Say hello to Valerie, Say Hello to Vivian [Talcott Parsons] [!!!!]
Big Red Jeff Rubard
A couple of things which might be helpful to know before I begin.
Parsons is a FUNCTIONALIST, as big and nasty as they come. He is also
heavily influenced by the writings of Durkheim and makes several
references to the Big D in this essay, part. Elem Forms and DOL. Also,
everything in this article, including all of the systems typologies
and process schemas, are meant in the ''analytic'' sense. Parsons is
primarily interested in how a social scientist can analyze a social
system.
I. General Outline
This essay is an attempt by Parsons to outline an action frame of
reference. This attempt is based on the conviction that there are two
essential reference points for this type of systematic analysis; a
classification of the functional requirements of a system and the
arrangement of these with reference to processes of control in the
cybernetic sense. Parsons posits that the most empirically significant
sociological theory must be concerned with complex systems, that is,
systems composed of many subsystems. The primary empirical type-
reference is to society, which is highly complex. The basic functional
classification underlying the whole scheme involves the discrimination
of 4 primary categories: pattern maintenance, integration, goal-
attainment, and adaptation, placed in that order in the series of
control-relations. (Note Parsons order on this, which is L-I-G-A, the
opposite order of what we're used to from Laumann's class.)
More generally, Parsons is also interested in making a fundamental
distinction between the morphological analysis of the morphological
structure of systems and the ''dynamic'' analysis of process. Neither
has special priority over the other except that, at a particular
level, stable structural reference points are necessary for
determining generalizations about process.
The old battle o f theory versus empiricism may be considered to be
over. There is no longer a question as to the study of human behavior
as a scientific endeavor. Parsons theory is one of action , which goes
beyond the old reductionist theories of social theory.
The concept of a social system is important for Parsons, and for the
TS editors. To be clear, we must delineate the place of social systems
within the action frame of reference. One aspect of this distinction,
which can be taken for granted, is between the analytically defined
individual and the systems generated by the process of social
interaction. Social and cultural systems are also important for this
discussion, but the two, however empirically intertwined, must be kept
analytically distinct. Parallel to the social/cultural distinction, is
that of nature/nurture in regards to developing the individual. This
can be conceived of an the distinction between the individual organism
and the organization of his behavior. Finally, distinctions should be
made between the functional subsystems of economy and polity within a
society, even though they have often overlapped in the past. All of
these distinctions can be seen as questions of boundaries fro both the
individual and for systems.
With all of the above considerations in hand, Parsons moves on to
offer a paradigm for the analysis of social systems. Parsons is a firm
believer in interpenetration and mutual influence. This means, that
however important logical closure may be for a theoretical ideal,
empirically, social systems are conceived as open systems, engaged in
complicated processes of interchange with environing systems. This
concept of open systems implies, again, boundaries and their
maintenance. A boundary means simply that a theoretically and
empirically significant difference between structures and processes
internal to the system and those external to it exists and tends to be
maintained. Because of all of this, we need to define a set of
interdependent phenomena as a system, so as not to confuse a
statistical sample of the population with a true system.
Besides identifying a system in terms of its patterns and boundaries,
a social system can and should be analyzed in terms of three logically
independent- i.e. cross-cutting - but also interdependent, bases or
axes of variability, or as they may be called, bases of selective
abstraction.
1. The first of these is involves a distinction between the structural
and the functional. The concept of structure designates the features
of the system which can be treated as constants over certain ranges of
variation in the behavior of other significant elements of the
theoretical problem. The functional reference diverges from the
structural in the dynamic direction. Its primary purpose is
integrative, mediating between the system's structure and that imposed
by environing systems.
2. A fundamental distinction must also be made between the two dynamic
processes of maintaining system equilibrium, and structural change in
the system.
3. The hierarchy of relations of control. The basic subsystems of the
general systems of action constitute a hierarchical series of such
agencies of control of the behavior of individuals or organisms.
Parsons returns to the 4 functional imperatives of any system of
action, given in order of significance from the point of view of
cybernetic control of action processes in the system under
consideration.
L - The function of pattern maintenance. The function of pattern
maintenance refers to the imperative of maintaining the stability of
patterns of institutionalized culture defining the structure of the
system. There are two distinct aspects of this function. The first
concerns the character of the normative pattern itself; the focus lies
in the structural category of values. The second concerns its state of
institutionalization, which concerns the motivational commitment of
the individual. A very central problem here is that of the
socialization of the individual, taken as the processes by which the
values of the society are internalized in an individual personality.
Overall, systems do show a tendency to maintain themselves (inertia).
G - The function of goal-attainment. Goal-attainment becomes a problem
in so far as there arises some discrepancy between the inertial
tendencies of the system and its needs resulting from interchange with
the situation. A goal is therefore defined in terms of equilibrium,
and directional changes will tend to minimize the discrepancy between
the two systems. Goal -attainment, or goal- orientation is thus, by
contrast with pattern maintenance, tied to a specific situation.
Systems often have a plurality of goals. For the social system as
such, goal-orientation concerns, therefore, not commitment to the
values of the society, but motivation to contribute what is necessary
for the functioning of the system.
A - The function of adaptation. Adaptation is another consequence of
goal plurality. A system has only so many set, scarce resources, and
when goals are many, often one goal must be sacrificed so the
resources may be used to attain another goal. this means that the
system loses the benefits of the sacrificed goal. The sacrificed goal
is chosen through the function of goal-attainment. Adaptation is
concerned with providing additional disposable facilities independent
of their relevance to any particular goal. More generally, at the
macroscopic level, goal-attainment is the focus of political
organization, and adaptation is the focus economic organization.
Within a given system, goal-attainment is a more important control
then is adaptation.
I - The function of integration. In the control hierarchy, integration
stands between the functions of pattern-maintennce and goal-
attainment. The functional problem of integration concerns the mutual
adjustments of segmented units or subsystems from the point of view of
their contributions to the effective functioning of the system as a
whole. In a highly differentiated society, the primary focus of the
integrative mechanism is found in the system of legal norms and the
associated legal system. The system as a whole is concerned most with
the allocation of rights and obligations. For any given social system,
the integrative function is the focus of its most distinctive
properties and processes.
II. Categories of Social Structure
Parsons conceives of social interaction as a structured affair. He
provides a series of structural categories, given in ascending order
as role, collectivity, norm, and value. These roughly cover the social
structure from individual to social system.
Role is the essential starting point for individual interaction ( 2 or
more people ) which occurs in such a way as to constitute an
interdependent system (as distinguished from a social system). IN
order for interaction to be stable, roles and actions must have
meanings and be governed by understood, shared rules. Rules define
goals and the consequences of ant given move by one player for the
situation in which the other must make his choice. Thus, there is a
temporal element to interaction. However, rules do not determine or
prescribe any specific act. Facilities are provided, but they are
generalized, and their allocation between players depends upon each
player's capacities to take advantage of opportunities. The essential
property is mutuality of orientation defined in terms of shared
patterns of normative culture, known as values. When two individuals
interact in the above ways, sharing a normative culture, and in so far
as their behavior is distinguishable from others by their
participation and not others, they form a collectivity.
A role may now be defined as the structures, i.e. normatively
regulated, participation of a person in a concrete process of social
interaction with specified, concrete role-partners. Performing a role
within a collectivity defined the category of membership, i.e. the
assumption of obligations of performance in that concrete interaction
system. Obligations correlatively imply rights. For any individual,
there are many roles, and one role is only a sector in his behavioral
system, and hence of his personality. In addition, in any given
system, the concepts of role and collectivity are particularistic.
Norms and values, in contrast with role and collectivity, are
universalistic concepts. It may cut across all concrete collectivities
in a given universe and apply to all roles of a given type. The
universalistic aspect of values implies that they are neither
situation-specific, nor function-specific.
To sum up: Structurally speaking, then, the role component is the
normative component which governs the participation of individual
persons in given collectivities. The collectivity component is the
normative culture which defines the values, norms, goal-orientations,
and ordering of roles for a concrete system of interaction of
specifiable persons; the component of norms which define expectations
for the performance of classes of differentiated units within the
system - collectivities, or roles, as the case may be; and values are
the normative patterns defining, in universalistic terms, the patterns
of desirable orientation for the system as a whole, independent of the
specification of situation or of differentiated function within the
system.
We now have enough to outline a schematic ideal type for a complex
social system. the main guiding line of the analysis is the concept
that a complex social system consists of a network of interdependent
and interpenetrating subsystems, each of which, seen as the
appropriate level of reference, is a social system in its own right.
(The infinitely repressible thing). The starting point is the concept
of a society, taken to be relatively self-sufficient collectivity
which cannot be said to be a differentiated subsystem of a high-order
collectivity oriented to most of the functional exigencies of a social
system. (All of these classifications are subjective, used and applied
by an analyst.). The functional exigencies take shape in three
distinct manners: differentiation, segmentation and specification.
There are several different modes of differentiation within societies.
The most common, even universal, is differentiation among kinship
lines. Kinship is essentially the point of articulation, i.e.
interpenetration, between the structure of social systems and the
relations involved in the biological process of reproduction.
Biologically, there are 3 crucial structural components, (1)
differences between sexes, (2) differences between old and young,
mature and immature, and (3) the fact hat the sexual union of two
specific individuals of opposite sexes is necessary to, and likely to
result in, pregnancy and reproduction. These 3 factors set up the
nuclear family unit, and other diversified family forms, around the
conjugal bond of 2 people and its resultant offspring. Kinship
structures are also clearly subject to important processes of
functional differentiation, and have often become the locus for
political and economic activities.
Because of the connection of paramount societal collectivity
organization and political function outlined, the functional
differentiation of political from other structures also tends to come
near the top of the social hierarchy. There are two preliminary steps.
The first is to differentiate kinship units which carry high political
responsibility, royals or aristocrats, from common kinship units. The
other the differentiation of the political from the pattern-maintenace
and integrative functions of the high-level units. Lower down, an
important problem here concerns the restrictions on the mobility of
resources imposed by the ascriptive aspect of kinship and its
differentiation from political function. Even when bureaucracy and
systems not directly ties to kinship are instituted, higher-level
kinship units usually have an edge of advantage or resources. This
imposes frustrating limits on lower units.
Parsons perceives the intertwining of political and economic functions
as an ongoing problem, buried in many empirical examples. One must
look closely, e.g. the function of a business firm is primarily
economic; its goal is production, but its internal organization must
be analyzed first in political terms. Economic function, as
distinguished from the political, involves the production and
allocation of disposable resources.
Traditionally, one of the main criterion of the values of economic
resources is relative scarcity. The other most important one is
general utility. The possibilities of generalizing about physical
commodities and human resources is thus inherently limited. The
utilization of scarce resources is dependent on the
institutionalization of mechanisms which, independent of any prior
knowledge or commitment, make it possible to gain access to wide
ranges of different facilities as need for them develops. In known
societies, there are in particular two highly generalized mechanisms
of this type, namely political power and money. Both require the
institutionalization of the disposability of facilities.
Money is not a commodity here, but a very special mode of
institutionalization of expectations and commitments through
communication. The usefulness of money as a much more generalized
facility is dependent on a system of markets and adequate rules
governing the continual flow of transactions through markets. Money
has the primacy of economic function.
Power is defined as the generalized capacity, independent of specific
conditions prescribed in advance, to influence the allocation of
resources for the goals of the collectivity through invoking the
institutionalized obligations of member units, utilizing such
sanctions as are legitimized through these obligations and
institutionalized roles involved in the power system. Power is
necessitated by the effectiveness which is required for the political
function. the mechanism of power are not nearly as structured as those
of money. Power is a mechanism regulating the process of making actual
commitments. Authority, on the other hand, comprises the general rules
which govern the making of specific binding decisions.
As used here, political and economic categories are generalized
functional categories that permeate the entire structure of the social
system. But it is a two-way street. Just as constraints on the
commercial or competitive structure of markets are imposed by
impinging non-economic factors, so in many collectivities there are
constraints on the political primacy of their organization and
orientation to situations.
No society can accept economic rationality as its most general
societal value-orientation, though it can place the economic highest
among its functional priorities. This statement also holds for other
differentiated functional value-systems.
The same basic principles of the relations between structure and
function, apply to pattern-maintenance and the integrative functions,
to the relations of the relevant structures to each other and to the
economic and political. First, societies will differ in so far as
structures with clear primacy of these functions have come to be
differentiated from those whose functions are more diffuse. Second,
relevant structures will be located at different levels on the scales
of segmentation and specification, and may thus not be directly
comparable with each other.
With respect to pattern-maintenance, as a functional category, it is
not meant to have empirically static connotations. Analytically,
specialization in both maintenance and change in values should be
placed in this category. the primary area of concern here is the
religion, placed within the realm of the cultural. Societal variance
is great here, but even when a specific religion is not
institutionalized, religious values will be. Also a primary component
of pattern-maintenance is socialization of the individual, placed
within the realm of personality. Socialization universally involves at
least one kinship unit, usually the nuclear family, as the primary
collective agent of early socialization. All more highly
differentiated societies have developed non-kinship structures
centering about the functions of formal education in which the higher-
level patterns of normative culture and systems of objects are
internalized in the personality.
Structures with integrative primacy must follow some normative code.
Norms must be defined, interpreted, and implemented. The first
imperative of a system of norms is internal consistency. Second, there
s the specification of higher-order norms to levels where they can
guide the action of the society's lower level structural units by
defining the situation for them. A major functional problem of a
normative system concerns the adjustments which occur because a social
system is always involved in processes of interchange with a changing
environment. There seem to be three basic types of processes of
adjustment in these cases. 1. Keeping the regulatory norms at a
sufficiently high level of generality so that much of the adjustment
can be left to the spontaneous, unprescribed, action of the units
themselves.
2. Altering the content of normative patterns to meet the varying
functional needs without threatening the stability of higher level
systems.
3. A third process which operates, short of major structural changes,
in the areas where the other two are inadequate. ( It is unspecified.)
A final aspect of social structure is stratification. Here, the focus
of institutionalized stratification is legitimizing differential power
and wealth, and more generally, access to valued objects and statuses.
Social class is the most common basis of stratification.
III. The Dynamics of Social Equilibrium
The analysis of dynamic processes at the equilibration level must
center around two categories of the system's components. The first are
the resources which, starting from outside the system, go through
various phases as they pass through the system, and at certain points
are used in the system's functioning. The second are the types of
mechanisms which mediate these processes of generation and utilization
of resources and regulate their rates of flow, direction of use, etc.
Money and power, as previously discussed, are the prototypes of these
mechanisms.
Parsons borrows the theoretical model of resources from economics
because it is capable of generalization. In this model, there are four
factors of production, namely, land, labor, capital, and organization.
He is most concerned with applying the model's logical structure,
because level of specification of resources and qualitative
differences in resources make it difficult to apply the model directly
to social systems theory.
None of the socially ultimate inputs consists in either actual
physical objects or the physical behavior of organisms. In an economic
exchange, involving a physical commodity, what changes hands is not
the commodity, but property rights in the commodity. Analytically,
physical transfer of possession is a technological process, not a
social systems process. Like a feeder chain, the ultimate resources of
a society should comprise the ultimate outputs of the subsystems of
the general system of action. Land is a special case because it is
neither consumed in the production process, nor is it produced.
In the society as a system, the analog of land is the
institutionalized normative culture. According to the paradigm, the
inputs should be three: inputs respectively from the personality -
capacity to socialize motivational commitments, the behavioral
organism - plasticity which can be built into patterns of purposive
response, and the cultural system - information . Generally, output
corresponding too the input if institutionalized normative culture in
the maintenance of the structure intact. The primary outputs of the
other inputs are as follows: personality system: goal-gratification,
behavioral organism: patterning of responses at the level of behavior,
and cultural system: validation.
The resources complete this system as the thruput. They are consumed.
Resource processing occurs in three phases: generation, allocation and
utilization.
Parsons shows some heavy Freudian influences here when he speaks of
the socialization of motivational capacity as an example of resource
generation. He outlines the whole process of developing sexuality,
complete with Oedipal complex. But then, its back to functionalism.
Allocation is made to operative units of the system, to which
resources are committed for use. The prototype for an allocative
mechanism again comes from economics, it is the market. The market
makes possible a relatively functional allocation without much
centralized decision-making. It also allows for much differentiation.
Another example can be seen in the power mechanism's allocation of
power in a politically differentiated societ
Utilization is essentially a process of successively more
particularized decision-making; action-opportunities, facilities, and
responsibilities are allocated more specifically at each step. The
most broadly defined stages are the allocation to the collectivity, to
the role, and to the task. The function of the collectivty is to
define what is to be done; that of the role, to define who is to do
it; and that of the task level, how it is to be done.
Mechanisms controlling resource processes. Parsons again refers to
power and money, the two most studied of the mechanisms. Money is
simultaneously both a measure of value and a medium of exchange and it
can function as both a facility and a reward. Power is a step above
money in the hierarchy of control mechanisms because power can be used
to control power, i.e. a government controlling its monetary system.
Power allows for greater flexibility and effectiveness without prior
knowledge or specifications. He also discusses real commitments, which
I believe to be institutionalized role commitments, but I'm not sure.
They seem to have a lot to do with contracts and legal agreements.
Finally, there is integrative communication, which is also at the top
of the hierarchy of control mechanisms. The operational focus of this
type of mechanism is the motivational commitment of units of the
system to the fulfillment of institutionalized expectations.
In a broad sense then, the problem of the dynamics of social systems
is not so much a problem of transformation of energy as of the
processing of information. Analyses of these processes are in an early
stage right now.
IV. The Problem of Structural Change
The processes of structural change may be considered the obverse of
equilibrating process; the distinction is made in terms of boundary
maintenance. The control resources of the system are adequate for its
maintenance up to a well-defined set of points in one direction:
beyond that set of points, there is a tendency for a cumulative
process of change to begin, producing states progressively farther
from the institutionalized patterns. As observed, structural change in
subsystems is an inevitable part of the equilibrating process in
larger system. Within this frame of reference, the problem of
structural change can be considered under three headings: (1) sources
of tendencies towards change, (2) the impact of these tendencies on
the affected structural components, (3) possible generalizations about
trends and patterns of change.
Sources of change can be either exogenous or endogenous. Exogenous
sources of change are changes in the environment or environing social
systems. Their impact is made felt only through the endogenous
tendencies to change which already exists in the units or subsystems
of the social system in question. Endogenous change itself is often
perceived as strain. A strain is a tendency to dis-equilibrium in the
input-output balance between two or more units of the system. Strain
can be relieved by being fully resolved, by being isolated or
arrested, or by changing the structure itself. Since strain usually
falls on relations between units of the system, structural change to
relieve the strain is defined as alteration in normative culture
defining the expectations governing that relation. Given structural
inertial tendencies, strain should occur only when lower-level control
mechanisms have failed. Sources of change may be myriad or multi-
causal.
Disturbance in the system may result from the balance of inputs and
outputs being thrown off. The impact of these forces for change will
vary in accordance with their magnitude, proportion of system units
affected, the strategic character of the affected unit(s), the degree
to which the forces affect functionally different units or sectors,
and resistance of system units. Empirically, it is hard to pinpoint
these forces for change because they are diffuse and seldom operate
discreetly. By present definition, a change in the structure of a
social system is a change in its normative culture. At the most
general level, it is a change in the paramount value system.
Change can also affect the interaction of different levels of the
social system, e.g. normative culture and the personality system.
However, symptoms of disturbance are common to processes which do and
do not cause change. Structural change is only one possible outcome of
strain.
The socialization of the child actually constitutes a process of
structural change in one set of structural components of social
systems, namely, the role-patterns of the individual - indeed, much of
the foregoing paradigm has been derived from this source. The
socialization of the individual does not, however, comprise change in
the social system of society. This is a good illustration of Parsons'
nested systems approach.
TALCOTT PARSONS: Talcott Parsons on Institutions and Social Evolution
Chapter 1: The Role of Theory in Social Research
In this short chapter, Parsons expresses his concern for what appears
to be the complete divorce between the empirically-minded and the
theoretically minded in which each does their type of research while
degrading the work of the other. For instance, Parsons says, ''certain
of the empirically minded are not merely not interested in attempting
to contribute to theory themselves, they are actively anti-
theoretical'' (67). He makes the same point of the theoretically
minded. Although he is very sympathetic toward empiricists who do not
like to structure their research on firm theoretical grounds, he
argues the whether they would like to admit it or not, scientific
endeavors cannot and do not make much contribution to scientific
knowledge unless they are ''guided by the logical structure of a
theoretical scheme.'' Parsons sees the principle functions of
analytical theory in research in the following four ways:
1) it provides a basis of selection for the important facts from the
unimportant, given the wealth of miscellaneous facts we have
2) it provides a basis for organization of the facts
3) it reveals the gaps in the existing knowledge and their importance
4) it provides a source of ''cross fertilization'' of related fields
Chapter 2: The Place of Ultimate Values in Sociological Theory
Basically what Parsons says in this chapter is that people strive to
achieve ends and they do so given the opportunities or means that are
available to them (means-ends chain). However, people's ''ultimate
ends'' as well as how they achieve them are not chosen randomly.
Instead, the means by which people achieve their goals, etc., are
defined and established by the group of which they are a part. Parsons
calls this a ''common system of ultimate ends.'' Actions are governed
by normative rules of the group or institution. In other words,
Parsons' concept of action is grounded in a normative framework.
Chapter 3: The Action Frame of Reference
A frame of reference is the starting point for analysis and is
determined by the particular vantage point and purposes. Mayhew says
that ''the grounding of the normative in the very concept of action as
a necessary element of an action frame of reference, gives the study
of norms a solid theoretical foundation'' (8). Norms have special
importance in social life; they provide an action frame of reference
for analyzing social structure and its functions.
Chapter 4: Hobbes and the Problem of Order
Hobbes believed that people are guided by their passions. The good is
simply what man desires. However, there are many limitations on the
extent to which these desires can be realized. Therefore, in order to
''control'' people's desires, society has created a social contract
that exists between members of society. Through this contract men
agree to give up some liberties to the sovereign power and in return
they receive security, or immunity, from aggression by the force or
fraud of others. Through this authority, the desires and passions are
held in check and order and security are maintained. Without it, men
will attempt to achieve their ends in the most efficient means
available, in other words, force or fraud. This will eventually lead
to a state of war.
It is this social contract of Hobbes that is most interesting to
Parsons. Hobbes' social contract is synonymous with Parson's normative
framework. He says that an ordered social life cannot be founded on
rational calculation alone; there must be a normative framework to
establish criteria of choice that will provide for social control of
disruptive conduct.
Chapter 5: Pattern Variables
Pattern variables are ''the principle tools of structural analysis
outlining the derivation of these categories from the intrinsic logic
of social action -- the inherent dilemmas of choice facing
actors'' (10). In this chapter Parsons argues that there are a
strictly limited and defined set of alternatives or choices that can
be made, and the relative primacies given to choices constitute the
''patterning of relational institutions.'' These choices or
alternatives are called orientation-selection.
There are five pattern variables of role-definition that Parsons
discusses, although he says that there are many more possibilities.
The first is the gratification-discipline dilemma: affectivity vs.
affective-neutrality. The dilemma here is in deciding whether one
expresses their orientation in terms of immediate gratification
(affectivity) or whether they renounce immediate gratification in
favor of moral interests (affective-neutrality). parsons says, ''no
actor can subsist without gratifications, while at the same time no
action system can be organized or integrated without the renunciation
of some gratifications which are available in the given
situation'' (107).
The second set of pattern variables of role-definition are the private
vs. collective interest dilemma: self-orientation vs. collectivity
orientation. In this case, one's role orientation is either in terms
of her private interests or in terms of the interests of the
collectivity. Parsons explains, ''a role, then, may define certain
areas of pursuit of private interests as legitimate, and in other
areas obligate the actor to pursuit of the common interests of the
collectivity. The primacy of the former alternative may be called
''self-orientation,'' that of the latter, ''collectivity-
orientation'' (107).
The third pair of pattern variables are the choice between types of
value-orientation standard: universalism vs. particularism. Simply
put, ''in the former case the standard is derived from the validity of
a set of existential ideas, or the generality of a normative rule, in
the latter from the particularity of ... an object or of the status of
the object in a relational system'' (109). Example: the obligation to
fulfill contractual agreements vs. helping someone because she is your
friend.
The fourth pair of pattern variables are achievement vs. ascriptive
role behavior: the choice between modalities of the social object.
Achievement-orientation roles are those which place an emphasis on the
performances of the people, whereas ascribed roles, the qualities or
attributes of people are emphasized independently of specific expected
performances.
The final pair of pattern variables are specificity vs. diffuseness:
the definition of scope of interest in the object. If one adopts an
orientation of specificity towards an object, it means that the
definition of the role as orienting to the social object in specific
terms. In contrast, in a diffuse orientation, the mode of orientation
is outside the range of obligations defined by the role-expectation.
Chapter 7: Integration and Institutionalization in the Social System
Institutionalization: By institutionalization Parsons meant the
integration of roles and sanctions with a generalized value system or
normative framework which all members share. He states,
''institutionalization is an articulation or integration of the
actions of a plurality of actors in a specific type of situation in
which the various actors accept jointly a set of harmonious rules
regarding goals and procedures'' (118).
Institutionalizing Roles: Parsons says that the social system of the
institution must contain an allocative process by which the problem of
who is to get what, who is to do what, and the manner and conditions
under which it is to be done is made explicit. If this is not done,
the social system will fail and will make way for another system. If
it does occur, integration will be achieved. The function of
allocation of roles, facilities, and rewards, therefore, must be
established within the social system. Access to roles is determined by
qualifications. Access to facilities is determined by position. One is
given facilities to help to achieve the goals set forth by the duties
of the position they occupy. The purpose of facilities is the
fulfillment of role-expectations. Rewards have the function of
maintaining or modifying motivations. Therefore, access to rewards is
determined by achievement or how well one does her work.
