there is the disease from which it emerged as the other side of sickness. to put it differently,
> >shit happens, but never for no reason. that's cosmic-inertia, nothing changes
> >without getting kicked; momentum is a special case, like all the other special
> >cases that exist in leiu of a general case which is missing due to not being
> >needed when you're making everything from atoms instead of channel-iron or
>
> Sometimes plumbing is just plumbing.
> Faucets are faucets and valves are valves.
>
> - unless, the caiaphaci lurk about

plumbing is never just plumbing, any more than anything else is just what it
is; it's not what is, it's what it's becoming. and why it's becoming that, is
on the dark side of your head, as pink floyd might have said. it's not just
becoming plumbing, it's part of the world scrumming. wrasslin and tusslin,
each boldly determined, to go where the tube takes it to.

[noname]

one might, then on the other hand one might be helped to state the
assumptions so gently that nobody notices the trojan until it's in the
gate. if one is without guile, no assumptions are needed, one can simply
observe what is there to see, without reminding himself what lies he told
to satisfy guile.

[dagnabit]

"noname" wrote in message
news:20223ccf-6bb7-4857...@googlegroups.com...

you just paraphrased what buddha once said;
"in the seen there will be just the seen."

[noname]

then you have proof that anyone can spew the words, lol.

it's hard to see only what's there, at times my brain-thang has operated at
a speed (whether slow or fast) that allowed me to observe the various
possibilities my perceptual facility flipped through on the way to seeing
what it decided was there. observing the possibilities and letting them be
chosen by not-self, that can be tough, one of the things the mind looks at
first seems to be the scary shit so it can scream "run!" if needed. the level
of vulnerability folks can abide, hit do vary some.

[dagnabit]

"noname" wrote in message
news:0b927fb1-6f89-45bf...@googlegroups.com...

sure. the mind is tuned to survival so there is
almost always an automatic instantaneous
evaluation going on as to whether or not something
is safe or efficacious and whether or not we can eat
it. animals are very good at this.

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

Have you noticed Caiaphas Syndrome?

[noname]

that makes it sound rational, and it also makes it sound uncontrollable,
autonomic. i don't think it's either. lots of things people consider to
be fixed-functionality aren't fixed, unless you don't know how to adjust
them. learning how to operate the world's user-accessible controls is
what babies do, as we grow up.

[noname]

who, me? how would i know? i've no clue about "Caiaphas Syndrome", or about
what its defining symptoms might be. from what i've gathered it's a moving
conflation of several only-tangentially-related phenomenon. i'd have better
luck deciphering the Mad Hatter's shopping list.

on the other hand, i have observed a number of ways in which groups act,
react, interact and so forth. each group is a feudalistic microcosm that
contains lords and serfs and gypsies. since these microcosmic feudalisms
occur recursively with such frequency and regularity, their intersections
serve to obscure that which is relating to whom. society is feudalistic,
government attempts to be just and equitable, but politics is merely another
feudalistic organization broadcasting itself on the same line as the rest,
so that they all interfere and tout the idea they are just and equitable
when neither is either.

[dagnabit]

"noname" wrote in message
news:944902f7-24ce-44a5...@googlegroups.com...

I didn't mean to make it sound as if it wasn't controllable,
just that it is part of the inherent program and has helped
us all get to the point where we are at today. all behavioral
tendencies can be set aside and ignored if need be.

you can even come to a point of absorbed detachment where
you wonder who the hell it is that is thinking, speaking and
acting.

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:
> MDP asked:

>
>> Have you noticed Caiaphas Syndrome?
>
>who, me? how would i know? i've no clue about "Caiaphas Syndrome", or about
>what its defining symptoms might be.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+11&version=NIV

According to the Gospel of John, in Chapter 11,
Jesus restores Lazarus to the land of the living.

After that, Caiaphas enters the story-picture.

<< Then Jesus said, “Did I not tell you that if you believe, you will
see the glory of God?”

41 So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said,
“Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42 I knew that you always
hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here,
that they may believe that you sent me.”

43 When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come
out!” 44 The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips
of linen, and a cloth around his face.

Jesus said to them, “Take off the grave clothes and let him go.”

45 Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen
what Jesus did, believed in him. 46 But some of them went to the
Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47 Then the chief priests
and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.

“What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing
many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in
him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and
our nation.”

49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year,
spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is
better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole
nation perish.”

51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he
prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only
for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring
them together and make them one. 53 So from that day on they plotted
to take his life.>>

One may wonder, who were the scattered children of God,
to bring them together and make them one.

Who were the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel, in other words.

A Lost Tribe theory may say, they were those who went over
the mountains, to see what they could see and be as they pleased.

To suppose what is, is not simply what is, and is a manifestation of
Mystery that took place over thousands of years, could be supposed.

MDP may find how some people end up being sacrificed,
so to speak, in ways similar to Eminent Domain, or some other Way,
for some supposed good and he may see what is, as what is
to a point, beyond which remains unseen.

When God takes your shit, or inspires someone or thing else to do
an act that one feels ought not be done, it might be felt or thought
that's a bad thing, like, say, killing Jesus was.

After one is resurrected, born again, reincarnated in the present,
having gone thru a death portal, some things or everything
may have changed.

- and the world be sacred once again, as it was for a little child

[{:-])))]

On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 15:48:31 -0700 (PDT), noname wrote:
>On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 4:08:14 PM UTC-6, undifferentiated wrote:
>> noname wrote:
>> > wu dao wrote:
>> >> noname wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >the word "master" is also used in Buddhism and in that context it is roughly
>> >> >equivalent to the word "sage". it's tech jargon, not magic. it doesn't have
>> >> >to do with self-aggrandizement or idolatry.
>> >>
>> >> Not being any sort of sage, especially when plumbing is involved,
>> >> myself yet diagnosing what I figured was the problem
>> >> could have created a fix that didn't need fixing
>> >> or maybe it did need fixing and the Mystery
>> >> continues to be the Mystery, or some
>> >> other word could be found to solve
>> >> why things occur, per the haps.
>> >>
>> >
>> >one of these days i'll try to show you how that works,
>>
>> At times, washers simply wear out.
>> It could be said, nothing lasts forever.
>> And if capitalized, as Nothing, one may have something.
>
>the point is not that a washer wears out, but that it wears out when it does
>and in the way that it does. kinda like when the power goes out during the
>final play of the superbowl game or something, i don't follow sports.

Lessons vary, if one seeks to learn from phenomena.

Always being in the moment, the present, TTC 50,
suggests, given: Mitchell's version, a Master is.

Months ago, there was an awareness of a problem.

Allowing a situation to persist, and to grow, as weeds in a garden,
until roots of wanted plants are strong enought to bear
the uprooting of the weeds, could be what a gardner does.

Seeing a hurricane, and all the butterfly wings flapping,
all the factors which when multiplied produce a product,
aye, can do that at times.

Adopting your paradigm of Mystery can be a find
and seeing how many mysteries are involved
in doing and not doing a project occurs.

>> > if i just explain it
>> >you're more likely to send the men in the white jackets around than you are
>> >to understand my scribblings.
>>
>> Aye. Miracles do happen as dew condenses at times,
>> if and when only one were to hold one's mouth right
>> or some other thing that matters, butter flying wise.
>
>tis a matter of need.

For me to feel the need to repair or replace plumbing parts means
something is wrong beyond a level of tolerance and when water
pressure is through the roof, after being restored to levels
of acceptability, what was a Mystery may remain ore
to be refined and found another time.

Using my 20/20 reverse mirror image-finder, having found
a plumber who is able to serve as a General Contractor
solves at least one mystery found in Mystery as
being the Source, given: your paradigm
as it appears to me at this time.

Some day, prehaps, in the future, this old house
may require a repipe, along with all one of those entails.

It's great to have found a Master Plumber who is able
to function in Ways other than simply being one.

Whether he will be the one
remains in Mystery.

>> >suffice it to say, where below there is a symptom, above there is the disease from which it emerged as the other side of sickness. to put it differently,
>> >shit happens, but never for no reason. that's cosmic-inertia, nothing changes
>> >without getting kicked; momentum is a special case, like all the other special
>> >cases that exist in leiu of a general case which is missing due to not being
>> >needed when you're making everything from atoms instead of channel-iron or
>>
>> Sometimes plumbing is just plumbing.
>> Faucets are faucets and valves are valves.
>>
>> - unless, the caiaphaci lurk about
>
>plumbing is never just plumbing, any more than anything else is just what it
>is; it's not what is, it's what it's becoming. and why it's becoming that, is
>on the dark side of your head, as pink floyd might have said. it's not just
>becoming plumbing, it's part of the world scrumming. wrasslin and tusslin,
>each boldly determined, to go where the tube takes it to.

For me, having my joy restored, of a salvation,
with water pressure at a level within tolerance,
being able to relax and enjoy the ride, is good.

A lesson learned in the process involves relief valves.
The Master Plumber informed me of a Code.

This rule, or Code, says, a pressure relief valve is required
on the outside of a structure, and our house doesn't have one.

Not that it doesn't have an outside,
as if it were some inside-only mobius house,
but that there is no relief valve, outside the inside.

Why that is, he said, may have been the galvanized pipes
used around sixty years ago when the house was built,
and so the builders didn't install one on the outside.

With our water-heater located inside the house,
along with its relief valve, it presents a problem.

For me to install a new valve on the outside, I may
be able to do that and so another mystery found
within the Great Mystery may be solved as it unfolds.

- its own self, in the present, ziran

[{:-])))]

dagnabit observed how:

>you can even come to a point of absorbed detachment where
>you wonder who the hell it is that is thinking, speaking and
>acting.

The watcher watches.
A detached absorber absorbs.
Observers observe.

The thinker thinks, the speaker speaks, the actor acts.

To suppose, given: thinking, speaking, acting
that there is a subject involved in the doing
could be supposed and create a duality.

- when there is none, ore are none

[dagnabit]

"{:-])))" wrote in message
news:bd9kcdtpu7dvj6gj4...@4ax.com...

thinking, speaking and acting may take place but
only our grammar programs add a thinker, speaker
and actor.

the idea of a "one" who is doing these things may
indeed be completely superfluous due to the ability
to detach from it all. then the question remains as
to who, or what is detaching.

[{:-])))]

"dagnabit" wrote:
>"{:-])))" wrote in message

Sometimes noname's paradigm rings a bell, a chord played.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlaoR5m4L80

- as the mysteries be

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

49-52 are interesting and informative verses. According to
it Christianity, at least, could be an idea, Caiaphas and
other priests, who had convictions in utilitarian philosophy
followed.

