the mystery of Good vs Evil?
Legato
entertaining place to go. One of the many frequent and classic
arguments that come up is "How would you know right and wrong, good
and evil, without God?"
My question is how would you know good and evil with God? A being that
constantly contradicts himself, rewrites concrete law, and doesn't
shed a tear when he commits genocide on the entire human race (except
Noah's family of course). Ahh the mythology and personification of
divine power amuses me.
I'm glad I have come across Taoism, everything is much more simple,
yet complex, and explains everything without being specific
whatsoever, or making claims of understanding the Truth in its
entirety. It allows for flexibility in individual life, and offers
guidelines instead of law. It's a wonderful thing.
Here's my own personal response to a post on good and evil,
christianity vs atheism:
(
Everything is good.
Everything is evil.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
The Tao is Balance in Everything.
Good will prevail over Evil.
Evil will prevail over Good.
Chaos begets Order.
Order begets Chaos.
Such is the way of things.
)
I think that it's not so much of what's good and what's bad, such a
dualistic\absolutionistic attitude can be damaging to one's mental and
\or spiritual growth and maturation. I think it's more like "Things
happen". You have negative actions and influences, you have positive
actions and influences, both are required for perspective and personal
growth.
Anyway, I just thought I'd post up my current mode of thought here,
comments are appreciated.
stumper
Might as well get over right and wrong.
--
~Stumper
Legato
>
> - Show quoted text -
Of course, and I have, yet it's so fun to argue about it with them. I
feel like i'm electronically poking them. (Atheists and Christians
alike) haha
rc
(in article <1171650529.5...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
> I think that it's not so much of what's good and what's bad, such a
> dualistic\absolutionistic attitude can be damaging to one's mental and
> \or spiritual growth and maturation. I think it's more like "Things
> happen". You have negative actions and influences, you have positive
> actions and influences, both are required for perspective and personal
> growth.
>
> Anyway, I just thought I'd post up my current mode of thought here,
> comments are appreciated.
>
Christians and atheists superimpose subjective notions about good and evil,
right and wrong, objectively. If you are a christian be a christian, if your
not don't be one. If your not a christian and you be a christian, ouch, bumpy
path. But thats just my subjective opinion.
stumper
> feel like i'm electronically poking them. (Atheists and Christians
> alike) haha
>
Stop doing that
unless you are skillful enough
to be able to help them.
A Daoist would avoid silly debates.
--
~Stumper
Legato
the greater details and perspectives of philosophy, helped to open
their eyes a bit. But honestly they are few and far between. Mostly
because 4 out of 5 people in that group are militant with their
beliefs to begin with. Most of the time it does end up being a "I'm
better than you" style argument, which I try to bring perspective
into. Most of the time it is futile, maybe you are right stumpy.
But then again it is a good feeling when something clicks in someone's
mind and they thank you. Moreover, it's entertainment, yet "silly
debates" are frequent.
rc
(in article <1171653332.2...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>):
> There have been a couple people I have been able to help see some of
> the greater details and perspectives of philosophy, helped to open
> their eyes a bit.
Which is to say, open their eyes to your perspective.
But honestly they are few and far between. Mostly
> because 4 out of 5 people in that group are militant with their
> beliefs to begin with. Most of the time it does end up being a "I'm
> better than you" style argument, which I try to bring perspective
> into. Most of the time it is futile, maybe you are right stumpy.
Which is to say, people often disagree with your perspective.
>
> But then again it is a good feeling when something clicks in someone's
> mind and they thank you. Moreover, it's entertainment, yet "silly
> debates" are frequent.
Which is to say, you *make* something click in their mind.
They should be cursing you.
Legato
is not to sway people toward my perspective. I have no delusions that
my perspective is more right or wrong than anyone else's perspective.
As far as the militant style people, those are the people that come in
and never listen to anyone, they just make arguments and flame each
other instead of actually debate. When I say I try to bring
perspective into those arguments, it usually consists of me picking
away at their arguments piece by piece to point out inconsistancies
and fallacies in their comments. Never am I like "Well my belief says
this" unless it involves me saying "In my opinion...." or something to
that sort. Whether people listen to me or are swayed by my arguments
is the least of my concerns, I just wish people would think a little
more before they speak.
I suppose it looks like I'm trying to justify my actions, which may or
may not be true in your eyes, I don't really care. My point simply is
you make it out to seem like I'm some asshole that thinks everyone
that doesnt share a common belief of perspective with me is
my..."enemy" and I must convert them because I am right! Totally
untrue.
On Feb 16, 1:17 pm, rc <nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:15:33 -0600, Legato wrote
> (in article <1171653332.279510.231...@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>):
rc
(in article <1171659009....@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>):
I was actually commenting on your actions, not your intent. Sorry if "I made
it out to seem some way or another".
Now that you mention it.
An "I'm better than you" argument is a perspective. Which is to say that no
perspective need be brought to it. In a religious debate, there is no
fallacy. Religion is within the 'belief' realm, logic is not allowed. I doubt
that you make anything click in the mind of a dogmatic, because you can't
reason with them using the laws of logic. God doesn't live in language land.
The tao that can be named is not eternal tao.
Since you are arguing using logic within the realm of religion, I would
*speculate* that your intent is in fact to sway people. I think you are
presupposing logic supersedes faith. It doesn't. They are mutually exclusive.
If someone says, "Jesus died for your sins." There is no argument against
such a claim, only acceptance and dismissal.
Legato
My goal is to make (yes, make) people be a bit more,
Malleable and open to different thoughts.
To expand their philosophical horizons.
I suppose it is a battle,
Not worth fighting.
On Feb 16, 4:07 pm, rc <nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:50:09 -0600, Legato wrote
> (in article <1171659009.441102.55...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>):
> >> They should be cursing you.- Hide quoted text -
rc
(in article <1171667812.5...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>):
> I suppose you are right,
> My goal is to make (yes, make) people be a bit more,
> Malleable and open to different thoughts.
> To expand their philosophical horizons.
Copper becomes malleable in fire. The fire has no goal, no intention, and
makes no judgment about good and evil. Yet the metal becomes annealed in its
presence. The metal simply reacts to the fire by becoming malleable. Can a
person be like fire or metal?
>
> I suppose it is a battle,
> Not worth fighting.
Worth is a question of value. Value is subjective. If you value it, it is a
battle worth fighting. I could ask you why you think it's 'good' to help
people be open minded. But I won't because that is your bag of good and evil.
If a warrior is honest with himself about his intention, and finds it good,
then he is fit for battle. If the warrior is not honest with himself about
his intent, or is but does not find it good, then he will stumble and die,
fighting.
{:-])))
>I am active in the Atheism vs. Christianity group, such an
>entertaining place to go. One of the many frequent and classic
>arguments that come up is "How would you know right and wrong, good
>and evil, without God?"
There's an old story
about a farmer, his son, a horse
and a bunch of maybe stuff.
Maybe somebody else already mentioned it.
>My question is how would you know good and evil with God?
Near the beginning of the TTC
it could be said to speak about how
dualities imply each other. There need not
be any God involved in the process.
TTC 4 also has been said
to make a reference to Tao and Ti.
> A being that
>constantly contradicts himself, rewrites concrete law, and doesn't
>shed a tear when he commits genocide on the entire human race (except
>Noah's family of course). Ahh the mythology and personification of
>divine power amuses me.
In the Chuang-tzu
it could be said to speak about how
what is good for the carpenter
is bad for the tree.
>I'm glad I have come across Taoism, everything is much more simple,
>yet complex, and explains everything without being specific
>whatsoever, or making claims of understanding the Truth in its
>entirety. It allows for flexibility in individual life, and offers
>guidelines instead of law. It's a wonderful thing.
>
>Here's my own personal response to a post on good and evil,
>christianity vs atheism:
>
>(
>Everything is good.
>Everything is evil.
That can be a sound pov, valid.
But not necessarily always, maybe.
>Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
Newton might have been right.
Newton's "way" of seeing things however
may find limitations when pushed to extremes.
>The Tao is Balance in Everything.
An assertion. A premise. A paradigm.
>Good will prevail over Evil.
>Evil will prevail over Good.
>
>Chaos begets Order.
>Order begets Chaos.
>
>
>Such is the way of things.
>)
Yin and yang change places, maybe.
Anything can be yin or yang
when compared with some other thing.
>I think that it's not so much of what's good and what's bad, such a
>dualistic\absolutionistic attitude can be damaging to one's mental and
>\or spiritual growth and maturation.
I think you're probably right.
> I think it's more like "Things
>happen". You have negative actions and influences, you have positive
>actions and influences, both are required for perspective and personal
>growth.
I'm not sure about the growth paradigm.
Such a view may contain hidden assumptions.
>Anyway, I just thought I'd post up my current mode of thought here,
>comments are appreciated.
Kinda makes me ponder another beer
-in a bamboo grove
{:-])))
>A Daoist would avoid silly debates.
Zhuangzi and Huizi
had more than one.
-happy fish, totally useless
{:-])))
> I think you are
>presupposing logic supersedes faith. It doesn't. They are mutually exclusive.
Somebody once spelled out the a, b, c
of faith as being action, based upon belief,
sustained by confidence. There is a logic.
You have faith that when you get out of bed
when you put your feet on the floor you will
stand up and not go shooting off the floor
and hit your head on the ceiling. It's an action
based upon a belief, sustained by confidence.
Very logical. Not mutally exclusive at all.
