taoism: what is it good for? absolutely nothing!

[noname]

taoism: what is it good for? absolutely nothing!

Now, this is the part that's gonna come along later and cook your goose.

It doesn't have to be good for anything, or useful for anything.

What doesn't, Taoism?

Yeah, Taoism, but anything else as well.

Being "good", what does that mean? Something might taste good, or feel good,
or be approved of by those dispensing badness.

If something tastes good, smells good, or feels good, you know it. The
reasons one likes vinegar and another likes honey, may be hidden in PH values
or heredity, but if you like something, you know you like it. Sometimes
you’re not sure whether or not you like something new, but after a while you
know. The fact that this tastes or that smells good means you like it, and
your preferences are what your cumulative life experiences have summed them to
be. These things are matters of taste, in the same way your liking for hotrods
or bicycles or women in convertibles or for that matter anything else, is a
matter of taste. Whether you prefer the smell of a rose, or the odor of hot
engine oil, is not something directly determined by the individual, rather it
is cumulatively determined by the individual’s responses to the life
situations destiny has pressed upon him, the figurative him, which may be a
her, or for that matter an it in the case of an artificial intelligence.

You are not responsible for tastes, but you are responsible for what you do
about them. You may be a dispenser of goodness, or a dispenser of badness, or
a responder-in-kind, or a manipulative opportunist, or simply a regular human
person.

People dispense badness when they have a stuck poopie and keep eating more and
more poopie-sticking foods. Or, people dispense badness when they want
something the world won’t give them, because it’s testing them to see if it
can make them dispense badness, because the world is not meeting their
arrogant demands, prior to their assent to greater power.


Badness-dispensing is a bad thing, duh. People mostly dispense badness when
someone makes them think, about thing they don’t want to think about. QED
don’t make the stupid fuckers think, end of story.

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:

>taoism: what is it good for? absolutely nothing!

Aye, like, there's nothing like nothing
and, for me, it's a kind of a thing. The no thing
thing from which something emerges.

It's good for Wu, name wise, ming wise
and could be called the name, without name.

Or without naming, or not having a name.
Taoism might be good for saying that.

In the beginning, wu ming, nothing
is the name, not having any name, aye.

Another name can be undifferentiated.

>Now, this is the part that's gonna come along later and cook your goose.
>
>It doesn't have to be good for anything, or useful for anything.
>
>What doesn't, Taoism?
>
>Yeah, Taoism, but anything else as well.

To see or find or be, originally, to return to
the or an origin, the point, where lines begin
to be extended without dimension, aye, there
and then need not be any use, and uselessness
could be viewed as yet another thing or non-thing.

>Being "good", what does that mean? Something might taste good, or feel good,
>or be approved of by those dispensing badness.

For me, Taoism is good in terms of a meta.
There's good and then there's good beyond good.
Above and beyond duality, for me, that's often a greater good.

Getting all caught up or all bogged down
in a struggle between good and bad
tends to be a normal thing among
things for me to be at times.

Transcending is a better bet, usually,
and yet, per the haps, knots and their might
might be counted on in loops or cycles going round
and round continually like seasons and seasonings make
what is bland have tastes aplenty.

>If something tastes good, smells good, or feels good, you know it. The
>reasons one likes vinegar and another likes honey, may be hidden in PH values
>or heredity, but if you like something, you know you like it. Sometimes
>you’re not sure whether or not you like something new, but after a while you
>know. The fact that this tastes or that smells good means you like it, and
>your preferences are what your cumulative life experiences have summed them to
>be. These things are matters of taste, in the same way your liking for hotrods
>or bicycles or women in convertibles or for that matter anything else, is a
>matter of taste. Whether you prefer the smell of a rose, or the odor of hot
>engine oil, is not something directly determined by the individual, rather it
>is cumulatively determined by the individual’s responses to the life
>situations destiny has pressed upon him, the figurative him, which may be a
>her, or for that matter an it in the case of an artificial intelligence.

Beer was an acquired taste for me.
Now the stouts, that's where m'eye taste led me.

>You are not responsible for tastes, but you are responsible for what you do
>about them. You may be a dispenser of goodness, or a dispenser of badness, or
>a responder-in-kind, or a manipulative opportunist, or simply a regular human
>person.
>
>People dispense badness when they have a stuck poopie and keep eating more and
>more poopie-sticking foods. Or, people dispense badness when they want
>something the world won’t give them, because it’s testing them to see if it
>can make them dispense badness, because the world is not meeting their
>arrogant demands, prior to their assent to greater power.
>
>
>Badness-dispensing is a bad thing, duh. People mostly dispense badness when
>someone makes them think, about thing they don’t want to think about. QED
>don’t make the stupid fuckers think, end of story.

With Taoism, for me, it's possible to see
how what one dispenser tastes as bad
another smiles at and finds just as good.

