Reconciling Taoism with Western philosophy

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

It is generally said in the West that God
gave the law of Love; not doing to others
what selves want not to be done to. It is
thus not-doing that brought the West to its
current level of civilization from its previous
state of nature.

The same idea appears in Taoism with Wu-wei
etc. Maybe the "Wu-wei" also refers to non-being,
in the sense of not-doing. Maybe Shakespeare meant
To be doing or not to be doing, in the sense of
breaking God's law.

It seems that order and coherence arise more
from not-doing than doing, because not-doing
brings forth the cultures that make 'analytic'
science possible. Life is more about what 'we'
shall not do than about the things we did and
will do.

[{:-])))]

Marquard wrote:

>It is generally said in the West that God
>gave the law of Love; not doing to others
>what selves want not to be done to. It is
>thus not-doing that brought the West to its
>current level of civilization from its previous
>state of nature.

Oddly, I thought it was the other way around.
That one should, or ought, to do.
Unto others.

The proverbial Golden Rule.

As one would
have others do unto you.

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

And yet, looking at the link, it can appear to be as you say.

>The same idea appears in Taoism with Wu-wei
>etc. Maybe the "Wu-wei" also refers to non-being,
>in the sense of not-doing.

Wu-wei tend to mean, to me at least,
effortless-action, spontaneous-action, unpremeditated-
action. And can also mean, without-action.

Non-being would be Wu. Also Wuji or Wu Chi.

Wu would be the same picture-word as in wu-wei,
with wu meaning, without, in terms of wei, action.

>Maybe Shakespeare meant
>To be doing or not to be doing, in the sense of
>breaking God's law.

I heard of a question of his once.

>It seems that order and coherence arise more
>from not-doing than doing, because not-doing
>brings forth the cultures that make 'analytic'
>science possible. Life is more about what 'we'
>shall not do than about the things we did and
>will do.

Not destroying an environment sounds good.
From an ecological perspective, it's logical.
Especially when the environment is one's own.

When a fowl fouls its nest, the nest may reject it
as being an unhealthy environment, unfit for life.

For a baby bird, its nest and its parent or parents
is all the environment it begins with at first.

Once it sprouts wings and can fly, it's another story.

The baby bird needs to flap to fly.
My words might not ever get off the ground.

They're more like a fly with one wing.

It makes a lot of noise, but only spins
round and round.

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 5:31:46 PM UTC+2, undifferentiated wrote:
> Marquard wrote:
>
> >It is generally said in the West that God
> >gave the law of Love; not doing to others
> >what selves want not to be done to. It is
> >thus not-doing that brought the West to its
> >current level of civilization from its previous
> >state of nature.
>
> Oddly, I thought it was the other way around.
> That one should, or ought, to do.
> Unto others.

Most of God's laws, which Jesus summarized with
the word 'agape' (Love) and other philosophers
with "social contract theory" were given in the
negative "not-do". Yes the universal Western
law
about others and selves is, as far as i know in
positive sense "do to", but in the context of a
reconciliation between Taoism's Wu-wei, you
explained many times as the source of Yu-wei,
the negative "not do" makes more sense.

Kearney (2011:150) referred to the following passages:
"Zoroastrianism: "Do not do unto others whatever is injurious to yourself" (Sahyast-na-Shayast, 13:29)
Buddhism: "Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful" (Udana-Varga 5:18)
Jainism: "One should treat all creatures in the world as one would like to be treated" (Mahavira, Sutrakrtanga).
Confucianism: "One word that sums up the basis of all good conduct … loving kindness. Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself" (Confucius, Analects 15:23).
Hinduism: "This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you" (Mahabharata 5:1517)."

[{:-])))]

Marquard wrote:
> undifferentiated wrote:
>> Marquard wrote:
>>
>> >It is generally said in the West that God
>> >gave the law of Love; not doing to others
>> >what selves want not to be done to. It is
>> >thus not-doing that brought the West to its
>> >current level of civilization from its previous
>> >state of nature.
>>
>> Oddly, I thought it was the other way around.
>> That one should, or ought, to do.
>> Unto others.
>
>Most of God's laws, which Jesus summarized with
>the word 'agape' (Love) and other philosophers
>with "social contract theory" were given in the
>negative "not-do".

I'd always thought, "Feed my sheep" was a positive.
Do feed my sheep. Agape. When Peter couldn't,
unconditionally, Jesus lowered the bar.