>If someone says, "Jesus died for your sins." There is no argument against
>such a claim, only acceptance and dismissal.
An assertion is not in itself an argument.
Axioms are taken for granted.
{:-])))
>I suppose you are right,
>My goal is to make (yes, make) people be a bit more,
>Malleable and open to different thoughts.
>To expand their philosophical horizons.
>
>I suppose it is a battle,
>Not worth fighting.
I used to have lots of fun
trying to explain where I thought and felt
others were coming from.
Sometimes points could be gotten across.
Lots of times it was an exercise in futility.
A great waste of time!
It was not uncommon for folks to assume
that since I took a side and attempted
however much in vain to explain it
that I was advocating one side or another.
Muddy water was much loved by turtles
and was also much appreciated by Zhuangzi
back in the daze of old.
-philosophy is a leisure, per suit.
stumper
They were friends.
--
~Stumper
rc
(in article <6opct2tfqq64abmg4...@4ax.com>):
> rc wrote:
>
>> I think you are
>> presupposing logic supersedes faith. It doesn't. They are mutually
>> exclusive.
>
> Somebody once spelled out the a, b, c
> of faith as being action, based upon belief,
> sustained by confidence. There is a logic.
>
> You have faith that when you get out of bed
> when you put your feet on the floor you will
> stand up and not go shooting off the floor
> and hit your head on the ceiling. It's an action
> based upon a belief, sustained by confidence.
> Very logical. Not mutally exclusive at all.
Words and logic relate in the realm of words and logic, thats where their
utility ceases.
You can't use logic to argue in the realm of faith.
>
>> If someone says, "Jesus died for your sins." There is no argument against
>> such a claim, only acceptance and dismissal.
>
> An assertion is not in itself an argument.
Exactly. For an assertion to be an argument it must be a conclusion in
disguise, with hidden premises. "God exists" is not an argument, it is an
assertion of belief. To use rules of logic and attempt to dismantle it as an
argument, would be inconsistent.
rc
(in article <72qct2pog1airgivs...@4ax.com>):
> Legato wrote:
>
>> I suppose you are right,
>> My goal is to make (yes, make) people be a bit more,
>> Malleable and open to different thoughts.
>> To expand their philosophical horizons.
>>
>> I suppose it is a battle,
>> Not worth fighting.
>
> I used to have lots of fun
> trying to explain where I thought and felt
> others were coming from.
>
> Sometimes points could be gotten across.
> Lots of times it was an exercise in futility.
> A great waste of time!
>
> It was not uncommon for folks to assume
> that since I took a side and attempted
> however much in vain to explain it
> that I was advocating one side or another.
>
> Muddy water was much loved by turtles
> and was also much appreciated by Zhuangzi
> back in the daze of old.
was .. The turtle no longer loves the water when it is unmuddied? Maybe the
turtle fancies himself a fish? I had a turtle named ralph, in a small turtle
box. He loved his plastic palm tree.
{:-])))
A rule is a rule, but not always?
I got the impression that Legato enjoyed
the silly debates he had with his friends online.
-a little misinterpretation goes a long way
{:-])))
> {:-]))) wrote
>> rc wrote:
>>
>>> I think you are
>>> presupposing logic supersedes faith. It doesn't. They are mutually
>>> exclusive.
>>
>> Somebody once spelled out the a, b, c
>> of faith as being action, based upon belief,
>> sustained by confidence. There is a logic.
>>
>> You have faith that when you get out of bed
>> when you put your feet on the floor you will
>> stand up and not go shooting off the floor
>> and hit your head on the ceiling. It's an action
>> based upon a belief, sustained by confidence.
>> Very logical. Not mutally exclusive at all.
>
>
>Words and logic relate in the realm of words and logic, thats where their
>utility ceases.
>
>You can't use logic to argue in the realm of faith.
I can, and did.
Maybe you can't and don't.
>>> If someone says, "Jesus died for your sins." There is no argument against
>>> such a claim, only acceptance and dismissal.
>>
>> An assertion is not in itself an argument.
>
>Exactly. For an assertion to be an argument it must be a conclusion in
>disguise, with hidden premises.
That's an interesting way to look at it.
> "God exists" is not an argument, it is an assertion of belief.
Yes.
> To use rules of logic and attempt to dismantle it as an
>argument, would be inconsistent.
True.
>> Axioms are taken for granted.
Given: this is a Taoist group.
Assertion: Tao exists.
Faith: An action, based upon belief,
sustained by confidence.
Cook Ting had faith
that when he carved an ox
his knife would remain sharp.
Emptiness is roomy.
Edges of knives are slim.
Between slim and none
may be found Tao,
if you've got an ox to carve.
{:-])))
> {:-]))) wrote
>> Muddy water was much loved by turtles
>> and was also much appreciated by Zhuangzi
>> back in the daze of old.
>
>was .. The turtle no longer loves the water when it is unmuddied?
The vague reference was to when
folks from the emperor came and asked Zz
if he would kindly help run the empire.
The sacred turtle had given its life.
Zz asked which it would have preferred,
to have turned into soup with a cracked shell
or to have remained alive wagging its tail
in the mud. The folks had to agree.
So Zz said for them to run along.
> Maybe the
>turtle fancies himself a fish?
There are sea turtles
spoken of in the Zz as well.
They differ from, well, frogs.
>I had a turtle named ralph, in a small turtle
>box. He loved his plastic palm tree.
Cool. We used to have turtles too.
Very cute. My feeling now is that it's a crime.
I'm pretty sure they all died. So did the bunnies.
A culture condones all sorts of stuff
that may go out of fashion in the future.
stumper
He is no Zhuangzi.
At least not yet.
Was Zhuangzi a Daoist?
--
~Stumper
Sjoerd Bakker
wrote:
>I am active in the Atheism vs. Christianity group, such an
>entertaining place to go. One of the many frequent and classic
>arguments that come up is "How would you know right and wrong, good
>and evil, without God?"
>
>My question is how would you know good and evil with God? A being that
>constantly contradicts himself, rewrites concrete law, and doesn't
>shed a tear when he commits genocide on the entire human race (except
>Noah's family of course).
Does God do any of this?! People are the actors and all is return
according to universal laws. And even if God would be evil, we'd have
to live with that; wouldn't we?!
--
________________________________________
Sjoerd Bakker
________________________________________
noname
>Cook Ting had faith
>that when he carved an ox
>his knife would remain sharp.
Did he have faith that his knife would remain sharp?
Or did he just do his thing and let the knife do its?
--
Er... uh... well... geez.
stumper
> "{:-])))" <sc...@the.ed-line> wrote:
>
>> Cook Ting had faith
>> that when he carved an ox
>> his knife would remain sharp.
>
> Did he have faith that his knife would remain sharp?
>
> Or did he just do his thing and let the knife do its?
>
Do you have any faith that
spring will be here eventually.
--
~Stumper
noname
stumper
Where did you get such a faith?
--
~Stumper
rc
(in article <715et29nkro5mc7t4...@4ax.com>):
> rc wrote:
>> {:-]))) wrote
>
>>> Muddy water was much loved by turtles
>>> and was also much appreciated by Zhuangzi
>>> back in the daze of old.
>>
>> was .. The turtle no longer loves the water when it is unmuddied?
>
> The vague reference was to when
> folks from the emperor came and asked Zz
> if he would kindly help run the empire.
>
> The sacred turtle had given its life.
> Zz asked which it would have preferred,
> to have turned into soup with a cracked shell
> or to have remained alive wagging its tail
> in the mud. The folks had to agree.
> So Zz said for them to run along.
I was actually making a vague reference also, I should have been more clear.
Ralph, my turtle would swim around in his clear, plastic turtle box. The
water was clear, and you could see him pretending to be a fish. He would
always return to the clear plastic island and sit under his tree. It was his
leisure, per suit. My turtle, too, died. Perhaps when he died he imagined
himself a fish, or perhaps he realized he is only a turtle. Perhaps he didn't
imagine anything, stupid turtle. But I like to think he did. It is my
leisure, per suit.
>
>> Maybe the
>> turtle fancies himself a fish?
>
> There are sea turtles
> spoken of in the Zz as well.
> They differ from, well, frogs.
Only by definition of, well, difference.
>
>> I had a turtle named ralph, in a small turtle
>> box. He loved his plastic palm tree.
>
> Cool. We used to have turtles too.
> Very cute. My feeling now is that it's a crime.
> I'm pretty sure they all died. So did the bunnies.
Bunnies taste good. My cat steve, prefers to be called magic. Well...He's
black and you know... its a phase. Sorry to hear about your turtles, mine
died to. I think if they lived in nature they would have lived.
>
> A culture condones all sorts of stuff
> that may go out of fashion in the future.
I noticed that hip huggers are coming back. Sexy on women. Men, not so much.
rc
(in article <ql4et213q7t1e48ar...@4ax.com>):
>> You can't use logic to argue in the realm of faith.
>
> I can, and did.
> Maybe you can't and don't.
The word 'hume' comes to mind, then I realize it doesn't actually have
anything to do with what your saying.
You made an assertion. "Getting out of bed requires faith because you don't
know if you'll fly up and hit the ceiling, except that experience has shown
you otherwise."
Your not using logic to argue in the realm faith. Your using logic to argue
that faith plays a role in your decisions. This is different thing. The
statement, 'faith exists', can be argued logically. The statement, 'God
exists', is a statement of faith, and cannot be argued logically.