- beyond duality, at the vat, in the tasting room

[noname]

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 5:16:49 AM UTC-6, undifferentiated wrote:

> noname wrote:

> >
> >Badness-dispensing is a bad thing, duh. People mostly dispense badness when
> >someone makes them think, about thing they don’t want to think about. QED
> >don’t make the stupid fuckers think, end of story.
>
> With Taoism, for me, it's possible to see
> how what one dispenser tastes as bad
> another smiles at and finds just as good.
>
> - beyond duality, at the vat, in the tasting room

There is taste, what one calls great sex another may call rape and vice
versa, there is no accounting for taste, since it is itself just an accounting
for all that has transpired in a particular context.

The dispensing of badness referred to above is the merciless bubble-popping
kind, pointing out the bad when it can be found, the kind of badness dispensed
by true rat-bastards everywhere (bah, caught me!), people who take offense at
the happiness fish have while swimming into the blender.

Anti-hypocrisy-bigots can't even look in a mirror anymore, fucktards stand
there and get into an argument with each other all by themselves.

Can't seem to find anything wrong with that, except that bothering isn't worth
the trouble.

[docto...@aol.com]

The thing about a thing, that people call 'bad' though,
Is that that that, which is labeled with that label 'bad'...

Is really just a chip,
Off the old block:

Pu

As such a thing is not a thing,
Except by deeming,
We see it so.

So.

D9

[noname]

Absolute relativism is horseshit.

If you do something that fucks up your harmony with tao, you've fucked up,
done something "bad".

Slap any color paint that suits you on that old nag, when you make a deal with
the devil and walk off the path, you've don't The bad.

Some folks like to think they've climbed to the top of the mountain and like
to think they have mastered duality, but imo that's incorrect. The non-dual
is pretty, but useless; a nice bed to sleep in, but not for those who are
awake to the events of the present.

One way leads to life, run it backward it don't last long.

[{:-])))]

Reminds me of a boxing
ring of truth where boxers go
and punch the lights out of each other.

Some watchers watch the fights
and some complain it just ain't right
when boxers box in a boxing ring
of a truth boxing is their thing.

People who like to lock horns or wrestle
to find a pecking order pecks and bushels
are used to establish bushel orders
by the truck load.

Every day and every night
every hour by the minute
the latest news is found
and bound by spells are
those who go round
after round when
ever a bell rings.

- pavlov smiles

[{:-])))]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 03:18:11 -0700 (PDT), noname wrote:

Once up
on a time being there was Old Farmer
who had a horse named he eye him aye owe.

He was said to be Old Farmer's but it was another horse,
she who had brought him back to the farm and as it went
a story unfolded and old Farmer said he dint really know.

Maybe, he, Old Farmer, said. Over and over and over
again and in that sense he did really know. And that
was the point of the story while the horse he said
neigh when he spoke at all to Old Farmer's kid.

>If you do something that fucks up your harmony with tao, you've fucked up,
>done something "bad".

Quote, by calling it so, unquote.

Given another pov, the world helps those
and turns all things to good, for those
who are called and all that happy
horses swim with the fishes.

>Slap any color paint that suits you on that old nag, when you make a deal with
>the devil and walk off the path, you've don't The bad.
>
>Some folks like to think they've climbed to the top of the mountain and like
>to think they have mastered duality, but imo that's incorrect. The non-dual
>is pretty, but useless; a nice bed to sleep in, but not for those who are
>awake to the events of the present.
>
>One way leads to life, run it backward it don't last long.

When in a non-dual Zone, that's Tao, imo.
There are other Tao as wells for me too.
Some are m'ore refreshing me at rates
which flicker past me knows in a blink.

When stuck in a duality corner, painted there
by using duality sticks to paint width at length
and in depth, aye, going there happens all too
of ten thousand things is far many beyond three.

For me, transcending duality, returning to one,
to Being, Yu, as it were, transports me in mind
and at times beyond time in heart and spirit
filled, be it near the vat or bottomless pit
a jug of wine, a bottle in front of me is
better than brain surgery of a sort.

Non-duality is able to be a medicine for hats
eaten that gnaw at gut feelings being digested
and all and it's a gas at times to burp or fart.

Beyond good and bad, aye,
beyond this and that, yes
and no go hand in hand going
without going over an edge one
may have an edge but to sharpen it
beyond a fine point does not make
for the blade to be like totally vorpal.

Tao are Tao. Tao in deeds. Tao in thought.
Yet to suppose some Tao is always Tao, one
may and might and then again knot.

- sew two speak, then three emerge and from there ...

[noname]

David has posted about his "workings" and results, i wish him well, but he
seems to be off in left field somewhere, which may be due to my being off in
a different left field somewhere.

Taoism is a funny thing. A philosophy, a Way of going about things.

What may look like a fancy footstool one can prop his feet on, the way some
of an academic inclination may see it, might have a different meaning to those
of a more engineering take on things. There are legends of taoist magic, and
of taoist immortality, and even the most insane legends like these, are based
on something, at least credible enough to bother repeating (even if it's a
lie). What Watson sees as a footstool, Holmes may choose to see as a toolbox
with miracles inside.

There are ways to see a thing, depending on how one has his macroscope set to
see, the various ways things may be. Some put wax on the superficial to see
how prettily it can be made to shine. Others dig deeper, or more shallowly,
depending on where the beginning is made, to see what is inside, the li of the
briar, or the way the bellstand fits into the larger view, before deciding
what to remove and what to polish, in order to attain the perception already
chosen.