> Yes the universal Western law
>about others and selves is, as far as i know in
>positive sense "do to", but in the context of a
>reconciliation between Taoism's Wu-wei, you
>explained many times as the source of Yu-wei,
>the negative "not do" makes more sense.

Yu-wei I have not heard of. Yu tends to mean, with.
And it is able to connote: Being, Existence.

The Taoist position, as I understand it, contrasted with
Confucianism in terms of active-action. Planned, structured,
every detail fixed, ritualized, sang, prescribed, etc.

That might be called wei-wei. Active-action. Do-do.

Which interestingly, to me, sounds like doo-doo
but looks like an extinct bird, the Dodo.

>Kearney (2011:150) referred to the following passages:
>"Zoroastrianism: "Do not do unto others whatever is injurious to yourself" (Sahyast-na-Shayast, 13:29)
>Buddhism: "Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful" (Udana-Varga 5:18)
>Jainism: "One should treat all creatures in the world as one would like to be treated" (Mahavira, Sutrakrtanga).
>Confucianism: "One word that sums up the basis of all good conduct … loving kindness. Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself" (Confucius, Analects 15:23).
>Hinduism: "This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you" (Mahabharata 5:1517)."

Yes. Those are all don't-do.
Jesus' imo was to do. Definitely. Go and do. Spread
the Word. Speak to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel.

I'll refrain myself from reiterating that story.

>> The proverbial Golden Rule.

Restraining myself is not easy.
There's nothing like a healthy compulsion, imo.

- cheers!

[pi]

God gave us shit. He gave us famine, disease and a garden full of
insects. We thought and invented the wheel and the Internet. We will
think more and change our genome to suit our circumstances even more. Maybe.

pi

[pi]

On 2016-06-09 19:28, Marquard Dirk Pienaar wrote:
> On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 5:31:46 PM UTC+2, undifferentiated wrote:
>> Marquard wrote:
>>
>>> It is generally said in the West that God
>>> gave the law of Love; not doing to others
>>> what selves want not to be done to. It is
>>> thus not-doing that brought the West to its
>>> current level of civilization from its previous
>>> state of nature.
>>
>> Oddly, I thought it was the other way around.
>> That one should, or ought, to do.
>> Unto others.
>
> Most of God's laws, which Jesus summarized with

You confuse philosophy with theology.

Philosophy is rational discourse. Theology is indoctrination.

pi

[{:-])))]

You appear to confuse newsgroups with something else.

>Philosophy is rational discourse. Theology is indoctrination.

Please provide rational Taoist discourse.

Thank you.

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

There are rational universal ideas,
which can be shown to contribute to prospering
of all in the world together. Those ideas are
relevant at philosophy, theology, Taoism, and
other sciences. Different fields of knowledge
can together, by acknowledging those universal
ideas, form a better world. When there are not
ideas that unite then states of nature set in.
Tom asked what my field of specialization is.
My research was about Accounting of ideas until
i realized that Accounting of ideas is practice
with some serious flaws, because although it
promotes development it does not promote good
creativities. Currently i research Accounting
for ideas.

[Marquard Dirk Pienaar]

On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 4:32:16 AM UTC+2, undifferentiated wrote:

A good universal idea, which can be reinforced, because
of paradoxical philosophy, theology and some -isms,
is opposition to idolatry, whilst acknowledging
the people who contributed to society with ideas. The word
idol was derived from idea. It seems there is a part of nature,
which is inherently scared of new ideas. Current
philosophy shows, although some of those historical figures ('idols')
are praised unproportionally currently, that during their lifetimes, they
were actually ostracized and excommunicated. I will not be
surprised if in future a fact is shown that the people who
did the ostracizing and the people who are coining from the
excommunicated's miserable lives, by publishing their stories, are
sometimes the same people. This also relates to current
stories about miserable lives we read and look at, and 'enjoy',
partly because of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's culture of 'pleasurable'
"pity".

[{:-])))]

Tom sees things as indoctrination at times.

He sees the study of God as indoctrination.
Or so it appears, based on what he wrote, above.

That doesn't sound like a good thing. To him.
Or for him. As far as I can tell, from where I sit.

Maybe he's afraid of being indoctrinated.
Maybe he feels as if he was, against his will.

Maybe he's trying to indoctrinate people
into his way of seeing what he sees in terms of math,
philosophy, and whatever else he thinks is important.