Consider:
"The zealot exploded because of his belief in god." Reasonable, arguable
"God told me to go explode" Unreasonable, non-arguable.
>> Exactly. For an assertion to be an argument it must be a conclusion in
>> disguise, with hidden premises.
>
> That's an interesting way to look at it.
Definitions are interesting things in that they are part in parcel to logic.
The names that can be named are not the eternal name.
>
>> "God exists" is not an argument, it is an assertion of belief.
>
> Yes.
>
>> To use rules of logic and attempt to dismantle it as an
>> argument, would be inconsistent.
>
> True.
This is all I am saying.
I bothered your taoist 'sensibility' by saying that something could be
mutually exclusive. This was not my intent.
>
>
> Given: this is a Taoist group.
Your given is premised by definition. Its an argument.
>
> Assertion: Tao exists.
No premise, no argument, no reason. Just faith. If I had to name it, I would
call it great.
>
> Faith: An action, based upon belief,
> sustained by confidence.
Faith: a belief in something or other. Action, not required.
>
> Cook Ting had faith
> that when he carved an ox
> his knife would remain sharp.
Cook Ting acted in faith. Which is not to argue that cook Ting's faith was
the true faith. Cook Ting was concerned with carving, not with god, or
sharpness.
>
> Emptiness is roomy.
> Edges of knives are slim.
>
> Between slim and none
> may be found Tao,
> if you've got an ox to carve.
The weather man argued that tomorrow will be much warmer than today. I
believe him. This makes me happy. I enjoy sitting under the plastic palm tree
with you, scene. It reminds me of Ralph. What does it remind you of?
{:-])))
>"{:-])))" <sc...@the.ed-line> wrote:
>
>>Cook Ting had faith
>>that when he carved an ox
>>his knife would remain sharp.
>
>Did he have faith that his knife would remain sharp?
Maybe he had faith that the ox would fall apart.
>Or did he just do his thing and let the knife do its?
There is a difference?
{:-])))
> {:-]))) wrote:
>
>>> You can't use logic to argue in the realm of faith.
>>
>> I can, and did.
>> Maybe you can't and don't.
>
>The word 'hume' comes to mind, then I realize it doesn't actually have
>anything to do with what your saying.
David?
>You made an assertion. "Getting out of bed requires faith because you don't
>know if you'll fly up and hit the ceiling, except that experience has shown
>you otherwise."
Something like that, yes.
And then again, maybe not exactly.
>Your not using logic to argue in the realm faith.
I'm not sure about, "in the realm."
If one is in the realm then one is in the realm.
I was talking about action.
In terms of Taoism, with wu-wei
there may not be any faith per se.
With spontaneity, it may be a
different kind of b'all-game.
But, as with most words,
wu-wei can mean lots of stuff.
> Your using logic to argue
>that faith plays a role in your decisions.
The argument is that faith is an action
that is based upon belief and sustained
by confidence.
Logic, to me, suggests that confidence is
well, a logical thing to have. It's based on stuff
such as experience, or reason. It's reasonable
and hence logical. Faith is not necessarily blind
but can be very reasonable.
> This is different thing.
Okay.
>The statement, 'faith exists', can be argued logically.
Okay.
> The statement, 'God exists', is a statement of faith,
I'd call that an assertion.
I can say, "Unicorns exist."
It might not have anything to do with faith.
Unicorns can exist in lots of ways.
Faith is another story.
> and cannot be argued logically.
If somebody stated that he
or she has faith that God exists
then I'd ask him or her why.
From there, there would be some logic.
It might not be persuasive to you
and it might depend on lots of stuff.
But it would be a logical argument.
It might even be a valid argument.
>Consider:
>
>"The zealot exploded because of his belief in god." Reasonable, arguable
>"God told me to go explode" Unreasonable, non-arguable.
I'm not sure if any of that is logical.
But my logic is a bit rusty.
Are you talking about a suicide bomber?
I might be thinking of syntactic validity.
If the zealot heard a voice
and the voice told him to explode
then that is simply how it was. His faith
allowed him to kill himself. Very persuasive.
In the first instance it was also his faith
and in that case you say it is reasonable
and arguable. Either way, he's dead.
>>>... For an assertion to be an argument it must be a conclusion in
>>> disguise, with hidden premises.
>>
>> That's an interesting way to look at it.
>
>Definitions are interesting things in that they are part in parcel to logic.
>The names that can be named are not the eternal name.
Words point to stuff.
The fact is, "the zealot exploded."
If we say he went, poof, or bang, or
vanished into smitherines, it's basically
driving at the same thing.
>>> "God exists" is not an argument, it is an assertion of belief.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> To use rules of logic and attempt to dismantle it as an
>>> argument, would be inconsistent.
>>
>> True.
>
>This is all I am saying.
Okay.
I got something else out of it.
It is often the case that I see things
that are not there and don't see things
that are there. Very amusing.
>I bothered your taoist 'sensibility' by saying that something could be
>mutually exclusive. This was not my intent.
Lots of things might be mutually exclusive.
Particularly when seen from an angle
or very restrictive pov. On another level
things might include each other.
I was taking issue with your statement, "You can't
use logic to argue in the realm of faith."
The mutually exclusive part was extra.
>> Given: this is a Taoist group.
>
>Your given is premised by definition. Its an argument.
I'd call it an axiom, a given.
Looks like a step back is in order.
How would you define, "argument"?
I figure an argument needs to have
some sort of premise or premises
and a conclusion. Sort of akin to:
If A, then B.
A.
Therefore, B.
To say, "It's raining,"
to my way of thinking,
is not any sort of argument.
>> Assertion: Tao exists.
>
>No premise, no argument, no reason.
>Just faith. If I had to name it, I would call it great.
Then you're talking about Ta Tao or Da Dao.
In the texts, when the term is used, it may
or may not be referring to Great Tao.
Some may argue that there is one
and only one Tao and it's all the same.
The TTC however, may stipulate that it isn't.
When Cook Ting carved an ox
was he attuned to or with The Great Tao?
Or was it just a plain old ordinary Tao?
When the Hunchback said he had Tao,
was he speaking of The Great Tao?
And he used it to catch bugs?
Anyway, meanwhile,
back in the realm of faith,
Assertion: It's raining.
Does that entail faith?
I wouldn't think so.
It might be premised on wetness.
>> Faith: An action, based upon belief,
>> sustained by confidence.
>
>Faith: a belief in something or other. Action, not required.
Semantics.
If you stack the deck
then most anything is possible.
Suppose it's wet outside
and you know that if it's raining
then it will necessarily be wet.
So, you take an umbrella with you.
Why did you take an umbrella?
Cuz you had faith that it was raining.
Very logical. Maybe a valid thing
or maybe faulty logic.
Maybe the sprinklers were on
or a pipe broke or something else
happened to make the ground wet.
>> Cook Ting had faith
>> that when he carved an ox
>> his knife would remain sharp.
>
>Cook Ting acted in faith. Which is not to argue that cook Ting's faith was
>the true faith. Cook Ting was concerned with carving, not with god, or
>sharpness.
I kinda got the impression
that he was rather interested in sharpness.
He loved, or cared for Tao most.
But he seemed to appreciate his Eversharp.
At least that's what I got from the story.
I'm not sure about any sort of "true faith"
nor about Cook Ting's gods. Probably he
had a few in his kitchen. There is, naturally,
the kitchen god.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zao_Jun
>> Emptiness is roomy.
>> Edges of knives are slim.
>>
>> Between slim and none
>> may be found Tao,
>> if you've got an ox to carve.
>
>The weather man argued that tomorrow will be much warmer than today. I
>believe him. This makes me happy. I enjoy sitting under the plastic palm tree
>with you, scene. It reminds me of Ralph. What does it remind you of?
At the moment, beer.
I'd have some wine
if I had some wine
but all I have is beer.
-passing bottomless
virtual jug around the campfire
in a bamboo grove
{:-])))
> {:-]))) wrote
>> rc wrote:
>>> {:-]))) wrote
>>
>>>> Muddy water was much loved by turtles
>>>> and was also much appreciated by Zhuangzi
>>>> back in the daze of old.
>>>
>>> was .. The turtle no longer loves the water when it is unmuddied?
>>
>> The vague reference was to when
>> folks from the emperor came and asked Zz
>> if he would kindly help run the empire.
>>
>> The sacred turtle had given its life.
>> Zz asked which it would have preferred,
>> to have turned into soup with a cracked shell
>> or to have remained alive wagging its tail
>> in the mud. The folks had to agree.
>> So Zz said for them to run along.
>
>I was actually making a vague reference also, I should have been more clear.
I'm not sure if sea turtles appreciate fresh water
or if they prefer the salt for buoyancy.
>Ralph, my turtle would swim around in his clear, plastic turtle box. The
>water was clear, and you could see him pretending to be a fish. He would
>always return to the clear plastic island and sit under his tree. It was his
>leisure, per suit. My turtle, too, died. Perhaps when he died he imagined
>himself a fish, or perhaps he realized he is only a turtle. Perhaps he didn't
>imagine anything, stupid turtle. But I like to think he did. It is my
>leisure, per suit.
Zz knew the fish were happy
when he was strolling along the dam.
>>> Maybe the
>>> turtle fancies himself a fish?
>>
>> There are sea turtles
>> spoken of in the Zz as well.
>> They differ from, well, frogs.
>
>Only by definition of, well, difference.