Imo, one of the main distinctions in all of philosophy is
between utilitarian philosophy/religion and non-utilitarian
philosophy.

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

I think it means simply, any person who has convictions
in utilitarian philosophy/religion also has Caiaphas
Syndrome, relating to convictions about cosmological
causality.

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 5:20:09 PM UTC+2, Marquard Dirk Pienaar wrote:
> On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 5:13:53 PM UTC+2, Marquard Dirk Pienaar wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 3:52:32 PM UTC+2, undifferentiated wrote:
> > > noname wrote:
> > > > MDP asked:
> > > >
> > > >> Have you noticed Caiaphas Syndrome?
> > > >
> > >

> > > 49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year,
> > > spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is
> > > better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole
> > > nation perish.”
> > >
> > > 51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he
> > > prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only
> > > for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring
> > > them together and make them one.
> >
> > 49-52 are interesting and informative verses. According to
> > it Christianity, at least, could be an idea, Caiaphas and
> > other priests, who had convictions in utilitarian philosophy
> > followed.
>
> I think it means simply, any person who has convictions
> in utilitarian philosophy/religion also has Caiaphas
> Syndrome, relating to convictions about cosmological
> causality.

On the other hand non-utilitarian philosophy also
relates to thoughts about cosmology, but it relates
more to not-doing than doing. A caiaphac sees cosmological
results in his doing. Another word describing his/her view
is consequentialism, relating to pragmatism.

With regard to Taoism, it would be good to know whether
Taoism is more of a utilitarian or more of a non-utilitarian
way of thinking.

[dagnabit]

"{:-])))" wrote in message

news:31bkcd5jbdbi6f4t6...@4ax.com...

chordwise, almost the same as this song just sped
up a little bit;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lDu7WdAMnQ

[noname]

i'm not an official taoism dispensor/judge.

one might say that taoism is a form of pragmatic non-utilitarian
consequentialism which arrives at answers by not participating in the
questions which demand them, thus through the process of letting-mud-settle,
shit happens and the sage has his feet out from under them.

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

What does that mean?

[{:-])))]

On Sun, 8 Apr 2018 08:55:13 -0700 (PDT), Marquard Dirk Pienaar wrote:
>On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 5:20:09 PM UTC+2, Marquard Dirk Pienaar wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 5:13:53 PM UTC+2, Marquard Dirk Pienaar wrote:
>> > On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 3:52:32 PM UTC+2, undifferentiated wrote:
>> > > noname wrote:
>> > > > MDP asked:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Have you noticed Caiaphas Syndrome?
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > 49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year,
>> > > spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is
>> > > better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole
>> > > nation perish.”
>> > >
>> > > 51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he
>> > > prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only
>> > > for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring
>> > > them together and make them one.
>> >
>> > 49-52 are interesting and informative verses. According to
>> > it Christianity, at least, could be an idea, Caiaphas and
>> > other priests, who had convictions in utilitarian philosophy
>> > followed.
>>
>> I think it means simply, any person who has convictions
>> in utilitarian philosophy/religion also has Caiaphas
>> Syndrome, relating to convictions about cosmological
>> causality.

Democracy, which requires compromise and sacrifice
is therefore a mode of Caiaphas Syndrome.

>On the other hand non-utilitarian philosophy also
>relates to thoughts about cosmology,

The word, cosmology, might mean something other than politics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmology

> but it relates
>more to not-doing than doing.

I don't know what non-utilitarian philosophy means.

If it means, gnarly-tree philosophy, that makes sense to me.
Something that is of no use. Emptiness, perhaps.

Tao does nothing. Tao is always wu-wei.
Water flows without effort, wu-wei.

Water nourishes all forms of life, without-intent, wu-wei.

> A caiaphac sees cosmological
>results in his doing. Another word describing his/her view
>is consequentialism, relating to pragmatism.

If someone wants to change the world, doing, intentionally,
and that seems to be pragmatic, useful and has consequences
of some sort, then he's a caiaphac, by definition.

>With regard to Taoism, it would be good to know whether
>Taoism is more of a utilitarian or more of a non-utilitarian
>way of thinking.

The TTC might be viewed to have some verses about that.

Twenty

Give up learning, and put an end to your troubles.

Is there a difference between yes and no?
Is there a difference between good and evil?
Must I fear what others fear? What nonsense!
Other people are contented, enjoying the sacrificial feast of the ox.
In spring some go to the park, and climb the terrace,
But I alone am drifting, not knowing where I am.
Like a newborn babe before it learns to smile,
I am alone, without a place to go.

Others have more than they need, but I alone have nothing.
I am a fool. Oh, yes! I am confused.
Others are clear and bright,
But I alone am dim and weak.
Others are sharp and clever,
But I alone am dull and stupid.
Oh, I drift like the waves of the sea,
Without direction, like the restless wind.

Everyone else is busy,
But I alone am aimless and depressed.
I am different.
I am nourished by the great mother.

>> > Imo, one of the main distinctions in all of philosophy is
>> > between utilitarian philosophy/religion and non-utilitarian
>> > philosophy.

Beyond making distinctions, one may find Tao.

- fwiw, imo, etc., given: context and semantics

[noname]

google has a translate-to-english functionality, at times J happens by and
bilaterally translates between english and something else, or you could resort
to a dictionary, and headscratching.

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

It depends what you mean by sacrifice. The sacrifices
the caiaphaci use, are against the laws of democratic
nations. A reason it happens is because justice systems
have not evolved well enough to hinder it. When the laws
of secrecy allow it, it contradicts other democratic
ideas like liberty.

Imparting of ideas (a "human right"), which
sacrifices "the profane", in current democratic
constitutions, is imo, included because most people
do not see how it contradicts human beings' rights
of democratic constitutions. With regard to
contradictory imparting of ideas, constitutions
make a distinction between "gods/goddesses" (Socrates's
people with good ideas) and "humans" (Nietzsche's
parasites), which is not rational and in line with
modern thought. Caiaphac ways included
in current democratic constitutions are remnants of
the more despotic past, waiting to be excluded from
future better constitutions.

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 4:13:21 PM UTC+2, Marquard Dirk Pienaar wrote:

> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:18:49 PM UTC+2, undifferentiated wrote:
> > noname wrote:

> > > dagnabit wrote:
> > >
> > >> many ages ago quantum entanglement was then called Indra's net.
> > >> Indra's net is a metaphor used to illustrate the concepts of ??nyat?,
> > >> prat?tyasamutp?da, and interpenetration in Buddhist philosophy,
> > >> the interconnectedness between all things. modern science is
> > >> slowly but surely catching up with ancient philosophy.
> > >
> > >slowly yeah, but i'm not convinced about the surely part.
> >
> > Trying to catch a hold of one's tale the One may and mites go froth.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros
> >
> > >people seem to get severely entangled in every complexity they can find.
> >
> > Aye, the Universal Mystery tends to spin up, or spin down, and to oar
> > with one or two oars one may, going with or against a flow at given
> > rates of speed now and then again.
> >
> > >i guess that's how they learn, maybe why they have the views they do about
> > >reincarnation; if you don't know how to move above the details, you can be
> > >stuck in confusion for your whole lifetime, and if reincarnation is as some
> > >think, it might take many lifetimes to figure out which strings are pulled
> > >by one string above, reduce the complexity, and try again.

> >
> > In Buddhist philosophy, if that's what modern science is surely
> > if how ever-slowly, catching up to is the topic, there is no self
> > nor any Self so to speak and yet skandhas there may be.
>
> Selfishness often coincides with idolatry. The most
> selfish people are often very idolatrous. Buddha opposed
> idolatry and probably therefore the idea of self was also
> opposed, because idolators, when spreading their
> convictions, feed off the idea of Self, in the sense of
> selfishness. That implies, at Mahayana Buddhism a
> contradiction could exist with regard to self and idolatry,
> because Mahayana promotes idolatry, which reconciles
> with selfishness. When self is considered for One world, in
> relation to other selves for One world, idolatry and
> selfishness are less influential.
>
>
Idolatry is about owning it all.

TTC22:
"When the ancient Masters said,
"If you want to be given everything,
give everything up,"
they weren't using empty phrases.
Only in being lived by the Tao can
you be truly yourself."
http://www.taoteching.org.uk/index.php?c=22&a=Stephen+Mitchell

When Jesus was taken up a
mountain and he was promised

(by Satan according to the Bible)

> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha
> >
> > And, t'hats all folks.
> >
> > >one thing people seem to miss, when they view taoism from a traditional
> > >perspective, is how directly the subtlest sweep of a butterfly's wing does
> > >affect the whole, and how powerfully.
> >
> > Especially when all the other butterflies are ignored
> > and assumed to have no wings flapping, ever.
> >
> > Not to mention, Zz's dream.
> > He dreamed he was a butterfly, until
> > he appeared to have awakened, until
> > he wondered if he did or did not or was
> > or was not, Zz or the butter flying.
> >
> > Be that as it may, he wrote,
> > ore could be said to have written, in the transformation
> > of things dew occurs, or appear to occur, sewing two speak.
> >
> > He didn't actually write what it was said above
> > except it may be he did, in part. Given the transformation
> > part of the act in the Great Play he dreamed, once up
> > on a time spinning. Yarns and wh'at-knots.
> >
> > > since people are educated and
> > >indoctrinated to be subsumed by society, it is far more often a case of the
> > >whole telling the wing how and when it may move.
> >
> > Far more often, myths fly like moths
> > to a light which is at times a fire.
> >
> > In reality, there is only one Moth,
> > the one who is the photon, the electron, moving
> > through time back and forth very, very, very quickly
> > and which seams as it weaves reality to be such as it is.
> >
> > > when the classical/iconic
> > >principles of taoism are followed, the vast power of doing-without-doing, of
> > >waiting-for-mud-to-settle, these things become self-evident.
> >
> > Zz dreamed.
> > And whether he was the Moth
> > or the butterfly could make all the difference, in a mind sigh.
> >
> > > when the sage
> > >holds fast to the center, tao returns to the world; if it does not, the sage
> > >has lost his balance and teeters on the cliff's edge like Tarot's Fool.
> >
> > Especially when the sage is the world, and nonduality
> > replaces a state of being divided from or in two
> > or against the world, all in all.
> >
> > >a lot of it seems to be the simple fact that most people who look at taoism
> > >never figure out what they're seeing, they think it's religious scripture
> > >when it's more like engineering specs; since they see it as spiritualism of
> > >a sort, they discount its reality to the level of fiction.
> >
> > I don't know what most people do
> > who look at taoism.
> >
> > Most people I've actually spoken with, saw the TTC
> > as being Way too far out for them to even care to ponder.
> >
> > And they were actually able to read it in Chinese.
> >
> > >so it goes.
> >
> > Aye.
> > Maybe most people,
> > assuming there is such a group, who look at taoism
> > are taoists and do see it as religious scripture.
> >
> > Numbers vary between 20 million
> >
> > http://www.conservapedia.com/World_Religions_by_Number_of_Followers
> >
> > and
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism#Adherents
> >
> > << The number of Taoists is difficult to estimate, due to a variety of
> > factors including defining Taoism. According to a survey of religion
> > in China in the year 2010, the number of people practicing some form
> > of Chinese folk religion is near to 950 million (70% of the
> > Chinese).[131] Among these, 173 million (13%) claim an affiliation
> > with Taoist practices.[131] Further in detail, 12 million people claim
> > to be "Taoists", a term traditionally used exclusively for initiates,
> > priests and experts of Taoist rituals and methods.[131]>>
> >
> > > when you see the thing, it's difficult not to overthink it and
> > >conclude that humanity is a fucking waste of time. imo/etc.
> >
> > To find out about, most people who look at taoism,
> > it could take some doing, and be a great waste of time.
> >
> > One may survey the entire planet, and seek out all who look at taoism,
> > and then discover what most people see, based on the survey.
> >
> > Speculation can be fun and assertions made for the making.
> >
> > For me, when looking at Tao Chia, personally, it's fun
> > and what is seen are various perspectives.
> >
> > Tao that are Tao are not always Tao,
> > as the phrase, in Pinyin reads: dao ke dao fei chang dao.
> >
> > It may be said, there is a constant Tao, Eternal Tao,
> > and mention is made of Great Tao in the TTC.
> >
> > Searching the Chuang-tzu for Great Tao
> > sounds like a plan, today, at present.
> >
> > - in a bamboo grove