I tend to think I understand most of your words
and what you are trying to do in life.

Often, it seems to me, you relate your ideas and
your Accounting for ideas, to Taoism as you see it.
At least you give it an attempt.

You might use a word, e.g. wu-wei.
That's something.

And you then, it seems to me, go on to use this forum
as a place to expound your views, such as they may be.

You'd like to make the world a better place.
That, I think, was also a heart-mind of Taoism.

How to do that was the question Taoists tried to answer.

I was wondering if pi could do something like that.
Or if he cares in the least about Taoism.

He appears to not understand Tao by definition,
saying that it can't be understood. Taoism might be
also beyond his comprehension in various ways.

He appears to have some curious opinions about math
and philosophy. But as to Taoism, I find little or nothing.

I'm not sure why he is here. So I asked.
Maybe he's just farting around, and trolling.
Being a dick. Telling you what you think, etc.

Maybe he actually thinks you think what he thinks
you think when he says what you think, in his opinion.

Being an unmoderated newsgroup he is free to post
whatever he feels like posting. And if, in his opinion,
something is very important to him, that's wonderful.

I might not see what it has to do with Taoism.
On occasion, I actually am interested in Taoism.

So I post all sorts of crap and make up stories and try
to explore what I think might actually be some sort of Taoism.

It might be called Western Taoism. I may have called it
Unreal Taoism. Perhaps Pseudo-Taoism could be a word.

I'd say it's a philosophy, but that doesn't make it a, 'school'.
There's plenty of room for theologies under its umbrella.

Even though it could rain gods, the umbrella can turn
out to be a circus tent, a really big top. And there is no
indoctrination going on underneath it all.

That's in his own head, imo.

[{:-])))]

Marquard wrote:
> undifferentiated wrote:
>> pi wrote:

>> > Marquard Dirk Pienaar wrote:
>> >> undifferentiated wrote:
>> >>> Marquard wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> It is generally said in the West that God
>> >>>> gave the law of Love; not doing to others
>> >>>> what selves want not to be done to. It is
>> >>>> thus not-doing that brought the West to its
>> >>>> current level of civilization from its previous
>> >>>> state of nature.
>> >>>
>> >>> Oddly, I thought it was the other way around.
>> >>> That one should, or ought, to do.
>> >>> Unto others.
>> >>
>> >> Most of God's laws, which Jesus summarized with
>> >
>> >You confuse philosophy with theology.
>>
>> You appear to confuse newsgroups with something else.
>>
>> >Philosophy is rational discourse. Theology is indoctrination.
>>
>> Please provide rational Taoist discourse.
>>
>> Thank you.
>
>A good universal idea, which can be reinforced, because
>of paradoxical philosophy, theology and some -isms,
>is opposition to idolatry,

That's an interesting idea. It could be an idol of sorts.

Some folks don't care to worship anything.
Others appear to worship their material things.

If there were no values placed on material things,
then the people might not value them as much.

Money might be an idol of sorts.
Making money. Having a good job. A good education.

Those might be called today's gods.

They are what people find to be of worth, and worth-ships
sail out to see if they can acquire those apparently
important, to them, culturally, things.

Not all people, of course. Some people.
Many people. Maybe most people.

Idols, such as houses, boats, cars, gold, diamonds,
might be oppposed by a few people.

Pets are another thing.
I think I've voiced my opinion about, "owning"
my cousins, and seeing them as being worth a great deal.

To define the word, idol, since it has yet to be defined,
might be something to do, to be rational in some way.

>whilst acknowledging
>the people who contributed to society with ideas. The word
>idol was derived from idea.

Ah. Sometimes I should read a whole message
before I begin to spout off at the mouth, or keyboard.
I'll see if I can give that a go.

> It seems there is a part of nature,
>which is inherently scared of new ideas. Current
>philosophy shows, although some of those historical figures ('idols')
>are praised unproportionally currently, that during their lifetimes, they
>were actually ostracized and excommunicated. I will not be
>surprised if in future a fact is shown that the people who
>did the ostracizing and the people who are coining from the
>excommunicated's miserable lives, by publishing their stories, are
>sometimes the same people. This also relates to current
>stories about miserable lives we read and look at, and 'enjoy',
>partly because of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's culture of 'pleasurable'
>"pity".

I am not familiar with Rousseau's culture.
But I did make it through the rest of the paragaph without comment.

Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu did okay in their day.