The Integration of the Social System: Social integration of the social
system takes place when members are governed by a common value-
orientation, when the common values are motivationally integrated in
action as a collectivity, and when the people are given and take
responsibility for their role-expectation in that they take
responsibility for the definition and enforcement of the norms
governing the allocative processes and take responsibility for the
conduct of communal affairs.
Chapter 9: Illness and the Role of the Physician
Parsons defines illness as a deviant behavior because, as a sick
person, whether mentally or physically, one is not able to perform the
functions or obligations to society. He states, ''behavior which is
defined in sociological terms as failing in some way to fulfill the
institutionally defined expectations of one or more of the roles in
which the individual is implicated in the society'' (146). He deals
with four issues here: the processes of genesis of illness, the role
of the sick person as a social role, aspects of the role of the
physician and their relation to the therapeutic process, and the way
in which both roles fit into the general equilibrium of the social
system.
In the first issue, that of the processes of genesis of the illness,
mental illness is assumed. Parsons suggests that the genesis of
illnesses results from something that has gone wrong in a person's
relationships to others during the process of social interaction. The
support a person receives from those surrounding her in which she is
made to feel a member of the group as well as the upholding of values
of the group may be lacking resulting in the person becoming
pathological.
In the second issue, the role of the sick person is considered a
social role. First, the sick person is made exempt from normal social
obligations. Then she is exempted from certain responsibilities of her
own state. Third, given the role of the sick relinquishes one from the
claim to full legitimacy. Fourth, being sick is defined as needing
help; the sick person makes the transition to the additional role of
patient and as such has certain obligations to fulfill.
The third issue, the aspects of the role of the physician and their
relation to the therapeutic process are discussed. Parsons says that
there are four main conditions of successful psychotherapy. The first
is support which signifies the acceptance of the sick person as a
member of a social group. The second is a special permissiveness to
express wishes and fantasies which would ordinarily not be permitted
in normal social relationships. The third is that the therapist does
not reciprocate the expectations of the patient. The fourth is the
conditional manipulation of sanctions by the therapist -- the giving
and withholding of approval.
The final issue that Parsons discusses is how the illness/sick person,
the physician, and well as the psychotherapy are built into the
structure of society.
Chapter 15: On the Concept of Influence
Ways of Getting Results in Interaction: Parsons argues that there are
at least four ways of getting results in interaction. The first is
through inducement of offering someone something that they want so
that they will comply. The second is through deterrence of suggesting
that by not complying something bad will happen to the person. The
third means is through activation of commitment or suggesting to the
person why it would be wrong, in the person's viewpoint, to refuse to
comply. The fourth means is through persuasion or offering reasons why
it would be a good thing for him or her to comply, independent of
situational advantages. Parsons presents the following diagram to
illustrate his point:
CHANNEL
SANCTION Intentional Situational
Positive persuasion inducement
Negative activation deterrence
of
commitments
This he calls his paradigm of modes of gaining ends.
Parsons defines influence as ''a means of persuasion. It is bringing
about a decision on alter's part to act in a certain way because it is
felt to be a 'good thing' for him, on the one hand independently of
contingent or otherwise imposed changes in his situation, on the other
hand for positive reasons, not because of the obligations he would
violate through noncompliance'' (236). In other words, one has
influence because of who they are, because they hold some title, etc.,
that makes people believe in them. Parsons states, ''the same
statement will carry more weight if made by someone with a high
reputation for competence, for reliability, for good judgment, etc.,
than by someone without this reputation ... It is not what he is
saying ... but what 'right' he has to expect to be taken
seriously.'' (238-9). Persuasion is done in common interest. It is not
in the interest of the persuader, but in the interest of the person
being persuaded that the outcome would benefit. An example of this is
a doctor and a patient. The doctor has influence because of who she
is. She has a degree and training that gives credibility, and the aim
she has is for the good of the patient.
Types of Influence. There are four types of influence: political,
fiduciary, influence through appear to different loyalties, and
influence oriented to the interpretation of norms. In political
influence, there is a directly significant relation between influence
and power. Fiduciary influence refers to the ability to allocate
resources in a system where both collectivities and their goals are
plural and justification of each among the plural goals is
problematic. Influence through appeal to differential loyalties refers
to commitments grounded in institutionalized values. It is a matter of
justifying assuming particular responsibilities in the context of a
particular collectivity. The final type of influence, that of
influence oriented to the interpretation of norms, refers to the
interpretation of legal norms of the judicial process.
Chapter 19: Evolutionary Universals in Society
Four features of human societies at the level of culture and social
organization were cited as having universal and major significance as
prerequisites for socio-cultural development: technology, kinship
organization based on an incest taboo, communication based on
language, and religion. Primary attention, however, was given to six
organizational complexes that develop mainly at the level of social
structure. The first two, particularly important for the emergence of
societies for primitiveness, are stratification, involving a primary
break with primitive break with primitive kinship ascription, and
cultural legitimation, with institutionalized agencies that are
independent of a diffuse religious tradition.
Fundamental to the structure of modern societies are, taken together,
the other four complexes: bureaucratic organization of collective goal-
attainment, money and market systems, generalized universalistic legal
systems, and the democratic association with elective leadership and
mediated membership support for policy orientations. Although these
have developed very unevenly, some of them going back a very long
time, all are clearly much more than simple inventions of particular
societies.
Perhaps a single theme tying them together is that differentiation and
attendant reduction in ascription has caused the initial two-class
system to give way to more complex structures at the levels social of
stratification and the relation between social structure and its
cultural legitimation. First, this more complex system is
characterized by a highly generalized universalistic normative
structure in all fields. Second, subunits under such normative orders
have greater autonomy both in pursuing their own goals and interests
and in serving others instrumentally. Third, this autonomy is linked
with the probability that structural units will develop greater
diversity of interests and subgoals. Finally, this diversity results
in pluralization of scales of prestige and therefore of differential
access to economic resources, power, and influence.
TALCOTT PARSONS: ''Suggestions for a Sociological Approach to the
Theory of Organizations''
1. MAIN ARGUMENT
Parson's version of sociological explanation of organizational theory.
He attempted to define organization by locating it systematically in
the structure of the society in relation to other categories of social
structure. He defines an organization as ''a social system oriented to
the attainment of a relatively specific type of goal, which
contributes to a major function of a more comprehensive system,
usually the society'' (63).
2. OUTLINE (AGIL SCHEME)
He referred to his basic classification of the functional problem of
social systems (AGIL). This classification distinguished four main
categories:
-the value system - which defines and legitimized the goals of the
organization (L)
-the adaptive mechanisms - which concern mobilization of resources (A)
-the operative code - mechanisms of the direct process of goal
implementation (G)
-the integrative mechanisms (I)
1) - (L) Its value system defining the societal commitments of which
its functioning depends. This value system must be a subvalue system
of a higher-order one, since the organization is always defined as a
subsystem of a more comprehensive social system. From this concept,
Parsons maintained two conclusions. First, the value system of the
organization must imply basic acceptance of the more generalized
values of the superordinate system. Secondly, on the requisite level
of generality, the most essential feature of the value system of an
organization is the valuative legitimation of its place or role in the
superordinate system.
2) - (A) Its mechanisms of resource procurement. The problem of
mobilizing fluid resources concerns one major aspect of the external
relations of the organization to the situation in which it operates.
The resources which the organization must utilize are the factors of
production as these concepts are used in economic theory; land, labor,
capital and organizations (refers to the function of combining the
factors of production in such ways as to facilitate the effective
attainment of the organization's goal).
3) - (G) Its operative mechanism centering about decision making in
the fields of policy, allocation, and integration. The policy decision
meant decisions which relatively directly commit the organization as a
whole and which stand in relatively direct relation to its primary
functions. Parsons noted that the critical feature of policy decisions
is the fact that they commit the organization to a whole to carry out
their implications. The allocative decisions relate to the
distribution of resources within the organization and the delegations
of authority. From these points, there are two main aspects of the
allocative decision process; one concerns mainly personnel, the other
financial and physical facilities. The coordination decisions concern
with the integration of the organization as a system.
4) - (I) Its institutional patterns which link the structure of the
organization with the structure of the society as a whole. The problem
concern rather the compatibility of the institutional order under
which the organization operates with other organizations and social
units, as related to integrative exigencies of the society as a whole.
This integrative problem can be generalized to both human agents and
interorganizational integration.
Conclusion: The same basic classification of the functional problems
of social systems was used to establish point of reference for a
classification of types of organization, and broadest outline of a
proposed classification was sketched. Then, Parsons suggested some
illustrative cases by a rapid survey of some of the principal
business, military, and academic organizations.
TALCOTT PARSONS: The Professions and Social Structure
This chapter and the piece on age and sex can be seen as attempts to
apply Parsons' theories to real life situations. In the case of
business and the professions, he's looking at how our ''society'' as
an organism, maintains itself. Two of Parsons' four functional needs
of society - integration (coordinating system parts) and latency
(managing tensions between parts and generating new parts) - are
solved in this article by what he calls ''functional specificity''.
(compare to Durkheim).
Parsons begins by wondering why the professions are so highly
developed, and why there is such a highly refined division of labor
nowadays. (He rejects the idea that it is simply individuals'
utilitarian self-interest. He says it is part of society,
institutional. **He wants to prove that ''the acquisitiveness of
moderns business is institutional rather than motivational.'' Here
institutional = cultural = given part of social structure.)
Three important elements distinguish our society from others and
contribute to the unique importance of professions in our society.
1. In our society, scientific rationality - that is, not accepting
traditional explanations just because they are traditional, and
therefore searching for better ways and explanations - is
''institutional, a part of a normative pattern.'' This is to say,
scientific rationality is not just something that comes natural to all
human beings.
2. Furthermore, certain people have authority in certain realms but in
no others. For instance, regardless of their financial backgrounds or
upbringing, doctors are given authority in the field of medicine
because it is their specialty. This is what Parsons calls the
''functional specificity'' of technical competence or authority. In
contrast to commercial relations, which are functionally specific, kin
relations are functionally diffuse. Your grandma has authority because
she's your grandma, not because of their technical expertise. (Liken
functional specificity to Weber on bureaucracy - office-holders can
give orders because of authority of the office.) Parsons calls for a
thorough study of functional specificity, since it is a product of our
unique modern D of L.
3. Related to the last thing, there are two kinds of relations among
people, universalistic and particularistic. The more contexts in which
you know someone, like a relative or a friend, the less possible it is
to abstract that person's personality from the particular role they
play at one time. For instance, a person who has her elderly parent
living with her will treat the parent much differently than she would
treat a tenant who is a stranger. The mother is regarded as a
particular individual, mom. The other tenant is regarded as any other
tenant would be, by a ''universalistic'' rule for how landlords treat
tenants. (Think of Simmel, content and form of relations - parent
relations have more content because of different contexts, not a
purely formal relation.)
But are professions and business really all that different? No, if we
think of them both as having the goal of ''success.'' People wish to
succeed at whatever vocation their talent brings them to, be they
doctors, scientists, painters or financial analysts.
But this is only the case in the normal condition of society, a ''well-
integrated'' situation. If achievement fails to bring recognition, or
if you get recognition for doing nothing or the wrong thing, this
causes strain. (Think of Merton) Strain leads to profiteering in the
professions and shady practices in business.
It is not accurate to say that business folks are purely egoistic nor
that professionals are purely altruistic. Both have the same sorts f
motivation, and differences in normative behaviors are institutionally
defined definitions of the situation. System is maintained by a
complex balance of diverse social forces.
TALCOTT PARSONS: Age and Sex in the Social Structure of the United
States
This is another attempt to make Parsons' theories relevant. This piece
deals mostly with the functional needs of integration and latency,
where different age and sex groups can be seen as the different
elements of an organism. To some extent, it deals with the question of
how to reconcile individual with social needs.
Parsons asserts that our society is unique in that our children of
both sexes are treated alike, relative to other societies. The main
reason for this similarity is that children are given education that
focuses mostly on liberal arts rather than vocations.
In spite of the ''conspicuous'' exception that in the job world, men
and women in this society share an underlying structural equality.
(I'm just telling you what he says.) Education through college is
merit-based and there is little discrimination until you get to
postgrad, where the strict focus on vocation leads to more sex-based
discrimination.
Elsewhere Parsons asserts that it is functional to have a woman at
home raising the children and making the man's home life run smoothly,
so he can dedicate himself to his career. Women need to be educated,
he implies, because they need to life up to expectations which come
with being the wife of a man of a certain status. He is where she gets
her status.
If she isn't smart enough to find ways to entertain herself by
following the ''good companion'' pattern, a women may choose to follow
the glamour gal routine, going for clothes and makeup. Striving for
success in these two realms is functional because these patterns keep
women from competing with men. However, since these women have liberal
arts educations, they may undergo such strain that it is no surprise
that they often exhibit neurotic behavior. This sex-based
differentiation comes from adolescent ''youth culture,'' where boys
value things counter to adult male responsibility (like sport, booze,
and girlies) and girls go for the glamour gal look. The girls' role is
counter to their adult expectation of becoming mommies, but
nonetheless prepares them to accept their place relative to the men's
world.
As people age, women whose children are grown get bored and either
shop more or work for benefit organizations. Men and women both
romanticize the days when their options were open to them, so men may
drink and hang out with younger, attractive women. Women may get
neurotic.
All this is an example of how society tries to regulate its functions,
in spite of strain. Here we find problems of latency, where tensions
arise between parts, such as women who are smart and educated enough
to have ''men's'' jobs but would then force too much competition.
There are also problems of integration or coordinating the parts of
the system, especially in the case of preparing boys for the adult
world in a society where their role models are absent ('cause they're
at work all the time). I don't think I need to spend much time
briefing you all on potential criticisms of this particular little
chapter (Don't men themselves have anything to do with keeping women
out? Since when has there been gender equality in the schools? Why is
this system functional anyway!?!). Let's say, in the unlikely chance
we get asked about it, we'll have a field day.
![{:-])))'s profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
{:-])))
>TALCOTT PARSONS ''An Outline of the Social System'' (TS: 30-79)
>
>A couple of things which might be helpful to know before I begin.
I must have missed something.
Maybe one or more of the two.
Be that as it may,
another thing was on my mind.
It had to do with how,
suppose there were a batch,
or was a bunch, of sayings, proverbs,
little maxims or aphorisms.
Then, suppose they gathered moss.
Commentaries, and a few conclusions.
Say, for instance, they were compiled
into a book, make it two. Akin to Tao and Te.
Except different. Like Dao and De. But different.
In this hypothetical book, there might be a verse,
or a chapter, which begins with, oh, say:
Haste makes waste.
And then, a comment about it.
Like, yeah man, so, take it easy.
And then: Thus the sage never hurries.
But then, later on, in the little book, or books,
there's another saying, e.g. He who hesitates is lost.
Which has some comment following it, like, yeah man,
don't wait too long cuz if you snooze you lose.
And then: Thus the sage is never asleep at the wheel.
Imagine, if you can, a couple thousand years go by,
make it 2500, give or take. And readers happen to happen
to find and explore and appreciate the little book, or books.
Some notice how Chapter 1, verse 1, line 1
could be said to contradict what's found later on,
in some other line or verse or chapter of the book, or books.
What to make of that?
Well, maybe the little book, or books, began
as just a collection of sayings, or proverbs, or maxims, or
aphorisms, which collected around the collection, commentaries
and conclusions, across the eon, or ages, from the ancients.
Contradiction may not mean much of anything.
Context might be a rule of thumb.
akin to
crossing an eye
sea stream
Jeffrey Rubard
one
>On Thursday, June 17, 2010 at 12:54:09 PM UTC-7, {:-]))) wrote:
>> Big Red Jeff Rubard wrote about:
>> >TALCOTT PARSONS ''An Outline of the Social System'' (TS: 30-79)
>> >
>> >A couple of things which might be helpful to know before I begin.
>> I must have missed something.
>> sea stream
>
>2022 Update: "Give 'er all my salary/on the waters of o-bli-vi-on"
- hmmm ...
a.mite
are them, the daze there of.
>- hmmm ...
Om. Aum. A sound like a rose
arose in mind this morning, sweet.
Harsh, the thorns of it branches who
scratches a surface, water, still.
Its ripples moving, sewing two speak.
Does the surface go any where
moving up and down asits waves appear.
A mind sigh, a sea far shore, castles of ice
with lights may shed and melt eventually.
Ways that are, are, ways.
Always, could even a fei-chang, unusual, not common
one way be the Way at all times for all beings.
- a.mite wonders ...
Jeffrey Rubard
can make a man ill at ease
one man's temper rises when another man's temper might freeze
but on the day of confession
we cannot mock a soul
when there's too much of nothing
no one has control
one
>Too much of nothing
>can make a man ill at ease
>one man's temper rises when another man's temper might freeze
>but on the day of confession
>we cannot mock a soul
>when there's too much of nothing
>no one has control
could well be what is beyond a well-frog's domain.
https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu1.html#17
<< THE TIME OF THE AUTUMN FLOODS came and the hundred streams poured
into the Yellow River. Its racing current swelled to such proportions
that, looking from bank to bank or island to island, it was impossible
to distinguish a horse from a cow. Then the Lord of the River1 was
beside himself with joy, believing that all the beauty in the world
belonged to him alone. Following the current, he journeyed east until
at last he reached the North Sea. Looking east, he could see no end to
the water.
The Lord of the River began to wag his head and roll his eyes. ... >>
- cheers!
Jeffrey Rubard
one
> one wrote:
>> Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>
>> >Too much of nothing
>> >can make a man ill at ease
>> >one man's temper rises when another man's temper might freeze
>> >but on the day of confession
>> >we cannot mock a soul
>> >when there's too much of nothing
>> >no one has control
>
>> When no one has control, wu-xin and wu-wei
>> could well be what is beyond a well-frog's domain.
>>
>> https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu1.html#17
With control and without control
could be two sides of a control issue.
I'm not all too familiar with Dylan, let alone Parsons.
Taoist philosophy is an odd critter methinks.
At times, total control appears to be what is.
Then again, simply being natural, without trying,
especially without trying to force a feature of reality
to be as a desire is, is a Way and could be the Way.
When Butcher Ting carved oxen, there was wei-wu-wei.
When wood-carvers carved what was uncarved, variations
on a them appeared to have appeared in the Chuang-tzu.
Nothing, nonbeing, wu, not having,
without name, wu-ming and other apophatic
approaches approached a Tao or two Tao as if
more than one of what may be many Tao were and
to say they're all the same but can't be said could be said.
Being good for nothing
Being a gnarly tree
Being a being
Being for a time
Returns to nonbeing
I don't know about Lear from here
to where an eternity is scene five
acting as if it were a score to settle.
The void, the Zone, emptiness, nothing.
Seeing how with desire and without desire are
coins of a sort, duality coins, minted in mind
time after time can be a mine of mine.
- gone spelunking ... Thanks!
Jeffrey Rubard
(Perhaps not really.)
"Oh, that's what *I'm* about."
Do you suppose it shows?
one
>You are... amazing.
>(Perhaps not really.)
>"Oh, that's what *I'm* about."
>Do you suppose it shows?
Here?
Presumably.
Do you suppose Dylan or Parsons
had or have any relationship
to/with Taoist philosophy?
- thanks! Cheers!
aye
is how about half the time he's a foil and the other
half of the times he's used he's used as a sage.
Some may say there's only one Tao
and all the Hundred Schools were seeking it
while using different Tao at the same time which
continues to amuse me of all people many times over.
- aye
a.mite
>one wrote:
>>Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>
>>>You are... amazing.
>>>(Perhaps not really.)
>>>"Oh, that's what *I'm* about."
>>>Do you suppose it shows?
>>
>>Taoist philosophy?
>>
>>Here?
>>
>>Presumably.
on a time within
time it was a time it was
when suddenly a song appeared
with its lyrics a mite bit skewed.
Out of boredom I suppose.
>>Do you suppose Dylan or Parsons
>>had or have any relationship
>>to/with Taoist philosophy?
>>
>>- thanks! Cheers!
https://texashillcountry.com/true-story-behind-pancho-and-lefty/
>A funny feature of Confucius in the Chuang-tzu
>is how about half the time he's a foil and the other
>half of the times he's used he's used as a sage.
>
>Some may say there's only one Tao
>and all the Hundred Schools were seeking it
>while using different Tao at the same time which
>continues to amuse me of all people many times over.
>
>- aye
the Bible and the Chuang-tzu both, myths and fictions
and prehaps a few facts woven among the words.
Semantics and contexts,
when the former be at play
the latter tend to rule oars.
Was monotheism a root of science or, rather, atheism
at heart when minds began to experiment and find
weeding a garden using a fine line of/at Ockham.
Deduction and induction, does ore dew
spring from a well, a notion of an ocean of
the sea-turtle who was unable to enter.
- where froggy was he who was ... Cheers!
aye
>aye wrote:
>>one wrote:
>>>Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>>
>>>>You are... amazing.
>>>>(Perhaps not really.)
>>>>"Oh, that's what *I'm* about."
>>>>Do you suppose it shows?
>>>
>>>Taoist philosophy?
>>>
>>>Here?
>>>
>>>Presumably.
>
>Once up
>on a time within
>time it was a time it was
>when suddenly a song appeared
>with its lyrics a mite bit skewed.
>
>Out of boredom I suppose.
yet could a there be where there is
an aquifer of thought, beneath surface
waves and streams where subspace chatter
brings what appear to be synchronicities,
coincidences, are with great meaning.
>>>Do you suppose Dylan or Parsons
>>>had or have any relationship
>>>to/with Taoist philosophy?
>>>
>>>- thanks! Cheers!
>
>Free association mites be correlated.
>
>https://texashillcountry.com/true-story-behind-pancho-and-lefty/
to take credit for the writing because it came from out of the blue.
It came through me, and it痴 a real nice song, and I think, I致e
finally found out what it痴 about. ... ... .">>
>>A funny feature of Confucius in the Chuang-tzu
>>is how about half the time he's a foil and the other
>>half of the times he's used he's used as a sage.
>>
>>Some may say there's only one Tao
>>and all the Hundred Schools were seeking it
>>while using different Tao at the same time which
>>continues to amuse me of all people many times over.
>>
>>- aye
>
>Pondering favorite books, tomes and what knots,
>the Bible and the Chuang-tzu both, myths and fictions
>and prehaps a few facts woven among the words.
of myths are far deeper than those of so-called facts.
For sciences with their philosophy holding to a methodology
of independent experimental verifiability, deity appears
to not appear, usually if not always, let alone deities.
Statistical models give rise to powerful tools and to ask why
are not anecdotes able to provide proof could be a question
involving and revolving round after round incarnations and
reincarnations of individuals along with their gods.
>Semantics and contexts,
>when the former be at play
>the latter tend to rule oars.
>
>Was monotheism a root of science or, rather, atheism
>at heart when minds began to experiment and find
>weeding a garden using a fine line of/at Ockham.
as Christian theology may explain what biology claims
is predisposition, environmental, and sociologists could
insist on how culture, institutions, categories persist
as memes perpetuating their selves, elves of sorts.
>Deduction and induction, does ore dew
>spring from a well, a notion of an ocean of
>the sea-turtle who was unable to enter.
>
>- where froggy was he who was ... Cheers!
to be when Huizi and Zz walking saw them.
- given: the Chuang-tzu ... Cheers!
a.mite
>>Out of boredom I suppose.
<< ... it is, at root, word play ... >>
Excitement and boredom once went for a spell
emerging from what they were not they did knot
knowing full well how froggy was at the time.
As for sea-turtle, as good as being out to sea was
he, or she, was unable to see nor be at the bottom
of the well which, being froggy's domain, was and who
was there with the frog at the time, was God, Elohim,
of Biblical fame and able to tame all that was until
it was the end of that age when Shiloh was.
From animism to polytheism and unleavened bread
super stitches kept all the critters in their niches
projecting and reflecting each their truths.
Alchemists used their cinnabar flying high above
where mortals were able, two go, one was given a
single bound, do not touch the tree of knowing.
Forget about duality with its bark and leaves
branching and roots. Root and pluck but don't eat.
Do not partake of that fruit for when you do you die
a death of sorts and to put an end to sorting, as luck
would have it, soteriologies vary.
He to whom it belongs, he who, was he from before
the beginning Way back when a foundation was well
planned, knowing, and did he who was know when
the end would be to that age, when science was.
- in the beginning ...
Jeffrey Rubard
> > twas written:
> >>Out of boredom I suppose.
> https://paper-republic.org/pers/lucas-klein/anarchist-anthropology-happy-fish-and-translation/
>
> << ... it is, at root, word play ... >>
>
> Excitement and boredom once went for a spell
> emerging from what they were not they did knot
> knowing full well how froggy was at the time.
> he, or she, was unable to see nor be at the bottom
> of the well which, being froggy's domain, was and who
> was there with the frog at the time, was God, Elohim,
> of Biblical fame and able to tame all that was until
> it was the end of that age when Shiloh was.
> From animism to polytheism and unleavened bread
> super stitches kept all the critters in their niches
> projecting and reflecting each their truths.
(I'm not a Jew, so it's not so much for me.)
> Alchemists used their cinnabar flying high above
> where mortals were able, two go, one was given a
> single bound, do not touch the tree of knowing.
> Forget about duality with its bark and leaves
> branching and roots. Root and pluck but don't eat.
> Do not partake of that fruit for when you do you die
> a death of sorts and to put an end to sorting, as luck
> would have it, soteriologies vary.
you know?
> He to whom it belongs, he who, was he from before
> the beginning Way back when a foundation was well
> planned, knowing, and did he who was know when
> the end would be to that age, when science was.
would translate well into "namby-pamby" talk like
this? Maybe it does! I don't know.)