A major difference
in the Zz story, was that the turtle
was unable to get past his knee
when attempting to see inside
the well.
>>> I had a turtle named ralph, in a small turtle
>>> box. He loved his plastic palm tree.
>>
>> Cool. We used to have turtles too.
>> Very cute. My feeling now is that it's a crime.
>> I'm pretty sure they all died. So did the bunnies.
>
>Bunnies taste good.
Chocolate ones do.
The other ones might taste, well,
kinda like chicken, or so I've heard.
>My cat steve, prefers to be called magic. Well...He's
>black and you know... its a phase. Sorry to hear about your turtles, mine
>died to. I think if they lived in nature they would have lived.
At least until they didn't.
>> A culture condones all sorts of stuff
>> that may go out of fashion in the future.
>
>I noticed that hip huggers are coming back. Sexy on women. Men, not so much.
I haven't noticed.
Any word on the bell bottoms?
{:-])))
>Was Zhuangzi a Daoist?
I'd say he was.
Probably as much as Laozi
and as much as Liezi.
Tis a quibble, no?
stumper
A Daoist would not bother.
--
~Stumper
rc
(in article <rfift2lq6ahedsrnj...@4ax.com>):
> rc wrote:
>> {:-]))) wrote
>>> rc wrote:
>>>> {:-]))) wrote
>>>
>>>>> Muddy water was much loved by turtles
>>>>> and was also much appreciated by Zhuangzi
>>>>> back in the daze of old.
>>>>
>>>> was .. The turtle no longer loves the water when it is unmuddied?
>>>
>>> The vague reference was to when
>>> folks from the emperor came and asked Zz
>>> if he would kindly help run the empire.
>>>
>>> The sacred turtle had given its life.
>>> Zz asked which it would have preferred,
>>> to have turned into soup with a cracked shell
>>> or to have remained alive wagging its tail
>>> in the mud. The folks had to agree.
>>> So Zz said for them to run along.
>>
>> I was actually making a vague reference also, I should have been more
>> clear.
>
> I'm not sure if sea turtles appreciate fresh water
> or if they prefer the salt for buoyancy.
Me either. Maybe if they prefer a challenge they like fresh. Or if they feel
lazy they like salt. I don't know a whole lot about it.
Its actually so good that chicken taste like it.
>
>> My cat steve, prefers to be called magic. Well...He's
>> black and you know... its a phase. Sorry to hear about your turtles, mine
>> died to. I think if they lived in nature they would have lived.
>
> At least until they didn't.
True, maybe its not a crime after all.
>
>>> A culture condones all sorts of stuff
>>> that may go out of fashion in the future.
>>
>> I noticed that hip huggers are coming back. Sexy on women. Men, not so much.
>
> I haven't noticed.
> Any word on the bell bottoms?
I hope not. How about those happy fish platform shoes? Ever see those?
rc
(in article <hhfft21c8t604o621...@4ax.com>):
> rc wrote:
>> {:-]))) wrote:
>>
>>>> You can't use logic to argue in the realm of faith.
>>>
>>> I can, and did.
>>> Maybe you can't and don't.
>>
>> The word 'hume' comes to mind, then I realize it doesn't actually have
>> anything to do with what your saying.
>
> David?
Yes. Him.
>
>> You made an assertion. "Getting out of bed requires faith because you don't
>> know if you'll fly up and hit the ceiling, except that experience has shown
>> you otherwise."
>
> Something like that, yes.
> And then again, maybe not exactly.
>
>> Your not using logic to argue in the realm faith.
>
> I'm not sure about, "in the realm."
> If one is in the realm then one is in the realm.
Good point. I like to separate the realms, there is only one realm. Logic can
be thought of as a framework within the realm.
> I was talking about action.
>
> In terms of Taoism, with wu-wei
> there may not be any faith per se.
> With spontaneity, it may be a
> different kind of b'all-game.
What is this spontaneity?
>
> But, as with most words,
> wu-wei can mean lots of stuff.
>
>> Your using logic to argue
>> that faith plays a role in your decisions.
>
> The argument is that faith is an action
> that is based upon belief and sustained
> by confidence.
This is not an argument, it is a conclusion. The argument must tell me *why*
faith is an action based upon belief and sustained by confidence. The
argument incidentally exists. It was written by David. The entire Inquiry is
an argument for this conclusion, basically.
>
> Logic, to me, suggests that confidence is
> well, a logical thing to have. It's based on stuff
> such as experience, or reason. It's reasonable
> and hence logical. Faith is not necessarily blind
> but can be very reasonable.
Claims of faith cannot be reasonable. The nameless is the origin, the named
is the mother of the myriad of things.
>
>> This is different thing.
>
> Okay.
>
>> The statement, 'faith exists', can be argued logically.
>
> Okay.
>
>> The statement, 'God exists', is a statement of faith,
>
> I'd call that an assertion.
>
> I can say, "Unicorns exist."
> It might not have anything to do with faith.
> Unicorns can exist in lots of ways.
> Faith is another story.
In what way can a unicorn exist? By unicorn you mean one of those horses with
a horn on its head? The myriad continues to manifest.
>
>> and cannot be argued logically.
>
> If somebody stated that he
> or she has faith that God exists
> then I'd ask him or her why.
>
> From there, there would be some logic.
>
> It might not be persuasive to you
> and it might depend on lots of stuff.
> But it would be a logical argument.
> It might even be a valid argument.
>
Well thats just it. Persuasive and valid are not equivalent. "I'm going to
shoot you if you don't give me your wallet", is by definition a fallacy, but
very persuasive, sometimes.
A valid argument is one in which the premises are true, and so is the
conclusion.
>> Consider:
>>
>> "The zealot exploded because of his belief in god." Reasonable, arguable
>> "God told me to go explode" Unreasonable, non-arguable.
>
> I'm not sure if any of that is logical.
> But my logic is a bit rusty.
Sure. The first is actually an argument with hidden premises.
>
> Are you talking about a suicide bomber?
>
> I might be thinking of syntactic validity.
Maybe, but context doesn't really matter in the example. Let's say he
spontaneously exploded one day. Someone might conclude that his belief in God
caused him to explode. The reason he actually exploded is arguable.
On the other hand, if he told me "God told me to explode". I can't argue
that. It is a claim of faith. I'd just back up.
>
> If the zealot heard a voice
> and the voice told him to explode
> then that is simply how it was. His faith
> allowed him to kill himself. Very persuasive.
Very persuasive, but not logical.
>
> In the first instance it was also his faith
> and in that case you say it is reasonable
> and arguable. Either way, he's dead.
In the first instance it is an argument pertaining to why he exploded. It can
be argued that it was caused by his faith in god.
>
>>>> ... For an assertion to be an argument it must be a conclusion in
>>>> disguise, with hidden premises.
>>>
>>> That's an interesting way to look at it.
>>
>> Definitions are interesting things in that they are part in parcel to
>> logic.
>> The names that can be named are not the eternal name.
>
> Words point to stuff.
> The fact is, "the zealot exploded."
> If we say he went, poof, or bang, or
> vanished into smitherines, it's basically
> driving at the same thing.
Nail on the head. Words point to stuff. Stuff is the myriad. The Tao that can
be named is not the eternal Tao. Words don't point there.
> Lots of things might be mutually exclusive.
> Particularly when seen from an angle
> or very restrictive pov. On another level
> things might include each other.
Logic is a restrictive pov, but we have to communicate somehow. This might be
why religious text often uses emotive language over informative language.
Metaphor etc...
>
> I was taking issue with your statement, "You can't
> use logic to argue in the realm of faith."
>
> The mutually exclusive part was extra.
Perhaps it was the word 'realm'. I mean to say, reason can not be used to
argue the mystery. It is all one realm, maybe. Logic is a framework.
>
>>> Given: this is a Taoist group.
>>
>> Your given is premised by definition. Its an argument.
>
> I'd call it an axiom, a given.
>
Ok, but a given is an argument which is so obvious, that it is literally
given to be true.
All groups where people discuss taoism are taoist groups.
This group discusses taoism.
Conclusion: This is a taoist group.
> Looks like a step back is in order.
>
> How would you define, "argument"?
An argument is a collection of two or more propositions, all but one of which
are the premises that provide support for the truth of the remaining one, the
conclusion. The inferential support can be inductive or deductive.
To be an argument, it must have premises and a conclusion. The premises can
be hidden sometimes.
"Smoking is bad for you." is an argument. It is a conclusion with hidden
premises.
>
> I figure an argument needs to have
> some sort of premise or premises
> and a conclusion. Sort of akin to:
>
> If A, then B.
> A.
> Therefore, B.
This is a particular type of argument, but yes.
Interesting:
If A, then B
B
Therefore A
Invalid.
>
> To say, "It's raining,"
> to my way of thinking,
> is not any sort of argument.
Sure it is. It presupposes hidden premises. "It's raining" is a conclusion.
To come to this conclusion, one has to have premise. Even if it is as simple
as:
Raining is water falling from the sky
Right now, water is falling from the sky
Conclusion: (Right now) Its raining.
>
>>> Assertion: Tao exists.
>>
>> No premise, no argument, no reason.
>> Just faith. If I had to name it, I would call it great.
>
> Then you're talking about Ta Tao or Da Dao.
> In the texts, when the term is used, it may
> or may not be referring to Great Tao.
When I say "Tao exists". I mean The great ultimate. The Tao that can't be
named. This is an article of faith. If you say "No it doesn't". We take our
toys and go home.