Confucius had a difficult time.
In the Chuang-tzu, it speaks of how he was chased out of town.

He may have been trying to indoctrinate people.
To get them to see things his way, to change the world, etc.

The Taoists seemed to think that was the wrong way.
Or, if not wrong, certainly not the best.

To create a rule, say, in opposition to the worship of idols,
might be something done for a good reason.

But some folks seem to be inclined to worship stuff.
They'll worship trees and hug them, or their cars and wash
and wax them, or their kids, or whatever it is, even a
man, such as Jesus, or his mom, Mary, or the Saints
as the Catholics might be said to do.

Tis a funny thing, imo.

I find Taoism to be of worth. And here, in this group,
in this little bamboo grove of sorts, something to be
discussed, since that's the name of the group.

To call it an idol might be odd.
For me, it's a hobby.

- at various rates, milage occurs

[pi]

Quoting without understanding (your method) or posting nonsensical
jibberish is rational discourse to you?

J, you are pissed off 'cuz like there's no way you can get the upper
hand with me. And you are what? 25 years older?

You think you are older and thus smarter. And I should somehow salute you.

Well, I would, but the problem is, you're not just ignorant. You're
aggressively ignorant.

You amount to nothing here beyond quotes you don't understand or some
jibberish of your own which reflects nothing beyond your fluctuating
confusion, which you choose to call many povs.

pi

[pi]

Please start talking about Taoism or the self-proclaimed
alt.philosophy.taoims bouncer will bounce your ass out of here :)

pi

[{:-])))]

pi wrote:
> {:-]))) wrote:
>> pi wrote:
>>>
>>> You confuse philosophy with theology.
>>
>> You appear to confuse newsgroups with something else.
>>
>>> Philosophy is rational discourse. Theology is indoctrination.
>>
>> Please provide rational Taoist discourse.
>
>Quoting without understanding (your method) or posting nonsensical
>jibberish is rational discourse to you?

You appear to want to make this about me.

But I was asking for you to provide some Taoism.

Something. Anything.

You know, for the Newsgroup. The topic.

It isn't about me.

>J, you are pissed off 'cuz like there's no way you can get the upper
>hand with me. And you are what? 25 years older?

It isn't about getting the upper hand, for me.

Apparently that's what you are all about, eh?

What I was asking about is simple. Taoism.

It's the name of the newsgroup.

I like Taoism. So I read about it. I study it.
It's a hobby of mine.

Can you add to it? If so, please do.

>You think you are older and thus smarter. And I should somehow salute you.

No. You are mistaken.
I do think I'm older.

As to being smarter, I have no idea.

I'd like to read about Taoism. Really. Honestly.

What do you think it is?

Please post something about Taoism.

It's a simple request.

No need to salute anyone.
You have some strange ideas it seems to me.

Forget about saluting. I was an E4. No need to salute me.

>Well, I would, but the problem is, you're not just ignorant. You're
>aggressively ignorant.

I can be a dick. An asshole. Abusive. A lout. A creep.
I can be, and am, lots of stupid shit. All too often.

But this isn't about me. It's about Taoism.

Can you say a few words about Taoism? Please?

What is your understanding of Taoism?

>You amount to nothing here beyond quotes you don't understand or some
>jibberish of your own which reflects nothing beyond your fluctuating
>confusion, which you choose to call many povs.

Well then, please do write something about Taoism.

As you see Taoism. If you're at all interested, in Taoism.

Thanks.

- cheers!

[{:-])))]

He does speak of Taoism.

He tries to bring his thought to the topic.

As I was writing to you, Tom, he answered.

That goes on quite often. No big deal.

What he did was create his own Newsgroup,
so he can talk about his favorite topic.

Why exactly are you here?

Can you spit it out? Say it? Honestly?

I'm curious.

Thanks.

- cheers!

[oxtail]

What's going on here?
Can we just ignore each other?
Isn't that the usual way of Usenet?

[{:-])))]

oxtail wrote:
> {:-]))) wrote:
>> pi wrote:
>>
>>>You amount to nothing here beyond quotes you don't understand or some
>>>jibberish of your own which reflects nothing beyond your fluctuating
>>>confusion, which you choose to call many povs.
>>
>> Well then, please do write something about Taoism.
>>
>> As you see Taoism. If you're at all interested, in Taoism.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> - cheers!
>
>What's going on here?

Mostly pi's bullshit, as far as it appears, thus far.