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 10:10:40 AM UTC+2, Marquard Dirk Pienaar wrote:
> On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 4:13:21 PM UTC+2, Marquard Dirk Pienaar wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 3:18:49 PM UTC+2, undifferentiated wrote:
> > > noname wrote:
> > > > dagnabit wrote:
> > > >

> >
> >
> Idolatry is about owning it all.
>
> TTC22:
> "When the ancient Masters said,
> "If you want to be given everything,
> give everything up,"
> they weren't using empty phrases.
> Only in being lived by the Tao can
> you be truly yourself."
> http://www.taoteching.org.uk/index.php?c=22&a=Stephen+Mitchell

TTC22 Chinese characters
道德經:
曲則全，枉則直，窪則盈，弊則新，少則得，多則惑。是以聖人抱一為天下式。不自見，故明；不自是，故彰；不自伐，故有功；不自矜，故長。夫唯不爭，故天下莫能與之爭。古之所謂曲則全者，豈虛言哉！誠全而歸之
https://ctext.org/dao-de-jing

TTC22 Google translation
"Morals:
The song is full, while it is straight, while it is profitable. The disadvantages are new, but when you are young, you are confused. It is a sage who embraces the world. Not seeing oneself, it is clear; it is not self-existent, it is long; it does not self-cut, it is meritorious; Unable to fight, the world cannot compete with it. The so-called ancient song is the whole person, erroneous words! Sincerely"

Mitchell's translation of the TTC includes
much of his own thoughts, not included in
other translated versions of the TTC.
I saw the idea about "be given everything"
only in the Mitchell translation.

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:
> MDP asked:
>> noname wrote:
>> > MDP wrote:

>> > > MDP wrote:
>> >
>> > > With regard to Taoism, it would be good to know whether
>> > > Taoism is more of a utilitarian or more of a non-utilitarian
>> > > way of thinking.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Imo, one of the main distinctions in all of philosophy is
>> > > > > between utilitarian philosophy/religion and non-utilitarian
>> > > > > philosophy.
>> > > > >
>> >
>> > i'm not an official taoism dispensor/judge.
>> >
>> > one might say that taoism is a form of pragmatic non-utilitarian
>> > consequentialism which arrives at answers by not participating in the
>> > questions which demand them, thus through the process of letting-mud-settle,
>> > shit happens and the sage has his feet out from under them.
>>
>> What does that mean?
>
>google has a translate-to-english functionality, at times J happens by and
>bilaterally translates between english and something else,

Reminds me of a story about the Buddha Siddhartha, who,
when asked to resolve a reincarnation question said
basically the question was not important.

An either/or mentality, such as: whether Taoism is more
utilitarian or more non-utilitarian, whatever those words mean,
may be seen to be a mentality that is not important.

Similarly, to divide all philosophy into
utilitarian philosophy/religion and non-utilitarian philosophy
may sound like a hasty generalization, a false dichotomy, etc.

If pragmatic means, practical consequences, useful for a situation,
some sort of a Way to get a job done, without-effort, spontaneously,
not thinking about some grandious plan to fix the world, but simply
being in the moment, then speculative questions cease to be
and not pertain to other than what is in front of one.

The sage need not bother with questions about world-change
seeing as how the world is able to take care of its self,
as the world is a spiritual phenomenon, sacred,
and those who muck around with it have
missed something more important
than chopping things in half
in various ways by asking
irrelevant questions.

>or you could resort
>to a dictionary, and headscratching.

Taoist texts may suggest forgetting about learning,
set aside knowledge, never-mind wisdom. Be still.

Being still, problems resolve themselves
and then there is no question.

Quiet the mind.
Wu-xin.

- in places and at times

[{:-])))]

Eminent Domain types of sacrifice, for the greater good.
Something about something called, utilitarian philosophy.

> The sacrifices
>the caiaphaci use, are against the laws of democratic
>nations.

Sounds nebulous, to me.

> A reason it happens is because justice systems
>have not evolved well enough to hinder it. When the laws
>of secrecy allow it, it contradicts other democratic
>ideas like liberty.

Sounds like some sort of conspiracy theory, to me.

>Imparting of ideas (a "human right"), which
>sacrifices "the profane",

I have no idea what that, "means"
but the quotes probably mean something, to you.

>in current democratic
>constitutions, is imo, included because most people
>do not see how it contradicts human beings' rights
>of democratic constitutions.

There are constitutions which may speak of, "God" or "Creator"
if that's what is being referred to in the above sentence.

Some people may suffer from persecution complexes
and think, feel, or know in some fashion how, " Theists "
are out there and trying to take away, "profane"
"human rights" or something else is on their minds.

>With regard to
>contradictory imparting of ideas, constitutions
>make a distinction between "gods/goddesses" (Socrates's
>people with good ideas) and "humans" (Nietzsche's
>parasites), which is not rational and in line with
>modern thought.

I'd need to see the so-called, constitutions,
which appear to me to be being called into question,
to ascertain what exactly is being said, by you.

People with good ideas are free to have them,
to create them, and try to spread them around.

Maybe the so-called, constitutions were misconstrued
by a reader of said constitutions or maybe someone
lost his court case and feels as if justice was not served.

If someone has an irrational thought,
such as what appears to appear in the sentence
written about some distinction between people who have
good ideas and people who use those ideas to make money
or have some other agenda, then it might be the thought,
the irrational thought, is an irrational thought.

>Caiaphac ways included
>in current democratic constitutions are remnants of
>the more despotic past, waiting to be excluded from
>future better constitutions.

I have no idea what those ways are
that are seen, by you, to be in current democratic constitutions.

Perhaps an example might illustrate the point,
something more down-to-earth so to speak.

[{:-])))]

It's easy to misunderstand words, apparently.
Someone who has an agenda may read-into words
and excise what they might like, to further their agenda.

Mulch fun can be to snip lines and create contexts.

TTC 22:
"If you want to become whole, let yourself be partial. If you want to
become straight, let yourself be crooked. If you want to become full,
let yourself be empty. If you want to be reborn, let yourself die. If
you want to be given everything, give everything up."

By letting go of everything, by not wanting;
whatever arrives is given to one, as a present.

Not seeking after anything,
everything that arrives, arrives, as a given.

The TTC may say, desire is the biggest mistake.

Those who desire to change the world, desire.

>When Jesus was taken up a
>mountain and he was promised
>(by Satan according to the Bible)
>ownership of it all, he said no
>thank you, because he was rational
>and not an idolator.

Trying to mix and match Taoism and Christianity,
assuming some lines in someone's interpretation mean
exactly the same thing as some lines in some other book,
might be what someone has done, above.

http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap22.htm#top

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap22

Mitchell's version of TTC 22 is an interpolation.

Another interpolation could be said to say:
All things arrive to those who wait.
And what doesn't arrive, doesn't arrive.

Another version may be: patience is a virtue.
Someone might say: seek and ye shall find.
Another could be: trust, hope, and let go.

>In the book of Revelation, if i
>remember correct, it is said
>the returned Christ will be given
>everything.

Why anyone would bring a vision John had
of the end of the world into a Taoist forum is odd, imo.

The Tao Te Ching may have something to say, and,
by looking at only one interpolation by one interpolator
a skewed impression could arise.

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap29

http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap29.htm#top

http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/mitchell.htm#29

<< 29.1 Do you want to improve the world?
I don't think it can be done.
29.2 The world is sacred. It can't be improved.
If you tamper with it, you'll ruin it.
If you treat it like an object, you'll lose it.

> In both instances
>the irrational idea of a self owning
>everything psychologically
>influence readers.

Then, don't think irrationally.

To begin with an irrational thought
and then discover one's conclusions are irrational,
might be an indication that a reader's reading
was irrational to begin with.

To look again at what was being said
and have it make more sense could be rational.

>Rationality rejects
>that influence consciously, but irrational maximum-profit-per-individual with
>> idolatry, is a root of problems.

The above citation appears garbled, to me.
What was below the above did not contain anything new, apparently.

- hm6of1

[{:-])))]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 01:32:47 -0700 (PDT), Marquard Dirk Pienaar wrote:
>On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 10:10:40 AM UTC+2, Marquard Dirk Pienaar wrote:
>
>> Idolatry is about owning it all.
>>
>> TTC22:
>> "When the ancient Masters said,
>> "If you want to be given everything,
>> give everything up,"
>> they weren't using empty phrases.
>> Only in being lived by the Tao can
>> you be truly yourself."
>> http://www.taoteching.org.uk/index.php?c=22&a=Stephen+Mitchell
>
>TTC22 Chinese characters

>???:
>?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
>https://ctext.org/dao-de-jing

The above website has its own translation, apparently.