> - in the beginning ...
one
> a.mite wrote:
>> > twas written:
>> >>Out of boredom I suppose.
>> https://paper-republic.org/pers/lucas-klein/anarchist-anthropology-happy-fish-and-translation/
>>
>> << ... it is, at root, word play ... >>
>>
>> Excitement and boredom once went for a spell
>> emerging from what they were not they did knot
>> knowing full well how froggy was at the time.
>
>That's pretty special.
>> As for sea-turtle, as good as being out to sea was
>> he, or she, was unable to see nor be at the bottom
>> of the well which, being froggy's domain, was and who
>> was there with the frog at the time, was God, Elohim,
>> of Biblical fame and able to tame all that was until
>> it was the end of that age when Shiloh was.
>
>This is also pretty special.
and playing, the goings on and all is how, with great and
small, while the small doesn't know how great or big is,
the same holds for big-bird, who in the beginning
of the book needed a lot of air space to fly.
https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu.html#1
At times mention is made of the Creator
and at the same time, usually, Tao is not God
but is that from which divine gets divinity.
One mite wonders, how sew
and, given: Tao Chia, knows
it's only natural, tzu-jan/ziran.
>> From animism to polytheism and unleavened bread
>> super stitches kept all the critters in their niches
>> projecting and reflecting each their truths.
>
>This is less special. Some people like unleavened bread!
>(I'm not a Jew, so it's not so much for me.)
who simply don't care about duality, unity, metaphysics
and utter such nonsense are at times.
Reductionistic maps, cause-and-effect, myths
of cartographers who seek to explain and to know
how their maps go, only sew far, threading an eye why
it is easier for a camel to get its nose under a tent
than for a physical being to be immaterial.
Mystical and religious experiences as wells vary.
>> Alchemists used their cinnabar flying high above
>> where mortals were able, two go, one was given a
>> single bound, do not touch the tree of knowing.
>
>"Heavy cinnabar"?
Magic mushrooms, peaches of immortality, Isles of the Blessed
and expeditions there failed to bring home the best news.
The first emperoror of Qin/Chin was said to have died
attempting to be immortal, apparently unaware of
how immortality and mortality are two sides
minted at a duality coin factory.
>> Forget about duality with its bark and leaves
>> branching and roots. Root and pluck but don't eat.
>> Do not partake of that fruit for when you do you die
>> a death of sorts and to put an end to sorting, as luck
>> would have it, soteriologies vary.
>
>Yeah. Nobody's waiting for one from you, usually, though,
>you know?
with time and beyond time, eternally now at times,
when beer o'clock rolls a round, usually I'm there
and hear once a day to boot and reboot
pondering the Tao, singular, plural,
noun and verb for a spell.
http://www.bopsecrets.org/gateway/passages/tao-te-ching.htm
An opening line has many interpretations. Poetry
tends to be a kind and at times unkind kind of critter
with its rhymes for its raisons d'etre. For no reason to
know how a poem goes, with no ulterior motif showing
a show may go on and on until it stops and where or
why no body mite knows, being immaterial material.
>> He to whom it belongs, he who, was he from before
>> the beginning Way back when a foundation was well
>> planned, knowing, and did he who was know when
>> the end would be to that age, when science was.
>
>Have you been reading Fichte? (Did you think it
>would translate well into "namby-pamby" talk like
>this? Maybe it does! I don't know.)
Doctor Seuss was as a kid being mes more eyes did.
Then again, listening to Emerson,
Lake and Palmer's version of Blake was recalled
wondering about whether a man, God, did in a body,
as a body, walk a round near Glastonbury. And/or was
Joseph of Arimathea a minister of mines for Rome, a tin man.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_did_those_feet_in_ancient_time
>> - in the beginning ...
>
>Much is already over.
made in the shade of gnarly trees, good
for nothing, and when Zz was asked about a goose
who got cooked for dinner, well he laughed.
The Tao Te Ching (TTC) and the Chuang-tzu (CT)
might not save any body from physical demise
nor resurrect all minds nor spirits from being dead.
Be that as they may, for me, here they form,
inform and return me to a place of grace and style.
Forgetting about learning, learning and unlearning,
to ramble and bumble like a bee unable to fly
meanwhile, after a while, then again.
- w/thanks! Cheers!
aye
> ... usually I'm there
>pondering the Tao, singular, plural,
>noun and verb for a spell.
>
>http://www.bopsecrets.org/gateway/passages/tao-te-ching.htm
what with wu and yu from the n'ear get-go.
Punctuation marks
what spots in a cube of butter flying eyes
may sail to see roar shocks on more than one ocellus.
Wu, meaning, without
and ming, meaning, name,
does wu name or does wu ming
mean without name. And can without name, wu ming,
name what is beyond words as a kind of a game being played.
Does being, yu, play games when a majuscule, Being
is deemed to be the Supreme. With name, yu ming,
may be said to be a Way, the Mother, sheds.
Myths of sorts akin to those found in TTC 40 and 42
return as often as knots being counted on and TTC 80
as romantic as it is, plus the CT in many places is a well.
So many stories and tales sew and go on and on.
From an old farmer, more than one. Reflecting.
- passages thru Hanku vary ... Cheers!
one
>> Forget about duality with its bark and leaves
>> branching and roots. Root and pluck but don't eat.
>> Do not partake of that fruit for when you do you die
>> a death of sorts and to put an end to sorting, as luck
>> would have it, soteriologies vary.
>
>Yeah. Nobody's waiting for one from you, usually, though,
>you know?
how to play without
having ulterior motive
aside from when if not
where a game is being
played by far existing.
Pondering and reflecting, TTC 16 can be
one among many that return to me returning me
again and again, over and under standing it may vary.
http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap16.htm#top
As an old man a Lao Tzu was said to have left
and leaving a few words at the Gate he was gone
yet not forgotten were they, his words, that were.
An echo of them remain in mines of those who sit
in silence, without words, having forgotten them.
To be as a newborn could be a Way if not the
Way at times and to be a little child wells except
to dwell for too long may cut short the spells.
- of words written on a screen ... Cheers!
one
>>> soteriologies vary.
>>
>>Yeah. Nobody's waiting for one from you, usually, though,
>>you know?
of mine as being a metaphysician a lesson learned was,
with some so-called, individuals, no paradigm is able to be
the Tao at that time. Perhaps later on, a Tao works
for that being at that time and saves him or
her for a bit part in life's dream dramas.
And so to sew stories and weave tails wagging
dogged is the Path of trails bringing me to a point
being light hearted and knowing no-mind, wu-hsin.
For me, personally, being a being in the present,
to focus on the present, now, so to speak as if
there were not-two, not-many, not any other
time than now, this present can be a gift.
Then again, at other times, given: times,
a different paradigm has a function of sorts.
Seeing life, assuming such a noun-thing exists,
as a drama or a game, a dance of energy remains
among favorites of mines when going spelunking.
There can be a Christian Jesus card played and
that works miracles for me at times and the Pure Land
Amitabha Buddha immediately transports a mind of mines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amitabha
Buddhism its own self, an elf of it at least is able
to remind me of how desire and suffering bring
a point of duality from a Tao similar to Taoisms'.
At many rates from Way-back when the machine
brought me to this place of musing, for me to see Taoism,
Tao Chia that is, the philosophy, as a personal Zone,
a centre of balance where thirty spokes meet,
its emptiness reminds me at times like this
of an other day breaking full ...
- with beer in the future, and cheers!
one
>>> a.mite wrote:
>
>>>> soteriologies vary.
>>>
>>>Yeah. Nobody's waiting for one from you, usually, though,
>>>you know?
from time to time at times one or more may.
Not yet knowing right from left nor wrong, they
play their games without ulterior motives naturally.
They oar their many Ways without oars of course.
Speaking of ulterior, premeditated, wei, motives;
Confucian philosophy, assuming such a critter is, is
at times contrasted with Tao Chia among the Chia,
schools of thought that were, once upon a time.
Fictions, myths, a global village is one.
One that might very well could unite little kids today
in the future at least once for all time for a time.
While nationalisms, tribalisms, us-and-them forms form
in their minds they may very well know how games
they are, being played on a scale pulling wool
over those eyes who can't see through
nor ears hear neither over there.
Aye, to speak of a needless needle
of camels and the elephant who stands
on the back of a turtle under which is an other
and well frogs know the bottom of a well very well.
Once upon a time an old farmer's horse ran away
unless it walked being merry when suddenly it returned
and with a horse making two horses there were.
And all the neighbors said, wow! That's good.
But the old farmer said, well, may be.
The old farmer's young son tried to ride the horse.
And as the story goes and went it didn't go well.
Nay, the son got bucked off the new horse who
was not the same as the old horse and, well, the
son broke his leg and all the neighbors said, bah.
The neighbors said all is not well now that young son
has broken his leg, but Old Farmer said, well, may be.
Soon after, as times change, a war broke out and all
the young men at the time were drafted being similar
to draft animals but the young son was excused from
going to war that day and all the neighbors said, yea!
And the old farmer, Old Farmer, said, well, may be.
All of which brings me of all people to a point reflecting
on global warming. Induced by people who are capable,
may be, to restrict their use of carbon and well that
could be a good or a bad thing given: glaciers.
From a geological time frame, glaciers are a thing.
And who can say and who will say global warming is ore
and/or is knotted as natural phenomena, people are.
- over time and time again and again ... Cheers!
one
>>>> a.mite wrote:
>>
>>>>> soteriologies vary.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah. Nobody's waiting for one from you, usually, though,
>>>>you know?
on layer after layer one mite
wonders whether Schliemann did in
his deeds find Troy and why are the Darda-
nelles named that given name not to mention if
Jacob's Pillar now sits in Scotland instead of England.
Why did Ireland's flag depict the Red Hand and
did Jeremiah bring the daughters of David to that land.
What did Geoffrey of Monmouth know of history and lit up
his literature for sure, of Lost Tribes and who were those
Sheep of the House of Israel to whom He was sent.
- rhetorically speaking, of Shiloh ... Cheers!
one
>>>>> a.mite wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> soteriologies vary.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yeah. Nobody's waiting for one from you, usually, though,
>>>>>you know?
to a tele, a phone if not a vision.
What to make of corona mass ejections.
What to unmake of a future's projections.
Is there a what.
Is here a there.
How do nouns now sound
Within the verbs and reverbs
Of one's ears if not then again
What would Charlie Brown or Linus say.
- in a bamboo grove singing ... musing
Jeffrey Rubard
> >>>> Jeffrey wrote:
> >>>>> a.mite wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> soteriologies vary.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Yeah. Nobody's waiting for one from you, usually, though,
> >>>>>you know?
> Peanuts of disasters bring a ring tone
> to a tele, a phone if not a vision.
> What to make of corona mass ejections.
> What to unmake of a future's projections.
Also occasionally contraband."
> Is there a what.
> Is here a there.
> How do nouns now sound
> Within the verbs and reverbs
> Of one's ears if not then again
"Reverb" is cool and you need to leave it alone.
(You *could* also leave people alone.)
> What would Charlie Brown or Linus say.
> - in a bamboo grove singing ... musing
aye
>> Is there a what.
>> Is here a there.
>
>Yes and yes. There's a little bit more to being *compos mentis*, though.
when returning to a ground
of being and nonbeing.
Yu and Wu could be said
and are, they have bins and yet
as a duality have their limits as wells.
To be unsalted, unbleached, free there of
reminds me of simplicity, uncarved, undyed, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pu_(Taoism)
Thanks for the re: minder!
>> How do nouns now sound
>> Within the verbs and reverbs
>> Of one's ears if not then again
>
>They're fundamentally not phonetic realizations of the words.
he could find some one who had forgotten words
so he could have a word with him, or her presumably
although I don't know if the third person personal pronoun
is or was the same for both given: Chuang-tzu, the text.
>"Reverb" is cool and you need to leave it alone.
>(You *could* also leave people alone.)
standing like a tree branching with roots beneath
and to realize how none are separate from, not apart
from while being a part of, all are of a whole enchilada or
nine yards, or some other metaphor for the time beings.
TTC 16 returns again with many happy
fish, over and over, time and time again.
To be an eternal being and/or not two be.
Playing fish, going fishing, Zz once asked if a turtle,
one who or that was sacred having holes bored in its
shell to divine what was to be would have preferred
dragging its tale in the mud, where Zz was.
- given a text, a book, chapter and verses versus ...
Jeffrey Rubard
"Crazy" also = "crazy", including when you are a Sooper
Genius who knows *just how* to manipulate people
with "knowing" drivel. "But, like, it's really good drivel.
It's gonna do the thing." ???
> >"Reverb" is cool and you need to leave it alone.
> >(You *could* also leave people alone.)
> People and other of the 10k-things leave me
> standing like a tree branching with roots beneath
> and to realize how none are separate from, not apart
> from while being a part of, all are of a whole enchilada or
> nine yards, or some other metaphor for the time beings.
> TTC 16 returns again with many happy
> fish, over and over, time and time again.
> To be an eternal being and/or not two be.
> Playing fish, going fishing, Zz once asked if a turtle,
> one who or that was sacred having holes bored in its
> shell to divine what was to be would have preferred
> dragging its tale in the mud, where Zz was.
The level of brain rot with these ones.
> - given a text, a book, chapter and verses versus ...
one
>On Monday, January 24, 2022 at 5:22:46 AM UTC-8, aye wrote:
>> Chuang Tzu once asked in wonder if ever
>> he could find some one who had forgotten words
>> so he could have a word with him, or her presumably
>> although I don't know if the third person personal pronoun
>> is or was the same for both given: Chuang-tzu, the text.
>
>"Taoist" apparently = "crazy" in actual Chinese culture.
That there never was any, Taoist School.
To separate what is called the religion from
what is called the philosophy was never any actual
phenomenon, according to those who see it as such.
Historically, historians a couple thousand years ago
in their attempt to categorize the Hundred Schools,
made up categories and that's how academics can be.
>"Crazy" also = "crazy", including when you are a Sooper
>Genius who knows *just how* to manipulate people
>with "knowing" drivel. "But, like, it's really good drivel.
>It's gonna do the thing." ???
that did its thing over time in the land, and continues.
What are called, Taoist, writers at times contrasted
their Tao with Confucians' Tao as well as those of others.
Taoism was adopted for a time by a government,
if my memory is correct. Not sure which one, if any.
https://iep.utm.edu/daoism/
The Chuang-tzu is much fun for me,
personally, as a leisure type of pursuit.
- milage varies, naturally ... Thanks! Cheers!
Jeffrey Rubard
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 13:42:26 -0800 (PST), Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> >On Monday, January 24, 2022 at 5:22:46 AM UTC-8, aye wrote:
>
> >> Chuang Tzu once asked in wonder if ever
> >> he could find some one who had forgotten words
> >> so he could have a word with him, or her presumably
> >> although I don't know if the third person personal pronoun
> >> is or was the same for both given: Chuang-tzu, the text.
> >
> >"Taoist" apparently = "crazy" in actual Chinese culture.
> Actually, some scholars may say Tao Chia is a fiction.
> That there never was any, Taoist School.
>
> To separate what is called the religion from
> what is called the philosophy was never any actual
> phenomenon, according to those who see it as such.
> Historically, historians a couple thousand years ago
> in their attempt to categorize the Hundred Schools,
> made up categories and that's how academics can be.
> >"Crazy" also = "crazy", including when you are a Sooper
> >Genius who knows *just how* to manipulate people
> >with "knowing" drivel. "But, like, it's really good drivel.
> >It's gonna do the thing." ???
> Confucianism probably was more of a thing
> that did its thing over time in the land, and continues.
> What are called, Taoist, writers at times contrasted
> their Tao with Confucians' Tao as well as those of others.
> Taoism was adopted for a time by a government,
> if my memory is correct. Not sure which one, if any.
one
> Mencius is actually really interesting.
I've not read Mencius.
>> What are called, Taoist, writers at times contrasted
>> their Tao with Confucians' Tao as well as those of others.
>
>People complain I write like this, too.
Speaking of blather, I'd rather
be writing than doing taxes. The latter
is more taxing than is the former.
Speaking of the former, in terms of Taoism,
once upon a time, in the Chuang-tzu, mention
was made about the Maker of Things and to think
Tao is similar to Brahman, if the Maker is a Tao, the Tao,
a Creator, which atheists don't approve of, can be a thought.
Does Mencius have a mythology, a cosmology, revolving
a round where in the world was created, by a creator?
Song-birds sing.
Writers write.
Complainers complain.
Critics critique.
Drinkers drink.
- naturally ... Cheers!
aye
>Speaking of blather, I'd rather
>be writing than doing taxes. The latter
>is more taxing than is the former.
Being useless could be said to be what is
ultimately, the ground of usefulness.
Similar to silence being from where
sound emerges and returns there
as well and speaking of wells that
old frog that was and is can be
as happy as any writer could
yet to leave its well and go
where sea turtles live is
beyond its capacity.
>Speaking of the former, in terms of Taoism,
>once upon a time, in the Chuang-tzu, mention
>was made about the Maker of Things and to think
>Tao is similar to Brahman, if the Maker is a Tao, the Tao,
>a Creator, which atheists don't approve of, can be a thought.
pronoun feature, being an it to pick one mite could.
Like a rock, for example.
Metaphysical milage odometers vary.
- go figure ... Cheers!
a.mite
>Huizi said to Zz his words were useless.
was sure they would be a big hit yet they were not.
The coasting line was littered that day with shells and
starfish among the sand and castles made by hand.
A young man was flinging starfish one at a time when
an old man who'd been watching him asked what possible
difference could it make to the starfish drying out there.
There were so many, thousands of them, all washed up
along the beach and the young man said well sir, it does
certainly make a difference to this one, as he flung it.
Wave after wave broke and an ocean remained
as it waved a wave after as well as before the waves,
they being unable to break it without even trying.
A saying is said people dance
for the sake of dancing just as many sing
without any ulterior motive which brings Taoism
to mind with all of its blather about not doing
or doing without doing, et cetera.
For some people, purpose and meaning are
their things, their wants and their needs as they
knead to have a cause because without any
their lives are futile, naturally.
For some people, knowing how Life is, how Reality
is more simply a drama than any really big thing
can be to free their minds and spirits wander.
Perhaps that's too simple.
To blather might be bad.
Futility is not a good utility.
How good to be free and yet,
duality, its coins minted at a factory,
to know how an epistemology is, two are necessary.
- of sea shells and toy boats at the sea shell store ...
one
>For some people, purpose and meaning are
>their things, their wants and their needs as they
>knead to have a cause because without any
>their lives are futile, naturally.
like an exercise in futility to keep
a mind in tune working puzzles for no reason.
No reason other
than to fit the thou-
sand pieces when jig-sawed
to see the picture that once was.
To know the no reason of the Present.
A great waist of time, a belly full of laughter.
The round to it knows there is no time like, the Present.
This morning, as a soteriology has it, an it that is like
to know other means one is, axiomatic.
As the Present unfolds
its Elf and its elves as it were
once up on a time before the big inning.
What is the meaning of Life
presumes Life is, going without saying.
Are people really forms of Life
ore are they forms of Being.
Ontologically does Existence mean
a ground noun thing is, a word to the wise.
What then of a figure-ground reversal when
an experience experienced suggests here is
what is not as real as what there is a wonder.
To grind up words like a pepper corn and add them
given a meal, food for thought may be found
oar knots in tales of the Chuang-tzu.
Aye, tis blather rather than sum other Tao
which have their use and when confused to read
of a Tao of the Tao Te Ching could amuse
and even be a muse to a reader.
To remind one of how, things are.
Of how words are. Fun and games.
Mythologies. People plays. Drama.
Given, sew many perspectives.
- Thanks again! Cheers!
Jeffrey Rubard
Jeffrey Rubard
Jeffrey Rubard
one
>"Babbling brook".
" Flapping gums."
one
>"Babbling brook".
aye
a.mite
one
https://www.connexions.org/CxArchive/BoPS/gateway/passages/chuang-tzu.htm
" tao k’o tao, fei ch’ang tao."
Jeffrey Rubard
one
>> " Funny Ting."
>>
>> https://www.connexions.org/CxArchive/BoPS/gateway/passages/chuang-tzu.htm
>>
>> " tao k’o tao, fei ch’ang tao."
>
>This just gets more and more magic!
mediocre cook changes his knife once a month — because he hacks. I’ve
had this knife of mine for nineteen years and I’ve cut up thousands of
oxen with it, and yet the blade is as good as though it had just come
from the grindstone. There are spaces between the joints, and the
blade of the knife has really no thickness. If you insert what has no
thickness into such spaces, then there’s plenty of room — more than
enough for the blade to play about it. That’s why after nineteen years
the blade of my knife is still as good as when it first came
from the grindstone.
“However, whenever I come to a complicated place, I size up the
difficulties, tell myself to watch out and be careful, keep my eyes on
what I’m doing, work very slowly, and move the knife with the greatest
subtlety, until — flop! the whole thing comes apart like a clod of
earth crumbling to the ground. I stand there holding the knife and
look all around me, completely satisfied and reluctant to move on, and
then I wipe off the knife and put it away.” >>
https://terebess.hu/english/tao/ChuangTzu-palmer.pdf
<< Confucius was travelling to Chu and he went through the
heart of a forest, where he saw a hunchback trapping
cicadas, using a sticky pole with such ease that it seemed as
if he used his hands. ‘Sir, what skill!’ said Confucius. ‘Do
you have the Tao?’
‘Indeed, I have the Tao. The first five to six months I
learned how to balance two balls on top of each other on a
pole, and when they did not fall, I knew I could catch a few
cicadas. Next I practised with three balls, and when they did
not fall, I knew I could catch one cicada in ten. Next I
practised with five balls, and when they did not fall, I knew I
could catch cicadas very easily. I brace my body as if it
were a straight tree trunk and stick out my arms like a pole.
Never mind how vast Heaven or Earth are, or the vast
numbers of the multitudes of living beings, I concentrate
my knowledge on catching cicadas. Never tiring, never
leaning, never being aware of any of the vast number of
living beings, except cicadas. Following this method, how
could I fail?’
Confucius turned and said to his followers, ‘His will
undivided and his spirit energized, that is how I would
describe this hunchbacked gentleman!’ >>
https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu2.html#19
<< Confucius was seeing the sights at Lu-liang, where the water falls
from a height of thirty fathoms and races and boils along for forty
li, so swift that no fish or other water creature can swim in it. He
saw a man dive into the water and, supposing that the man was in some
kind of trouble and intended to end his life, he ordered his disciples
to line up on the bank and pull the man out. But after the man had
gone a couple of hundred paces, he came out of the water and began
strolling along the base of the embankment, his hair streaming down,
singing a song. Confucius ran after him and said, "At first I thought
you were a ghost, but now I see you're a man. May I ask if you have
some special way of staying afloat in the water?"
"I have no way. I began with what I was used to, grew up with my
nature, and let things come to completion with fate. I go under with
the swirls and come out with the eddies, following along the way the
water goes and never thinking about myself. That's how I can stay
afloat."
Confucius said, "What do you mean by saying that you began with what
you were used to, grew up with your nature, and let things come to
completion with fate?"
"I was born on the dry land and felt safe on the dry land - that was
what I was used to. I grew up with the water and felt safe in the
water - that was my nature. I don't know why I do what I do
- that's fate." >>
<< Woodworker Ch'ing carved a piece of wood and made a bell stand, and
when it was finished, everyone who saw it marveled, for it seemed to
be the work of gods or spirits. When the marquis of Lu saw it, he
asked, "What art is it you have?"
Ch'ing replied, "I am only a craftsman - how would I have any art?
There is one thing, however. When I am going to make a bell stand, I
never let it wear out my energy. I always fast in order to still my
mind. When I have fasted for three days, I no longer have any thought
of congratulations or rewards, of titles or stipends. When I have
fasted for five days, I no longer have any thought of praise or blame,
of skill or clumsiness. And when I have fasted for seven days, I am so
still that I forget I have four limbs and a form and body. By that
time, the ruler and his court no longer exist for me. My skill is
concentrated and all outside distractions fade away. After that, I go
into the mountain forest and examine the Heavenly nature of the trees.
If I find one of superlative form, and I can see a bell stand there, I
put my hand to the job of carving; if not, I let it go. This way I am
simply matching up `Heaven' with `Heaven.' That's probably the reason
that people wonder if the results were not made by spirits." >>
http://www.bopsecrets.org/gateway/passages/tao-te-ching.htm
" dao ke dao, fei chang dao."
" ming ke ming, fei chang ming."
aye
>" dao ke dao, fei chang dao."
>
>" ming ke ming, fei chang ming."
Was the same Dao used by Chef Ding
and those mentioned including the hunchback
who said he had a/the and others who questioned
having any, as well as the swimmer saying he didn't.
- rhetorical magic knot included ... Cheers!
a.mite
https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu1.html#13
<< Duke Huan was in his hall reading a book. The wheelwright P'ien,
who was in the yard below chiseling a wheel, laid down his mallet and
chisel, stepped up into the hall, and said to Duke Huan, "This book
Your Grace is reading - may I venture to ask whose words are in it?"
"The words of the sages," said the duke.
"Are the sages still alive?"
"Dead long ago," said the duke.
"In that case, what you are reading there is nothing but the chaff
and dregs of the men of old!"
"Since when does a wheelwright have permission to comment on the books
I read?" said Duke Huan. "If you have some explanation, well and good.
If not, it's your life!"
Wheelwright P'ien said, "I look at it from the point of view of my own
work. When I chisel a wheel, if the blows of the mallet are too
gentle, the chisel slides and won't take hold. But if they're too
hard, it bites in and won't budge. Not too gentle, not too hard - you
can get it in your hand and feel it in your mind. You can't put it
into words, and yet there's a knack to it somehow. I can't teach it to
my son, and he can't learn it from me. So I've gone along for seventy
years and at my age I'm still chiseling wheels. When the men of old
died, they took with them the things that couldn't be handed down. So
what you are reading there must be nothing but the chaff and dregs
of the men of old." >>
Knack-masters vary and yet
to have the knack of doing, not-doing,
and/or doing-without-doing may be called the same Tao.