>
> Some may argue that there is one
> and only one Tao and it's all the same.
I would argue that the only argument that can be made about the Great Tao is,
The Tao that can be named is not the Great Tao.
I would argue that there are other ways to say this, maybe, it's just a
perspective.
>
> The TTC however, may stipulate that it isn't.
>
> When Cook Ting carved an ox
> was he attuned to or with The Great Tao?
> Or was it just a plain old ordinary Tao?
The mystery and the manifestation meet at the gate.
I'm going to blurt out some bullshit now, they are just words, don't judge me
too harshly.
A plumber has to concentrate when he first learns to use a wrench. After
years of using it he aquires a tacit knowledge. Now when he uses the wrench
it is so familiar to him that he no longer thinks about it. Maybe he jokes
with his apprentice instead. Where did the plumber concentrating on the
correct turning of the wrench go? Is the plumber who turns the wrench
instinctively after 30 years attuned with the tao of plumbing, or the Great
Tao? When there is no apprentice there, maybe he is preoccupied for a time
about his taxes. Then he looks up and the job is done. He may look up along
the way, to consider the tao, or the pipes, or his taxes, but then he goes
back to *it*, and the work is done. Maybe he never left *it*, just looked up.
This is the tao leading to the Tao. After years of concentration stacking
rice, maybe you just look up and its stacked. This is the nature of things,
maybe. Sounds to me like Cook Ting is attuned to the Tao.
Sorry if that stinks, dunno what to tell you not a taoist just a plumber.
>
> Anyway, meanwhile,
> back in the realm of faith,
> Assertion: It's raining.
> Does that entail faith?
It may entail faith, if you believe God caused the rain. But it isn't a faith
statement. It either is or is not raining. If you have a feeling in your
heart that it is raining in Montana, but have no means to verify the claim,
and no premises to conclude upon, then the statement "It's raining in
Montana" is a faith statement.
>> Faith: a belief in something or other. Action, not required.
>
> Semantics.
>
> If you stack the deck
> then most anything is possible.
As you stack a deck you reduce possibilities. The card cheat stacks the deck
to reduce the randomness of the deck. Logic is a stacked deck. It defines
things and narrows them down so that when we relate to one another we can be
meaningful.
>
> Suppose it's wet outside
> and you know that if it's raining
> then it will necessarily be wet.
>
> So, you take an umbrella with you.
> Why did you take an umbrella?
> Cuz you had faith that it was raining.
> Very logical. Maybe a valid thing
> or maybe faulty logic.
Not faith, a deductive argument. When it rains things get wet. Things are
wet. It might be rain.
>
> Maybe the sprinklers were on
> or a pipe broke or something else
> happened to make the ground wet.
This is why the only valid conclusion for such a limited argument is "It
*might* be rain".
> I'm not sure about any sort of "true faith"
I'm not either, I can't imagine why I said that, but there it is.
> nor about Cook Ting's gods. Probably he
> had a few in his kitchen. There is, naturally,
> the kitchen god.
And he hates me.
Sjoerd Bakker
wrote:
>On 16 Feb 2007 10:28:49 -0800, "Legato" <senti...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I am active in the Atheism vs. Christianity group, such an
>>entertaining place to go. One of the many frequent and classic
>>arguments that come up is "How would you know right and wrong, good
>>and evil, without God?"
>>
>>My question is how would you know good and evil with God? A being that
>>constantly contradicts himself, rewrites concrete law, and doesn't
>>shed a tear when he commits genocide on the entire human race (except
>>Noah's family of course).
>
>Does God do any of this?! People are the actors and all is return
>according to universal laws.
To clarify: universal laws that exist regardless of whether they are
created by a God or not. What we see is the laws in action, like if
you make a mistake in car driving, you may get an accident. But is the
fact that car driving is possible a bad thing because of this?!
noname
The way I read it there is a big difference, the way you wrote it
there might not be any at all; wurdz.
noname
>> If you stack the deck
>> then most anything is possible.
>
>As you stack a deck you reduce possibilities. The card cheat stacks the deck
>to reduce the randomness of the deck. Logic is a stacked deck. It defines
>things and narrows them down so that when we relate to one another we can be
>meaningful.
Logic is one of the 10k things that exists within the manifestation
and logic is thus restricted to the manifestation; you can logic your
way here and there within the manifestation, but logic is useless for
application to the mystery, that is a realm apart.
noname
{:-])))
Do you think Zz was a Daoist?
{:-])))
> How about those happy fish platform shoes? Ever see those?
Kinda rings a bell, yes.
I reinvented some wheels yesterday.
{:-])))
> {:-]))) wrote:
>> rc wrote:
>>> {:-]))) wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You can't use logic to argue in the realm of faith.
>>>>
>>>> I can, and did.
>>>> Maybe you can't and don't.
>>>
>>> The word 'hume' comes to mind, then I realize it doesn't actually have
>>> anything to do with what your saying.
>>
>> David?
>
>Yes. Him.
Glad he doesn't have anything
to do with it. I'm not very familiar with him.
>>> You made an assertion. "Getting out of bed requires faith because you don't
>>> know if you'll fly up and hit the ceiling, except that experience has shown
>>> you otherwise."
>>
>> Something like that, yes.
>> And then again, maybe not exactly.
>>
>>> Your not using logic to argue in the realm faith.
>>
>> I'm not sure about, "in the realm."
>> If one is in the realm then one is in the realm.
>
>Good point. I like to separate the realms, there is only one realm. Logic can
>be thought of as a framework within the realm.
So, within the realm of faith
logic can be used? Or it can't be used?
Now I'm confused.
>> I was talking about action.
>>
>> In terms of Taoism, with wu-wei
>> there may not be any faith per se.
>> With spontaneity, it may be a
>> different kind of b'all-game.
>
>What is this spontaneity?
Have you heard of wu-wei?
Some say it means spontaneous action,
without thought or premeditation.
Effortless. It is as if one does nothing,
without-action, as if a thing does itself.
>> But, as with most words,
>> wu-wei can mean lots of stuff.
>>
>>> Your using logic to argue
>>> that faith plays a role in your decisions.
>>
>> The argument is that faith is an action
>> that is based upon belief and sustained
>> by confidence.
>
>This is not an argument, it is a conclusion.
I'd call it an argument.
Conclusions are down the hall.
>The argument must tell me *why*
>faith is an action based upon belief and sustained by confidence.
Given: actions exist.
Given: beliefs exist.
Given: confidence exists.
If you thought you could fly,
if you really really believed it,
if you were confident,
then you might jump off a building.
"Why" did the zealot jump off a building?
Because he had faith that he could fly.
He was confident in his belief and
he took action.
Faith without any action
is simply a belief.
Show me your faith without action.
I've heard of a guy who will show you
his faith by his actions.
> The
>argument incidentally exists. It was written by David. The entire Inquiry is
>an argument for this conclusion, basically.
Too bad I'm not familiar with him.
I skipped Philosophy 101.
>> Logic, to me, suggests that confidence is
>> well, a logical thing to have. It's based on stuff
>> such as experience, or reason. It's reasonable
>> and hence logical. Faith is not necessarily blind
>> but can be very reasonable.
>
>Claims of faith cannot be reasonable.
Of course they can.
I have faith that my car will start.
That's very reasonable. I leave for work
without thinking much about it not starting.
It's an action. I'm confident. It has been
starting pretty good lately. No problem.
I have faith. I turn the key. Vrooom.
I drive away. I have faith
that the tires won't blow up. I go fast.
Zoooom! I have faith in the brakes.
I stop, Errrch. Lots of faith. I have faith
in the other drivers. Hmmm.
>The nameless is the origin, the named
>is the mother of the myriad of things.
Yes.
I'm not sure I see the point though.
>>> This is different thing.
>>
>> Okay.
>>
>>> The statement, 'faith exists', can be argued logically.
>>
>> Okay.
>>
>>> The statement, 'God exists', is a statement of faith,
>>
>> I'd call that an assertion.
>>
>> I can say, "Unicorns exist."
>> It might not have anything to do with faith.
>> Unicorns can exist in lots of ways.
>> Faith is another story.
>
>In what way can a unicorn exist?
I've bought beautiful books
in which there are pictures of them.
They exist on paper. Fantastic! Wonderful!
> By unicorn you mean one of those horses with
>a horn on its head?
Yes. Delightful.
>The myriad continues to manifest.
Faith is said to be lots of stuff.
>>> and cannot be argued logically.
>>
>> If somebody stated that he
>> or she has faith that God exists
>> then I'd ask him or her why.
>>
>> From there, there would be some logic.
>>
>> It might not be persuasive to you
>> and it might depend on lots of stuff.
>> But it would be a logical argument.
>> It might even be a valid argument.
>>
>
>Well thats just it. Persuasive and valid are not equivalent. "I'm going to
>shoot you if you don't give me your wallet", is by definition a fallacy,
It might be a reality.
I don't see the fallacy.
> but
>very persuasive, sometimes.
If you didn't have a gun
then it might be a bluff. If you had
a knife then it might be wierd.
>A valid argument is one in which the premises are true, and so is the
>conclusion.
Hmmm. I'm not so sure about that.
My impression is that validity has to do
with the form.
Here's an example:
1. All cats are reptiles.
2. Bugs Bunny is a cat.
3. So Bugs Bunny is a reptile.
That is said to be a valid argument.
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/validity.html
Soundness might be
the thing you're thinking about.
Technical detail. Maybe.