My newsreader does not compute Chinese characters however,
the below website may be found to have many possibilities.

https://alidark.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/laozib1.pdf

>TTC22 Google translation
>"Morals:
>The song is full, while it is straight, while it is profitable. The disadvantages are new, but when you are young, you are confused. It is a sage who embraces the world. Not seeing oneself, it is clear; it is not self-existent, it is long; it does not self-cut, it is meritorious; Unable to fight, the world cannot compete with it. The so-called ancient song is the whole person, erroneous words! Sincerely"

Using a translation from Google mites be an idea.

How rational or irrational anyone's constitution may be
might be found by digestion, indigestion, food for
thought and what gets eliminated by the gut.

>Mitchell's translation of the TTC includes
>much of his own thoughts, not included in
>other translated versions of the TTC.
>I saw the idea about "be given everything"
>only in the Mitchell translation.

<< begin something in TTC 22 >>

http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap22.htm#top

And all things will come to you.

If you accept all things by refusing to distinguish good and bad,
you overcome the confusion of the physical reality

Because he is no competitor,
No one in all the world can compete with him.

Because she wants nothing from the world,
the world can not overcome her.

true wholeness comes from turning within.

Stay whole, and all things return to you.

Indeed he shall return home entire.

<< end of something in TTC 22 >>

Carving the world induces dualities.
At times, the wise refuse to do that.

Uncarving may be as iconic as water
which, when chopped to pieces doesn't mind.

- evaporating and condensing, flowing and being or not being

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

All thinking about conspiracies are not theoretical.
Many conspiracies exist factually. It is however not
easy to know how the conspiracies work actually,
therefore theorizing about conspiracies is the usual
way of thinking about them, unless self is a conspiring
"One" who knows factually how a conspiracy works.

>
> >Imparting of ideas (a "human right"), which
> >sacrifices "the profane",
>
> I have no idea what that, "means"
> but the quotes probably mean something, to you.

In my philosophical studies "the profane" was usually
used to refer to honest people, considering the argument
people have to lie to show they each is not the "One and
Only".

>
> >in current democratic
> >constitutions, is imo, included because most people
> >do not see how it contradicts human beings' rights
> >of democratic constitutions.
>
> There are constitutions which may speak of, "God" or "Creator"
> if that's what is being referred to in the above sentence.
>
> Some people may suffer from persecution complexes
> and think, feel, or know in some fashion how, " Theists "
> are out there and trying to take away, "profane"
> "human rights" or something else is on their minds.

Organized/Gang stalking is a fact and a big problem,
especially in the USA. Much fallaciousness/irrationality
is also spread about it. A rational thought is,
gang stalking is as old as history and existed long
before mind control by electronic means was possible,
as some gang stalking videos claim happens today.

>
> >With regard to
> >contradictory imparting of ideas, constitutions
> >make a distinction between "gods/goddesses" (Socrates's
> >people with good ideas) and "humans" (Nietzsche's
> >parasites), which is not rational and in line with
> >modern thought.
>
> I'd need to see the so-called, constitutions,
> which appear to me to be being called into question,
> to ascertain what exactly is being said, by you.

Constitutions motivate "imparting of ideas", which is
used together with secretive laws with regard to
security. It is a world wide problem, due to the
high value of good ideas.

>
> People with good ideas are free to have them,
> to create them, and try to spread them around.
>
> Maybe the so-called, constitutions were misconstrued
> by a reader of said constitutions or maybe someone
> lost his court case and feels as if justice was not served.
>
> If someone has an irrational thought,
> such as what appears to appear in the sentence
> written about some distinction between people who have
> good ideas and people who use those ideas to make money
> or have some other agenda, then it might be the thought,
> the irrational thought, is an irrational thought.
>
> >Caiaphac ways included
> >in current democratic constitutions are remnants of
> >the more despotic past, waiting to be excluded from
> >future better constitutions.
>
> I have no idea what those ways are
> that are seen, by you, to be in current democratic constitutions.
>
> Perhaps an example might illustrate the point,
> something more down-to-earth so to speak.

The best examples i can give is on the website
www.africahead.co.za and the books i wrote, because
it is based on actual experience and academic research,
combined.

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

On a website about Taoism the writer equated the
opposition against desire as opposition against
utilitarianism.

>
> Those who desire to change the world, desire.

Those who desire to keep the world as it is,

desire.
>
> >When Jesus was taken up a
> >mountain and he was promised
> >(by Satan according to the Bible)
> >ownership of it all, he said no
> >thank you, because he was rational
> >and not an idolator.
>
> Trying to mix and match Taoism and Christianity,
> assuming some lines in someone's interpretation mean
> exactly the same thing as some lines in some other book,
> might be what someone has done, above.

Psychology is in a sense, universal.

>
> http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap22.htm#top
>
> https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap22
>
> Mitchell's version of TTC 22 is an interpolation.
>
> Another interpolation could be said to say:
> All things arrive to those who wait.
> And what doesn't arrive, doesn't arrive.
>
> Another version may be: patience is a virtue.
> Someone might say: seek and ye shall find.
> Another could be: trust, hope, and let go.
>
> >In the book of Revelation, if i
> >remember correct, it is said
> >the returned Christ will be given
> >everything.

and then give it away again, if i recall
correctly.

>
> Why anyone would bring a vision John had
> of the end of the world into a Taoist forum is odd, imo.

Having seen "Tao/Logos" and "God/Sage", it is odd?

>
> The Tao Te Ching may have something to say, and,
> by looking at only one interpolation by one interpolator
> a skewed impression could arise.
>
> https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap29
>
> http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap29.htm#top
>
> http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/mitchell.htm#29
>
> << 29.1 Do you want to improve the world?
> I don't think it can be done.
> 29.2 The world is sacred. It can't be improved.
> If you tamper with it, you'll ruin it.
> If you treat it like an object, you'll lose it.

The conditions of humans can be improved with
good ideas. I agree the world has a constancy,
humans probably cannot change, therefore arguments
against "changing the world" is irrational.

>
> > In both instances
> >the irrational idea of a self owning
> >everything psychologically
> >influence readers.
>
> Then, don't think irrationally.
>
> To begin with an irrational thought
> and then discover one's conclusions are irrational,
> might be an indication that a reader's reading
> was irrational to begin with.

I meant many people have not consciously considered
the effects of the idea of "owning it all", therefore
maximum-profit-per-individual is kept in place by those
who probably have thought about it consciously, but are
gaining from the psychological impact to the disadvantage
of One world.

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

Duality (Yin/Yang) is an idea in Taoism,
whilst reconciling it. Sometimes it is
irreconcilable and complete separation is
a preferable way.

[noname]

On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 8:17:49 PM UTC-6, noname wrote:
> so i ran into this article, and i just about laughed my ass off:
>
> https://www.livescience.com/28550-how-quantum-entanglement-works-infographic.html
>
> their description of "quantum superposition" is exactly how the mage navigates
> the multiverse:
>
> "The rules of quantum physics state that an unobserved photon exists in all
> possible states simultaneously but, when observed or measured, exhibits only
> one state." [assuming i typed it in correctly from their graphic.]
>
> replace "photon" with "universe". do the math. all possible universes exist
> as possibilities within the realm called Mystery, but when Manifest, that
> universe is the one you're in (and the one everybody else is in, there is
> only one active universe at a time as far as i can tell, and theoretically
> there only needs to be one active universe). in other words, the transition
> between universes which occurs at the next change, can be considered either
> a state-swap, or a transmogrification, with equal validity.
>
> their blip about quantum entanglement is interesting too. a laser and a
> funky crystal is not the only way particles become entangled. in fact every
> particle in existence is entangled with one other. these pairs are in turn
> entangled with one another similarly. and as the groupings become larger
> the entanglements become more nebulous and less visible.
>
> rotflmao

while it is true, in my view of things, that living is better than planning,
that harmony with Tao directs one's life better than one's desires can, and
that seeing broken things as mere balance to other broken things, is one
way to see things; still, there is a choice to be made, when brought to the
broken, whether to leave it broken, or fix it. to me, it seems that if a
thing was to remain broken, following Tao would lead one around it, to the
next patch of sand compatible with the ostrich, instead of into the face of
the thing confronted.

if all the broken/broken pairs are left broken, oh my, they reproduce and
break other pairs. recognizing the sickness, the sage fixes himself; in so
doing, the entanglements of the world are rearranged, and by fixing himself
the sage finds he has fixed the part of the world balanced by his sickness.

when the world shows you ugliness and asks for your response, best have one
imo.

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 4:46:45 PM UTC+2, noname wrote:
> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 8:17:49 PM UTC-6, noname wrote:
> > so i ran into this article, and i just about laughed my ass off:
> >
> > https://www.livescience.com/28550-how-quantum-entanglement-works-infographic.html
> >
> > their description of "quantum superposition" is exactly how the mage navigates
> > the multiverse:
> >
> > "The rules of quantum physics state that an unobserved photon exists in all
> > possible states simultaneously but, when observed or measured, exhibits only
> > one state." [assuming i typed it in correctly from their graphic.]

Quantum physics is based on quantum theory.
Imo, it is cosmological post-modern theory,
because it is impossible to know "in all".
Quantum physicists are making the same mistake
sophists made when they used observations
to reach conclusions about it "all". Quantum
theory is not nominalist, which has a valid
part in thought.

Does "response", include not-doing?

[noname]

On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 10:23:00 AM UTC-6, Marquard Dirk Pienaar wrote:
> On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 4:46:45 PM UTC+2, noname wrote:
> > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 8:17:49 PM UTC-6, noname wrote:
> > > so i ran into this article, and i just about laughed my ass off:
> > >
> > > https://www.livescience.com/28550-how-quantum-entanglement-works-infographic.html
> > >
> > > their description of "quantum superposition" is exactly how the mage navigates
> > > the multiverse:
> > >
> > > "The rules of quantum physics state that an unobserved photon exists in all
> > > possible states simultaneously but, when observed or measured, exhibits only
> > > one state." [assuming i typed it in correctly from their graphic.]
>
> Quantum physics is based on quantum theory.
> Imo, it is cosmological post-modern theory,
> because it is impossible to know "in all".
> Quantum physicists are making the same mistake
> sophists made when they used observations
> to reach conclusions about it "all". Quantum
> theory is not nominalist, which has a valid
> part in thought.

theory is theory, practice is practice, when theory disagrees with actuality
it's always the theory that's wrong.

one may always sit stupidly as the world goes its way; in taoism it's an
iconic response, lol.

usually if you do not respond, and things get worse, you have chosen a
less-than-optimal path.

when a cat sits, without moving, outside a mouse-hole, it is choosing not
to respond when the mouse sticks its head out; then in an instant its
non-responsiveness changes drastically once the mouse overbalances the
equation by advancing too far.

the fact that one has not acted does not mean that he has not responded, in
actuality the most powerful tool the sage has is the ability to act by not
responding. in the first degree this is seen as restraint, in the second
degree this is seen as detached manipulation, in the third degree the magic
comes clear and it is doing-without-doing, direct communication between
the sage and the world.