Magic words, the Zone, the Knack, could be knocked.
Knock-knock.
Who's there?
Tao.
Tao is a who?
- hmmm ... Cheers!
Jeffrey Rubard
Jeffrey Rubard
I use the "just quotation" device sometimes.
"Cheers!" isn't something you really say (I think you didn't study UK English carefully enough).
Jeffrey Rubard
(A very normal path of "wish-fulfillment".)
one
>Sometimes the words of others say it better than we could.
when they resonate a degree more like.
Interpreting poetry from an ancient language
to a modern language, idioms and such may help.
What does, for example, dao ke dao fei chang dao, mean?
Three times the word, dao, appears. Is it singular or plural?
Can many interpretations exist simultaneously?
- semantics and contexts ...
one
>"Cheers!" isn't something you really say
of the present and the future very often.
> (I think you didn't study UK English carefully enough).
Being far less than full of care, to care less, less and less
actually reminds me of yet another Tao.
Speaking of translations, of others who say
what is in their minds a more better way,
TTC 48, is it a Tao, the Tao, seeking
techniques/Ways such as they are.
Rhetorical values weigh in, eh.
https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap48
http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap48.htm#top
Being a knowledge junkie, to know more and more,
knowing there is no end to learning, is okay for me
and at the same time, knowing how to care less,
less and less, simultaneously, walking two Roads.
- for a spell ... Cheers!
aye
> ... walking two Roads.
I, at times, prefer Palmer's translation
of the Chuang-tzu when the word, Tao, is
used rather than Road or Path en passant.
https://terebess.hu/english/tao/ChuangTzu-palmer.pdf
While the poetry, an indentation, does not appear, here,
a passage in the text, in the second chapter, reads:
<< What is, is, what is not, is not.
The Tao is made because we walk it,
things become what they are called.
Why is this so?
Surely because this is so.
Why is this not so?
Surely because this is not so.
Everything has what is innate,
everything has what is necessary.
Nothing is not something,
nothing is not so.
Therefore, take a stalk of wheat and a pillar,
a leper or a beauty like Hsi-shih,
the great and the insecure,
the cunning and the odd:
all these are alike to the Tao.
In their difference is their completeness;
in their completeness is their difference.
Through the Tao they are all seen as one, regardless of
their completeness or difference, by those who are capable
of such extended vision. Such a person has no need for
distinctions but follows the ordinary view. The ordinary
view is firmly set on the ground of usefulness. The
usefulness of something defines its use; the use is its
flexibility; its flexibility is its essence and from this it
comes to a stop. We stop but do not know why we stop,
and this is called Tao.
To tax our spirits and our intellect in this way without
realizing that everything is the same is called ‘Three in the
Morning’. And what is ‘Three in the Morning’? A monkey
trainer was giving out acorns and he said, ‘In the morning I
will give you each three acorns and in the evening you will
get four.’ The monkeys were very upset at this and so he
said, ‘All right, in the morning you will get four and in the
evening, three.’ This pleased the monkeys no end. His two
statements were essentially the same, but got different
reactions from the monkeys. He gained what he wanted by
his skill. So it is with the sage, who manages to harmonize
right and wrong and is content to abide by the Natural
Equality of Heaven. This is called walking two roads. >>
Presumably,
what is translated as walking two, roads,
has a denotation of walking two, Tao.
If denotation is the proper word.
- given: UK English ... eye don't know ... Cheers!
one
>Again, "Cheers!" isn't really something you say, like "Slap Your Mammy!"
>(A very normal path of "wish-fulfillment".)
The former could be likened to an emoticon, :)
which might transmit an emotion of sorts
similar to a greeting, salutation, like
saying, Salute!
Searching for similar words, to connote the feeling
really felt when used by me a link appeared just now.
https://matadornetwork.com/nights/how-to-say-cheers-in-50-languages/
Gesondheid sounds as if some body sneezed.
I really wouldn't use that in closing a post.
None of the others except perhaps the Hebrew
would be used. To life! H'ears to Life! Might be.
Okole maluna sounds good to me but,
thinking no reader would grok it, it would
not be used. Aloha could be, if it were to be.
- semantics, contexts, situations vary ... Thanks!
Jeffrey Rubard
> Jeffrey wrote:
>
> >Again, "Cheers!" isn't really something you say, like "Slap Your Mammy!"
> >(A very normal path of "wish-fulfillment".)
> I don't ever say the latter.
> The former could be likened to an emoticon, :)
> which might transmit an emotion of sorts
> similar to a greeting, salutation, like
> saying, Salute!
you don't understand its complicated rudeness" as well.
(At all appearances you don't, anyway.)
> Searching for similar words, to connote the feeling
> really felt when used by me a link appeared just now.
>
> https://matadornetwork.com/nights/how-to-say-cheers-in-50-languages/
> Gesondheid sounds as if some body sneezed.
> I really wouldn't use that in closing a post.
often spoken language: *Gesundheit*. (Nobody fucking
speaks Afrikaans, get it? The esotericist of you is what
that kind of thing makes you...)
> None of the others except perhaps the Hebrew
> would be used. To life! H'ears to Life! Might be.
(A bunch of dumb fucks borrow words from Yiddish
and Hebrew like it was going out of style, but that
wouldn't be for me.)
> Okole maluna sounds good to me but,
> thinking no reader would grok it, it would
> not be used. Aloha could be, if it were to be.
Are we about done with the "tiresome right-wing ego parade" yet?
one
> one wrote:
>> Jeffrey wrote:
>>
>> >Again, "Cheers!" isn't really something you say, like "Slap Your Mammy!"
>> >(A very normal path of "wish-fulfillment".)
>>
>> I don't ever say the latter.
>> The former could be likened to an emoticon, :)
>> which might transmit an emotion of sorts
>> similar to a greeting, salutation, like
>> saying, Salute!
>
>It could be likened to "something you don't say, since
>you don't understand its complicated rudeness" as well.
>(At all appearances you don't, anyway.)
Writing, as well as saying, cheers!, is okay, imo.
If saying, Cheers!, in writing, as a closing, is rude, to you,
then, to not be rude to you I would not say that.
Sometimes to end a happy feeling after posting a message,
Thanks!, or yippee! or, hooray! may be exclaimed, by me.
Perhaps as might have Chef Ting, being all vorpal.
>> Searching for similar words, to connote the feeling
>> really felt when used by me a link appeared just now.
>>
>> https://matadornetwork.com/nights/how-to-say-cheers-in-50-languages/
>
>Matador Records was pretty hip once.
Sports are sports, as dao are dao,
and yet to suppose any sport, any dao,
any activity is the One and Only One, the OaOO,
for short, as an acronym of sorts could be what the TTC says
is not so given an interpretation there of.
>> Gesondheid sounds as if some body sneezed.
>> I really wouldn't use that in closing a post.
>
>It's also more normally and correctly rendered in the more
>often spoken language: *Gesundheit*. (Nobody fucking
>speaks Afrikaans, get it? The esotericist of you is what
>that kind of thing makes you...)
He was big on philosophy, western that is, knowing
differences between continental European and the UK brand.
https://independent.academia.edu/MarquardDirkPienaar/CurriculumVitae
And so, now knowing how to say to him,
had that word been known with its bins
at the time it would have been a bin word.
>> None of the others except perhaps the Hebrew
>> would be used. To life! H'ears to Life! Might be.
>
>A complicated term I bring myself to use rarely.
>(A bunch of dumb fucks borrow words from Yiddish
>and Hebrew like it was going out of style, but that
>wouldn't be for me.)
or an acquaintance, say, you and I were having a beer
for the sake of saying such a noun-thing activity, would you
of all people share in a toast?
And if so, what would you say, if any word were to be used?
>> Okole maluna sounds good to me but,
>> thinking no reader would grok it, it would
>> not be used. Aloha could be, if it were to be.
>
>"Grok" is not a real word, and I'm not going to ask a member of Heinlein's family about it.
Apparently, you define real, as a word, in a Way.
A kind of a Tao if you will and as the Tao Te Ching may say,
Ways are Ways, and at the same time, not, fei, chang.
What the word, chang,
or the phrase, fei chang, means
could be subject to interpretations and vary.
>Are we about done with the "tiresome right-wing ego parade" yet?
Sounds political, and psychological, jargon wise.
- please explain. Thanks!
one
>>one quoted:
>>
>>>" dao ke dao, fei chang dao."
>>>
>>>" ming ke ming, fei chang ming."
>>
>>Denotations and connotations vary.
which is Romanized as ming, could mean, name,
as well as names, which may be a noun as well as a verb.
Names name.
A name names.
Singular, plural, structures
of grammar which sentence thought.
Fragments meant to convey, poetic.
Is there a Chang Ming, using majuscules.
Is here where Chang Ming which cannot be said, is.
Dao that are spoken.
Dao which are walked.
Three symbols, graphics, written in the first line.
What does the second one mean. Is it the same as the first.
Is there a Dao, a Chang Dao.
Can Dao be spoken, walked and if not, then what.
Da Dao, the, using grammar,
parts of speaking, the article, definitively, the, Great Dao.
Given: Tao Te Chings, plural, translated, interpreted.
From an oral tradition, written, accreted, edited.
What do the words in TTC 1, mean, punctuated.
Given a comma. A period. For a time being.
What does, yu ming, mean.
Does yu mean, Being. Yu, Being, names.
Does yu mean, With. Yu ming, with name.
What does the symbol, Romanized as wu, mean.
What does wu ming, as a phrase, mean.
Wu is the name. Wu names. Nonbeing is the name.
Wu can mean, without, not having.
Tao is said to be, chang wu ming.
Tao is chang wu wei.
- given: Tao Chia ...
Jeffrey Rubard
> Jeffrey wrote:
> > one wrote:
> >> Jeffrey wrote:
> >>
> >> >Again, "Cheers!" isn't really something you say, like "Slap Your Mammy!"
> >> >(A very normal path of "wish-fulfillment".)
> >>
> >> I don't ever say the latter.
> >> The former could be likened to an emoticon, :)
> >> which might transmit an emotion of sorts
> >> similar to a greeting, salutation, like
> >> saying, Salute!
> >
> >It could be likened to "something you don't say, since
> >you don't understand its complicated rudeness" as well.
> >(At all appearances you don't, anyway.)
> Slapping a mammy sounds rude to me.
"time-based" word, so your ability to take in one unpleasant moment
and go "Yum!" can't be called "getting it".)
>
> Writing, as well as saying, cheers!, is okay, imo.
>
> If saying, Cheers!, in writing, as a closing, is rude, to you,
> then, to not be rude to you I would not say that.
>
> Sometimes to end a happy feeling after posting a message,
> Thanks!, or yippee! or, hooray! may be exclaimed, by me.
>
> Perhaps as might have Chef Ting, being all vorpal.
> >> Searching for similar words, to connote the feeling
> >> really felt when used by me a link appeared just now.
> >>
> >> https://matadornetwork.com/nights/how-to-say-cheers-in-50-languages/
> >
> >Matador Records was pretty hip once.
> Matadors are rude to bulls, methinks.
> Sports are sports, as dao are dao,
> and yet to suppose any sport, any dao,
> any activity is the One and Only One, the OaOO,
> for short, as an acronym of sorts could be what the TTC says
> is not so given an interpretation there of.
> >> Gesondheid sounds as if some body sneezed.
> >> I really wouldn't use that in closing a post.
> >
> >It's also more normally and correctly rendered in the more
> >often spoken language: *Gesundheit*. (Nobody fucking
> >speaks Afrikaans, get it? The esotericist of you is what
> >that kind of thing makes you...)
> Actually, there was a poster here who did.
>
> He was big on philosophy, western that is, knowing
> differences between continental European and the UK brand.
>
> https://independent.academia.edu/MarquardDirkPienaar/CurriculumVitae
> And so, now knowing how to say to him,
> had that word been known with its bins
> at the time it would have been a bin word.
> >> None of the others except perhaps the Hebrew
> >> would be used. To life! H'ears to Life! Might be.
> >
> >A complicated term I bring myself to use rarely.
> >(A bunch of dumb fucks borrow words from Yiddish
> >and Hebrew like it was going out of style, but that
> >wouldn't be for me.)
> So, if you were to be having a drink among friends
> or an acquaintance, say, you and I were having a beer
> for the sake of saying such a noun-thing activity, would you
> of all people share in a toast?
> And if so, what would you say, if any word were to be used?
> >> Okole maluna sounds good to me but,
> >> thinking no reader would grok it, it would
> >> not be used. Aloha could be, if it were to be.
> >
> >"Grok" is not a real word, and I'm not going to ask a member of Heinlein's family about it.
> The word real, is a real word as is really, really a word.
>
> Apparently, you define real, as a word, in a Way.
> A kind of a Tao if you will and as the Tao Te Ching may say,
> Ways are Ways, and at the same time, not, fei, chang.
>
> What the word, chang,
> or the phrase, fei chang, means
> could be subject to interpretations and vary.
> >Are we about done with the "tiresome right-wing ego parade" yet?
> I have no idea to what you are referring. Right-wing ego?
> Sounds political, and psychological, jargon wise.
>
> - please explain. Thanks!
Jeffrey Rubard
one
>On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 7:39:20 AM UTC-8, one wrote:
>> Jeffrey wrote:
>> > one wrote:
>> >> Jeffrey wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Again, "Cheers!" isn't really something you say, like "Slap Your Mammy!"
>> >> >(A very normal path of "wish-fulfillment".)
in terms of saying, cheers, is unknown to me.
When cheers is used by me it means, I'm happy.
Sometimes it means, having a beer. A toast.
Thinking about beer induces a desire to have one.
It's not time right now however, so, instead I may say
it's coffee time! Hooray! And go and get a cup of coffee.
>> >> I don't ever say the latter.
>> >> The former could be likened to an emoticon, :)
>> >> which might transmit an emotion of sorts
>> >> similar to a greeting, salutation, like
>> >> saying, Salute!
>> >
>> >It could be likened to "something you don't say, since
>> >you don't understand its complicated rudeness" as well.
>> >(At all appearances you don't, anyway.)
>>
>> Slapping a mammy sounds rude to me.
>
>"Cheers" doesn't, but is. ("No, I get it." It's actually a complicated
>"time-based" word, so your ability to take in one unpleasant moment
>and go "Yum!" can't be called "getting it".)
then to exclaim, Cheers!, would not occur. That would be
a kind of oxymoron. It might be funny though.
Spontaneity could be iconic Taoism.
Be that as it might, as for the word, cheers,
if it's rude in your view, as it does appear to be,
given your semantics, then I'll cease from using it
from now on, as long as that can be remembered.
My intent is not to offend, nor to be rude.
For me it's not a complicated time-based word when it's used.
It's a present-tense, eternal-present, now is the time, word.
Simplicity can be an icon of Taoism.
For me, saying cheers is simple, uncomplicated.
It's an expression of emotion involving being happy.
The punctuation mark, an exclamation point, points.
Some people might use an emoji instead of an emoticon
now that those symbols are available. To you they may
be taken as a sign of being rude, however unintended.
... snip ...
>> So, if you were to be having a drink among friends
>> or an acquaintance, say, you and I were having a beer
>> for the sake of saying such a noun-thing activity, would you
>> of all people share in a toast?
>
>It's not its function. That's "skoal" or "Prost".
In your lexicon, as far as arcane jargon goes,
what is the function of the word, cheers?
Apparently I've been rude all these years
not knowing the function of the word, cheers.
Seeing as how our semantics differ,
and this being a Taoist Newsgroup,
what it suggests is how in TTC 1.2,
where mention is made of names/ming,
names name, but don't always have the same
meaning when used by various people, imo.
... snip ...
>> >Are we about done with the "tiresome right-wing ego parade" yet?
>>
>> I have no idea to what you are referring. Right-wing ego?
>> Sounds political, and psychological, jargon wise.
>>
>> - please explain. Thanks!
>
>Do you intend to mock Chinese with this?
The Chuang-tzu may explain what the Tao Te Ching (TTC) means.
https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu.html#2
<< Words are not just wind. Words have something to say. But if what
they have to say is not fixed, then do they really say something? Or
do they say nothing? People suppose that words are different from the
peeps of baby birds, but is there any difference, or isn't there? What
does the Way rely upon, that we have true and false? What do words
rely upon, that we have right and wrong? How can the Way go away and
not exist? How can words exist and not be acceptable? When the Way
relies on little accomplishments and words rely on vain show, then we
have the rights and wrongs of the Confucians and the Mo-ists. What one
calls right the other calls wrong; what one calls wrong the other
calls right. But if we want to right their wrongs and wrong their
rights, then the best thing to use is clarity. >>
For me, when conversing with people, understanding norms,
etiquette and such can be enlightening and entertaining.
Beginning with words and meanings, categories and such,
nouns and verbs and moving to mythologies, metaphysics,
epistemologies and ontologies is philosophy involving forms
of linguistics. How to sum thought patterns roar shock blots.
- Thanks!
one
My reflectings, ruminations, musings are not mocking
but are intended as both serious and playful.
The TTC and the Chuang-tzu are full of sayings
and tales that stretch m'eye imagination constantly.
An interest of mine to mine is prior to Chinese,
before the first emperor of Chin ruled the land.
To use the words, China and Chinese can be
anachronistic and yet not uncommon when speaking
as well as writing about Taoist texts for many people, imo.
During the so-called Warring States Period, Tao
were sought and what emerged were the texts,
received and edited, time and time again.
What were the writers thinking.
What did the oral transmissions transmit
prior to any words having bins written.
Rhetorical questions surface.
Mention is made of emptying the mind,
of how words cannot suffice, at times.
Word maps are maps, and limited at that.
- points in time, for coffee! Thanks again!
aye
>Seeing as how our semantics differ,
>and this being a Taoist Newsgroup,
>what it suggests is how in TTC 1.2,
>where mention is made of names/ming,
>names name, but don't always have the same
>meaning when used by various people, imo.
may have involved around problems associated with words
as thinkers evolved and articulated various formulas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_of_names
An understanding of mine is how during the collapse
of the Chou Empire, when the Warring States Period
saw various attempts to establish social structures,
some so-called Taoist writers realized the futility
of attempting to rectify names, to make words
have the same meaning for all people all the time.
Hence an opening line in the TTC, ming ke ming ... .
Along the same lines mention is made of the fives.
https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap12
Confucianists, and perhaps Mencius, might have
thought that by rules, regulations, rites and rituals
the world could be ordered and peace found, as a Tao.
Taoists may have said, nay.
Their Tao could be interpreted as an uncommon, fei-chang, Tao
as interpretations of the TTC, Chapter 1, Line 1, vary.
Names name, yet the name, Tao, as fei-chang,
with an uncommon meaning could mean Cook Ting's.
- speculating for the funofits ...
Jeffrey Rubard
> one wrote:
>
> >Seeing as how our semantics differ,
> >and this being a Taoist Newsgroup,
> >what it suggests is how in TTC 1.2,
> >where mention is made of names/ming,
> >names name, but don't always have the same
> >meaning when used by various people, imo.
> Taoist philosophy as contrasted with Confucianism
> may have involved around problems associated with words
> as thinkers evolved and articulated various formulas.
(I.e., all of them.) But that's, like, smart. What you are doing can
be charitably interpreted as mockery of Taoism, and uncharitably
interpreted as mere "navel-gazing" (it's a hot navel after all, right?)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_of_names
>
> An understanding of mine is how during the collapse
> of the Chou Empire, when the Warring States Period
> saw various attempts to establish social structures,
> some so-called Taoist writers realized the futility
> of attempting to rectify names, to make words
> have the same meaning for all people all the time.
> Hence an opening line in the TTC, ming ke ming ... .
>
> Along the same lines mention is made of the fives.
>
> https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap12
>
> Confucianists, and perhaps Mencius, might have
> thought that by rules, regulations, rites and rituals
> the world could be ordered and peace found, as a Tao.
> Taoists may have said, nay.
> Their Tao could be interpreted as an uncommon, fei-chang, Tao
> as interpretations of the TTC, Chapter 1, Line 1, vary.
>
> Names name, yet the name, Tao, as fei-chang,
> with an uncommon meaning could mean Cook Ting's.
>
> - speculating for the funofits ...
one
> aye wrote:
>> one wrote:
>>
>> >Seeing as how our semantics differ,
>> >and this being a Taoist Newsgroup,
>> >what it suggests is how in TTC 1.2,
>> >where mention is made of names/ming,
>> >names name, but don't always have the same
>> >meaning when used by various people, imo.
>>
>> Taoist philosophy as contrasted with Confucianism
>> may have involved around problems associated with words
>> as thinkers evolved and articulated various formulas.
>
>To vary Adorno, "In many people 'aye' is already an impertinence."
>(I.e., all of them.) But that's, like, smart. What you are doing can
>be charitably interpreted as mockery of Taoism, and uncharitably
>interpreted as mere "navel-gazing" (it's a hot navel after all, right?)
Can't say as his name is known at all.
Logically speaking, using him may be an appeal of sorts
assuming he's an authority. Aye, for me, is a word meaning, me
as well as yes, correct. And, again, it repeats TTC 1.2, imo.
Names name, ming ke ming.
Ways are ways, dao ke dao.
Sock-puppets knead knots be serious.
Perhaps you lean toward Confucius in your belly.
An it mite be with heavy heart you be.
Taoist philosophy may suggest wu-xin/wu-hsin
as a technique. With Tao, without a heart-mind,
being in harmony, wandering where one wonders.
https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu.html#1
Playing width language at length,
without depth, for you, appears to signal a no-know
and perhaps you would never do any such Ting while
to butcher a language, hacking, chopping and/or
carving some bull ore an other is normal furry me.
http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap05.htm#top
Taoism may contrast with a Confucian, jen/ren.
Interpreting Tao Chia as being mocked seams two be your opinion,
as you see scene words written on a screen and project meanings
of yours on to what were written without the intent you ascribe.
Interesting, curious. W'hat is seen as being a th'at.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_of_names
>>
>> An understanding of mine is how during the collapse
>> of the Chou Empire, when the Warring States Period
>> saw various attempts to establish social structures,
>> some so-called Taoist writers realized the futility
>> of attempting to rectify names, to make words
>> have the same meaning for all people all the time.
>
>Please don't mock Chinese culture and history.
What you are seeing in words is your projecting, imo.
Similar to a roar shocking blot of ink splatter.
Have you mocked? Do you?
If so, then,
perhaps you're seeing a mirror image.
A kind of a feed-back loop, a reverb of nouns.
Prehaps there is some hypocrisy going on
if what you are seeing on a screen bothers you.
If, in some sense, my words were intended
as being a mockery, would t'hat be a problemo, for you?
>> Hence an opening line in the TTC, ming ke ming ... .
>>
>> Along the same lines mention is made of the fives.
>>
>> https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap12
>>
>> Confucianists, and perhaps Mencius, might have
>> thought that by rules, regulations, rites and rituals
>> the world could be ordered and peace found, as a Tao.
>
>Do you have a problem with Asians?
Were the writers of the Chuang-tzu and the Lao-tzu
born in a land now known as Asia?
If so, does that mean they were Asians?
Those two books, especially the Chuang-tzu, are
what this newsgroup is about basically, imo, and are
among the best of all books, ever. Is Tao Chia, Asian?
If the writers who contributed to writing the basic texts
over time lived hundreds of years before China was China
how could they have been Chinese? If they were not
from a land called Han, were they Han Chinese?
Do people who were born in a kingdom, say like Wei,
automatically get named as being Wei?
What does it mean, to have a problem with Asians?
You appear to be separating people
after a fashion of thought.
Perhaps you were taught to do that.
Asia is called a continental land mass.
You might insist it, really, is one, ore knot.
People who are born in some area defined as being west or east
of a line drawn to divide land from land were, unless they were not
born in the same land their parents or ancestors were.
Calling people by a name happens frequently. I call that a myth.
It's as mythological as race, color, creed, national identity, etc.
The truths of myth often are very deeply ingrained in youths
and may pertain to problems associated with such thinking.
Where a body is born does not matter to me.
'Tis an odd feature of how people use language when,
for example, First Nations folk are called by a name
given to them by other people, later on, much later on.
Faces are difficult for me to recall. Skin color as well, is not
how my processing of who a body is works. Tall or short,
thin or thick, other features are more helpful.
What is more interesting to me are strange phenomena,
strange, given my own perspective and, thought patterns.
You may call it naval grazing the surface of many waters
and oar knots. Sink ore t'ends to not float quite as much.
Political correctness mends to get people stoned
without having bins written in rock solid material.
>> Taoists may have said, nay.
>> Their Tao could be interpreted as an uncommon, fei-chang, Tao
>> as interpretations of the TTC, Chapter 1, Line 1, vary.
>>
>> Names name, yet the name, Tao, as fei-chang,
>> with an uncommon meaning could mean Cook Ting's.
>>
>> - speculating for the funofits ...
>
>"Funofits"... damn, the pure linguistic magic of that.
Perhaps if I tried mocking Taoist Philosophy, to see
if that fits what fun its fun mites be it would be a Ting.
- cud be! ruminating ... aum ...
a.mite
>I am unfamiliar with Adorno.
>Can't say as his name is known at all.
structure mite crawls out of a bundle of nerves and,
shaking a finger in admonition, proscribes it.
Me cud be viewed in similar fashion.
Regurgitating such words is anathema.
Never refer to one's own s'elf using a first person pronoun,
nor in the third person neither four th'at matters.
Don't use the given name, surname, nor even
speak an opinion. Period. Exclamation point optional.
- t'hems the rules! Schmock! Schmock!
Jove
Taoist Philosophy is serious.