>>> Consider:
>>>
>>> "The zealot exploded because of his belief in god." Reasonable, arguable
>>> "God told me to go explode" Unreasonable, non-arguable.
>>
>> I'm not sure if any of that is logical.
>> But my logic is a bit rusty.
>
>Sure. The first is actually an argument with hidden premises.
Okay. Maybe.
>> Are you talking about a suicide bomber?
>>
>> I might be thinking of syntactic validity.
>
>Maybe, but context doesn't really matter in the example. Let's say he
>spontaneously exploded one day. Someone might conclude that his belief in God
>caused him to explode. The reason he actually exploded is arguable.
Okay.
>On the other hand, if he told me "God told me to explode". I can't argue
>that. It is a claim of faith. I'd just back up.
I'd say it's as much an argument as the first.
If you're going to say hidden presumptions are
contained in the one, then so too with the other.
Why change horses in mid-stream?
>> If the zealot heard a voice
>> and the voice told him to explode
>> then that is simply how it was. His faith
>> allowed him to kill himself. Very persuasive.
>
>Very persuasive, but not logical.
It was to the zealot.
Maybe you don't agree with his premises.
To you they are not sound, i.e. true.
But to him they were true.
He heard a voice.
His argument was both.
Valid and sound.
So he exploded.
>> In the first instance it was also his faith
>> and in that case you say it is reasonable
>> and arguable. Either way, he's dead.
>
>In the first instance it is an argument pertaining to why he exploded. It can
>be argued that it was caused by his faith in god.
Okay.
>>>>> ... For an assertion to be an argument it must be a conclusion in
>>>>> disguise, with hidden premises.
>>>>
>>>> That's an interesting way to look at it.
>>>
>>> Definitions are interesting things in that they are part in parcel to
>>> logic.
>>> The names that can be named are not the eternal name.
>>
>> Words point to stuff.
>> The fact is, "the zealot exploded."
>> If we say he went, poof, or bang, or
>> vanished into smitherines, it's basically
>> driving at the same thing.
>
>Nail on the head. Words point to stuff. Stuff is the myriad. The Tao that can
>be named is not the eternal Tao. Words don't point there.
I think they do point.
That might be all they can do.
They might not actually go there,
or, then again, they might.
A leap of faith may be required,
or not, as the case may be.
It might depend on how it's looked at.
>> Lots of things might be mutually exclusive.
>> Particularly when seen from an angle
>> or very restrictive pov. On another level
>> things might include each other.
>
>Logic is a restrictive pov, but we have to communicate somehow.
It might be necessary for some things.
Maybe we are communicating here
or maybe just having a conversation.
>This might be
>why religious text often uses emotive language over informative language.
>Metaphor etc...
Lots of ways to get things across.
Rolling up the sleeves can be a
non-verbal type of communication.
Maybe logical. Maybe extreme.
>> I was taking issue with your statement, "You can't
>> use logic to argue in the realm of faith."
>>
>> The mutually exclusive part was extra.
>
>Perhaps it was the word 'realm'. I mean to say, reason can not be used to
>argue the mystery. It is all one realm, maybe. Logic is a framework.
Ah, the mystery.
Maybe we're getting somewhere.
Hmmm.
>>>> Given: this is a Taoist group.
>>>
>>> Your given is premised by definition. Its an argument.
>>
>> I'd call it an axiom, a given.
>>
>
>Ok, but a given is an argument which is so obvious, that it is literally
>given to be true.
I wouldn't call it an argument.
I'd call it an axiom. A fundamental.
It could be called a fact.
A fact is not an argument.
Facts are what arguments are built on.
Ya gotta start somewhere.
>All groups where people discuss taoism are taoist groups.
I wouldn't necessarily say that.
We could argue the point.
>This group discusses taoism.
>Conclusion: This is a taoist group.
I'd say that's backwards.
It's akin to hitching up the cart
in front of the horse. Usually it goes
the other way around. At least
that's the general idea with Usenet.
>> Looks like a step back is in order.
>>
>> How would you define, "argument"?
>
>An argument is a collection of two or more propositions, all but one of which
>are the premises that provide support for the truth of the remaining one, the
>conclusion. The inferential support can be inductive or deductive.
>To be an argument, it must have premises and a conclusion. The premises can
>be hidden sometimes.
>
>"Smoking is bad for you." is an argument. It is a conclusion with hidden
>premises.
I'd just call it a proposition
or an assertion.
Where are the two propositions
which contain the premises?
Maybe you're reading things into it.
>> I figure an argument needs to have
>> some sort of premise or premises
>> and a conclusion. Sort of akin to:
>>
>> If A, then B.
>> A.
>> Therefore, B.
>
>This is a particular type of argument, but yes.
>
>Interesting:
>
>If A, then B
>B
>Therefore A
>Invalid.
True.
>> To say, "It's raining,"
>> to my way of thinking,
>> is not any sort of argument.
>
>Sure it is. It presupposes hidden premises. "It's raining" is a conclusion.
It might be.
Or it might be a fact.
The way you're setting things up
it appears to me as if any statement
could be taken as an argument.
Any subject-verb combo
has a predicate. It is predicated
on some things taken for granted.
Ergo, an argument?
Hmmm.
>To come to this conclusion, one has to have premise. Even if it is as simple
>as:
>
>Raining is water falling from the sky
>Right now, water is falling from the sky
>Conclusion: (Right now) Its raining.
That would be an argument.
>>>> Assertion: Tao exists.
>>>
>>> No premise, no argument, no reason.
>>> Just faith. If I had to name it, I would call it great.
>>
>> Then you're talking about Ta Tao or Da Dao.
>> In the texts, when the term is used, it may
>> or may not be referring to Great Tao.
>
>When I say "Tao exists". I mean The great ultimate.
Okay. I'd call that Tai Chi or Taiji.
Precision may help at times.
> The Tao that can't be named.
I'd call that Wu-ming.
There is a Tao
such that this particular Tao, Ta Tao,
that Tao is always (chang) wu-ming.
>This is an article of faith.
I'd call it an axiom.
> If you say "No it doesn't". We take our
>toys and go home.
Aren't we already home?
>> Some may argue that there is one
>> and only one Tao and it's all the same.
>
>I would argue that the only argument that can be made about the Great Tao is,
>The Tao that can be named is not the Great Tao.
I'd call that a proposition.
The phrase, in Chinese,
can also mean other stuff.
Translations vary.
>I would argue that there are other ways to say this, maybe, it's just a
>perspective.
There are lots of ways to say it.
1. The map is not the territory, etc..
There are also other ways to see
what the saying might be saying.
1. The same river can't be stepped in twice.
Are those equivalent?
>> The TTC however, may stipulate that it isn't.
>>
>> When Cook Ting carved an ox
>> was he attuned to or with The Great Tao?
>> Or was it just a plain old ordinary Tao?
>
>The mystery and the manifestation meet at the gate.
Okay.
>I'm going to blurt out some bullshit now, they are just words, don't judge me
>too harshly.
Okay.
>A plumber has to concentrate when he first learns to use a wrench. After
>years of using it he aquires a tacit knowledge. Now when he uses the wrench
>it is so familiar to him that he no longer thinks about it. Maybe he jokes
>with his apprentice instead. Where did the plumber concentrating on the
>correct turning of the wrench go? Is the plumber who turns the wrench
>instinctively after 30 years attuned with the tao of plumbing, or the Great
>Tao? When there is no apprentice there, maybe he is preoccupied for a time
>about his taxes. Then he looks up and the job is done. He may look up along
>the way, to consider the tao, or the pipes, or his taxes, but then he goes
>back to *it*, and the work is done. Maybe he never left *it*, just looked up.
>This is the tao leading to the Tao. After years of concentration stacking
>rice, maybe you just look up and its stacked. This is the nature of things,
>maybe. Sounds to me like Cook Ting is attuned to the Tao.
>
>Sorry if that stinks, dunno what to tell you not a taoist just a plumber.
Very pleased to meet you!
I'm not a plumber but am a Taoist.
>> Anyway, meanwhile,
>> back in the realm of faith,
>> Assertion: It's raining.
>> Does that entail faith?
>
>It may entail faith, if you believe God caused the rain. But it isn't a faith
>statement. It either is or is not raining.
Hmmm.
Cut and dried for you it is.
I'd not call a drizzle a rain.
Maybe a little. Lots of grey for me.
>If you have a feeling in your
>heart that it is raining in Montana, but have no means to verify the claim,
>and no premises to conclude upon, then the statement "It's raining in
>Montana" is a faith statement.
I suppose it could be
if that is how you define it.
I'd just call it an assertion.
Faith would entail some action.
Semantics can be fun!
>>> Faith: a belief in something or other. Action, not required.
>>
>> Semantics.
>>
>> If you stack the deck
>> then most anything is possible.
>
>As you stack a deck you reduce possibilities. The card cheat stacks the deck
>to reduce the randomness of the deck. Logic is a stacked deck. It defines
>things and narrows them down so that when we relate to one another we can be
>meaningful.
Oar pass the time, a way.
>> Suppose it's wet outside
>> and you know that if it's raining
>> then it will necessarily be wet.
>>
>> So, you take an umbrella with you.
>> Why did you take an umbrella?
>> Cuz you had faith that it was raining.
>> Very logical. Maybe a valid thing
>> or maybe faulty logic.
>
>Not faith, a deductive argument. When it rains things get wet. Things are
>wet. It might be rain.