[{:-])))]

What website?

>> Those who desire to change the world, desire.
>
>Those who desire to keep the world as it is,
>desire.

Those who don't care, don't care.

Without desire, one is free in many Ways.

Letting go of desires, ideas, and everything,
everything occurs naturally, ziran.

>> >When Jesus was taken up a
>> >mountain and he was promised
>> >(by Satan according to the Bible)
>> >ownership of it all, he said no
>> >thank you, because he was rational
>> >and not an idolator.
>>
>> Trying to mix and match Taoism and Christianity,
>> assuming some lines in someone's interpretation mean
>> exactly the same thing as some lines in some other book,
>> might be what someone has done, above.
>
>Psychology is in a sense, universal.

I have no idea how that relates
to jumping from Taoism to Christianity.

When Midas wanted gold, he found a limit.

>> http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap22.htm#top
>>
>> https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap22
>>
>> Mitchell's version of TTC 22 is an interpolation.
>>
>> Another interpolation could be said to say:
>> All things arrive to those who wait.
>> And what doesn't arrive, doesn't arrive.
>>
>> Another version may be: patience is a virtue.
>> Someone might say: seek and ye shall find.
>> Another could be: trust, hope, and let go.
>>
>> >In the book of Revelation, if i
>> >remember correct, it is said
>> >the returned Christ will be given
>> >everything.
>
>and then give it away again, if i recall
>correctly.

If you aren't sure,
then, you might check again
to see if your recollection is correct.

Find the Book of Revelation, the Chapter, and Verse
and then, to be remotely on-topic, compare that
with some version of the TTC or CT.

While this group isn't, alt.compare.philosophies,
at least there would be something Taoist.

>> Why anyone would bring a vision John had
>> of the end of the world into a Taoist forum is odd, imo.
>
>Having seen "Tao/Logos" and "God/Sage", it is odd?

I don't know what the word, Logos, means, to you.

Nor have:
all people alive today who are honest and loving
been seen at any time by anyone.

What is seen, by me, are bizarre thoughts
scattered around, and what seems, to you,
as you guess, or attempt to recall
Christianity and mix that
with Taoism.

If someone said, the word, Cat, means, Tao,
because cats always land on their feet,
and then goes on to post links
to YouTube videos with cats
and calls them Tao/Cat,
it could be done
and be odd
for me.

It might be fun, and bizarre, so to speak.

>> The Tao Te Ching may have something to say, and,
>> by looking at only one interpolation by one interpolator
>> a skewed impression could arise.
>>
>> https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap29
>>
>> http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap29.htm#top
>>
>> http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/mitchell.htm#29
>>
>> << 29.1 Do you want to improve the world?
>> I don't think it can be done.
>> 29.2 The world is sacred. It can't be improved.
>> If you tamper with it, you'll ruin it.
>> If you treat it like an object, you'll lose it.
>
>The conditions of humans can be improved with
>good ideas.

If that's what you think, then that's what you think.

Lots of good ideas might be thought.

How those ideas improve anything,
without implementing them
might be a wonder.

> I agree the world has a constancy,
>humans probably cannot change, therefore arguments
>against "changing the world" is irrational.

If you see Taoism as being irrational
then another wonder may arise.

For me, irrational stuff is fun.
Like the square root of two, for example, aye, like.

To the right of a decimal point,
the square root of two does not end nor repeat.

Seeing as how there is no end to it,
nor any pattern to speak of, one may speak of it
in some other fashion of thought.

To use Pythagoras and a theorem of his
an hypotenuse might be a good idea,
of a triangle whose legs are one
unit and doing the math.

Maybe that improved the world, geometrically
if not exponentially, and Joseph, the one
with the coat of many colours then was
able to be Prime Minister of Egypt
until a Pharaoh arose who did
not know Joseph which reminds me
of Lost Tribe theory and therefore is
a form of Tao/Cat that lands on its four feet.

>> > In both instances
>> >the irrational idea of a self owning
>> >everything psychologically
>> >influence readers.
>>
>> Then, don't think irrationally.
>>
>> To begin with an irrational thought
>> and then discover one's conclusions are irrational,
>> might be an indication that a reader's reading
>> was irrational to begin with.
>
>I meant many people have not consciously considered
>the effects of the idea of "owning it all",

Probably some, or many, how ever
many some might be, have not considered that.

> therefore
>maximum-profit-per-individual is kept in place by those
>who probably have thought about it consciously, but are
>gaining from the psychological impact to the disadvantage
>of One world.

Sounds bizarre to me.

Capitalism fostered monopolies.
Monopolies were kept in check at times.

The TTC may have a line, in Chapter 1,
Line 1, that could speak to how Ways or Tao are.

To suppose any Way, or Tao, or Principle,
whether spoken, written, thought, as an idea
or put into a constitution is going to be Chang Tao,
Eternal Tao, Forever Tao, may be viewed as, not.

Capitalism has its limits.
Utilitarianism, Non-utilitarianism, Christianity,
Confucianism, and even Taoism, have their limits.

Be that as it may, Taoisms are Taoisms and point, imo.

What isn't Taoism, isn't Taoism, and how to tell
what is from what is not a form of Taoism
might be a topic, unless it isn't.

- in a bamboo grove

[noname]

On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 1:16:16 PM UTC-6, {:-]))) wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 07:03:34 -0700 (PDT), Marquard Dirk Pienaar wrote:

> >The conditions of humans can be improved with
> >good ideas.
>
> If that's what you think, then that's what you think.
>
> Lots of good ideas might be thought.
>
> How those ideas improve anything,
> without implementing them
> might be a wonder.
>

those who truly wonder may find
that keeping ideas in mind
shapes the ninja-stars of thought
that flap each time his breath speaks
more quietly than a butterfly's wing
and while nothing is done
nothing is left undone; this is
called doing-without-doing,
or some other thing with a wei wei wing
and forests become roots,
of the one sitting in the
heart of undifferentiation.

theory is theory,
practice is practice,

and walking the way
can be done without
living the way.

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

https://taopracticed.wordpress.com/2016/04/04/how-the-taoist-is-moral/

>
> >> Those who desire to change the world, desire.
> >
> >Those who desire to keep the world as it is,
> >desire.
>
> Those who don't care, don't care.

And presumably they don't accuse others
of trying to "change the world" in a derogatory
sense.

>
> Without desire, one is free in many Ways.
>
> Letting go of desires, ideas, and everything,
> everything occurs naturally, ziran.
>
> >> >When Jesus was taken up a
> >> >mountain and he was promised
> >> >(by Satan according to the Bible)
> >> >ownership of it all, he said no
> >> >thank you, because he was rational
> >> >and not an idolator.
> >>
> >> Trying to mix and match Taoism and Christianity,
> >> assuming some lines in someone's interpretation mean
> >> exactly the same thing as some lines in some other book,
> >> might be what someone has done, above.
> >
> >Psychology is in a sense, universal.
>
> I have no idea how that relates
> to jumping from Taoism to Christianity.

Psychology, which is kind of universal, is
influenced by Taoism and Christianity, therefore
synthesis between Taoism and Christianity is relevant,
because both influence the same (universal psychology).

Most important above are "by me" and "to you".

>
> If someone said, the word, Cat, means, Tao,
> because cats always land on their feet,
> and then goes on to post links
> to YouTube videos with cats
> and calls them Tao/Cat,
> it could be done
> and be odd
> for me.

Obviously comparisons between "Cat" and "Tao"
are not nearly as relevant as Tao/Logos. That
can be explained to a child quickly, i think.

>
> It might be fun, and bizarre, so to speak.
>
> >> The Tao Te Ching may have something to say, and,
> >> by looking at only one interpolation by one interpolator
> >> a skewed impression could arise.
> >>
> >> https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap29
> >>
> >> http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap29.htm#top
> >>
> >> http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/mitchell.htm#29
> >>
> >> << 29.1 Do you want to improve the world?
> >> I don't think it can be done.
> >> 29.2 The world is sacred. It can't be improved.
> >> If you tamper with it, you'll ruin it.
> >> If you treat it like an object, you'll lose it.
> >
> >The conditions of humans can be improved with
> >good ideas.
>
> If that's what you think, then that's what you think.

It's a fact outside of me.

>
> Lots of good ideas might be thought.
>
> How those ideas improve anything,
> without implementing them
> might be a wonder.

Development cannot exist without ideas, which
come before development.

[{:-])))]

noname articulated:

> MDP wrote:
>
>> Does "response", include not-doing?
>
>one may always sit stupidly as the world goes its way; in taoism it's an
>iconic response, lol.

Some seers see sitting as doing
even when there's nothing to do.

>usually if you do not respond, and things get worse, you have chosen a
>less-than-optimal path.
>
>when a cat sits, without moving, outside a mouse-hole, it is choosing not
>to respond when the mouse sticks its head out; then in an instant its
>non-responsiveness changes drastically once the mouse overbalances the
>equation by advancing too far.
>
>the fact that one has not acted does not mean that he has not responded, in
>actuality the most powerful tool the sage has is the ability to act by not
>responding. in the first degree this is seen as restraint, in the second
>degree this is seen as detached manipulation, in the third degree the magic
>comes clear and it is doing-without-doing, direct communication between
>the sage and the world.

When a, "response" is wu-wei,
wu-wei might mean, spontaneous.

When a, "response" is wu-wei,
wu-wei might mean, effortless.

When someone does not do something
to someone else and that not doing is
a form of restraint, it might not be called, wu-wei,
if someone would really like to do something
such as, call someone a bad name.

When someone does good, naturally,
without any forced intent governed by rules
or laws then that doing good could be called, wu-wei.

TTC 38 may be applied as kneaded.

- virtue wise

[{:-])))]

Aye, agree.

At the same time how
ever it's possible the ideas
MDP means are economically driven ones;
ones people steal from others in his
caiaphaci conspiracy schemings
of seeing the world thing.

If my recollection is correct, he would like
for people to be paid for their unproven ideas
by the state, and thought police ought to keep
bad people from doing things to other folk
plus, "profane" means, honest people,
which could be added to a glossary
if someone were creating one
and keeping track of his
trains of thought while
swimming up stream.