- bye, Jove.
aye
at first, who then was deified over time
after Darda sailed the Mediterranean to see
what was on the other side?
Were they Jovial, being sons of the king who ruled
even though Joe and his second-born Ephraim had
been given all the other promises of YHWH-Elohim?
When was Shiloh, if it was? And/oar, who?
And why is the Coronation Stone where it is?
Rulers rule.
Dao ke dao. Ming ke ming. Fei-chang vary.
- Thanks again! Prost! Caio!
one
>Rulers rule.
>
>Dao ke dao. Ming ke ming. Fei-chang vary.
>
>- Thanks again! Prost! Caio!
if being rude was being rude,
intentionally or unintentionally,
If Usenet is Usenet
if newsgroups are newsgroups
if the Internet is the Internet
A saying could be said, it is
what it is. Comedy can be offensive to sum
people being people naturally and yet
at the same time funny to utter.
- for the fish, they remain happy ... Hooray!
a.mite
seeking flames and other
wise people don't feed them.
- go figure ...
some body
> Jeffrey wrote:
>> aye wrote:
>>> one wrote:
>>>
>>> >Seeing as how our semantics differ,
>>> >and this being a Taoist Newsgroup,
>>> >what it suggests is how in TTC 1.2,
>>> >where mention is made of names/ming,
>>> >names name, but don't always have the same
>>> >meaning when used by various people, imo.
>>>
>>> Taoist philosophy as contrasted with Confucianism
>>> may have involved around problems associated with words
>>> as thinkers evolved and articulated various formulas.
>>
>>To vary Adorno, "In many people 'aye' is already an impertinence."
>>(I.e., all of them.) But that's, like, smart.
upon a time an English class was where
in poetry was being read and an interpretation,
asked of the class was prefaced with how, there
are no right answers. Then, after giving a response,
the teacher commented how that interpretation was wrong.
All of which to say, while there may not be any right
answers in some individual's view there may be wrong ones.
TTC 2 arrives at such a time as this is.
https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap02
http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap02.htm#top
>> What you are doing can
>>be charitably interpreted as mockery of Taoism, and uncharitably
>>interpreted as mere "navel-gazing" (it's a hot navel after all, right?)
Mathematical equations might not have any answers.
Then again, undecided and/or inconclusive could be called answers.
>Taoist philosophy may suggest wu-xin/wu-hsin
>as a technique. With Tao, without a heart-mind,
>being in harmony, wandering where one wonders.
>
>https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu.html#1
when there is not-two, no-mind, Zen types of intellectual domains
could have emerged when Buddhism met Chuang-tzuvian planes.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectification_of_names
>>>
>>> An understanding of mine is how during the collapse
>>> of the Chou Empire, when the Warring States Period
>>> saw various attempts to establish social structures,
>>> some so-called Taoist writers realized the futility
>>> of attempting to rectify names, to make words
>>> have the same meaning for all people all the time.
>>
>>Please don't mock Chinese culture and history.
>
>I have no idea what you're referring to.
of how people can't be what they are, but, like the bumble-
bee who is unable to fly, went on and flew without a care
for how engineers were unable to determine why.
The man, in the story, was asked if he were a Taoist,
to which he pointed to an article of clothing, prehaps an hat.
Then, asked if he were a Confucian, pointed to an other style
of de-sign to signify he was, maybe it was his belt. And then,
asked about being a Buddhist, pointed to the shoes he wore.
In so-called, real, life, people are able to be many Tings.
They carve thousands of oxen and remain vorpal.
>>> Confucianists, and perhaps Mencius, might have
>>> thought that by rules, regulations, rites and rituals
>>> the world could be ordered and peace found, as a Tao.
>>
>>Do you have a problem with Asians?
Walking a round the square blocks at dawn pondering problems
and how when a problem does arise, when that feeling is unwanted,
to invoke what's called the Hypocrisy Principle usually works.
At work, working for many years with many people
from many p'arts of a pale blue dot, a globe of sorts, two
returned this morning. One was from Egypt. He could have been
called Egyptian, or an Eastern Orthodox Christian. Another was
from Baghdad and might have been an Iraqi except he was
an Armenian who mentioned Persian as a noun-thing.
One day, hearing the two speak with each other,
questioning them about the language being spoken,
what with both having no particular English accent they
told me they liked to converse using Arabic.
Did that make them Arabians.
None of which was not a problem for me.
M'ore like a curiosity. To oar the many Ways, the Dao.
Were they both, Orientals.
Is the world, a pale blue dot, given: Duality, to be
divided into Occident and Eastern, where the sun called the
Sun rises and does it, really rise or are appearances
taken for granted as being, real, really?
- semantics and contexts ... Naturally!
a.mite
>Styles vary
Aye, indeed they well dew, berry mulch.
>With words often emerge word problems.
on an Enterprise was seen as making a mockery of
Scots being a caricature or if any pirate who speaks
of walking the Planck has scales over one sighs.
Reading the Chuang-tzu
Cud be enlighten meant strikes
Three and yer out
Side of the lines found in the CT, Chapter 20.
https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu2.html#20
<< Chuang Chou was wandering in the park at Tiao-ling when he saw a
peculiar kind of magpie that came flying along from the south. It had
a wingspread of seven feet and its eyes were a good inch in diameter.
It brushed against Chuang Chou's forehead and then settled down in a
grove of chestnut trees. "What kind of bird is that!" exclaimed Chuang
Chou. "Its wings are enormous but they get it nowhere; its eyes are
huge but it can't even see where it's going!" Then he hitched up his
robe, strode forward, cocked his crossbow and prepared to take aim. As
he did so, he spied a cicada that had found a lovely spot of shade and
had forgotten all about [the possibility of danger to] its body.
Behind it, a praying mantis, stretching forth its claws, prepared to
snatch the cicada, and it too had forgotten about its own form as it
eyed its prize. The peculiar magpie was close behind, ready to make
off with the praying mantis, forgetting its own true self as it fixed
its eyes on the prospect of gain. Chuang Chou, shuddering at the
sight, said, "Ah! - things do nothing but make trouble for each other
- one creature calling down disaster on another!" He threw down his
crossbow, turned about, and hurried from the park, but the park keeper
[taking him for a poacher] raced after him with shouts of accusation.
Chuang Chou returned home and for three months looked unhappy.
Lin Chu in the course of tending to his master's needs, questioned
him, saying, "Master, why is it that you are so unhappy these days?"
Chuang Chou said, "In clinging to outward form I have forgotten my own
body. Staring at muddy water, I have been misled into taking it for a
clear pool. Moreover, I have heard my Master say, `When you go among
the vulgar, follow their rules!' I went wandering at Tiao-ling and
forgot my body. A peculiar magpie brushed against my forehead,
wandered off to the chestnut grove, and there forgot its true self.
And the keeper of the chestnut grove, to my great shame, took me for a
trespasser! That is why I am unhappy." >>
Between being gnarly as the Mountain Tree
and honkless as the goose that got cooked,
a middle Path, a Tao as it were was said to
be no guarantee of any Ting.
- dao ke dao, fei chang dao ...
Jeffrey Rubard
not loving it.
> In so-called, real, life, people are able to be many Tings.
> They carve thousands of oxen and remain vorpal.
Charles Dodgson, who was pretty much exactly not
Asian.
> >>> Confucianists, and perhaps Mencius, might have
> >>> thought that by rules, regulations, rites and rituals
> >>> the world could be ordered and peace found, as a Tao.
> >>
> >>Do you have a problem with Asians?
> This morning, at sunrise, the scene was seen as fantastic.
> Walking a round the square blocks at dawn pondering problems
> and how when a problem does arise, when that feeling is unwanted,
> to invoke what's called the Hypocrisy Principle usually works.
> At work, working for many years with many people
> from many p'arts of a pale blue dot, a globe of sorts, two
> returned this morning. One was from Egypt. He could have been
> called Egyptian, or an Eastern Orthodox Christian. Another was
> from Baghdad and might have been an Iraqi except he was
> an Armenian who mentioned Persian as a noun-thing.
> One day, hearing the two speak with each other,
> questioning them about the language being spoken,
> what with both having no particular English accent they
> told me they liked to converse using Arabic.
> Did that make them Arabians.
> None of which was not a problem for me.
> M'ore like a curiosity. To oar the many Ways, the Dao.
>
> Were they both, Orientals.
> Is the world, a pale blue dot, given: Duality, to be
> divided into Occident and Eastern, where the sun called the
> Sun rises and does it, really rise or are appearances
> taken for granted as being, real, really?
or a cultural feeling, not a person. You *are* some kind of
jackass.
> - semantics and contexts ... Naturally!
Jeffrey Rubard
> some body wrote:
>
> >Styles vary
>
> Aye, indeed they well dew, berry mulch.
> >With words often emerge word problems.
> One mite wonders if the engineer who was
> on an Enterprise was seen as making a mockery of
> Scots being a caricature or if any pirate who speaks
> of walking the Planck has scales over one sighs.
is taught the manner of speaking. (Nobody was ever
taught to say "walk the Planck" on account of its self-serving
stupidity; I used to think of "bad word plays" like that
myself, but cured myself of it.)
> Reading the Chuang-tzu
> Cud be enlighten meant strikes
> Three and yer out
one
>On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 7:45:34 AM UTC-8, some body wrote:
>> >>Please don't mock Chinese culture and history.
>> >
>> >I have no idea what you're referring to.
>>
>> Once upon a time there was a tale told in terms
>> of how people can't be what they are, but, like the bumble-
>> bee who is unable to fly, went on and flew without a care
>> for how engineers were unable to determine why.
>>
>> The man, in the story, was asked if he were a Taoist,
>> to which he pointed to an article of clothing, prehaps an hat.
>> Then, asked if he were a Confucian, pointed to an other style
>> of de-sign to signify he was, maybe it was his belt. And then,
>> asked about being a Buddhist, pointed to the shoes he wore.
>
>No, it's pretty much like burlesques of Native Americans,
>not loving it.
>> In so-called, real, life, people are able to be many Tings.
>> They carve thousands of oxen and remain vorpal.
>
>Also you put in some misunderstood element from
>Charles Dodgson, who was pretty much exactly not
>Asian.
>> >>> Confucianists, and perhaps Mencius, might have
>> >>> thought that by rules, regulations, rites and rituals
>> >>> the world could be ordered and peace found, as a Tao.
>> >>
>> >>Do you have a problem with Asians?
>>
>> This morning, at sunrise, the scene was seen as fantastic.
>> Walking a round the square blocks at dawn pondering problems
>> and how when a problem does arise, when that feeling is unwanted,
>> to invoke what's called the Hypocrisy Principle usually works.
>
>This is one of your personal rules of conduct?
>> At work, working for many years with many people
>> from many p'arts of a pale blue dot, a globe of sorts, two
>> returned this morning. One was from Egypt. He could have been
>> called Egyptian, or an Eastern Orthodox Christian. Another was
>> from Baghdad and might have been an Iraqi except he was
>> an Armenian who mentioned Persian as a noun-thing.
>
>Sure, why not make it a mockery of larger parts of Asia?
>> One day, hearing the two speak with each other,
>> questioning them about the language being spoken,
>> what with both having no particular English accent they
>> told me they liked to converse using Arabic.
>> Did that make them Arabians.
>
>It's a widely understood language? You're an idiot?
At work, people from many areas of the world worked
and spoke their various languages. Asking a friend
who was born and raised in Vietnam if he could
tell the difference between Korean and other
languages, he said, yes, he could.
My eyes and ears are not as keen as those
who can tell what shade of skin or dialect
other so-called individuals happen to be.
Another associate at work said he could speak
Cantonese, Mandarin and another form without any
accent and people would ask him where he was from.
Being an idiot, at times complete and total,
is a kind of mentality compared to a savant
at times and some people are neither both
simultaneously unless they arghh.
>> None of which was not a problem for me.
>> M'ore like a curiosity. To oar the many Ways, the Dao.
>>
>> Were they both, Orientals.
>> Is the world, a pale blue dot, given: Duality, to be
>> divided into Occident and Eastern, where the sun called the
>> Sun rises and does it, really rise or are appearances
>> taken for granted as being, real, really?
>
>Even in the old style "Oriental" refers to a style of item,
>or a cultural feeling, not a person. You *are* some kind of
>jackass.
nor various other lock smithing types reminds one of the horse,
the one that was said to be not a horse, in the Chuang-tzu.
>> - semantics and contexts ... Naturally!
>
>I'm not sure anyone would want to buy this product at Whole Foods
- Thanks again!
aye
>On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 8:01:03 AM UTC-8, a.mite wrote:
>> some body wrote:
>>
>> >Styles vary
>>
>> Aye, indeed they well dew, berry mulch.
>
>Have you been working on this at a Church's Chicken?
>> >With words often emerge word problems.
>>
>> One mite wonders if the engineer who was
>> on an Enterprise was seen as making a mockery of
>> Scots being a caricature or if any pirate who speaks
>> of walking the Planck has scales over one sighs.
>
>It's part of the "Canadian" vibe of the program, everyone
>is taught the manner of speaking.
Aye did not know that.
> (Nobody was ever
>taught to say "walk the Planck" on account of its self-serving
>stupidity; I used to think of "bad word plays" like that
>myself, but cured myself of it.)
there was a non-pirate
by virtue of how duality
gives birth to a two.
>> Reading the Chuang-tzu
>> Cud be enlighten meant strikes
>> Three and yer out
>
>Are you high at the Church's Chicken?
Did you work there, get high there? Why there?
Is it a "Canadian" vibe thing?
- thanks!
one
>On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 09:36:56 -0800 (PST), Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 8:01:03 AM UTC-8, a.mite wrote:
>>> some body wrote:
>>> >With words often emerge word problems.
>>>
>>> One mite wonders if the engineer who was
>>> on an Enterprise was seen as making a mockery of
>>> Scots being a caricature or if any pirate who speaks
>>> of walking the Planck has scales over one sighs.
>>
>>It's part of the "Canadian" vibe of the program, everyone
>>is taught the manner of speaking.
and inculcated with nation states of mind frames.
>Star Trek had a "Canadian" vibe?
>Aye did not know that.
from a land known as Canada and could be called Canadian.
If he were to be called an American, that may apply.
Then again, if the word, American excludes Canadians
a problem with definitions of words could emerge.
Taoism, Tao Chia that is, the fictional philosophy invented
by historians of a land thousands of years ago who sought
to categorize what were called the Hundred Schools may
have in some Ways, at heart, a kind of light and shades
of it vary at various points.
Hence the Chuang-tzu, when academics proceed to dissect
its threads and themes find Inner, Outer and Misc. Chapters,
sections within chapters and what knots.
To suggest a mocking is happening has a bin suggested.
One might suggest that to call Hiawatha a Canadian, or
the Iroquois an ancient Canadian nation of nations is
to make a mockery rather than to clarify accurately
who was when before any Europeans invaded.
Does a category exist as other than a myth
could be a question of rhetoric, semantics, contexts
and perhaps folks who work at a chicken establishment
would know of such things, or not.
Is there, really, seeing as how the word, really and
the word, real have bins as well used recently, Europe,
and Europeans and if so, when did they begin to be that.
When so-called Caucasian people migrated over a mountain
to see what they could see as suggested in Ezra, after they,
having been no longer captivated by Assyria as an empire
decided to go where they could practice their Ways, were
they of some race or Lost Tribes.
Were the Sacasuni, the Khomerians, Scythians really
children of Isaac, sons as Saxons and the Northerners.
Did off-spring from the tribe of Dan make their mark when
they named names such as the Danube and Denmark.
Why did Mary, Martha and Lazarus go to France and
does frank really mean, to be free, as free-people were.
Was London called New Troy, at least once upon a time
and was Ireland's flag, the Red Hand, full of meaning.
- names name and to be uncommon, fei-chang, sums are ...
aye
>On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 13:13:24 -0800, aye wrote:
>>On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 09:36:56 -0800 (PST), Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>>On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 8:01:03 AM UTC-8, a.mite wrote:
>>>> some body wrote:
>
>>>> >With words often emerge word problems.
Tzu-kung traveled south to Ch'u, and on his way back through Chin, as
he passed along the south bank of the Han, he saw an old man preparing
his fields for planting. He had hollowed out an opening by which he
entered the well and from which he emerged, lugging a pitcher, which
he carried out to water the fields. Grunting and puffing, he used up a
great deal of energy and produced very little result.
"There is a machine for this sort of thing," said Tzu-kung. "In one
day it can water a hundred fields, demanding very little effort .and
producing excellent results. Wouldn't you like one?”
The gardener raised his head and looked at Tzu-kung.
"How does it work?"
"It's a contraption made by shaping a piece of wood. The back end is
heavy and the front end light and it raises the water as though it
were pouring it out, so fast that it seems to boil right over! It's
called a well sweep."
The gardener flushed with anger and then said with a laugh, "I've
heard my teacher say, where there are machines, there are bound to be
machine worries; where there are machine worries, there are bound to
be machine hearts. With a machine heart in your breast, you've spoiled
what was pure and simple; and without the pure and simple, the life of
the spirit knows no rest. Where the life of the spirit knows no rest,
the Way will cease to buoy you up. It's not that I don't know about
your machine - I would be ashamed to use it!"
Tzu-kung blushed with chagrin, looked down, and made no reply. After a
while, the gardener said, "Who are you, anyway?"
"A disciple of Kung Ch'iu."
"Oh - then you must be one of those who broaden their learning in
order to ape the sages, heaping absurd nonsense on the crowd, plucking
the strings and singing sad songs all by yourself in hopes of buying
fame in the world! You would do best to forget your spirit and breath,
break up your body and limbs - then you might be able to get
somewhere. You don't even know how to look after your own body - how
do you have any time to think about looking after the world! On your
way now! Don't interfere with my work!"
Tzu-kung frowned and the color drained from his face. Dazed and
rattled, he couldn't seem to pull himself together, and it was only
after he had walked on for some thirty li that he began to recover.
One of his disciples said, "Who was that man just now? Why did you
change your expression and lose your color like that, Master, so that
it took you all day to get back to normal?"
"I used to think there was only one real man in the world," said
Tzu-kung. "I didn't know there was this other one. I have heard
Confucius say that in affairs you aim for what is right, and in
undertakings you aim for success. To spend little effort and achieve
big results - that is the Way of the sage. Now it seems that this
isn't so. He who holds fast to the Way is complete in Virtue; being
complete in Virtue, he is complete in body; being complete in body, he
is complete in spirit; and to be complete in spirit is the Way of the
sage. He is content to live among the people, to walk by their side,
and never know where he is going. Witless, his purity is complete.
Achievement, profit, machines, skill - they have no place in this
man's mind! A man like this will not go where he has no will to go,
will not do what he has no mind to do. Though the world might praise
him and say he had really found something, he would look unconcerned
and never turn his head; though the world might condemn him and say he
had lost something, he would look serene and pay no heed. The praise
and blame of the world are no loss or gain to him. He may be called a
man of Complete Virtue. I - I am a man of the wind-blown waves."
When Tzu-kung got back to Lu, he reported the incident to Confucius.
Confucius said, "He is one of those bogus practitioners of the arts of
Mr. Chaos." He knows the first thing but doesn't understand the
second. He looks after what is on the inside but doesn't look after
what is on the outside. A man of true brightness and purity who can
enter into simplicity, who can return to the primitive through
inaction, give body to his inborn nature, and embrace his spirit, and
in this way wander through the everyday world - if you had met one
like that, you would have had real cause for astonishment. As for the
arts of Mr. Chaos, you and I need not bother to find out about them."
<< end of story, Watson's version >>
https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu1.html#12
Woven are many threads among the weaving
The Chuang-tzu could be viewed as leaving
Know stones unturned along its merry Way
>>>> One mite wonders if the engineer who was
>>>> on an Enterprise was seen as making a mockery of
>>>> Scots being a caricature or if any pirate who speaks
>>>> of walking the Planck has scales over one sighs.
>>>
>>>It's part of the "Canadian" vibe of the program, everyone
>>>is taught the manner of speaking.
>
>Most youngsters are taught myths, symbols, flags
>and inculcated with nation states of mind frames.
>
>>Star Trek had a "Canadian" vibe?
>>Aye did not know that.
>
>Research indicates, the original captain was
>from a land known as Canada and could be called Canadian.
>
>If he were to be called an American, that may apply.
>
>Then again, if the word, American excludes Canadians
>a problem with definitions of words could emerge.
might suggest some mocker is a lexicon artist.
>Taoism, Tao Chia that is, the fictional philosophy invented
>by historians of a land thousands of years ago who sought
>to categorize what were called the Hundred Schools may
>have in some Ways, at heart, a kind of light and shades
>of it vary at various points.
>
>Hence the Chuang-tzu, when academics proceed to dissect
>its threads and themes find Inner, Outer and Misc. Chapters,
>sections within chapters and what knots.
really write two books called, the Lao Tzu.
When Zhuangzi is mentioned in the book
known by his name, was it to mock him as
was done to Kong-zi about half the time.
- quest ions vary ... Thanks again!
Jeffrey Rubard
subject pronoun might as well give up the question of "mockery of Scots".
(According to them those are never, not ever, the same thing.)
"Too cute for us to live" territory.
> >Research indicates, the original captain was
> >from a land known as Canada and could be called Canadian.
> >
> >If he were to be called an American, that may apply.
> >
> >Then again, if the word, American excludes Canadians
> >a problem with definitions of words could emerge.
> To suppose a mockery is being made of a language
> might suggest some mocker is a lexicon artist.
> >Taoism, Tao Chia that is, the fictional philosophy invented
> >by historians of a land thousands of years ago who sought
> >to categorize what were called the Hundred Schools may
> >have in some Ways, at heart, a kind of light and shades
> >of it vary at various points.
be a philosophy, but there is really not such a thing as a "fictional
philosophy". Jarry made an attempt at this with "pataphysics"
in *Ubu Roi* and it still hasn't succeeded well enough.)
> >
> >Hence the Chuang-tzu, when academics proceed to dissect
> >its threads and themes find Inner, Outer and Misc. Chapters,
> >sections within chapters and what knots.
> Did some old guy whose name means, old guy, Lao Tzu,
> really write two books called, the Lao Tzu.
like this.
Jeffrey Rubard
> To suggest a mocking is happening has a bin suggested.
> One might suggest that to call Hiawatha a Canadian, or
> the Iroquois an ancient Canadian nation of nations is
> to make a mockery rather than to clarify accurately
> who was when before any Europeans invaded.
From the forests and the prairies,
From the great lakes of the Northland,
From the land of the Ojibways,
From the land of the Dacotahs,"
> Does a category exist as other than a myth
> could be a question of rhetoric, semantics, contexts
> and perhaps folks who work at a chicken establishment
> would know of such things, or not.
> Is there, really, seeing as how the word, really and
> the word, real have bins as well used recently, Europe,
> and Europeans and if so, when did they begin to be that.
after fools like you split.
> When so-called Caucasian people migrated over a mountain
> to see what they could see as suggested in Ezra, after they,
> having been no longer captivated by Assyria as an empire
> decided to go where they could practice their Ways, were
> they of some race or Lost Tribes.
> Were the Sacasuni, the Khomerians, Scythians really
> children of Isaac, sons as Saxons and the Northerners.
> Did off-spring from the tribe of Dan make their mark when
> they named names such as the Danube and Denmark.
> Why did Mary, Martha and Lazarus go to France and
> does frank really mean, to be free, as free-people were.
> Was London called New Troy, at least once upon a time
> and was Ireland's flag, the Red Hand, full of meaning.
one
>Anybody who uses "Aye" as an alternative spelling of the
>subject pronoun might as well give up the question of "mockery of Scots".
>(According to them those are never, not ever, the same thing.)
>"Too cute for us to live" territory.
Aye, for me, being a pirate, to say aye
is not mocking Scots nor pirates. I have permission.
Each mission, should it be accepted, is impossible.
And yet, being as a bumble bee, as sweet
or as sour or bitter it is akin to the vinegar tasters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinegar_tasters
Could be you, being neither pirate nor Scot,
for you to use the word would be prohibited
and would be to be making a mockery.
In other words, an it may be you're seeing
your self out to sea reflections off the surface
of a mirror-world you inhabit as a habit of sorting.
If some body from Scotland said, aye, to agree,
you might insist he, or she, is mocking or making a
mockery of the language based on what some writer
wrote about using the first person singular pronoun.
Pirates are pirates, aye.
Prehaps that Way is the Way.
And at the same time, such a Way, Tao/Dao
is not always the Way for all people at all times, naturally.
Words are not knots sold at a grocery store nor found
next to the homage in the delicious Usenet section.
Some people never pirate any material nor do they ever
use copyrighted texts such as those found at terebess.com
which is where many Taoist paragraphs and chapters of
the Chuang-tzu are taken and used by me, a pirate.
https://terebess.hu/english/tao.html
Now an it could be that all of the authors at the website
gave their permission for their material there to be used.
- ore knot ... walking planck scales over eye ... yippee!
one
>Sulu was a pretty big part of the show too.
and was how as a youngster being was
before the show ever began, naturally.
> (Hint: Taoism might
>be a philosophy, but there is really not such a thing as a "fictional
>philosophy".
Probably Star Wars doesn't have a philosophy with its Force
having two types of use, good and bad, and is really real
in your world of what is really real and doesn't exist.
Exactly what the probablity is could take a Spock
to determine which is reminiscent of a tale in the CT scan.
https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu.html#2
<< Heaven and earth were born at the same time I was, and
the ten thousand things are one with me.
We have already become one, so how can I say anything? But I have just
said that we are one, so how can I not be saying something? The one
and what I said about it make two, and two and the original one make
three. If we go on this way, then even the cleverest mathematician
can't tell where we'll end, much less an ordinary man. If by moving
from nonbeing to being we get to three, how far will we get if we move
from being to being? Better not to move, but to let things be! >>
Yet Zz used his goblet words and didn't let things be.