That wasn't how it went.
It was faith, an action, taking the
umbrella along, cuz it was wet.
>> Maybe the sprinklers were on
>> or a pipe broke or something else
>> happened to make the ground wet.
>
>This is why the only valid conclusion for such a limited argument is "It
>*might* be rain".
It was logical
and it was faith.
>> I'm not sure about any sort of "true faith"
>
>I'm not either, I can't imagine why I said that, but there it is.
And there ya go.
>> nor about Cook Ting's gods. Probably he
>> had a few in his kitchen. There is, naturally,
>> the kitchen god.
>
>And he hates me.
Really?
That's too bad.
Sorry to hear about it.
[snip remainder
for the sake of brevity, ha!]
rc
(in article <5iogt2leokftgo4np...@4ax.com>):
Hehe. Yeah, Whenever I try, it always comes out the same.
rc
(in article <l4igt2dqjoehe7o25...@4ax.com>):
Yes thank you. Thats concisely what I was thinking. Thinking, using logic of
course.
rc
(in article <trhgt21r4599s59dm...@4ax.com>):
An inexperienced skydiver stands in the door of a plane constantly reminding
himself, logically, why the chute will open and why he won't die by jumping.
An experienced skydiver has already been through this ritual many times. He
plants his feet where they go and just jumps. The chute opens or doesn't. If
it doesn't he is no longer skydiving, he is falling to his death. This to is
a distinction of things. If he is as good at falling to his death as he is at
skydiving, he will do this with no mind also. No mind, no matter.
rc
(in article <64egt2547gng5sh0c...@4ax.com>):
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 17:14:10 +0100, Sjoerd Bakker <sba...@home.nl>
> wrote:
>
>> On 16 Feb 2007 10:28:49 -0800, "Legato" <senti...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am active in the Atheism vs. Christianity group, such an
>>> entertaining place to go. One of the many frequent and classic
>>> arguments that come up is "How would you know right and wrong, good
>>> and evil, without God?"
>>>
>>> My question is how would you know good and evil with God? A being that
>>> constantly contradicts himself, rewrites concrete law, and doesn't
>>> shed a tear when he commits genocide on the entire human race (except
>>> Noah's family of course).
>>
>> Does God do any of this?! People are the actors and all is return
>> according to universal laws.
>
> To clarify: universal laws that exist regardless of whether they are
> created by a God or not. What we see is the laws in action, like if
> you make a mistake in car driving, you may get an accident. But is the
> fact that car driving is possible a bad thing because of this?!
>
To further clarify: The laws don't exist. Which is to say the laws exist but
they don't. Paradoxes don't exist in nature, but only in the mind. Which is
to say that the mind may exist only in the mind since its a paradox. Of
course, if the mind exists, surely it exists in nature as is the case with
existent things.
See? Crystal Clear. Now that we can move on, lets talk about fishing?
I've never been a fisherman in the sense that a fisherman casts a hook in the
water wanting to catch fish. I always wind up being a fisherman in the sense
of standing on a river bank with a crooked stick wanting to get drunk. I
really wish I could find someone to show me how to fish. I keep messing it
up.
stumper
Of course.
--
~Stumper
{:-])))
>stumper wrote:
>>{:-]))) wrote:
>>> stumper wrote:
>>>
>>>> Was Zhuangzi a Daoist?
>>>
>>> I'd say he was.
>>> Probably as much as Laozi
>>> and as much as Liezi.
>>>
>>> Tis a quibble, no?
>>
>>A Daoist would not bother.
I'm a Daoist, and I bother.
>Games.
Cud be I'm not a Real Daoist.
{:-])))
> sc...@the.ed-line wrote
>> nos...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> How about those happy fish platform shoes? Ever see those?
>>
>> Kinda rings a bell, yes.
>>
>> I reinvented some wheels yesterday.
>
>Hehe. Yeah, Whenever I try, it always comes out the same.
I reinvented one today that was very cool.
Chrome on the outside with a bearing in the middle
plus it even had a cap on it. Other ones were
mostly rubber bands and paper.
-milage varies
Sjoerd Bakker
>On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 05:35:25 -0600, Sjoerd Bakker wrote
>(in article <64egt2547gng5sh0c...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 17:14:10 +0100, Sjoerd Bakker <sba...@home.nl>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 16 Feb 2007 10:28:49 -0800, "Legato" <senti...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am active in the Atheism vs. Christianity group, such an
>>>> entertaining place to go. One of the many frequent and classic
>>>> arguments that come up is "How would you know right and wrong, good
>>>> and evil, without God?"
>>>>
>>>> My question is how would you know good and evil with God? A being that
>>>> constantly contradicts himself, rewrites concrete law, and doesn't
>>>> shed a tear when he commits genocide on the entire human race (except
>>>> Noah's family of course).
>>>
>>> Does God do any of this?! People are the actors and all is return
>>> according to universal laws.
>>
>> To clarify: universal laws that exist regardless of whether they are
>> created by a God or not. What we see is the laws in action, like if
>> you make a mistake in car driving, you may get an accident. But is the
>> fact that car driving is possible a bad thing because of this?!
>>
>
>To further clarify: The laws don't exist. Which is to say the laws exist but
>they don't.
Gravity seems to exist real enough. Lose your balance on a ladder and
you may break your neck. Things like that seem to happen frequently.
Legato seems to be asking if accidents like these rule out the
existence of God. My vision on this is that they don't, but that the
question is not very relevant because you have to live with the laws
of nature either way.
> Paradoxes don't exist in nature, but only in the mind. Which is
>to say that the mind may exist only in the mind since its a paradox. Of
>course, if the mind exists, surely it exists in nature as is the case with
>existent things.
>
>See? Crystal Clear. Now that we can move on, lets talk about fishing?
>
>I've never been a fisherman in the sense that a fisherman casts a hook in the
>water wanting to catch fish. I always wind up being a fisherman in the sense
>of standing on a river bank with a crooked stick wanting to get drunk. I
>really wish I could find someone to show me how to fish. I keep messing it
>up.
:-).
noname
noname
If a guy used springs instead of spokes, he might have an interesting
ride.
noname
Should that matter?
noname
Maybe if you asked in exactly the right way, the guy who set the thing
up would change the rules just for you. You might have to come up
with a sort of business case for the change, something that shows why
the new way is better all around than the old way. Or not, who knows.
Sjoerd Bakker
My point really is that what seems bad may not be bad at all, seen
from another perspective. Any disadvantage has its advantages because
we will always manifest according to who we are most of all. Can't be
any other way.
{:-])))
> rc <nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>To further clarify: The laws don't exist.
>>Which is to say the laws exist but they don't.
>
>Gravity seems to exist real enough.
"Seems" being the operative word.
> Lose your balance on a ladder and
>you may break your neck. Things like that seem to happen frequently.
The explanation for why,
the "law" that explains it, is a way, a tao.
It is a spoken way, a map, so to speak.
However,
while an explanation explains,
it is not always "the" explanation.
Gravity, according to another view,
does not exist at all. There is no such thing.
The law of attraction "appears" or "seems"
to be the case, but more accurately, space is
curved. Mass curves space.
Such an explanation serves better
when dealing with things the other way
is unable to explain.
Gravity is a kind of myth.
Curvature could be said to exist.
But this too, is another "explanation"
which may not be always nor constant over time.
Another map, a more accurate one,
may be drawn in the future.
Such is one interpretation, or view,
of the beginning of the Tao Te Ching.
Ways can be told, but the ways said
are not constant, forever, eternal, etc..
The names given to things change.
Maps are drawn and redrawn.
>Legato seems to be asking if accidents like these rule out the
>existence of God. My vision on this is that they don't, but that the
>question is not very relevant because you have to live with the laws
>of nature either way.
Falling off a ladder can be real.
Exactly why it happened is another story.
The manifestation, the names, are outlines.
An undifferentiated unity is essentially
that from which all cut-outs are made.
Two sides of a coin.
There is also an edge.
Taoism does not necessarily preclude
nor exclude the existence of a god, God, or gods.
But the text does say Tao is prior to Ti.
Sjoerd Bakker
wrote:
Yes, but practically you have to take gravity into account if you want
to avoid accidents. I don't see much reason to take a theoretical,
philosophical approach here. The question is clear enough: why does a
presupposed God allow "bad" things to happen.
>
>Another map, a more accurate one,
>may be drawn in the future.
>
>Such is one interpretation, or view,
>of the beginning of the Tao Te Ching.
>
>Ways can be told, but the ways said
>are not constant, forever, eternal, etc..
>
>The names given to things change.
>Maps are drawn and redrawn.
>
>>Legato seems to be asking if accidents like these rule out the
>>existence of God. My vision on this is that they don't, but that the
>>question is not very relevant because you have to live with the laws
>>of nature either way.
>
>Falling off a ladder can be real.
>Exactly why it happened is another story.
Yes, a good point. That's also the laws in action and one could argue
that nothing really happens by accident or by evil will.
>
>The manifestation, the names, are outlines.
>An undifferentiated unity is essentially
>that from which all cut-outs are made.
>
>Two sides of a coin.
>There is also an edge.
>
>Taoism does not necessarily preclude
>nor exclude the existence of a god, God, or gods.
>
>But the text does say Tao is prior to Ti.
--
________________________________________
Sjoerd Bakker
________________________________________
noname
"Can't" is a large word.
You said, "we will always manifest according to who we are most of
all". It sounds as if there is an unstated assumption that there is
no thrid-party involvement.