[noname]

i think money is silly in a society where machines can produce more than
men need and job obsolescence doesn't mean a few jobs going away but the
whole concept of the "job" going away.

it'll work itself out by and by. it's all good, and it will continue to be
all good, even when the zombies walk neighborhood streets near you. of
course you could project your defects onto that world and fix it, or not.

and either way
it will work itself out
by and by,
like origami
unfolding
as the sky.

[{:-])))]

The words there sound very much akin to yours.

It's possible you could find the author understands you
much better than people here do.

Having a common lexicon may help artists paint
similar pictures using words on a screen.

>> >> Those who desire to change the world, desire.
>> >
>> >Those who desire to keep the world as it is,
>> >desire.
>>
>> Those who don't care, don't care.
>
>And presumably they don't accuse others
>of trying to "change the world" in a derogatory
>sense.

Some people accuse others of being, caiaphaci,
or, assholes, or use various other terms
which they might not have used unless
someone else used them first.

Some folks may apply a golden rule at times
but not at all times given: their hypocrisy, etc.

>> Without desire, one is free in many Ways.
>>
>> Letting go of desires, ideas, and everything,
>> everything occurs naturally, ziran.
>>
>> >> >When Jesus was taken up a
>> >> >mountain and he was promised
>> >> >(by Satan according to the Bible)
>> >> >ownership of it all, he said no
>> >> >thank you, because he was rational
>> >> >and not an idolator.
>> >>
>> >> Trying to mix and match Taoism and Christianity,
>> >> assuming some lines in someone's interpretation mean
>> >> exactly the same thing as some lines in some other book,
>> >> might be what someone has done, above.
>> >
>> >Psychology is in a sense, universal.
>>
>> I have no idea how that relates
>> to jumping from Taoism to Christianity.
>
>Psychology, which is kind of universal, is
>influenced by Taoism and Christianity,

Maybe you're talking about your own psychology.

To suppose Taoism is, kind of universal,
might be a funny supposition to suppose.

To make Taoism fit, one could simply bend
all Taoist terminology to fit whatever it is
that is being claimed as a universal psychology.

Then, bend Christain words also.
And, presto, everything is relevant
in a newsgroup about Cats, assuming of course
Cat Philosophy or Cat Religion was also included
in one's universal psychology, not to mention, Dogs.

Apples and oranges may be relevant also,
along with the elephant and the rhino.

> therefore
>synthesis between Taoism and Christianity is relevant,
>because both influence the same (universal psychology).

I don't know what that, universal psychology, is, in your mind.

There is what's called Perennial Philosophy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy

It could be similar if not the same as New Age Philosophy.

Maybe there's a New Age newsgroup in Usenet
where your synthesis would be on-topic.

Not to mention, Taoism
and Christianity.

If the now famous universal Cat Philosophy,
from which Tao/Cat gets its name, as it is recalled
and blended with Tao/Dog, then that could be
most important of course naturally.

>> If someone said, the word, Cat, means, Tao,
>> because cats always land on their feet,
>> and then goes on to post links
>> to YouTube videos with cats
>> and calls them Tao/Cat,
>> it could be done
>> and be odd
>> for me.
>
>Obviously comparisons between "Cat" and "Tao"
>are not nearly as relevant as Tao/Logos.

Not to you, of course.

> That can be explained to a child quickly, i think.

Thinking can be fun to explain to a child.

>> It might be fun, and bizarre, so to speak.
>>
>> >> The Tao Te Ching may have something to say, and,
>> >> by looking at only one interpolation by one interpolator
>> >> a skewed impression could arise.
>> >>
>> >> https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap29
>> >>
>> >> http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap29.htm#top
>> >>
>> >> http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/mitchell.htm#29
>> >>
>> >> << 29.1 Do you want to improve the world?
>> >> I don't think it can be done.
>> >> 29.2 The world is sacred. It can't be improved.
>> >> If you tamper with it, you'll ruin it.
>> >> If you treat it like an object, you'll lose it.
>> >
>> >The conditions of humans can be improved with
>> >good ideas.
>>
>> If that's what you think, then that's what you think.
>
>It's a fact outside of me.

If that's what you think, then that's what you think.

It's possible the idea is the same as noname's idea
which might be, just think of an idea, a good idea,
and that good idea, by simply thinking it
will improve the world.

That's a fantastic idea
for someone to think.

>> Lots of good ideas might be thought.
>>
>> How those ideas improve anything,
>> without implementing them
>> might be a wonder.
>
>Development cannot exist without ideas, which
>come before development.

Some people might like to be paid for ideas
before they are proven to work.

What they desire is money
and to improve the world as they see fit.

Some might want a secular state.
Some might want a theistic state.

Both might see their state as the best.

Both may view their Way as the Tao/Logos.

Whether or not that's Taoism
might be something.

[{:-])))]

wu dao wrote:
> MDP wrote:
>> {:-]))) asked:
>>> MDP found:

>>>
>>> >On a website about Taoism the writer equated the
>>> >opposition against desire as opposition against
>>> >utilitarianism.
>>>
>>> What website?
>>
>>https://taopracticed.wordpress.com/2016/04/04/how-the-taoist-is-moral/
>
>The words there sound very much akin to yours.
>
>It's possible you could find the author understands you
>much better than people here do.
>
>Having a common lexicon may help artists paint
>similar pictures using words on a screen.

Beginning to read what's written at the site:

<< If I don’t help a fallen cougar, and if everyone doesn’t help a
fallen cougar, then all would eventually die. >>

Sounds a bit bizarre to me.

- to begin with

[{:-])))]

fallen cougar, then all would eventually die. However, if there are no
fallen cougars, then not helping is impossible and thus immoral. In
short, this is the gist of deontology.>>

Sounds even more strange to me.

If that's the gist of deontology,
then deontology is rather odd, imo.

- logic wise

[{:-])))]

>> wu dao wrote:
>>> MDP wrote:
>>>> {:-]))) asked:
>>>>> MDP found:
>>>>>
>>>>> >On a website about Taoism the writer equated the
>>>>> >opposition against desire as opposition against
>>>>> >utilitarianism.
>>>>>
>>>>> What website?
>>>>
>>>>https://taopracticed.wordpress.com/2016/04/04/how-the-taoist-is-moral/
>>>
>>>The words there sound very much akin to yours.

<< Let’s look at Egoism.
Egoism differs greatly from deontology because it’s only concerning
what arises from your action. In other words, your action is moral if
and only if you like the consequences.>>

Strange, odd, bizarre
definitions dew ape peer to vary.

- out to sea

[{:-])))]

>>>> MDP wrote:
>>>>> {:-]))) asked:
>>>>>> MDP found:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >On a website about Taoism the writer equated the
>>>>>> >opposition against desire as opposition against
>>>>>> >utilitarianism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What website?
>>>>>
>>>>>https://taopracticed.wordpress.com/2016/04/04/how-the-taoist-is-moral/

<< The Duty and Desire of a Taoist

But this post is not about cougars and philosophical jargon; it’s
about which morality does a taoist use to follow the Great Way. It’s
about whether a taoist abides by it because of a duty or a desire. The
question can be answered if we look at what pushes him or her to
abide. I suspect it’s both a duty and a desire, the magnitude of
each’s influence being inversely related. This is true because a
novice must first have a will to incorporate Taoism since forcing a
philosophy ends, at best, in an insincere approach. As the novice
gains comfort in following the Tao, the concepts of nondistinction,
inaction, sagehood, etc. become perhaps second nature. This means that
since the now–expert taoist is moved by the Tao, so too is he by duty,
having no desire for any consequences but rather a sort of moral law,
and in this case, it’s closely related to the Tao. From non-taoist to
sagehood, the morality of a taoist varies from desire to duty.>>

As I see Taoism, both duty and desire miss the point.
Desire is said to be a great mistake.
Duty sounds Confucian to me.

Taoism is not about morality, imo.

- to begin with

[{:-])))]

wu dao continued with:

>>>>> MDP wrote:
>>>>>> {:-]))) asked:
>>>>>>> MDP found:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >On a website about Taoism the writer equated the
>>>>>>> >opposition against desire as opposition against
>>>>>>> >utilitarianism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What website?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>https://taopracticed.wordpress.com/2016/04/04/how-the-taoist-is-moral/
>
><< The Duty and Desire of a Taoist

<< However, some may say this question is silly because not even
justice, pleasure, righteousness, majesty, and stink are endorsed in
Taoism (let alone morality), but although that’s a big concept in the
Zhuangzi and the Tao Te Ching, it’s not in other views. Doubtlessly, a
taoist would look at himself or herself and think “I have no
morality,” so the significance of the question lies with those who
acknowledge morality.>>

To say something about the TTC and the Zz
and then dismiss those two basic Tao Chia texts
might be silly, to begin with, and odd, strange, etc.

As a Taoist, myself, while the author is doubtless
about what a taoist would do, looking at himself
or herself and think; I don't think as the author
thinks a taoist would think. Maybe me being a
Taoist instead of a taoist is a think.

For me, morality and immorality emerge as duality.

At times I'm a Confucian, and moral.
At times I'm an immoral idiot.

Beyond duality may be found Tao.

- fwiw, imo, etc.

[{:-])))]

>>>>>> MDP wrote:
>>>>>>> {:-]))) asked:
>>>>>>>> MDP found:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >On a website about Taoism the writer equated the
>>>>>>>> >opposition against desire as opposition against
>>>>>>>> >utilitarianism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What website?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>https://taopracticed.wordpress.com/2016/04/04/how-the-taoist-is-moral/

After reading the blog post,
what MDP says was there
did not appear to me to be there.

Maybe it's there.
The words are confusing to me.

The writer equates Utilitarianism with Egoism.

For me, Egoism isn't about Utilitarianism, at all.

But, then again, maybe Utilitarianism means
something other than the greatest good
or Egoism means Eminant Domain.

As an Egotist, myself, not giving a rat's
body part about anyone else sounds supreme.

As a Compassionist, the well being of all
is of particular concern, and to not harm
a horse nor a horse fly can be my thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

<< Unlike other forms of consequentialism, such as egoism,
utilitarianism considers the interests of all beings equally.>>

What MDP sees in words, others may
or may see something else as well as in the world.

Some see conspiracies while others see sacred
ideas and some folks want to fix what they see
as being in need of repair or to be improved.

Personally, me too. To improve, repair, maintain
and fix what's broken is natural enuf for me to do.

Doing something in a Taoist Way
may be compared with doing something in an
other than Taoist Way.