>Can we just ignore each other?

Most people probably do.
I am not most people how ever.

Sometimes I am. Once upon a time, I was, actually,
everybody. But that was when I identified with Chuang-tzu.

Maybe you know that story. About being born?

>Isn't that the usual way of Usenet?

I ignored pi for a while, until this month.
Then, I began again to turn my attention his Way.

How do you see Taoism?

What's your understanding of the word, Tao?

Thanks in advance!

Nice to see you again. Peacemaker.

- cheers!

[{:-])))]

> oxtail wrote:
>
>>Can we just ignore each other?

Uh. Hmm.

Meanwhile, since, in the House of Mirrors,
someone who asks if we can ignore each other
might not be ignoring what might be happening,
a question of order and disorder arises.

OCD might be reconciled with tendencies.

When a tendency is functional, it's functional.

When its function is to take advantage of
what are deemed to be others, that's a thing.

A paradigm, so to speak.

A functional-paradigm, no matter how dysfunctional.

Once upon a time, in a bamboo grove, a man,
an honest man, by all accounts and reckonings,
appeared to want to make the world a better place.

He had difficulty in making his ideas known. He used
words in ways that were not the ways of some
whose native language was English, so to speak.

There were other, so-called, men, in the grove.

Some were full of shit. Others were out to play.

No one knew who let them out. Nor who kept them
when so-called others were not around.

Some of them hunted wabbits.

[djinn]

"oxtail" wrote in message news:njej6r$uih$1...@dont-email.me...

`````````````````````````````````````````````

you ignore people by
responding to their posts?

you should try eating when you're
sleepy and sleeping when you're
hungry.

[chop water, carry wood]

[{:-])))]

>Some of them hunted wabbits.

Once upon a time there was a deer.
And there was a rabbit.
Not a wabbit.

The rabbit, now known by another name,
as Taoism has been known to name names
and speaks of how names are not names,
anyhow, anywho, this rabbit was on a hunt.

Eventually, the bamboo grove was not
what it had been, prior to the rabbit.

There once was a Newsgroup.
It was invented for to speak of a thing.

The thing might be called, Taoism.

That was the thing that the rabbit
might not have quite understood
when it hunted what it hunted.

Things change.

In French, Tang would know
how things remain the same.

Te m'ore teh merrier.

Great Te goes without speaking.

- in Usenet

[pi]

On 2016-06-10 16:18, {:-]))) wrote:
> pi wrote:
>> {:-]))) wrote:
>>> pi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You confuse philosophy with theology.
>>>
>>> You appear to confuse newsgroups with something else.
>>>
>>>> Philosophy is rational discourse. Theology is indoctrination.
>>>
>>> Please provide rational Taoist discourse.
>>
>> Quoting without understanding (your method) or posting nonsensical
>> jibberish is rational discourse to you?
>
> You appear to want to make this about me.

As long as you choose to judge me by the hat I wear, sure :)

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/32055swsw0sw.gif

pi

[pi]

Silly hat?

pi

[pi]

J is saying that only silly hats are allowed in this NG and I fail to
wear the one he likes :)

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/32055swsw0sw.gif

pi

[{:-])))]

djinn wrote:
> oxtail wrote

>
>What's going on here?
>Can we just ignore each other?
>Isn't that the usual way of Usenet?
>
>`````````````````````````````````````````````
>
>you ignore people by
>responding to their posts?
>
>you should try eating when you're
>sleepy and sleeping when you're
>hungry.
>
>[chop water, carry wood]

If everyone ignored everyone, no one would say
anything to anyone. That might be something.

Sometimes no one says anything to anyone
but it's mostly cuz there's nothing to say,
instead of everyone ignoring everyone.

Which reminds me of a short gibberish story.
Once upon a time, there was the first word.
The rest is history, and maybe philosophy.
But, for the sake of the story, I'll ignore that.

- the end -

[{:-])))]

Well, I guess that answers my questions then.

See you in July, maybe.

[pi]

Take off the silly hat, man.

pi

[oxtail]

What makes you think
I was talking to you?

[oxtail]

It's a lot easier to get a pair of shoes
than to carpet the whole world.
Somehow I don't even want to bother
with blocking that guy.
Take it easy and go barefoot!

[{:-])))]

oxtail wrote:

>It's a lot easier to get a pair of shoes
>than to carpet the whole world.

It's easier for me to not wear shoes.

Shoes can be gotten for a price.

Sometimes there's a price to be paid
for not wearing any. Being insane can be strange.
I may keep doing the same thing and forget
how things turn out on a path at times.

Normally I trust the earth I'm walking on.
When I find it can't be trusted, I avoid that part.

Sometimes I do wear shoes.
But I'd prefer not to.

>Somehow I don't even want to bother
>with blocking that guy.

I don't have a kill-file or block option for Usenet.
What I can see are the authors of posts.

So to ignore someone I simply delete
without reading the messages.

Even when a sidewalk appears to be smooth,
when past experience suggests not to trust it,
I'll walk on some other path to avoid being hurt.

Sometimes I can see what is dangerous, for me,
when walking without shoes, e.g. glass, thorns, etc.

Even then there is no guarantee
I won't end up with something in my foot.
That's the price I'm willing to pay.

Sometimes, as noname may attest, it's thinking,
what's in the mind at the time, that induces
a wake-up call of sorts.

Anecdotes and metaphors may hold truth.
We make our own Tao by our own choices.
That's a noname-Zz combo-phrase.

>Take it easy and go barefoot!

I'm almost always barefoot. Thanks.

In many ways I'm too sensitive.
While my soles are tougher than most if not all folks
who constantly wear shoes, I can still feel the ground.

And I like to feel the warmth and the cold,
the textures and other properties that shod people
never experience. Many of them can't understand it.

They would never go without shoes.
Especially not outside! Thus, for them many paths
are closed and will never be open to them.

Being a barefooter has been an unusual path/tao.
It's good to know there are others, akin to me.
To hear them talk, I can totally relate.
We all get the same things from the shod folk.

My heart tends to be open. At times too open.
Sometimes, when I'm too insensitive, my heart is closed.
That might be for a reason. Reason being,
cuz I'm too sensitive.

- on the surface of a pale blue dot

[djinn]

"oxtail" wrote in message news:njpib7$v1i$1...@dont-email.me...

what makes you think
I was answering you?

[djinn]

"oxtail" wrote in message news:njpigd$v1i$2...@dont-email.me...