We all choose our perceptions, as they come into focus as this, or as that.
The difference between choosing and deciding is one to ponder at times.

Decisions tend to be doings, choices not so much.

When we decide, we weigh and measure, each alternative placed on the scale,
values and desires participating like a happy mob without focus, with devious
motives on the side.

When we choose, it's of-the-instant, values alone, one's essential nature in
the pivot, no measurement involved.

The trick then, as i see things, is to avoid decisions in favor of choices,
and that probably sounds a bit mad to some. But decisions are always
motivated, by desire or its evil-twin fear; choices are simply made.

Decisions are doing, choices not so much.

The way of making a bellstand then, involves something. Likewise the way of
slicing an ox, involves something.

What this something is, may or may not be clear. I'd call it a Way.

[{:-])))]

noname wrote:

>David has posted about his "workings" and results, i wish him well, but he
>seems to be off in left field somewhere, which may be due to my being off in
>a different left field somewhere.

He appears to me to be stuck in a loop. Aye,
and knowing how my own cycles go
to relate to him is possible.

To want to fix the world, to see a decline in murder rates,
or help people move from one plane to another
in mid-air wing-walkers take flight.

>Taoism is a funny thing. A philosophy, a Way of going about things.

Tickles me out of pickle jars at times.

>What may look like a fancy footstool one can prop his feet on, the way some
>of an academic inclination may see it, might have a different meaning to those
>of a more engineering take on things. There are legends of taoist magic, and
>of taoist immortality, and even the most insane legends like these, are based
>on something, at least credible enough to bother repeating (even if it's a
>lie). What Watson sees as a footstool, Holmes may choose to see as a toolbox
>with miracles inside.

Siddhis are real, in my experience.
To be immortal as immortality wells is also one.

Some stories are simply stories while others metaphor
their Ways beyond being simple or mere tales.

>There are ways to see a thing, depending on how one has his macroscope set to
>see, the various ways things may be. Some put wax on the superficial to see
>how prettily it can be made to shine. Others dig deeper, or more shallowly,
>depending on where the beginning is made, to see what is inside, the li of the
>briar, or the way the bellstand fits into the larger view, before deciding
>what to remove and what to polish, in order to attain the perception already
>chosen.

Yesterday, a book, Lost in Math, was completed
in terms of reading what the author had to say
about beauty being perhaps not the best way
to seek to find new forms of doing physics.

Taoism returned to me, reading the book.
How beauty and ugly emerge as a pair.
Mother Nature is so cool, she wears
shades of many. Greens and seen
her mud and blue skies shine
until the cows come home
to roost the chickens do
as wells and to think things
are, made, of smaller and ever
smaller so-called, things, physicists' dew
condenses and falls off leaves like a tree leaving
me in a wonder of wonders, at times, within time being.

>We all choose our perceptions, as they come into focus as this, or as that.
>The difference between choosing and deciding is one to ponder at times.

Semantics and contexts
yes and know go they.

>Decisions tend to be doings, choices not so much.

Okay sew far.

>When we decide, we weigh and measure, each alternative placed on the scale,
>values and desires participating like a happy mob without focus, with devious
>motives on the side.
>
>When we choose, it's of-the-instant, values alone, one's essential nature in
>the pivot, no measurement involved.

To decide, then, is wei, ore yu-wei.
Choosing, in a given present, is wu-wei.
As wells defined, thirst may be quenched.

>The trick then, as i see things, is to avoid decisions in favor of choices,
>and that probably sounds a bit mad to some. But decisions are always
>motivated, by desire or its evil-twin fear; choices are simply made.

For me, to weigh, weigh, weigh and wait
until the scales balance and to be on a beam
when a needle points or scales over mine eyes tip
topsy turvy, a choice is rung up. And off to the starting
blocks go a me to find what a finished line brings and
round after round until finally sound a thing is done
once and for all, unless it isn't, quite, at times.

>Decisions are doing, choices not so much.

When all the lights are green and all the stars line up
it feels right and maybe it is for a spell cast and
the next bend brings too much nitrogen or
thin air is out of what things are made.

>The way of making a bellstand then, involves something. Likewise the way of
>slicing an ox, involves something.
>
>What this something is, may or may not be clear. I'd call it a Way.

Mind-fasting is what Woodcarver Qing did.
Heart-fasting is another translation. Wu-xin.
He'd sit and do nothing until he'd forget.
Forget all about the task at hand.
Until with an axe in hand, he would
go in to the woods to see what he could
see and if he saw the perfect tree, chop chop,
but if not, then that was that for the time being.

Cook Ting's blade went snicker-snack making sliced ox
out of the whole uncarved which might be funny
if to not carve was a point being made.

He'd dance his Way thru the li, the muscle-fiber,
until a knotty part made its own way as the knife
made its own way and then Ting would slow
while the pointlessness of the knife would
find the emptiness of the ox and then
the ox would fall apart, ker plop.

Ting would then smile.

- naturally, choices made, no decision kneaded