Taoism, normally, here, was conceived of as being
Tao Chia, which means basically, the TTC and CT,
and is also known as Taoist Philosophy.

Lots of Taoisms might be blended with
the liks of Confucianism, Christianity, Sports,
Animal Rights, Driving Cars and keeping on truckin.

[noname]

duty is the addiction to remaining in harmony with Tao that is inherently
incumbent upon those who feel it.

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:29:09 AM UTC+2, {:-]))) wrote:
> >>>>>> MDP wrote:
> >>>>>>> {:-]))) asked:
> >>>>>>>> MDP found:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> >On a website about Taoism the writer equated the
> >>>>>>>> >opposition against desire as opposition against
> >>>>>>>> >utilitarianism.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What website?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>https://taopracticed.wordpress.com/2016/04/04/how-the-taoist-is-moral/
>
> After reading the blog post,
> what MDP says was there
> did not appear to me to be there.
>
> Maybe it's there.
> The words are confusing to me.
>
> The writer equates Utilitarianism with Egoism.
>
> For me, Egoism isn't about Utilitarianism, at all.
>
> But, then again, maybe Utilitarianism means
> something other than the greatest good
> or Egoism means Eminant Domain.
>
> As an Egotist, myself, not giving a rat's
> body part about anyone else sounds supreme.
>
> As a Compassionist, the well being of all
> is of particular concern, and to not harm
> a horse nor a horse fly can be my thing.

Utilitarianism is not about "the well being of all".
Utilitarians excommunicate and ostracize people who
they regard as "the profane", whilst imparting
ideas, which originated at "the profane". Then
utilitarians develop those good ideas as utilities
for utilitarian happiness of their utilitarian group.

>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
>
> << Unlike other forms of consequentialism, such as egoism,
> utilitarianism considers the interests of all beings equally.>>

The above is not true. Utilitarianism has as aim maximum possible
happiness of their utilitarian group. If a utilitarian group can
take something, even life, from "the other", with the
reasoning, happiness to their group will be caused by the taking,
then they do it. The sacrifice of Jesus is a classic example of
utilitarian reasoning. Utilitarianism is inherently a mob-way of
reasoning. Utilitarians think about "the individual" and to not
be "the individual" because "he" is regarded as a threat to their
happiness.

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 3:29:09 AM UTC+2, {:-]))) wrote:

Here's a quote about the roots of utilitarianism:
"Biblical and classical literature, Kierkegaard reminds us, offers other examples of parents sacrificing their children: Agamemnon offering up Iphigenia to avert the gods' curse on the Greek expedition to Troy, Jephta giving up his daughter in fulfilment of a rash vow, Brutus condemning to death his treasonable sons. These were all sacrifices made for the greater good of a community: they were, in ethical terms, a surrender of the individual for the sake of the universal." (Kenny, A. 2010. A new history, 979.)
http://www.africahead.co.za/Africahead/QuotesAndRamblings_files/2010KennyA%20ANewHistoryOfWesternPhilosophyInFourParts.html#_ftnref104

The problem with the above quote is it does not
distinguish between good and evil sacrifices.
When an innocent, for example a baby is sacrificed,
whilst reasoning sacrificing the purity of the baby
will bring happiness to a group, it's, for example,
utilitarianism.

[noname]

MDP, i think your view of how group dynamics works is a little off-kilter;
maybe it's a view that works for you, but i find it insufficiently general,
or maybe too complex and attributing things crossways.

i think it's just overlapping feudalisms, if that's a way of describing it.
a feudal system contains a lord, maybe some nobles, serfs/minions, and
gypsies. take a bunch of feudal systems and toss them in a room together
and you have a group. utilitarian insofar as the desires of the lord/s
being satisfied by his nobles/minions. non-utilitarian in some ways since
altruism is a handy political rallying point for nobles looking to become
lords, or lords looking to be king.

the whole Caiaphas angle seems way overworked, it attempts to create a
conspiracy that can be explained by simple self-interest and feudalistic
posturing with the occasional execution of an enemy-of-authority by means
of excommunicating him/her to gypsy status.

fwiw.

[{:-])))]

Reminds me of a Cheech and Chong joke.
Chong says he used to be
all fucked up on drugs
but now,
he's all fucked up on, the Lord.

There are worse things than being addicted to Tao,
or to following Tao, or hooked on Tao.

To call an addiction a duty sounds odd to me.

- like, it's my duty to drink beer, oar sum such

[{:-])))]

Marquard Dirk Pienaar wrote:

>Utilitarianism is not about "the well being of all".

I don't think that's what the wiki article, below, says.

>Utilitarians excommunicate and ostracize people who
>they regard as "the profane",

And by, "the profane"
what is meant is, iirc, honest people.

Why anyone would choose to use any words
other than, honest people, if they mean, honest people,
is very strange, and confusing, to me.

> whilst imparting
>ideas, which originated at "the profane".

Some people originate profane speech,
which might mean, honest, if it includes profane words.

>Then
>utilitarians develop those good ideas as utilities
>for utilitarian happiness of their utilitarian group.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
>>
>> << Unlike other forms of consequentialism, such as egoism,
>> utilitarianism considers the interests of all beings equally.>>
>
>The above is not true.

I would not equate Egoism with Utilitarianism either.

But, people make up their own definitions
and might think those definitions are true
while the definitions other people use
are not true, in their minds.

> Utilitarianism has as aim maximum possible
>happiness of their utilitarian group.

People often make up their very own definitions of words.

>If a utilitarian group can
>take something, even life, from "the other", with the
>reasoning, happiness to their group will be caused by the taking,
>then they do it. The sacrifice of Jesus is a classic example of
>utilitarian reasoning. Utilitarianism is inherently a mob-way of
>reasoning. Utilitarians think about "the individual" and to not
>be "the individual" because "he" is regarded as a threat to their
>happiness.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/

<< Utilitarianism is one of the most powerful and persuasive
approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy. >>

I don't see Taoism as being concerned much with ethics.

Then again, I have no idea what, normative ethics, means.

Maybe it means, wu-wei, today.

- ore knots

[{:-])))]

To find only one problem with the above quote
might be what exists for someone.

For me, another problem is what it has to do with Taoism.

The website linked to originally seemed to be saying something
that the author or authors felt was Taoistic, except,
it was said, forget about Taoism to begin with, ignore
the Tao Te Ching and Chuang-tzu (Zhuangzi).

If the TTC and CT are dismissed
and what remains is called Taoism, then,
someone might call anything Taoism and mean,
Jesus is Tao, and Christianity is Taoism, for example.

>When an innocent, for example a baby is sacrificed,
>whilst reasoning sacrificing the purity of the baby
>will bring happiness to a group, it's, for example,
>utilitarianism.

Doesn't sound like Taoism to me. More like, superstition.

>> What MDP sees in words, others may
>> or may see something else as well as in the world.

"On a website about Taoism
the writer equated
the opposition against desire
as opposition against

utilitarianism." - MDP

An opposition against desire
might mean, one is opposed to having desire.

Being opposed to sacrificing a baby seems reasonable to me.

Seeing desire as being a problem also seems reasonable to me
when having desire happens to be a problem.

Desire might not always be a problem.

To sacrifice something in order to gain something
may or may not be some sort of a problem.

To equate: seeing how having desires
is the same as killing a baby to make it rain
might be to push an equation over the edge of reason
but, if that's what the article was saying, in someone's mind,
or what the authors meant, then, that's okay with me.

I might not see any Taoism in there,
but, maybe it is there.

What brings the greatest good for the greatest number of people
might be a question to ask as well as to ask, how to do that.

Ought one sacrifice one's own desires, for example.

Should anyone be willing to sacrifice anything,
could be a question, if it helps others.

Pushing on a limit of reason, to not even sacrifice a hair
if it meant saving the world was said to be an early form
of Taoism, or proto-Taoism.

Yang Chu and Lao Tzu were said to have a talk
in a chapter in the Chuang-tzu.

Maybe that has to do with Egoism
and Utilitarianism.

- if one were to oar the knots

[{:-])))]

wu dao wrote:

>Yang Chu and Lao Tzu were said to have a talk
>in a chapter in the Chuang-tzu.
>
>Maybe that has to do with Egoism
>and Utilitarianism.
>
>- if one were to oar the knots

<< begin quote from the Chuang-tzu >>

The hundred-year-old tree is hacked up to make bowls for the
sacrificial wine, blue and yellow, with patterns on them, and the
chips are thrown into the ditch. Compare the sacrificial bowls with
the chips in the ditch and you will find them far apart in beauty and
ugliness; yet they are alike in having lost their inborn nature.
Robber Chih, Tseng, and Shih are far apart in deeds and righteousness,
and yet they are the same in having lost their inborn nature. There
are five conditions under which the inborn nature is lost. One: when
the five colors confuse the eye and cause the eyesight to be unclear.
Two: when the five notes confuse the ear and cause the hearing to be
unclear. Three: when the five odors stimulate the nose and produce
weariness and congestion in the forehead. Four: when the five flavors
dull the mouth, causing the sense of taste to be impaired and
lifeless. Five: when likes and dislikes unsettle the mind and cause
the inborn nature to become volatile and flighty. These five are all a
danger to life. And yet the followers of Yang Tzu and Mo Tzu go
striding around, thinking they have really gotten hold of something.
This is not what I call getting hold of something.

If what you have gotten has gotten you into trouble, then can you
really be said to have gotten something? If so, then the pigeons and
doves in their cage have also gotten hold of something. With likes and
dislikes, sounds and colors you cripple what is on the inside; with
leather caps and snipe-feathered bonnets, batons stuck in belts and
sashes trailing, you cramp what is on the outside. The inside hemmed
in by pickets and pegs, the outside heaped with wraps and swathes, and
still you stand in this tangle of wraps and swathes and declare that
you have gotten hold of something? If so, then the condemned men with
their chained wrists and manacled fingers, the tiger and the leopard
in their pens and prisons have also gotten hold of something!

<< end of quote >>

If someone thinks a Golden Rule will improve the world,
or odd definitions of Truth and Love are ideas capable of
making the world a better place, one thinks that.

If thinking those types of thoughts and saying
what is said gets one into trouble, it does.

In the above paragraph a question arises, if what you have gotten
has gotten you into trouble, then can you really be said to have
gotten something?

Obviously, if one has gotten into trouble,
then one has gotten something.

To blame some odd philosophy, utilitarianism, theism,
or group, the caiaphaci, one could. And if to place blame on
some mythical theory or group gets one out of trouble,
then one has gotten out of trouble.