```````````````````````````````````````````````

don't forget your tetanus shot
when you step on a rusty nail

[what]

"djinn" <meanmr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"oxtail" wrote in message news:njpib7$v1i$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>djinn wrote:
>
>> "oxtail" wrote in message news:njej6r$uih$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>

>> What's going on here?
>> Can we just ignore each other?
>> Isn't that the usual way of Usenet?
>>
>> `````````````````````````````````````````````
>>
>> you ignore people by responding to their posts?
>>
>> you should try eating when you're sleepy and sleeping when you're
>> hungry.
>>
>> [chop water, carry wood]
>
>>What makes you think
>>I was talking to you?
>
>what makes you think
>I was answering you?

What is going on and around here.
What makes people think.
What can be who are.

We might be a form of what.
Who can say.

[{:-])))]

djinn wrote:
```````````````````````````````````````````````
oxtail wrote

>It's a lot easier to get a pair of shoes
>than to carpet the whole world.

When the whole world is covered up by shoes,
then it might very well be impossible to feel the earth.

Between the earth and the Earth
a distinction might be made, if one can dig Archimedes.

> ...

People who always wear shoes may not find
they have lost contact with something essential.

>Take it easy and go barefoot!
>
>```````````````````````````````````````````````
>
>don't forget your tetanus shot
>when you step on a rusty nail

I stepped on a rusty nail once,
and got a tetanus shot too! Wasn't barefoot at the time.

Dad used to have an big old woodpile in the back yard.
Great fun to play in, on, and all over. He'd collect scrap
from construction sites he worked at and elsewhere.

Then, he'd sort through it all.
But that's not this story. This is about shoes.
And not wearing any. Being a barefooter.

I remember the nail went through my footgear.

Thus, while shoes might protect some of the feet
some of the time on some of the people, it's possible that
no shoe will protect all of the people all of the time, cf. DDJ 1.1.

I heard of someone who shot their foot once. Really!
It was on purpose. Apparently to get attention.
It served that purpose. Kinda sorta.
The parents were a bit dismayed.

No idea if shoes were involved.

Going barefoot, as my Way, or Tao, I am cautious.
As if there might be shit along the Path.

I have been known to step in shit from time to time.
It's unfortunate, in various ways.

- dao ke dao fei chang dao - (DDJ 1.1)