Nor did other authors of the Zhuangzi, nor did those
who edited the Laozi as it accreted thus and sew on
they went with their emphatic apophatic talk.
With a Tao as depicted in the Chuang-tzu a great thief has Tao
and for that, blame is placed on sages with their spouts.
https://terebess.hu/english/tao/ChuangTzu-palmer.pdf
<< A member of
Robber Chih’s gang asked him, ‘Is there a Tao for the thief?’
Chih replied, ‘What profession is there without its Tao?
The robber works out what is worth stealing: this shows he
is a sage; his courage is shown by being the first to break
in; his righteousness is shown by being last to leave; his
understanding is shown by deciding whether the raid is
possible; his benevolence is shown by his dividing the
spoils equally. Without these five attributes, no one in the
world could become such a great thief.’ Considering all
this, it is clear that good men do not arise without
following the Tao of the sages and therefore that Robber
Chih had to also follow the sages’ Tao, or he could not have
succeeded. But in this world, the good men are few and far
between, while the bad are numerous. So it is that the sage
brings little to the world but inflicts much harm. >>
A chapter is called Robber Chih suggesting how Confucius
for all of his do-gooding did not impress the great thief.
https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu3.html#29
To say the robber made a mockery of Confucius
could be said out the Gateless Gate two begin width.
> Jarry made an attempt at this with "pataphysics"
>in *Ubu Roi* and it still hasn't succeeded well enough.)
Do you recommend reading Jarry, pataphysics and Ubu Roi?
Did you enjoy the attempt or scoff at the words as writ.
>> >Hence the Chuang-tzu, when academics proceed to dissect
>> >its threads and themes find Inner, Outer and Misc. Chapters,
>> >sections within chapters and what knots.
>>
>> Did some old guy whose name means, old guy, Lao Tzu,
>> really write two books called, the Lao Tzu.
>
>Yeah, when I was twelve I used to try to slouch through "book reports"
>like this.
of those who write huge success screen-plays on words
for the big theaters making millions going for the ride.
George Lucas talked with Joseph Campbell a time or at times.
Campbell spoke of myths, and how truths are far deeper therein
than in scientific fact findings which in turn could be used for good
as well as for evil. Aye, for me to agree is very easy given how
on a pale blue dot-world nation states of mind persist.
Touching a fictional tree, the one of the knowledge of a duality,
a specific duality, tends to result in expulsion from the Garden
at times within time for time beings.
How to return to an eternity, the Present,
the gift that keeps on giving may be explored using Taoism,
Tao Chia that is, the made-up category invented by historians
prior to when Jesus walked at the beginning of time.
- axes mundi vary ... Thanks again!
one
>On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:38:29 PM UTC-8, one wrote:
>
>> To suggest a mocking is happening has a bin suggested.
>
>Oh, this is-a good.
>
>> One might suggest that to call Hiawatha a Canadian, or
>> the Iroquois an ancient Canadian nation of nations is
>> to make a mockery rather than to clarify accurately
>> who was when before any Europeans invaded.
>
>"I should answer, I should tell you,
>From the forests and the prairies,
>From the great lakes of the Northland,
>From the land of the Ojibways,
>From the land of the Dacotahs,"
>> Does a category exist as other than a myth
>> could be a question of rhetoric, semantics, contexts
>> and perhaps folks who work at a chicken establishment
>> would know of such things, or not.
>
>Yeah, like about their patrons, though...
Was there once a lord or a lady called Church
on a hill who lived in a white house and ate birds.
>> Is there, really, seeing as how the word, really and
>> the word, real have bins as well used recently, Europe,
>> and Europeans and if so, when did they begin to be that.
>
>Some think the answer is the introduction of Napoleonic Code,
>after fools like you split.
the One and Only One Code for all time.
Why does the Tao Te Ching begin as it begins now
and did that book of an old man, a Lao Tzu really
begin as such or did his second one, the Book of Teh,
as it is known by sum, was that the first one during the daze.
TTC 38 arrives at this time.
http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap38.htm#top
Speaking of Tao Chia.
>> When so-called Caucasian people migrated over a mountain
>> to see what they could see as suggested in Ezra, after they,
>> having been no longer captivated by Assyria as an empire
>> decided to go where they could practice their Ways, were
>> they of some race or Lost Tribes.
>
>Oh, Jesus. The gospel acccording to Spengler.
Why is the mythological race called Caucasian?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behistun_Inscription
Who were the Sacasuni and who was Omri?
>> Were the Sacasuni, the Khomerians, Scythians really
>> children of Isaac, sons as Saxons and the Northerners.
>> Did off-spring from the tribe of Dan make their mark when
>> they named names such as the Danube and Denmark.
>
>Yeah, you saw it coming too.
Without making a mockery of what the word means today,
what it meant in years before, when a white horse, a ma,
was said to be not a horse, did the word mean, mother
and have several other connotations as it welled
for those who dwelled in the land at the time.
Why do words condense as dew
dropping from trees in the Garden of Smith.
>> Why did Mary, Martha and Lazarus go to France and
>> does frank really mean, to be free, as free-people were.
>> Was London called New Troy, at least once upon a time
>> and was Ireland's flag, the Red Hand, full of meaning.
>
>No: it was called "Londinium".
Was it mere coincidence. Why did Paul and James go
to Iberia and what does the land, that ia, Iber, get
its name from. Was it Eber, father of the Hebrews too.
>> - names name and to be uncommon, fei-chang, sums are ...
when viewed as being such as they are, fictions, lines
drawn on maps by cartographers, smiths, like
in the Matrix for example.
- a moving picture shows not the screen ... really!
aye
>Words are not knots sold at a grocery store nor found
>next to the homage in the delicious Usenet section.
The know no and the no know once went for a talk.
Words really are not-knots.
And yet they pretend to something, things, like memes
and carry on without any pretense going their merry Ways.
>- ore knot ... walking planck scales over eye ... yippee!
To scale is human.
To scale teeth is dentistry.
- dew words have minds all there and naut ...
aye
>https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu.html#2
>
><< Heaven and earth were born at the same time I was, and
> the ten thousand things are one with me.
>
>We have already become one, so how can I say anything? But I have just
>said that we are one, so how can I not be saying something? The one
>and what I said about it make two, and two and the original one make
>three. If we go on this way, then even the cleverest mathematician
>can't tell where we'll end, much less an ordinary man. If by moving
>from nonbeing to being we get to three, how far will we get if we move
>from being to being? Better not to move, but to let things be! >>
what is translated above as nonbeing and being,
are probably wu and yu, using the Wade-Giles Romanization.
For me, personally, in this case wu denotes. Yu also denotes.
In the Tao Te Ching, on the other hand, they are ambiguous.
Yu ming is able to mean, with names.
Names and/or naming is the mother of all things.
Then again, being, existence, can be viewed ontologically.
As an oral tradition, prior to when any countries were,
before any empires consolidated tribes on rivers, did
poetry of the language enable multiple interpretations.
Wu ming, without names, is virgin territory.
To see the screen and not the moving picture show
an eye might be fine tuned. Seeing the empty blank
space on which all these words are written, to see
between the lines and within each letter.
- why blather! Thanks again!
a.mite
>> (Hint: Taoism might
>>be a philosophy, but there is really not such a thing as a "fictional
>>philosophy".
>
>You really like the word really, eh.
And to dew, his mite could insist, isn't really an infinitive.
>Probably Star Wars doesn't have a philosophy with its Force
>having two types of use, good and bad, and is really real
>in your world of what is really real and doesn't exist.
Jeffrey appears to be a tad bit legalistic
and none too generous in his misgivings of reality.
Words tend to have more meanings than only one meaning.
Taoism became a philosophy when people said it was.
So-called Schools, Chia, aka Jia, were invented thou-
sands of years ago by academics as categories.
Scholars now-a-daze, sums of them at various rates,
insist there never was any schism between philosophy
and religion, no, they know no body practiced Chia
without Chiao nor Jia without Jiao, being real bodies.
To call a body a people could be a call made by an ump.
To call a Neanderthal a different species could be a fowl.
- on the wings of Icarus ... Hooray!
aye
>Exactly what the probablity is could take a Spock
A coin could be said to have exactly a probability
of landing heads or tails, 50/50, sewing two-speak.
And yet, a thin chance, as improbable as many are,
is for one to land on its edge and roll along merrily.
Some people, being bodies, might insist a coin has two
and only two sides and ignore the edge it gives to those
who find three, not to mention five sides.
All forms have their inside and outside, coins included.
To call them forms of the formless may be a call called.
An individual coin of a realm could have the head of a lion
and the tale of an ox and be made of copper, bronze ore of
tin smelted by smiths once up and down a line of time
as wells of silver and gold sprang from the Source.
With a form of Tao Chia, the mythical philosophy sewn
amongst basic texts of Lao-Chuang lore, the Source
may be a scene seen as the Great Tao who was
as a she who was, the Great Mother naturally.
- as yin has it made in the shade ... of being gnarly ...
one
>He dew.
>
>And to dew, his mite could insist, isn't really an infinitive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hKG5l_TDU8
- totally gordian!
aye
>a.mite articulated:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhTLVrD1e8o
- during the daze ... woo rays!
Jeffrey Rubard
> Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>
> >Anybody who uses "Aye" as an alternative spelling of the
> >subject pronoun might as well give up the question of "mockery of Scots".
> >(According to them those are never, not ever, the same thing.)
> >"Too cute for us to live" territory.
> One wonders if pirates were Scots.
> Aye, for me, being a pirate, to say aye
> is not mocking Scots nor pirates. I have permission.
> Each mission, should it be accepted, is impossible.
(It occurs to most, then they choose not to do it.)
> And yet, being as a bumble bee, as sweet
> or as sour or bitter it is akin to the vinegar tasters.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinegar_tasters
>
> Could be you, being neither pirate nor Scot,
> for you to use the word would be prohibited
> and would be to be making a mockery.
>
> In other words, an it may be you're seeing
> your self out to sea reflections off the surface
> of a mirror-world you inhabit as a habit of sorting.
> If some body from Scotland said, aye, to agree,
> you might insist he, or she, is mocking or making a
> mockery of the language based on what some writer
> wrote about using the first person singular pronoun.
"Aye" = "Yeah, isn't it funny, strange to hear it from me,
not so much love between us, I guess it could be expensive" etc.
> Pirates are pirates, aye.
> Prehaps that Way is the Way.
> And at the same time, such a Way, Tao/Dao
> is not always the Way for all people at all times, naturally.
> Words are not knots sold at a grocery store nor found
> next to the homage in the delicious Usenet section.
> Some people never pirate any material nor do they ever
> use copyrighted texts such as those found at terebess.com
> which is where many Taoist paragraphs and chapters of
> the Chuang-tzu are taken and used by me, a pirate.
>
> https://terebess.hu/english/tao.html
pretty normal for seafarers generally, etc.
> Now an it could be that all of the authors at the website
> gave their permission for their material there to be used.
>
> - ore knot ... walking planck scales over eye ... yippee!
Jeffrey Rubard
> Jeffrey wrote:
>
> >Sulu was a pretty big part of the show too.
> Spock was a favorite being logical and all
> and was how as a youngster being was
> before the show ever began, naturally.
> > (Hint: Taoism might
> >be a philosophy, but there is really not such a thing as a "fictional
> >philosophy".
> You really like the word really, eh.
> Probably Star Wars doesn't have a philosophy with its Force
> having two types of use, good and bad, and is really real
> in your world of what is really real and doesn't exist.
about American cultural products to grasp what it is.
> Exactly what the probablity is could take a Spock
> to determine which is reminiscent of a tale in the CT scan.
>
> https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu.html#2
(How was your CT scan?)
> << Heaven and earth were born at the same time I was, and
> the ten thousand things are one with me.
> We have already become one, so how can I say anything? But I have just
> said that we are one, so how can I not be saying something? The one
> and what I said about it make two, and two and the original one make
> three. If we go on this way, then even the cleverest mathematician
> can't tell where we'll end, much less an ordinary man. If by moving
> from nonbeing to being we get to three, how far will we get if we move
> from being to being? Better not to move, but to let things be! >>
> Yet Zz used his goblet words and didn't let things be.
(This would not be me)
> Nor did other authors of the Zhuangzi, nor did those
> who edited the Laozi as it accreted thus and sew on
> they went with their emphatic apophatic talk.
> With a Tao as depicted in the Chuang-tzu a great thief has Tao
> and for that, blame is placed on sages with their spouts.
>
> https://terebess.hu/english/tao/ChuangTzu-palmer.pdf
> << A member of
> Robber Chih’s gang asked him, ‘Is there a Tao for the thief?’
> Chih replied, ‘What profession is there without its Tao?
> The robber works out what is worth stealing: this shows he
> is a sage; his courage is shown by being the first to break
> in; his righteousness is shown by being last to leave; his
> understanding is shown by deciding whether the raid is
> possible; his benevolence is shown by his dividing the
> spoils equally. Without these five attributes, no one in the
> world could become such a great thief.’ Considering all
> this, it is clear that good men do not arise without
> following the Tao of the sages and therefore that Robber
> Chih had to also follow the sages’ Tao, or he could not have
> succeeded. But in this world, the good men are few and far
> between, while the bad are numerous. So it is that the sage
> brings little to the world but inflicts much harm. >>
> A chapter is called Robber Chih suggesting how Confucius
> for all of his do-gooding did not impress the great thief.
>
> https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu3.html#29
>
> To say the robber made a mockery of Confucius
> could be said out the Gateless Gate two begin width.
> > Jarry made an attempt at this with "pataphysics"
> >in *Ubu Roi* and it still hasn't succeeded well enough.)
> I've heard of woo, but not of the other three.
"Merde" = Pere Ubu's favorite word
>
> Do you recommend reading Jarry, pataphysics and Ubu Roi?
> Did you enjoy the attempt or scoff at the words as writ.
> >> >Hence the Chuang-tzu, when academics proceed to dissect
> >> >its threads and themes find Inner, Outer and Misc. Chapters,
> >> >sections within chapters and what knots.
> >>
> >> Did some old guy whose name means, old guy, Lao Tzu,
> >> really write two books called, the Lao Tzu.
than aim ill-placed barbs *ex cathedra*?
> >Yeah, when I was twelve I used to try to slouch through "book reports"
> >like this.
> Scholars and academic types are not always seen in the light
> of those who write huge success screen-plays on words
> for the big theaters making millions going for the ride.
>
> George Lucas talked with Joseph Campbell a time or at times.
> Campbell spoke of myths, and how truths are far deeper therein
> than in scientific fact findings which in turn could be used for good
> as well as for evil. Aye, for me to agree is very easy given how
> on a pale blue dot-world nation states of mind persist.
> Touching a fictional tree, the one of the knowledge of a duality,
> a specific duality, tends to result in expulsion from the Garden
> at times within time for time beings.
> How to return to an eternity, the Present,
> the gift that keeps on giving may be explored using Taoism,
> Tao Chia that is, the made-up category invented by historians
> prior to when Jesus walked at the beginning of time.
>
> - axes mundi vary ... Thanks again!
one
>On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 5:20:05 AM UTC-8, one wrote:
>> Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>>
>> >Anybody who uses "Aye" as an alternative spelling of the
>> >subject pronoun might as well give up the question of "mockery of Scots".
>> >(According to them those are never, not ever, the same thing.)
>> >"Too cute for us to live" territory.
>>
>> One wonders if pirates were Scots.
>
>Yeah, whatever.
>> Aye, for me, being a pirate, to say aye
>> is not mocking Scots nor pirates. I have permission.
>> Each mission, should it be accepted, is impossible.
>
>It's fucking stupid to use it as a homophone for the subject pronoun.
>(It occurs to most, then they choose not to do it.)
>> And yet, being as a bumble bee, as sweet
>> or as sour or bitter it is akin to the vinegar tasters.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinegar_tasters
>>
>
>Oh Jesus, I missed this cotillion.
>> Could be you, being neither pirate nor Scot,
>> for you to use the word would be prohibited
>> and would be to be making a mockery.
>>
>
>"And if they're Northern/they make it even worse so"
>> In other words, an it may be you're seeing
>> your self out to sea reflections off the surface
>> of a mirror-world you inhabit as a habit of sorting.
>
>"20chan"
>> If some body from Scotland said, aye, to agree,
>> you might insist he, or she, is mocking or making a
>> mockery of the language based on what some writer
>> wrote about using the first person singular pronoun.
>
>No you fuckin' couldn't, unless you were an idiot.
You mean, you wouldn't. Probably.
I do. I did. Aye. T'hat be me.
Aside from being an idiot, being many things, nouns,
as a verb, actions vary at times when acting as,
acting as if, and simply acting.
Language forms may create.
Idiots, fools, crazy.
When some body acts like
that body acts. When a body is, then that body is
called by its actions and a noun-thing is what it acts.
>"Aye" = "Yeah, isn't it funny, strange to hear it from me,
>not so much love between us, I guess it could be expensive" etc.
Is the "quote" from a well known author of wells being?
>> Pirates are pirates, aye.
>> Prehaps that Way is the Way.
>
>"Prehaps" you have brain damage.
>> And at the same time, such a Way, Tao/Dao
>> is not always the Way for all people at all times, naturally.
>> Words are not knots sold at a grocery store nor found
>> next to the homage in the delicious Usenet section.
>
>What's next? "Homage"="Fromage"?
there was a man named Mud, Clay was his name too.
Although he was known as Adam, he was dirt poor.
At first, having a great life in the Garden, he did.
Reading books, at times a pun goes unsung.
Translations may fail to imbue a spin put on the words used.
Some people take their sacred texts seriously, seriously.
Others may read between various lines drawn, extrapolate,
interpolate and as their dew condenses, drop from leaves leaving
a reader rendered limb from branch without roots in a stream
of thoughts flowing without a care in the woulds.
>> Some people never pirate any material nor do they ever
>> use copyrighted texts such as those found at terebess.com
>> which is where many Taoist paragraphs and chapters of
>> the Chuang-tzu are taken and used by me, a pirate.
>>
>> https://terebess.hu/english/tao.html
>
>Yeahh, sure, totally, "a lot of things happen out on the open sea",
>pretty normal for seafarers generally, etc.
>> Now an it could be that all of the authors at the website
>> gave their permission for their material there to be used.
>>
>> - ore knot ... walking planck scales over eye ... yippee!
>
>"Homage" = "Fromage" territory?
A walk is a walk, and then again, to suggest any
cake, walk, cheese or a breeze is the One and Only One
may well be what the TTC says is not the case,
being fei chang, quote unquote.
Paying attention, TTC 38 has a word, Te/De/Teh.
Homage, props, humility, really real reality, eh.
- figures vary going a long there Ways ...
one
>On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 5:46:13 AM UTC-8, one wrote:
>> Jeffrey wrote:
>>
>> >Sulu was a pretty big part of the show too.
>>
>> Spock was a favorite being logical and all
>> and was how as a youngster being was
>> before the show ever began, naturally.
>>
>> > (Hint: Taoism might
>> >be a philosophy, but there is really not such a thing as a "fictional
>> >philosophy".
>>
>> You really like the word really, eh.
>
>I like it better than jive bullshit.
>
>> Probably Star Wars doesn't have a philosophy with its Force
>> having two types of use, good and bad, and is really real
>> in your world of what is really real and doesn't exist.
>
>It sort of does, but you'd have to be a bit more intelligent and intelligent
>about American cultural products to grasp what it is.
And, for you, it really, really is a real philosophy, n'est-pa?
>> Exactly what the probablity is could take a Spock
>> to determine which is reminiscent of a tale in the CT scan.
>>
>> https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu.html#2
>
>"Probablity" = "Indemnity"?
>(How was your CT scan?)
The CT scan above produced what is below.
>> << Heaven and earth were born at the same time I was, and
>> the ten thousand things are one with me.
>
>Wow, fairly impious for a Christian.
>> We have already become one, so how can I say anything? But I have just
>> said that we are one, so how can I not be saying something? The one
>> and what I said about it make two, and two and the original one make
>> three. If we go on this way, then even the cleverest mathematician
>> can't tell where we'll end, much less an ordinary man. If by moving
>> from nonbeing to being we get to three, how far will we get if we move
>> from being to being? Better not to move, but to let things be! >>
>
>Um, no, homie. We didn't even go on a date, did we?
>> Yet Zz used his goblet words and didn't let things be.
>
>"Every girl's crazy 'bout a sharp dressed man"
>(This would not be me)
Under a really big top, a circus mite begins.
>> Nor did other authors of the Zhuangzi, nor did those
>> who edited the Laozi as it accreted thus and sew on
>> they went with their emphatic apophatic talk.
>
>"Apophatic" = "Apomorphine" ?
A search of the Internet may suggest it is, or isn't.
>> With a Tao as depicted in the Chuang-tzu a great thief has Tao
>> and for that, blame is placed on sages with their spouts.
>>
>> https://terebess.hu/english/tao/ChuangTzu-palmer.pdf
>
>"Teapot" = "Dome"?
There was an event of sorts recollected.
Zz wrote Way before then, iirc.
>> << A member of
>> Robber Chih’s gang asked him, ‘Is there a Tao for the thief?’
>> Chih replied, ‘What profession is there without its Tao?
>> The robber works out what is worth stealing: this shows he
>> is a sage; his courage is shown by being the first to break
>> in; his righteousness is shown by being last to leave; his
>> understanding is shown by deciding whether the raid is
>> possible; his benevolence is shown by his dividing the
>> spoils equally. Without these five attributes, no one in the
>> world could become such a great thief.’ Considering all
>> this, it is clear that good men do not arise without
>> following the Tao of the sages and therefore that Robber
>> Chih had to also follow the sages’ Tao, or he could not have
>> succeeded. But in this world, the good men are few and far
>> between, while the bad are numerous. So it is that the sage
>> brings little to the world but inflicts much harm. >>
>
>Yeah, that's good. It's very unlike your writing.
>> A chapter is called Robber Chih suggesting how Confucius
>> for all of his do-gooding did not impress the great thief.
>>
>> https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu3.html#29
>>
>> To say the robber made a mockery of Confucius
>> could be said out the Gateless Gate two begin width.
>> > Jarry made an attempt at this with "pataphysics"
>> >in *Ubu Roi* and it still hasn't succeeded well enough.)
>>
>> I've heard of woo, but not of the other three.
>
>"Woo" = this very modern term you need to know
>"Merde" = Pere Ubu's favorite word
>> Do you recommend reading Jarry, pataphysics and Ubu Roi?
>> Did you enjoy the attempt or scoff at the words as writ.
>>
>> >> >Hence the Chuang-tzu, when academics proceed to dissect
>> >> >its threads and themes find Inner, Outer and Misc. Chapters,
>> >> >sections within chapters and what knots.
>> >>
>> >> Did some old guy whose name means, old guy, Lao Tzu,
>> >> really write two books called, the Lao Tzu.
>
>I don't know, why don't you ask someone actually Chinese rather
>than aim ill-placed barbs *ex cathedra*?
Actually, when actually asking people who could speak, read
and write modern Chinese what the TTC, Chapter 1, says,
most declined to comment.
What appears is that it's more esoteric than common knowledge.
One associate at work translated ming as fame, which makes sense.
Fame is fame, playing name games. And yet, it might not always be.
Uncommon, fei-chang, fame
is possible when going unnoticed
until suddenly, discovered, presto!
>> >Yeah, when I was twelve I used to try to slouch through "book reports"
>> >like this.
>>
>> Scholars and academic types are not always seen in the light
>> of those who write huge success screen-plays on words
>> for the big theaters making millions going for the ride.
>>
>
>Oh, I remember this one. "It's 3 AM, and you are harassing... Los Angeles..."
There is a three in the morning tale in the CT.
It involved monkeys and peanuts, already posted.
>> George Lucas talked with Joseph Campbell a time or at times.
>
>I guess so. You?
Watching them converse on what used to be called a tube,
being television, they were far-reaching in their views, imo.
>> Campbell spoke of myths, and how truths are far deeper therein
>> than in scientific fact findings which in turn could be used for good
>> as well as for evil. Aye, for me to agree is very easy given how
>> on a pale blue dot-world nation states of mind persist.
>
>Gettin' a little recondite here, but traditionally "revealed religion" != myth?
myths are involved beyond any experience a founder had
as followers floundered to apprehend what was articulated.
Paranormal experiences, shared anecdotally, could be evidence
taken for granted, axiomatically, particularly when witnessed
first-hand, of some higher power, deity, man-god, tat-vam-asi.
Perhaps the Upanishads are able to shed light
on what Krishna told Arjuna.
And at the same time, Hinduism isn't Taoism, imo.
>> Touching a fictional tree, the one of the knowledge of a duality,
>> a specific duality, tends to result in expulsion from the Garden
>> at times within time for time beings.
>
>Like I was saying? Unless you are some foul deceiver?
to lose a sense of innocense, children
who learn right and wrong in their culture,
eventually might transcend limitations, or not.
>> How to return to an eternity, the Present,
>> the gift that keeps on giving may be explored using Taoism,
>> Tao Chia that is, the made-up category invented by historians
>> prior to when Jesus walked at the beginning of time.
>>
>> - axes mundi vary ... Thanks again!
>
>Glad you got back to the dippy richie Eurocentrism in the end.
- given: 2022 A.D.
Jeffrey Rubard
> one wrote:
> >Jeffrey wrote:
>
> >> (Hint: Taoism might
> >>be a philosophy, but there is really not such a thing as a "fictional
> >>philosophy".
> >
> >You really like the word really, eh.
> He dew.
>
> And to dew, his mite could insist, isn't really an infinitive.
> >Probably Star Wars doesn't have a philosophy with its Force
> >having two types of use, good and bad, and is really real
> >in your world of what is really real and doesn't exist.
> Semantics vary.