- for a time being

[{:-])))]

>wu dao wrote:
>
>>Yang Chu and Lao Tzu were said to have a talk
>>in a chapter in the Chuang-tzu.
>>
>>Maybe that has to do with Egoism
>>and Utilitarianism.
>>
>>- if one were to oar the knots

<< begin quotes from the Chuang-tzu >>

T'ien Ken was wandering on the sunny side of Yin Mountain. When he
reached the banks of the Liao River, he happened to meet a Nameless
Man. He questioned the man, saying, "Please may I ask how to
rule the world?"

The Nameless Man said, "Get away from me, you peasant! What kind of a
dreary question is that! I'm just about to set off with the Creator.
And if I get bored with that, then I'll ride on the Light-and-Lissome
Bird out beyond the six directions, wandering in the village of
Not-Even-Anything and living in the Broad-and-Borderless field. What
business do you have coming with this talk of governing the world and
disturbing my mind?"

But T'ien Ken repeated his question. The Nameless Man said, "Let your
mind wander in simplicity, blend your spirit with the vastness, follow
along with things the way they are, and make no room for personal
views-then the world will be governed."

Yang Tzu-chu went to see Lao Tan and said, "Here is a man swift as an
echo, strong as a beam, with a wonderfully clear understanding of the
principles of things, studying the Way without ever letting up - a man
like this could compare with an enlightened king, couldn't he?"

Lao Tan said, "In comparison to the sage, a man like this is a
drudging slave, a craftsman bound to his calling, wearing out his
body, grieving his mind. They say it is the beautiful markings of the
tiger and the leopard that call out the hunters, the nimbleness of the
monkey and the ability of the dog to catch rats' that make them end up
chained. A man like this - how could he compare
to an enlightened king?"

Yang Tzu-chu, much taken aback, said, "May I venture to ask about the
government of the enlightened king?"

Lao Tan said, "The government of the enlightened king? His
achievements blanket the world but appear not to be his own doing. His
transforming influence touches the ten thousand things but the people
do not depend on him. With him there is no promotion or praise - he
lets everything find its own enjoyment. He takes his stand on what
cannot be fathomed and wanders where there is nothing at all."

In Cheng there was a shaman of the gods named Chi Hsien. He could tell
whether men would live or die, survive or perish, be fortunate or
unfortunate, live a long time or die young, and he would predict the
year, month, week, and day as though he were a god himself. When the
people of Cheng saw him, they dropped everything and ran out of his
way. Lieh Tzu went to see him and was completely intoxicated.
Returning, he said to Hu Tzu, "I used to think, Master, that your Way
was perfect. But now I see there is something even higher!"

Hu Tzu said, "I have already showed you all the outward forms, but I
haven't yet showed you the ... ... ...

<< end of quotes for a time being >>

[noname]

there's no word for addiction/duty that i know of.

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

Not considering the utilitarian influence of idolatry.

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 1:43:27 PM UTC+2, undifferentiated wrote:
> Marquard Dirk Pienaar wrote:
>
> >Utilitarianism is not about "the well being of all".
>
> I don't think that's what the wiki article, below, says.

"the well being of all" is a quote from a quote you posted,
which explained utilitarianism.

>
> >Utilitarians excommunicate and ostracize people who
> >they regard as "the profane",
>
> And by, "the profane"
> what is meant is, iirc, honest people.
>
> Why anyone would choose to use any words
> other than, honest people, if they mean, honest people,
> is very strange, and confusing, to me.

The reason why honest people are called "the profane"
is basically, in monotheism "God is" honest. Aquinas,
a Roman Catholic philosopher,
for example, wrote about his "God Himself Who cannot lie".

>
> > whilst imparting
> >ideas, which originated at "the profane".
>
> Some people originate profane speech,
> which might mean, honest, if it includes profane words.
>
> >Then
> >utilitarians develop those good ideas as utilities
> >for utilitarian happiness of their utilitarian group.
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
> >>
> >> << Unlike other forms of consequentialism, such as egoism,
> >> utilitarianism considers the interests of all beings equally.>>
> >
> >The above is not true.
>
> I would not equate Egoism with Utilitarianism either.
>
> But, people make up their own definitions
> and might think those definitions are true
> while the definitions other people use
> are not true, in their minds.

The idea Truth has more to do
with basic language, which corresponds
with physical things, and therefore the
words do not need definitions.

>
> > Utilitarianism has as aim maximum possible
> >happiness of their utilitarian group.
>
> People often make up their very own definitions of words.
>
> >If a utilitarian group can
> >take something, even life, from "the other", with the
> >reasoning, happiness to their group will be caused by the taking,
> >then they do it. The sacrifice of Jesus is a classic example of
> >utilitarian reasoning. Utilitarianism is inherently a mob-way of
> >reasoning. Utilitarians think about "the individual" and to not
> >be "the individual" because "he" is regarded as a threat to their
> >happiness.
>
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/

I did not look at the website, but probably the "history"
starts around the time the word "utilitarianism" originated.
The links can however be taken further back into history.

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

OK, it should have been A "problem".

>
> For me, another problem is what it has to do with Taoism.

How did the topic of utilitarianism in connection
with Taoism arise?

>
> The website linked to originally seemed to be saying something
> that the author or authors felt was Taoistic, except,
> it was said, forget about Taoism to begin with, ignore
> the Tao Te Ching and Chuang-tzu (Zhuangzi).

I did not comprehend it to say ignore the TTC and ZZ.
It said other texts exist as well, apart from the TTC
and ZZ.

No article referred to here said that. I used
that as an example to show where utilitarianism
originated from, imo, with regard to the discussion
about whether Taoism is utilitarian or non-utilitarian.

>
> I might not see any Taoism in there,
> but, maybe it is there.
>
> What brings the greatest good for the greatest number of people
> might be a question to ask as well as to ask, how to do that.

The "greatest number of people" are all people, including
so-called "gods/idols/sages" of idolators.

>
> Ought one sacrifice one's own desires, for example.
>
> Should anyone be willing to sacrifice anything,
> could be a question, if it helps others.
>
> Pushing on a limit of reason, to not even sacrifice a hair
> if it meant saving the world was said to be an early form
> of Taoism, or proto-Taoism.

That's a good reference to claim Taoism is
non-utilitarian.

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

I think philosophy includes reasoning
about right and wrong. Maybe Taoism
is not actually philosophy, when it
says everything is acceptable. That
is however not what Taoist's say, when
considering criticism appearing. That
makes the thought arise. Saying everything
should be acceptable is contradicted often
with criticism. Saying everything should
be acceptable excludes saying some things
are not acceptable, therefore saying
everything should be acceptable is
self-referentially incoherent.

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

lol, maybe when doctors prescribe cannabis or
opiates, they regard the use a duty, patients have.

[noname]

idolatry as you seem to use it is just a name for mega-arrogance. it is the
arrogance of the individual lording it over a group which inspires the group
to expunge those who fail to offer their fealty. when the group rises up and
dethrones a lord or wannabe-lord it results in making him an outcast/gypsy.

view it however you like, i find that a simple feudalistic model suffices,
especially when you consider how groups form from one, to two, to three, to
ten-thousand.

the whole religious business with Caiaphas is dingle balls on the mirror imo.

[noname]

everything is what it is, parts of it are acceptable to some and not so much
to others. whether it is acceptable or not, the world defines what is.

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

You do not comprehend the role valuable ideas and the
development of ideas have in idolatry. The words idolatry,
idols and ideas have the same root. Socrates explained
that sacrificed "gods" and "goddesses" had good ideas.
That implies, in your feudal view above the "lord, and
maybe some nobles" wanted to gain from the development of
good ideas, whilst excluding the sacrificed "idols" from
any sharing in the gains of development, following from
their idolatry.

Also, you do not consider the more important role of values
like Truth and Love and maybe in a Taoist sense, wu-wei,
above the value "fealty".

>
> view it however you like, i find that a simple feudalistic model suffices,
> especially when you consider how groups form from one, to two, to three, to
> ten-thousand.

I think your view of a "simple feudalistic model" does not
consider that your "lord, and maybe nobles" are subject to
ideas like Truth and Love, for example. In old feudal societies
of China your "lord and maybe nobles" had the ultimate say, but
then Confucius's and others' views of Tao, replaced their ultimate
say, around 400 CE until around 1945, when communism took over in
China. Then views of Confucius and others who shared views
of Tao, were replaced with a new synthesis, with other views.

>
> the whole religious business with Caiaphas is dingle balls on the mirror imo.

Being on the receiving side of caiaphaci ways
is not necessary to recognize the syndrome, because it is
demonstrated clearly enough in Christianity, which i presume
you are familiar with.

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

Yes, the world defines what is, but if people cannot
distinguish between what is wrong and what is right,
they do not have legal capacity nor criminal capacity,
according to the legal terms.
Unfortunately the principles of legal capacity and
criminal capacity have been corrupted by psychiatry
and psychology, for example. When "the sage" are called
"sick", the mutual exclusiveness of using the two words
in one context, indicates confusion, imo, related to
misinterpretation of what idolatry really is.

[noname]

as far as i can tell, you are still very much in love with your idea of how
the world should be. and i think that is due to the way you think the world
is. we do not see the world in the same way, yet it is the same world that
we see.

arrogance/idolatry is placing one's own discrimination above the ultimate,
sometimes called deity.

but not everyone sees things this way, or considers "deity" to be a matter
of actuality rather than fiction.

so it goes. some think one thing, others think something else.

actuality doesn't care about what people think.

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

It's a matter of being allowed to live your life the way you
want to, within the law. It was partly encapsulated with
the idea liberty of the revolutions, which replaced the
feudal monarchical governments. Having been on the victimized side of
Caiaphas Syndrome, my writing is a defense; more a matter
of how the world should not be, than "how the world should be".
Caiaphas Syndrome causes actions/doings by perps, whilst they
try to influence "how the world should be", with ludicrous
transgressions of the law.

and i think that is due to the way you think the world
> is. we do not see the world in the same way, yet it is the same world that
> we see.

My view of reality is very accurate because i am
honest and did not put many lies in my mind, which
make deceivers delusional.

>
> arrogance/idolatry is placing one's own discrimination above the ultimate,
> sometimes called deity.

You do not know how idolatry works. It's a business
to make maximum-profit-per-individual, and to control
other people.

>
> but not everyone sees things this way, or considers "deity" to be a matter
> of actuality rather than fiction.
>
> so it goes. some think one thing, others think something else.
>
> actuality doesn't care about what people think.

The move from "deity/sage/idol/god", above self,
self is contradictorily not subject to, to good ideas
above self, self is subject to, is worth considering.