> Jeffrey appears to be a tad bit legalistic
> and none too generous in his misgivings of reality.
It may be a kind of circuitous way to say something like
"Damn you", not sure.
> Words tend to have more meanings than only one meaning.
> Taoism became a philosophy when people said it was.
> So-called Schools, Chia, aka Jia, were invented thou-
> sands of years ago by academics as categories.
(The Mohists, i.e. "legalists"?)
> Scholars now-a-daze, sums of them at various rates,
> insist there never was any schism between philosophy
> and religion, no, they know no body practiced Chia
> without Chiao nor Jia without Jiao, being real bodies.
> To call a body a people could be a call made by an ump.
> To call a Neanderthal a different species could be a fowl.
>
> - on the wings of Icarus ... Hooray!
Even one you don't really know"
Jeffrey Rubard
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 10:47:35 -0800 (PST), Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> >On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 5:20:05 AM UTC-8, one wrote:
> >> Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> >>
> >> >Anybody who uses "Aye" as an alternative spelling of the
> >> >subject pronoun might as well give up the question of "mockery of Scots".
> >> >(According to them those are never, not ever, the same thing.)
> >> >"Too cute for us to live" territory.
> >>
> >> One wonders if pirates were Scots.
> >
> >Yeah, whatever.
> Aye. Who else may say, aye. One wonders.
> >> Aye, for me, being a pirate, to say aye
> >> is not mocking Scots nor pirates. I have permission.
> >> Each mission, should it be accepted, is impossible.
> >
> >It's fucking stupid to use it as a homophone for the subject pronoun.
> >(It occurs to most, then they choose not to do it.)
> Fei-chang, eh.
is not one of them.
> >> And yet, being as a bumble bee, as sweet
> >> or as sour or bitter it is akin to the vinegar tasters.
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinegar_tasters
> >>
> >
> >Oh Jesus, I missed this cotillion.
> Cotillion you say.
> >> Could be you, being neither pirate nor Scot,
> >> for you to use the word would be prohibited
> >> and would be to be making a mockery.
> >>
> >
> >"And if they're Northern/they make it even worse so"
> No idea what the "quotes" mean to you.
> >> In other words, an it may be you're seeing
> >> your self out to sea reflections off the surface
> >> of a mirror-world you inhabit as a habit of sorting.
Everybody knows/everybody says so"
(Kind of disagree with him about Cromwell, though.)
> >
> >"20chan"
> Unfamiliar term.
Like a really psychopathic Beach Boys fan?
Like the Beach Boys didn't encourage?
> >> If some body from Scotland said, aye, to agree,
> >> you might insist he, or she, is mocking or making a
> >> mockery of the language based on what some writer
> >> wrote about using the first person singular pronoun.
> >
> >No you fuckin' couldn't, unless you were an idiot.
> Who is you that couldn't aside from you.
> You mean, you wouldn't. Probably.
>
> I do. I did. Aye. T'hat be me.
it doesn't announce "li'l ole me".
>
> Aside from being an idiot, being many things, nouns,
> as a verb, actions vary at times when acting as,
> acting as if, and simply acting.
>
> Language forms may create.
> Idiots, fools, crazy.
> When some body acts like
> that body acts. When a body is, then that body is
> called by its actions and a noun-thing is what it acts.
> >"Aye" = "Yeah, isn't it funny, strange to hear it from me,
> >not so much love between us, I guess it could be expensive" etc.
> No idea what the "quotes" are supposed to mean. Expensive?
> Is the "quote" from a well known author of wells being?
> >> Pirates are pirates, aye.
> >> Prehaps that Way is the Way.
> >
> >"Prehaps" you have brain damage.
> Tis possible.
> >> And at the same time, such a Way, Tao/Dao
> >> is not always the Way for all people at all times, naturally.
> >> Words are not knots sold at a grocery store nor found
> >> next to the homage in the delicious Usenet section.
> >
> >What's next? "Homage"="Fromage"?
> Speaking of puns, and sacred Scriptures, once
> there was a man named Mud, Clay was his name too.
> Although he was known as Adam, he was dirt poor.
> At first, having a great life in the Garden, he did.
> Reading books, at times a pun goes unsung.
> Translations may fail to imbue a spin put on the words used.
>
> Some people take their sacred texts seriously, seriously.
> Others may read between various lines drawn, extrapolate,
> interpolate and as their dew condenses, drop from leaves leaving
> a reader rendered limb from branch without roots in a stream
> of thoughts flowing without a care in the woulds.
> >> Some people never pirate any material nor do they ever
> >> use copyrighted texts such as those found at terebess.com
> >> which is where many Taoist paragraphs and chapters of
> >> the Chuang-tzu are taken and used by me, a pirate.
> >>
> >> https://terebess.hu/english/tao.html
> >
> >Yeahh, sure, totally, "a lot of things happen out on the open sea",
> >pretty normal for seafarers generally, etc.
> "You seam to use many a quote", etc.
> >> Now an it could be that all of the authors at the website
> >> gave their permission for their material there to be used.
> >>
> >> - ore knot ... walking planck scales over eye ... yippee!
> >
> >"Homage" = "Fromage" territory?
> Cheeses are cheeses and cakes are cakes.
> A walk is a walk, and then again, to suggest any
> cake, walk, cheese or a breeze is the One and Only One
> may well be what the TTC says is not the case,
> being fei chang, quote unquote.
Unlike snooty American richies?
> Paying attention, TTC 38 has a word, Te/De/Teh.
> Homage, props, humility, really real reality, eh.
>
> - figures vary going a long there Ways ...
Jeffrey Rubard
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 10:53:23 -0800 (PST), Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> >On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 5:46:13 AM UTC-8, one wrote:
> >> Jeffrey wrote:
> >>
> >> >Sulu was a pretty big part of the show too.
> >>
> >> Spock was a favorite being logical and all
> >> and was how as a youngster being was
> >> before the show ever began, naturally.
> >>
> >> > (Hint: Taoism might
> >> >be a philosophy, but there is really not such a thing as a "fictional
> >> >philosophy".
> >>
> >> You really like the word really, eh.
> >
> >I like it better than jive bullshit.
> >
> >> Probably Star Wars doesn't have a philosophy with its Force
> >> having two types of use, good and bad, and is really real
> >> in your world of what is really real and doesn't exist.
> >
> >It sort of does, but you'd have to be a bit more intelligent and intelligent
> >about American cultural products to grasp what it is.
> A bit more than less of course.
maneuver themselves into interactions where they repeatedly ask people
to 'validate' or 'verify' inane nonsense such that they can have some outre
goal, this process can go on a long time".
> And, for you, it really, really is a real philosophy, n'est-pa?
> >> Exactly what the probablity is could take a Spock
> >> to determine which is reminiscent of a tale in the CT scan.
> >>
> >> https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu.html#2
> >
> >"Probablity" = "Indemnity"?
> >(How was your CT scan?)
> I don't know about any indemnity, quote unquote.
> The CT scan above produced what is below.
(I think Spock is supposed to be an "American" character.)
> >> << Heaven and earth were born at the same time I was, and
> >> the ten thousand things are one with me.
> >
> >Wow, fairly impious for a Christian.
> Christianity didn't exist at the time Chuang Tzu wrote.
> >> We have already become one, so how can I say anything? But I have just
> >> said that we are one, so how can I not be saying something? The one
> >> and what I said about it make two, and two and the original one make
> >> three. If we go on this way, then even the cleverest mathematician
> >> can't tell where we'll end, much less an ordinary man. If by moving
> >> from nonbeing to being we get to three, how far will we get if we move
> >> from being to being? Better not to move, but to let things be! >>
> >
> >Um, no, homie. We didn't even go on a date, did we?
> No idea what you're referring to.
but that kind of queer oneupmanship is just a lot...
> >> Yet Zz used his goblet words and didn't let things be.
> >
> >"Every girl's crazy 'bout a sharp dressed man"
> >(This would not be me)
> A top is a top and may spin at times.
> Under a really big top, a circus mite begins.
> >> Nor did other authors of the Zhuangzi, nor did those
> >> who edited the Laozi as it accreted thus and sew on
> >> they went with their emphatic apophatic talk.
> >
> >"Apophatic" = "Apomorphine" ?
> No idea what apomorphine is.
> A search of the Internet may suggest it is, or isn't.
> >> With a Tao as depicted in the Chuang-tzu a great thief has Tao
> >> and for that, blame is placed on sages with their spouts.
> >>
> >> https://terebess.hu/english/tao/ChuangTzu-palmer.pdf
> >
> >"Teapot" = "Dome"?
> No idea what you're referring to. A scandal?
> There was an event of sorts recollected.
> Zz wrote Way before then, iirc.
sort of implies
"I ought to let her make voluntary decisions in certain areas of life"
> >> << A member of
> >> Robber Chih’s gang asked him, ‘Is there a Tao for the thief?’
> >> Chih replied, ‘What profession is there without its Tao?
> >> The robber works out what is worth stealing: this shows he
> >> is a sage; his courage is shown by being the first to break
> >> in; his righteousness is shown by being last to leave; his
> >> understanding is shown by deciding whether the raid is
> >> possible; his benevolence is shown by his dividing the
> >> spoils equally. Without these five attributes, no one in the
> >> world could become such a great thief.’ Considering all
> >> this, it is clear that good men do not arise without
> >> following the Tao of the sages and therefore that Robber
> >> Chih had to also follow the sages’ Tao, or he could not have
> >> succeeded. But in this world, the good men are few and far
> >> between, while the bad are numerous. So it is that the sage
> >> brings little to the world but inflicts much harm. >>
> >
> >Yeah, that's good. It's very unlike your writing.
> Watson's version tends to be viewed as a good translation.
American Sinologists, kind of "relatable", kind of not everybody's
everything.
> >> A chapter is called Robber Chih suggesting how Confucius
> >> for all of his do-gooding did not impress the great thief.
> >>
> >> https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu3.html#29
> >>
> >> To say the robber made a mockery of Confucius
> >> could be said out the Gateless Gate two begin width.
> >> > Jarry made an attempt at this with "pataphysics"
> >> >in *Ubu Roi* and it still hasn't succeeded well enough.)
> >>
> >> I've heard of woo, but not of the other three.
> >
> >"Woo" = this very modern term you need to know
> It's bins herded in physics jargon as what isn't.
dangerously contrived currency"?
> >"Merde" = Pere Ubu's favorite word
> No idea who Ubu was nor what merde means.
> >> Do you recommend reading Jarry, pataphysics and Ubu Roi?
if you've been "dropping the hammer", sometimes the Beatles
are joking and it's hard to tell.)
> >> Did you enjoy the attempt or scoff at the words as writ.
I keep it hardcore like you never saw"
I think you have to have his particular feel for it, not some terrible
white "overdubbing" ersatz, though.
> >>
> >> >> >Hence the Chuang-tzu, when academics proceed to dissect
> >> >> >its threads and themes find Inner, Outer and Misc. Chapters,
> >> >> >sections within chapters and what knots.
> >> >>
> >> >> Did some old guy whose name means, old guy, Lao Tzu,
> >> >> really write two books called, the Lao Tzu.
> >
> >I don't know, why don't you ask someone actually Chinese rather
> >than aim ill-placed barbs *ex cathedra*?
> I don't know what ex cathedra means.
we're interested in these thoughts "from the throne" may not really
be sound enough...
>
> Actually, when actually asking people who could speak, read
> and write modern Chinese what the TTC, Chapter 1, says,
> most declined to comment.
>
> What appears is that it's more esoteric than common knowledge.
> One associate at work translated ming as fame, which makes sense.
> Fame is fame, playing name games. And yet, it might not always be.
>
> Uncommon, fei-chang, fame
> is possible when going unnoticed
> until suddenly, discovered, presto!
> >> >Yeah, when I was twelve I used to try to slouch through "book reports"
> >> >like this.
> >>
> >> Scholars and academic types are not always seen in the light
> >> of those who write huge success screen-plays on words
> >> for the big theaters making millions going for the ride.
> >>
> >
> >Oh, I remember this one. "It's 3 AM, and you are harassing... Los Angeles..."
> No idea what you're referring to.
of the thought "Yeah, screenplays, those are for real winners, tell me about it, huh, etc"
> There is a three in the morning tale in the CT.
> It involved monkeys and peanuts, already posted.
> >> George Lucas talked with Joseph Campbell a time or at times.
> >
> >I guess so. You?
> Me?
> Watching them converse on what used to be called a tube,
> being television, they were far-reaching in their views, imo.
be far more interesting to people than you!
> >> Campbell spoke of myths, and how truths are far deeper therein
> >> than in scientific fact findings which in turn could be used for good
> >> as well as for evil. Aye, for me to agree is very easy given how
> >> on a pale blue dot-world nation states of mind persist.
> >
(The fact that you are married doesn't make you my best friend, wish that this would end)
> >Gettin' a little recondite here, but traditionally "revealed religion" != myth?
> In my view of Campbell's view, when instituted, probably
> myths are involved beyond any experience a founder had
> as followers floundered to apprehend what was articulated.
>
> Paranormal experiences, shared anecdotally, could be evidence
> taken for granted, axiomatically, particularly when witnessed
> first-hand, of some higher power, deity, man-god, tat-vam-asi.
>
> Perhaps the Upanishads are able to shed light
> on what Krishna told Arjuna.
"Have we insulted Indians yet?" "No, we haven't, boss."
> And at the same time, Hinduism isn't Taoism, imo.
> >> Touching a fictional tree, the one of the knowledge of a duality,
> >> a specific duality, tends to result in expulsion from the Garden
> >> at times within time for time beings.
> >
> >Like I was saying? Unless you are some foul deceiver?
> To die a death, a spiritual form,
> to lose a sense of innocense, children
> who learn right and wrong in their culture,
> eventually might transcend limitations, or not.
> >> How to return to an eternity, the Present,
> >> the gift that keeps on giving may be explored using Taoism,
> >> Tao Chia that is, the made-up category invented by historians
> >> prior to when Jesus walked at the beginning of time.
> >>
> >> - axes mundi vary ... Thanks again!
> >
> >Glad you got back to the dippy richie Eurocentrism in the end.
> Glad you don't see any mocking involved in that fact.
>
> - given: 2022 A.D.
Granted: Constitutional rights apply in full and in perpetuity.
one
>On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 7:41:34 AM UTC-8, a.mite wrote:
>> one wrote:
>> >Jeffrey wrote:
>>
>> >> (Hint: Taoism might
>> >>be a philosophy, but there is really not such a thing as a "fictional
>> >>philosophy".
>> >
>> >You really like the word really, eh.
>>
>> He dew.
>
>Who taught you to talk like this? Was it Miss Betty, or Miss Peaches?
What do you call, not even wrong?
Taoism may suggest some actions simply emerge.
The story of the swimmer, if you recall, is an example.
Were you taught to deconstruct language
when you languished at an age you aged?
Prehaps you are projecting, if you were taught
as teachers taught you, how to think, act, be and
mirror-worlds could be said to really exist yet to oar
knots without a paddle, with no oars, to float a long
Ways down a stream is possible for a leaf at times.
All of which leaves me in wonder, as is not unusual,
not fei-chang, and may be called eternal, chang,
given various connotations of words at play.
>> And to dew, his mite could insist, isn't really an infinitive.
>>
>> >Probably Star Wars doesn't have a philosophy with its Force
>> >having two types of use, good and bad, and is really real
>> >in your world of what is really real and doesn't exist.
>>
>> Semantics vary.
>
>"Executive Action Summary 1995"
>> Jeffrey appears to be a tad bit legalistic
>> and none too generous in his misgivings of reality.
>
>Do people say they have "misgivings of reality" about you?
so-called, individual, does. And yet, the word, people,
suggests a type of duality-mode, a 10k-thing situation has
already happened which does occur rather often, naturally.
>It may be a kind of circuitous way to say something like
>"Damn you", not sure.
from what appeared to be a tendency
seen to be in your responses involving
what is, for you, really real, fictitious,
and, apparently reality for you when
compared with what is, semantically
other than how you feel or think.
>> Words tend to have more meanings than only one meaning.
>
>Led Zeppelin knew this.
Chuang Tzu appears to have appeared Way prior
to Rocky and Bullwinkle. Of the three, Bullwinkle was
less of a Taoist than the other two, imo, personally.
He was always trying to pull a rabbit out of an hat.
Rocky, on the other hand, could fly, being a flying,
not a bat, no, he was a squirrel on the b'all.
If the meanings of words are not fixed, Zz asked,
then what. I forget the rest of the passage how
ever it's been posted, probably in this thread.
>> Taoism became a philosophy when people said it was.
>
>Tell it to Chinese history and culture, ese. Tell those thousands of years good.
wrote a history of the so-called Middle Kingdoms,
a round a bout 2122 years ago, to call it Chinese
history and culture could be like calling Hiawatha and
the Iroquois Nations, Canadian history, and culture
which existed prior to Canada being drawn using
lines on maps, invented, as it were by carto-
graphic horse people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Canada
Being a village can be what you might call a real,
or really a, thing. A settle meant to settle meaning
where people were at a time. Similar to the kingdom
of Chin, like Canada, that wasn't what it is now.
Some people might write using such words and,
me being me of all people may call that anachronistic
a bit, over and over time as words are applied to what
was not before it was, given a time line, as has been
posted h'ears in a Taoist Philosophy Usenet group.
>> So-called Schools, Chia, aka Jia, were invented thou-
>> sands of years ago by academics as categories.
>
>"Ch-ch-ch-chia!"
>(The Mohists, i.e. "legalists"?)
School according to classifications invented
by those who invented classifications.
>> Scholars now-a-daze, sums of them at various rates,
>> insist there never was any schism between philosophy
>> and religion, no, they know no body practiced Chia
>> without Chiao nor Jia without Jiao, being real bodies.
>
>"Executive Inaction Summary 2002"
>> To call a body a people could be a call made by an ump.
>> To call a Neanderthal a different species could be a fowl.
>>
>> - on the wings of Icarus ... Hooray!
>
>"Damn, it feels good not to be a gangsta
>Even one you don't really know"
aye
>If the meanings of words are not fixed, Zz asked,
>then what. I forget the rest of the passage how
>ever it's been posted, probably in this thread.
several times in the Zz. Mention is made of wabbits
and happy fish. An idea is to communicate.
>>> Taoism became a philosophy when people said it was.
>>
>>Tell it to Chinese history and culture, ese. Tell those thousands of years good.
during an Earth year 3535 three Martians
were discussing ancient Mars history and one said
George Washington was a Martian. An other of the three
insisted he was a European while the third said nothing.
Suddenly a fourth Martian appeared and said Washington
could not have been a Martian and Earthlings were an
archaic form of Martian people, naturally, as their
species was different from those on Earth.
If fifth Martian, walking as only Martians walk, walked
up to the four and said three of them were incorrect
since Washington was an indigenous man of a tribe
of animated Life and only the speaker who never
spoke a word had a chance of not being incorrect
knowing how he, the fifth Martian, wasn't quite.
Martian rituals and rites of passage varied.
>When the father and son, Ssu-ma, historians
>wrote a history of the so-called Middle Kingdoms,
>a round a bout 2122 years ago, to call it Chinese
>history and culture could be like calling Hiawatha and
>the Iroquois Nations, Canadian history, and culture
>which existed prior to Canada being drawn using
>lines on maps, invented, as it were by carto-
>graphic horse people.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Canada
>
>Being a village can be what you might call a real,
>or really a, thing. A settle meant to settle meaning
>where people were at a time. Similar to the kingdom
>of Chin, like Canada, that wasn't what it is now.
>
>Some people might write using such words and,
>me being me of all people may call that anachronistic
>a bit, over and over time as words are applied to what
>was not before it was, given a time line, as has been
>posted h'ears in a Taoist Philosophy Usenet group.
for those forms of Life that lived on the surface of Mars.
Those who lived beneath the surface couldn't possibly
have said a word, having no mouths to speak of.
- in the year of a lord 4545 ...
one
>On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 11:28:14 AM UTC-8, one wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 10:47:35 -0800 (PST), Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>> >On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 5:20:05 AM UTC-8, one wrote:
>> >> Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>Chinese and English have some similarities. Everything being "just what you say it is"
>is not one of them.
using your definitions of what everything is not.
Two begin width.
- just sayin ...
one
>On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 11:28:14 AM UTC-8, one wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 10:47:35 -0800 (PST), Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>> >On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 5:20:05 AM UTC-8, one wrote:
>> >> Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Anybody who uses "Aye" as an alternative spelling of the
>> >> >subject pronoun might as well give up the question of "mockery of Scots".
>> >> >(According to them those are never, not ever, the same thing.)
>> >> >"Too cute for us to live" territory.
>> >>
>> >> One wonders if pirates were Scots.
>> >
>> >Yeah, whatever.
>>
>> Aye. Who else may say, aye. One wonders.
>>
>> >> Aye, for me, being a pirate, to say aye
>> >> is not mocking Scots nor pirates. I have permission.
>> >> Each mission, should it be accepted, is impossible.
>> >
>> >It's fucking stupid to use it as a homophone for the subject pronoun.
>> >(It occurs to most, then they choose not to do it.)
>>
>> Fei-chang, eh.
>
>Chinese and English have some similarities. Everything being "just what you say it is"
>is not one of them.
are what you say things are. To suppose speculations on m'eye p'art
decree what things were in a land prior to when things are now
is probably a projection of yours in the making.
Chuang Tzu may have written, as it is written in the Chuang-tzu,
things are what they are called and such a saying could be taken
as an axiom of a philosophical school of thought as ore knots.
>> >> And yet, being as a bumble bee, as sweet
>> >> or as sour or bitter it is akin to the vinegar tasters.
>> >>
>> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinegar_tasters
>> >>
>> >
>> >Oh Jesus, I missed this cotillion.
>>
>> Cotillion you say.
>
>Did you call it a "clusterfuck"?
>> >> Could be you, being neither pirate nor Scot,
>> >> for you to use the word would be prohibited
>> >> and would be to be making a mockery.
>> >>
>> >
>> >"And if they're Northern/they make it even worse so"
>>
>> No idea what the "quotes" mean to you.
>
>> >> In other words, an it may be you're seeing
>> >> your self out to sea reflections off the surface
>> >> of a mirror-world you inhabit as a habit of sorting.
>
>"It could have been me, it should have been me
>Everybody knows/everybody says so"
quoted which might mean a stream of thought
going on inside and outside of a screen thing.
>(Kind of disagree with him about Cromwell, though.)
nor well at all aside from him being a well and
perhaps a lord of some sort.
>> >"20chan"
>>
>> Unfamiliar term.
>
>Like a really psychopathic Beach Boys fan?
>Like the Beach Boys didn't encourage?
Surfing? Sidewalk surfing?
Were there or are there psychopathic fans
of the Beach Boys in your reality?
Do you have misgivings?
>> >> If some body from Scotland said, aye, to agree,
>> >> you might insist he, or she, is mocking or making a
>> >> mockery of the language based on what some writer
>> >> wrote about using the first person singular pronoun.
>> >
>> >No you fuckin' couldn't, unless you were an idiot.
>>
>> Who is you that couldn't aside from you.
>> You mean, you wouldn't. Probably.
>>
>> I do. I did. Aye. T'hat be me.
>
>Retard, it "acknowledges" a signal and pressing reality in an impertinent way,
>it doesn't announce "li'l ole me".
some other name names what you say is.
Names name, names are able to name,
so may say what's called the Tao Te Ching
in a round the second line playing name games.
Ming ke ming.
To you, using such a Romanization may suggest mockery.
I'd say that's your projection. To screen words is possible.
Whether a name, ming, is a constant, common, eternal
or some other adjective, is chang is an adjective, is
a question asked and at times is rhetorical.
Is any name, any word, the Constant Name
or the Eternal Name or is not, fei, the One and Only,
could be an interpretation of the verse versus
not using majuscules.
A different interpretation is that there is no
eternal nor immortal name, no word, no Tao able
to be put into words, spoken, nor path trodden
that is a forever Path, et cetera.
Taoist Philosophies may vary.
>> Aside from being an idiot, being many things, nouns,
>> as a verb, actions vary at times when acting as,
>> acting as if, and simply acting.
>>
>> Language forms may create.
>
>Then again, they may not. (They may, for example, chisel.)
Who were the Saca the sons of. Who was Omri.
Why did Jesus say he was only sent to the
Lost Sheep of the House of the North.
Some so-called, Scriptures are able to be writ
in the stone of hearts at times and others knot
sewing mulch as they could be similar to mud.
>> Idiots, fools, crazy.
>> When some body acts like
>> that body acts. When a body is, then that body is
>> called by its actions and a noun-thing is what it acts.
>>
>> >"Aye" = "Yeah, isn't it funny, strange to hear it from me,
>> >not so much love between us, I guess it could be expensive" etc.
>>
>> No idea what the "quotes" are supposed to mean. Expensive?
>> Is the "quote" from a well known author of wells being?
>>
>> >> Pirates are pirates, aye.
>> >> Prehaps that Way is the Way.
>> >
>> >"Prehaps" you have brain damage.
>>
>> Tis possible.
>
>So how'd that CT scan go?
Scanning the Chuang-tzu, usually Watson's version
but not always is not a once done is done scan.
Waves break at times and curl when a song sung
by surfers ring n'ear the sea shore which reminds
one of Jo, of the North Ocean once more and yet
another CT scan. Thanks!
https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu1.html#17
<< Section SEVENTEEN - AUTUMN FLOODS
THE TIME OF THE AUTUMN FLOODS came and the hundred streams poured into
the Yellow River. Its racing current swelled to such proportions that,
looking from bank to bank or island to island, it was impossible to
distinguish a horse from a cow. Then the Lord of the River1 was beside
himself with joy, believing that all the beauty in the world belonged
to him alone. Following the current, he journeyed east until at last
he reached the North Sea. Looking east, he could see no end to the
water.
The Lord of the River began to wag his head and roll his eyes. Peering
far off in the direction of Jo,2 he sighed and said, "The common
saying has it, `He has heard the Way a mere hundred times but he
thinks he's better than anyone else.' It applies to me. In the past, I
heard men belittling the learning of Confucius and making light of the
righteousness of Po Yi,3 though I never believed them. Now, however, I
have seen your unfathomable vastness. If I hadn't come to your gate,4
I would have been in danger. I would forever have been laughed at by
the masters of the Great Method!"
Jo of the North Sea said,
"You can't discuss the ocean with a well frog ... >>
>> >> And at the same time, such a Way, Tao/Dao
>> >> is not always the Way for all people at all times, naturally.
>> >> Words are not knots sold at a grocery store nor found
>> >> next to the homage in the delicious Usenet section.
>> >
>> >What's next? "Homage"="Fromage"?
>
>> Speaking of puns, and sacred Scriptures, once
>> there was a man named Mud, Clay was his name too.
>> Although he was known as Adam, he was dirt poor.
>> At first, having a great life in the Garden, he did.
>
>This is from "Racist Bible Stories"?
>> Reading books, at times a pun goes unsung.
>> Translations may fail to imbue a spin put on the words used.
>>
>> Some people take their sacred texts seriously, seriously.
>
>...and some apparently don't. "In ewigem Gedenken"...
Looks possibly to be a type of German, with Gedenken
maybe meaning, thought. No idea what ewigem means nor
if the word, In, means a pre-position in UK English.
>> Others may read between various lines drawn, extrapolate,
>> interpolate and as their dew condenses, drop from leaves leaving
>> a reader rendered limb from branch without roots in a stream
>> of thoughts flowing without a care in the woulds.
>
>You jizz on the Bible? (Not about the virologist, right now.)
is a library of books and contains a great deal of interesting
material from Judah and Tamar's twins to Ezra's saying
where a group of people went once upon a time.
Spiritualizing what some readers take literally is possible.
Personalizing is another approach, another Tao, technique
that could be used on occasion as if God were speaking to
readers as some preachers preach, they sew dew.
>> >> Some people never pirate any material nor do they ever
>> >> use copyrighted texts such as those found at terebess.com
>> >> which is where many Taoist paragraphs and chapters of
>> >> the Chuang-tzu are taken and used by me, a pirate.
>> >>
>> >> https://terebess.hu/english/tao.html
>> >
>> >Yeahh, sure, totally, "a lot of things happen out on the open sea",
>> >pretty normal for seafarers generally, etc.
>>
>> "You seam to use many a quote", etc.
>
>For the Audience: alludes to "pantsing", a fairly normal form of homoerotic violence.
For me, Taoist yoga suggests a technique similar to Indian yoga.
Taoist texts, while mud is used metaphorically, to wrestle with ideas,
such as a tortoise in the king's divination rites or rather to be as
Chuang Tzu was, fishing on the bank of a river in the mud,
could have a porpoise or a whale of a thought wave
experimentally as wells of experientially well.
>> >> Now an it could be that all of the authors at the website
>> >> gave their permission for their material there to be used.
>> >>
>> >> - ore knot ... walking planck scales over eye ... yippee!
>> >
>> >"Homage" = "Fromage" territory?
>
>> Cheeses are cheeses and cakes are cakes.
>> A walk is a walk, and then again, to suggest any
>> cake, walk, cheese or a breeze is the One and Only One
>> may well be what the TTC says is not the case,
>> being fei chang, quote unquote.
>
>I don't think the Chinese have historically eaten cheeses?
>Unlike snooty American richies?
Don't know about them either.
>> Paying attention, TTC 38 has a word, Te/De/Teh.
>> Homage, props, humility, really real reality, eh.
>>
>
>Pretty sure it's a basic particle you're "glossing" wrong?
http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap38.htm#top
Higher and lower virtues, powers, Teh, integrity,
what is spontaneous, natural, versus being taught,
right and wrong, cultural norms, lots of fun drawn.
>> - figures vary going a long there Ways ...
>
>Now, I think those gurls misled you. Usually you have to "contribute more value" to be considered the winner of an argument or disputation...
People who post messages in Usenet groups vary.
- thanks again!
one
>On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 11:46:58 AM UTC-8, one wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 10:53:23 -0800 (PST), Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
>> >On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 5:46:13 AM UTC-8, one wrote:
>> >> Jeffrey wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Sulu was a pretty big part of the show too.
>> >>
>> >> Spock was a favorite being logical and all
>> >> and was how as a youngster being was
>> >> before the show ever began, naturally.
>> >>
>> >> > (Hint: Taoism might
>> >> >be a philosophy, but there is really not such a thing as a "fictional
>> >> >philosophy".
>> >>
>> >> You really like the word really, eh.
>> >
>> >I like it better than jive bullshit.
>> >> Probably Star Wars doesn't have a philosophy with its Force
>> >> having two types of use, good and bad, and is really real
>> >> in your world of what is really real and doesn't exist.
>> >
>> >It sort of does, but you'd have to be a bit more intelligent and intelligent
>> >about American cultural products to grasp what it is.
>>
>> A bit more than less of course.
>
>Yeah, that's why what you're saying sucks.
to help historians get a grip on the Hundred Schools
are as much mythologies, fictions, as facts?
> "People who think they're smart
>maneuver themselves into interactions where they repeatedly ask people
>to 'validate' or 'verify' inane nonsense such that they can have some outre
>goal, this process can go on a long time".
>> And, for you, it really, really is a real philosophy, n'est-pa?
>> >> Exactly what the probablity is could take a Spock
>> >> to determine which is reminiscent of a tale in the CT scan.
>> >>
>> >> https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu.html#2
>> >
>> >"Probablity" = "Indemnity"?
>> >(How was your CT scan?)
>
>> I don't know about any indemnity, quote unquote.
>> The CT scan above produced what is below.
>
>You had the tech write it?
>(I think Spock is supposed to be an "American" character.)
The idea that Scotty was from Scotland and Chekov, Sulu
and other characters were from various nation states
of mind was not paid much mind at the time.
Now-a-daze, seeing countries, nationalities, patriotisms
as fictions, mythologies and at the roots of many tribbles
t'ends to be a train of thought engine for many people.
To live and die for a symbol, a flag, a tale told by intellects
with much smoke and furry puts me in mind of Krishna and
how there is a Self who sees out of all eyes and is dramatic.
>> >> << Heaven and earth were born at the same time I was, and
>> >> the ten thousand things are one with me.
>> >
>> >Wow, fairly impious for a Christian.
>
>> Christianity didn't exist at the time Chuang Tzu wrote.
>
>It exists in our day and age. If you supposedly adhere to its principles, you *could* follow them.
Speaking of Book, Chapter and Verse, 2:5-6 exists.
<< Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God,
thought it not robbery to be equal with God: >>
Did Jesus read the Chuang-tzu?
Did a Lao Tzu teach Siddhartha?
Following a principle of the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna spake
many words to Arjuna prior to a battle and to follow that,
soldiers might as well fight for a symbol, a flag, a myth.
Fictions may contain grains of truth as sands of an our
through the looking glass eye, as Paul said he saw.
>> >> We have already become one, so how can I say anything? But I have just
>> >> said that we are one, so how can I not be saying something? The one
>> >> and what I said about it make two, and two and the original one make
>> >> three. If we go on this way, then even the cleverest mathematician
>> >> can't tell where we'll end, much less an ordinary man. If by moving
>> >> from nonbeing to being we get to three, how far will we get if we move
>> >> from being to being? Better not to move, but to let things be! >>
>> >
>> >Um, no, homie. We didn't even go on a date, did we?
>>
>> No idea what you're referring to.
>
>"We have already become one" = um, yeah, sorry, no, I know how stressful "the closet" is for you guys,
>but that kind of queer oneupmanship is just a lot...
going. Your energy level appears to be centered lower
than what Zz was referring to, imo.
While in Philippians, 2:5-6, a thought may be similar to Zz's,
being a top spinning for Zz to be God was probably not
what he was experiencing and articulating.
Ontology and epistemology are prehaps foreign to you.
Hence you see a mocking ore saw sitting on a branch.
>> >> Yet Zz used his goblet words and didn't let things be.
>> >
>> >"Every girl's crazy 'bout a sharp dressed man"
>> >(This would not be me)
>
>> A top is a top and may spin at times.
>> Under a really big top, a circus mite begins.
>
>Kind of obsessed with "bugs", huh? (Do we have to double back again on account of it?)
>> >> who edited the Laozi as it accreted thus and sew on
>> >> they went with their emphatic apophatic talk.
>> >
>> >"Apophatic" = "Apomorphine" ?
>>
>> No idea what apomorphine is.
>
>An old cure for addiction, spoken of by William Burroughs.
> "Apophatic" would probably be glossed as "I just say things",
> a term someone lent you from phenomenology
To borrow from India, Christianity, eclectic mixing
and matching, mystical and religious experiences
could be found in Taoist texts, as well as those
seen as political plus simply being, in the Zone.
Cataphatic could be a word Jesus would
have used if he spoke of the Body of Christ.
>you're using with an unusual "verve" (it's really "apophantic", etc).
> So I'm mocking your "addiction" to the cleverness of your cute misspellings, dumb homophones ("little puns"), and so on.
Your being a mocker makes perfect sense now.
>> A search of the Internet may suggest it is, or isn't.
>
>Yeah, people do that sometimes.
At times it's done. But not always.
>> >> With a Tao as depicted in the Chuang-tzu a great thief has Tao
>> >> and for that, blame is placed on sages with their spouts.
>> >>
>> >> https://terebess.hu/english/tao/ChuangTzu-palmer.pdf
>> >
>> >"Teapot" = "Dome"?
>>
>> No idea what you're referring to. A scandal?
>
>Any in your neck of the woods recently?
Not that I'm aware of. What various media bring
to a screen of usually not watched nor listened to.
How far is a neck could be curious. Does what happens
in China, Russia, Canada, Australia or other nation
states of mind matter to an Earthling?
From where eye sits, a pale blue dot is a bit of a haze.
What goes on, on the surface of that world is a maze.
For so-called, individuals, of a so-called, species
to undo what has bins taught, not many dew
evaporate as much as drops in a bucket.
>> There was an event of sorts recollected.
>> Zz wrote Way before then, iirc.
>
>"She's got legs/she knows how to use them"
>sort of implies
>"I ought to let her make voluntary decisions in certain areas of life"
>> >> Robber Chih’s gang asked him, ‘Is there a Tao for the thief?’
>> >> Chih replied, ‘What profession is there without its Tao?
>> >> The robber works out what is worth stealing: this shows he
>> >> is a sage; his courage is shown by being the first to break
>> >> in; his righteousness is shown by being last to leave; his
>> >> understanding is shown by deciding whether the raid is
>> >> possible; his benevolence is shown by his dividing the
>> >> spoils equally. Without these five attributes, no one in the
>> >> world could become such a great thief.’ Considering all
>> >> this, it is clear that good men do not arise without
>> >> following the Tao of the sages and therefore that Robber
>> >> Chih had to also follow the sages’ Tao, or he could not have
>> >> succeeded. But in this world, the good men are few and far
>> >> between, while the bad are numerous. So it is that the sage
>> >> brings little to the world but inflicts much harm. >>
>> >
>> >Yeah, that's good. It's very unlike your writing.
>>
>> Watson's version tends to be viewed as a good translation.
>
>Yeah, the executive that got "shangaied" into having to worry about
>American Sinologists, kind of "relatable", kind of not everybody's
>everything.
if you're referring to him nor what your meaning is.
Mention has been made of early translators of the basic texts
by Christians who saw God where perhaps there wasn't Abe's.
Interpretations made by syncretists, eclectics, New Age
Perennial Thought thought Tao was God in their mysticism.
Tao was said to be not any Creator early on
by an editor of the Chuang-tzu who wrote commentaries
on various passages and narrowed down what was
perhaps 52 chapters to the 33 now that are.
Be that as it might, in the text
words such as the Maker of Things are used.
A personification of what could be Tao, Zz spoke of
his Teacher, and that brings to mind a guru of sorts.
Do people have an Inner Guide.
If so, is their Higher Power, God.
As they understand higher and lower.
Is a Lower Power the same as Satan.
Mixing and matching can be fun.
Newsgroups could have topics. Ore knots.
>> >> A chapter is called Robber Chih suggesting how Confucius
>> >> for all of his do-gooding did not impress the great thief.
>> >>
>> >> https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu3.html#29
>> >>
>> >> To say the robber made a mockery of Confucius
>> >> could be said out the Gateless Gate two begin width.
>> >> > Jarry made an attempt at this with "pataphysics"
>> >> >in *Ubu Roi* and it still hasn't succeeded well enough.)
>> >>
>> >> I've heard of woo, but not of the other three.
>> >
>> >"Woo" = this very modern term you need to know
>
>> It's bins herded in physics jargon as what isn't.
>
>Lots of people pitch it. "Heavily freighted pseudoscience with a
>dangerously contrived currency"?
Some metaphysicians might like their art to be science.
Without perhaps realizing how words work, consciousness,
is said by sum to be, what is, at the ground of all being.
Imagine that. A noun.
Funny hat, imo.
Speaking of language
and the horse it rode in on.
>> >"Merde" = Pere Ubu's favorite word
>>
>> No idea who Ubu was nor what merde means.
>>
>> >> Do you recommend reading Jarry, pataphysics and Ubu Roi?
>
>The character, not the band from Cleveland. (Might be a little late
>if you've been "dropping the hammer", sometimes the Beatles
>are joking and it's hard to tell.)
>> >> Did you enjoy the attempt or scoff at the words as writ.
>
>"My voice is raw/my lyrics is law
>I keep it hardcore like you never saw"
>
>I think you have to have his particular feel for it, not some terrible
>white "overdubbing" ersatz, though.
>> >> >> >Hence the Chuang-tzu, when academics proceed to dissect
>> >> >> >its threads and themes find Inner, Outer and Misc. Chapters,
>> >> >> >sections within chapters and what knots.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Did some old guy whose name means, old guy, Lao Tzu,
>> >> >> really write two books called, the Lao Tzu.
>> >
>> >I don't know, why don't you ask someone actually Chinese rather
>> >than aim ill-placed barbs *ex cathedra*?
>
>> I don't know what ex cathedra means.
>
>"Classical" concepts are very difficult.
refers to Tao Chia, the philosophy, not the religion.
The concepts are not difficult for me.
Words used are poetic often and the prose, fantastic.
> I guess I'd say why you think
>we're interested in these thoughts "from the throne" may not really
>be sound enough...
suggests God speaking from on high and I'm not seeing it
in the Taoist texts. Taoism isn't like Christianity in that respect.
>> Actually, when actually asking people who could speak, read
>> and write modern Chinese what the TTC, Chapter 1, says,
>> most declined to comment.
>>
>
>Was it the people you sent to ask them?
how they would translate what was written
in modern Chinese writing of the Tao Te Ching, Chapter 1.
Most of them said it was not a book read by blue-collar folk.
Some would laugh and shake their head. Some gave it a go.
>> What appears is that it's more esoteric than common knowledge.
>> One associate at work translated ming as fame, which makes sense.
>> Fame is fame, playing name games. And yet, it might not always be.
>>
>> Uncommon, fei-chang, fame
>> is possible when going unnoticed
>> until suddenly, discovered, presto!
>
>(I think mixing Chinese and faux-Italian is usually discouraged, gang.)
Are there rules for posting posts in Usenet?
Do groups actually, really, have topics?
>> >> >Yeah, when I was twelve I used to try to slouch through "book reports"
>> >> >like this.
>> >>
>> >> Scholars and academic types are not always seen in the light
>> >> of those who write huge success screen-plays on words
>> >> for the big theaters making millions going for the ride.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Oh, I remember this one. "It's 3 AM, and you are harassing... Los Angeles..."
>
>> No idea what you're referring to.
>
>Soul Coughing's "Screenwriter's Lament", also the tiresome predictable "unrolling"
>of the thought "Yeah, screenplays, those are for real winners, tell me about it, huh, etc"
>> There is a three in the morning tale in the CT.
>> It involved monkeys and peanuts, already posted.
>>
>> >> George Lucas talked with Joseph Campbell a time or at times.
>> >
>> >I guess so. You?
>>
>> Me?
>> Watching them converse on what used to be called a tube,
>> being television, they were far-reaching in their views, imo.
>
>
>There's really video of Lucas and Campbell in conversation? That'd
>be far more interesting to people than you!
A quick google-search suggests many videos are available.
https://billmoyers.com/content/ep-1-joseph-campbell-and-the-power-of-myth-the-hero’s-adventure-audio/
>> >> Campbell spoke of myths, and how truths are far deeper therein
>> >> than in scientific fact findings which in turn could be used for good
>> >> as well as for evil. Aye, for me to agree is very easy given how
>> >> on a pale blue dot-world nation states of mind persist.
>> >
>
>"Linger on... your pale blue eyes"
>(The fact that you are married doesn't make you my best friend, wish that this would end)
>> >Gettin' a little recondite here, but traditionally "revealed religion" != myth?
>>
>> In my view of Campbell's view, when instituted, probably
>> myths are involved beyond any experience a founder had
>> as followers floundered to apprehend what was articulated.
>>
>> Paranormal experiences, shared anecdotally, could be evidence
>> taken for granted, axiomatically, particularly when witnessed
>> first-hand, of some higher power, deity, man-god, tat-vam-asi.
>>
>> Perhaps the Upanishads are able to shed light
>> on what Krishna told Arjuna.
>
>Do you just really mix everything in the world together?
could be separated from the verbs predicated are they?
>"Have we insulted Indians yet?" "No, we haven't, boss."
>
>Sure.
if you have a paradigm, is Tao the same as God? Is God
the same as Jesus? Are all avatars equal to Vishnu, Krishna,
Brahman? Is there a Ground of Being, be it personal or
impersonal, neither or both?
What is, Taoist Philosophy?
>> >> Touching a fictional tree, the one of the knowledge of a duality,
>> >> a specific duality, tends to result in expulsion from the Garden
>> >> at times within time for time beings.
>> >
>> >Like I was saying? Unless you are some foul deceiver?
>
>> To die a death, a spiritual form,
>> to lose a sense of innocense, children
>> who learn right and wrong in their culture,
>> eventually might transcend limitations, or not.
>
>"Thou shall not kill."
>> >> How to return to an eternity, the Present,
>> >> the gift that keeps on giving may be explored using Taoism,
>> >> Tao Chia that is, the made-up category invented by historians
>> >> prior to when Jesus walked at the beginning of time.
>
>"The poor ye shall always have with you. Me ye have not always."
Not in yer heart-chakra?
Not ever at the right hand of the Father?
>> >> - axes mundi vary ... Thanks again!
>> >
>> >Glad you got back to the dippy richie Eurocentrism in the end.
>>
>> Glad you don't see any mocking involved in that fact.
>
>A mighty fortress is your ass, dude. The kind of shit that always made Americans look bad.
>
>Granted: Constitutional rights apply in full and in perpetuity.
- thanks for the conversation!
a.mite
>one wrote:
>
>>If the meanings of words are not fixed, Zz asked,
>>then what. I forget the rest of the passage how
>>ever it's been posted, probably in this thread.
>
>The meanings of the meanings of words occur
>several times in the Zz. Mention is made of wabbits
>and happy fish. An idea is to communicate.
if not wish oar, then again, not either, eh. Say w'hat?
>>>> Taoism became a philosophy when people said it was.
>>>
>>>Tell it to Chinese history and culture, ese. Tell those thousands of years good.
such that Jeffrey confuses Tao Chia with Tao Chiao,
in other words what some scholars say never was given
really real people, including but not limited to the Taoist Pope
of all people let alone Taoist priests and lay practitioners.
Academics, historians, scholars may be mocked by none other
than the Tao Te Ching writers, the Lao Tzu, being old men
and women if they be old, aye as well as authors of
the Chuang-tzu, prehaps even Zz his own s'elf
sewn amongst the weeds and such knots.
>Once upon a time on Mars
>during an Earth year 3535 three Martians
>were discussing ancient Mars history and one said
>George Washington was a Martian. An other of the three
>insisted he was a European while the third said nothing.
>
>Suddenly a fourth Martian appeared and said Washington
>could not have been a Martian and Earthlings were an
>archaic form of Martian people, naturally, as their
>species was different from those on Earth.
>
>If fifth Martian, walking as only Martians walk, walked
>up to the four and said three of them were incorrect
>since Washington was an indigenous man of a tribe
>of animated Life and only the speaker who never
>spoke a word had a chance of not being incorrect
>knowing how he, the fifth Martian, wasn't quite.
>
>Martian rituals and rites of passage varied.
>
>>When the father and son, Ssu-ma, historians
>>wrote a history of the so-called Middle Kingdoms,
>>a round a bout 2122 years ago, to call it Chinese
>>history and culture could be like calling Hiawatha and
>>the Iroquois Nations, Canadian history, and culture
>>which existed prior to Canada being drawn using
>>lines on maps, invented, as it were by carto-
>>graphic horse people.
other story in the CT, naturally when the praying mantis was
given a scan at the time being a time being.
<< begin quote from CT scan >>
https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu.html#4
Section FOUR - IN THE WORLD OF MEN
YEN HUI WENT TO SEE Confucius and asked permission to take a trip.
... snip ...
"Words are like wind and waves; actions are a matter of gain and loss.
Wind and waves are easily moved; questions of gain and loss easily
lead to danger. Hence anger arises from no other cause than clever
words and one-sided speeches.
... snip ...
"Don't you know about the praying mantis that waved its arms angrily
in front of an approaching carriage, unaware that they were incapable
of stopping it? Such was the high opinion it had of its talents. Be
careful, be on your guard! If you offend him by parading your store of
talents, you will be in danger!
"Don't you know how the tiger trainer goes about it? He ...
<< end of quote from CT scan >>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Canada
>>
>>Being a village can be what you might call a real,
>>or really a, thing. A settle meant to settle meaning
>>where people were at a time. Similar to the kingdom
>>of Chin, like Canada, that wasn't what it is now.
>>
>>Some people might write using such words and,
>>me being me of all people may call that anachronistic
>>a bit, over and over time as words are applied to what
>>was not before it was, given a time line, as has been
>>posted h'ears in a Taoist Philosophy Usenet group.
>
>To call George Washington an ancient Martian was possible
>for those forms of Life that lived on the surface of Mars.
>
>Those who lived beneath the surface couldn't possibly
>have said a word, having no mouths to speak of.
>
>- in the year of a lord 4545 ...
aye
>> a.mite wrote:
>>> one wrote:
>>> >Jeffrey wrote:
>>>
>>> >> (Hint: Taoism might
>>> >>be a philosophy, but there is really not such a thing as a "fictional
>>> >>philosophy".
>>> >
>>> >You really like the word really, eh.
>>>
>>> He dew.
>>
>>Who taught you to talk like this? Was it Miss Betty, or Miss Peaches?
>
>Assumptions, presumptions.
>
>What do you call, not even wrong?
>
>Taoism may suggest some actions simply emerge.
>The story of the swimmer, if you recall, is an example.
Puff, the puffer fish, was a video watched recently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-MdiE7gfmY
In one scene, Puff was swallowed by a bigger fish when suddenly
Puff puffed up, without being taught and perhaps Puff learned,
automatically, so to speak, not only how to swim but to puff.
A question could be phrased, what teaches organisms to survive
in their niches and an answer could be, there is no what. No division
exists between organisms and environments other than in myths.
Dualities have their merits.
Cause-and-effect is a powerful tool.
- paradigms vary ... Thanks again!
one
> one wrote:
>> Jeffrey wrote:
>>> a.mite wrote:
>>>> one wrote:
>>>> >Jeffrey wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> (Hint: Taoism might
>>>> >>be a philosophy, but there is really not such a thing as a "fictional
>>>> >>philosophy".
texts words such as, birth are used
to convey how a myth goes from one,
two, three and 10k-things are.
https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap42
Begot might be a bit archaic.
http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap42.htm#top
Words such as produce, bore, bears and emit were used.
What is the word in Romanized Pinyin, one wonders.
A Matrix Translation avails its elf.
https://alidark.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/laozib1.pdf
Sheng appears to be a word which connotes
how from Tao, One was, mythologically. One is, two is,
three is and everything, wan-wu, the 10k, is as
far as a now could be called the Present.
All stemming from Tao, when the pre-
position, from is used to complete a thought
sentenced to a sentence using nouns and verbs.
To call an it a myth, a fiction, a tale told, could be a flower
ringing of a Way TTC 42 reiterates TTC 40.
http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap40.htm#top
https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap40
http://www.wuwei.org/Taoism/taochinese.html
fan zhe dao zhi dong,
ruo zhe dao zhi yong.
tian xia wan wu sheng yu you,
you sheng yu wu.
>>>> >You really like the word really, eh.
Yu2 and you3 may be just the Ting.
Used to avoid what/who confuses.
>>>> He dew.
>>>
>>>Who taught you to talk like this? Was it Miss Betty, or Miss Peaches?
>>
>>Assumptions, presumptions.
>>
>>What do you call, not even wrong?
>>
>>Taoism may suggest some actions simply emerge.
>>The story of the swimmer, if you recall, is an example.
>
>Some people might wonder, who taught fish how to swim.
>
>Puff, the puffer fish, was a video watched recently.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-MdiE7gfmY
>
>In one scene, Puff was swallowed by a bigger fish when suddenly
>Puff puffed up, without being taught and perhaps Puff learned,
>automatically, so to speak, not only how to swim but to puff.
>
>A question could be phrased, what teaches organisms to survive
>in their niches and an answer could be, there is no what. No division
>exists between organisms and environments other than in myths.
>
>Dualities have their merits.
>Cause-and-effect is a powerful tool.
>
>- paradigms vary ... Thanks again!