{:-])))
>"{:-])))" <sc...@the.ed-line> wrote:
>>I reinvented one today that was very cool.
>>Chrome on the outside with a bearing in the middle
>>plus it even had a cap on it. Other ones were
>>mostly rubber bands and paper.
>If a guy used springs instead of spokes,
>he might have an interesting ride.
Definitely.
Thirty springs are joined
at a center that keeps bouncing.
Can it really be called a center
if it keeps changing all the time?
Still,
there is an emptiness
in which an axle spins
without which the wheel
might not go quite as far,
in a manner or speaking.
-reminds me of the BC comics.
http://www.usc.edu/hsc/dental/images_media/thor.jpg
http://www.unicycle.uk.com/shop/shopdisplayproduct.asp?catalogid=786
http://tlb.org/eunicycle.html
Sjoerd Bakker
I am who I am. How can I not manifest according to who I am?! If I
have an accident, it is a dramatic manifestation of my personality
related to what's around me. No need to blame anyone or anything.
{:-])))
>{:-]))) wrote:
>>noname wrote:
>>>stumper wrote:
>>>>{:-]))) wrote:
>>>>> stumper wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Was Zhuangzi a Daoist?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd say he was.
>>>>> Probably as much as Laozi
>>>>> and as much as Liezi.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tis a quibble, no?
>>>>
>>>>A Daoist would not bother.
>>
>>I'm a Daoist, and I bother.
>>
>>>Games.
>>
>>Cud be I'm not a Real Daoist.
>
>Should that matter?
In the game of words
some folks over generalize.
When Stumper said, "A Daoist ..."
I guess that doesn't mean, "all Daoists"
nor "no Daoists."
A Daoist would bother.
A Daoist would not bother.
Zz quibbled.
That doesn't make him not a Daoist.
He was simply one that enjoyed
debate and argument with his friend.
-totally useless
noname
It seems like we have had different experiences. I am all the time
being led around by the hand. By myself I am too dumb to come in out
of the rain almost. The smartest thing I have done in this life is to
learn how to recognize when I'm being prompted, warned, banged upside
the head. Perhaps I have some "higher self" that is smarter than me,
or maybe some "third party" takes pity on me. Something else is
involved though.
{:-])))
> jb wrote:
>> sb wrote:
>>> rc wrote:
>>
>>>>To further clarify: The laws don't exist.
>>>>Which is to say the laws exist but they don't.
>>>
>>>Gravity seems to exist real enough.
>>
>>"Seems" being the operative word.
>>while an explanation explains,
>>it is not always "the" explanation.
>>
>>Gravity, according to another view,
>>does not exist at all. There is no such thing.
>>Gravity is a kind of myth.
>>Curvature could be said to exist.
>>
>>But this too, is another "explanation"
>>which may not be always nor constant over time.
>
>Yes, but practically
>you have to take gravity into account
>if you want to avoid accidents.
We call it gravity by convention.
It's a convenience. A word used
to communicate the idea that trips
and falls happen all too often.
Be safe, be careful,
or Gravity will get you.
It will knock you down to size.
If you have a persecution complex
you might think Gravity is out to get you.
Why me? What did I do to deserve this?
> I don't see much reason to take a theoretical,
>philosophical approach here.
Communication can get tricky.
>The question is clear enough: why does a
>presupposed God allow "bad" things to happen.
Cuz he's a jealous God.
Says so right here in the book.
Exodus 20:5, 34:14, plus in
Deuteronomy, Josiah, Kings,
Ezekiel, Joel, Nathan, Zechariah,
and, of course, Corinthians.
From another pov,
in order to have a hero
there must be some catastrophic
evil taking place, a disaster
or nefarious villain.
To be good, for there to be good,
in order for there to be good,
there must be not-good
or bad or evil.
If God wants to be good,
or kind or loving, etc., then there must
be something else that is no-good,
unkind, and less than full of love,
maybe even wicked, hateful, etc..
The more and better on the one side,
the more and worse on the other side.
Such is how a few paradigms may spin.
Two nickels and ten pennies. Take a pick.
Take apart. See how things are and go.
>>>Legato seems to be asking if accidents like these rule out the
>>>existence of God. My vision on this is that they don't, but that the
>>>question is not very relevant because you have to live with the laws
>>>of nature either way.
>>
>>Falling off a ladder can be real.
>>Exactly why it happened is another story.
>
>Yes, a good point. That's also the laws in action and one could argue
>that nothing really happens by accident or by evil will.
A view is a view.
Some views are mytho-logical, e.g. gravity.
Some are based in other logic.
It might be a mystery
as to why good and not-good
arise mutually and depend on each other.
-oar knots
Sjoerd Bakker
It's probably only the one hand clapping. Maybe you're zen-buddhist.
But I think that the personality is something to be proud of.
Personality is very different from ego.
shazi
>To further clarify: The laws don't exist. Which is to say the laws exist but
>they don't. Paradoxes don't exist in nature, but only in the mind. Which is
>to say that the mind may exist only in the mind since its a paradox. Of
>course, if the mind exists, surely it exists in nature as is the case with
>existent things.
some might say that paradox is dao.
in the cyclic nature of things
this becomes that and that reverts to this
opposite poles chase each other around a pivot.
is it the mind that makes it so?
or is the mind merely a place to trap nothingness?
-shazi
Sjoerd Bakker
wrote:
The mind is just a tool to perceive reality. I see no paradox here.
The laws of nature don't become less real because ultimately nothing
may exist outside of the mind. We have to deal with the laws and can't
escape from them. I don't see many problems with that either. You may
not always like the sun, but it is very useful.
{:-])))
>rc <nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>To further clarify: The laws don't exist. Which is to say the laws exist but
>>they don't. Paradoxes don't exist in nature, but only in the mind. Which is
>>to say that the mind may exist only in the mind since its a paradox. Of
>>course, if the mind exists, surely it exists in nature as is the case with
>>existent things.
>
>some might say that paradox is dao.
Does (or do) dao contain dao?
>in the cyclic nature of things
>this becomes that and that reverts to this
>opposite poles chase each other around a pivot.
>
>is it the mind that makes it so?
Do mirrors exist in nature?
>or is the mind merely a place to trap nothingness?
Between two mirrors
One may reflect
Being full of emptiness
>-shazi
-contented
{:-])))
>shazi wrote:
>>rc wrote:
>>
>>>To further clarify: The laws don't exist. Which is to say the laws exist but
>>>they don't. Paradoxes don't exist in nature, but only in the mind. Which is
>>>to say that the mind may exist only in the mind since its a paradox. Of
>>>course, if the mind exists, surely it exists in nature as is the case with
>>>existent things.
>>
>>some might say that paradox is dao.
>>in the cyclic nature of things
>>this becomes that and that reverts to this
>>opposite poles chase each other around a pivot.
>>
>>is it the mind that makes it so?
>>
>>or is the mind merely a place to trap nothingness?
>
>The mind is just a tool to perceive reality.
I've tried to look, to perceive, the infinity
that appears when two mirrors are bouncing
images within each other. A problem however
seems to be that my head gets in the way.
>I see no paradox here.
Maybe my head is simply too big.
>The laws of nature don't become less real because ultimately nothing
>may exist outside of the mind.
It's weird cuz the mirrors go far,
they keep going back, and back,
and froth. Or maybe it's the light.
>We have to deal with the laws and can't
>escape from them.
When I take my head out of the picture,
then I can't see the mirrors reflecting each
other either. Maybe if I use a camera?
>I don't see many problems with that either. You may
>not always like the sun, but it is very useful.
Pretty pictures may be useless
but still, very still, provide shade
when held above one's head.
noname
>or is the mind merely a place to trap nothingness?
Lint. It's for collecting lint. Let me know if you're ever short on
lint, plenty here to share with friends.
Sjoerd Bakker
wrote:
>sjoerd wrote:
>>shazi wrote:
>>>rc wrote:
>>>
>>>>To further clarify: The laws don't exist. Which is to say the laws exist but
>>>>they don't. Paradoxes don't exist in nature, but only in the mind. Which is
>>>>to say that the mind may exist only in the mind since its a paradox. Of
>>>>course, if the mind exists, surely it exists in nature as is the case with
>>>>existent things.
>>>
>>>some might say that paradox is dao.
>>>in the cyclic nature of things
>>>this becomes that and that reverts to this
>>>opposite poles chase each other around a pivot.
>>>
>>>is it the mind that makes it so?
>>>
>>>or is the mind merely a place to trap nothingness?
>>
>>The mind is just a tool to perceive reality.
>
>I've tried to look, to perceive, the infinity
>that appears when two mirrors are bouncing
>images within each other.
Is that not scientifically explainable?! I think it is.
>A problem however
>seems to be that my head gets in the way.
Yes, and the eyes don't see far enough for that. Just a physical
limitation.
rc
(in article <n8pit2l3lpf92sb5m...@4ax.com>):
Maybe. Maybe not. Paradoxes exist in the mind and not in nature, probably.
It's true that little g is 32 feet per second. But it's not, maybe.
rc
(in article <cu6jt2tnfbh1s1lle...@4ax.com>):
Probably not. Unless it is the whole of it and you were unaware.
rc
(in article <f75mt25bmh6b5jtec...@4ax.com>):
> shazi <shazi....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> or is the mind merely a place to trap nothingness?
>
> Lint. It's for collecting lint. Let me know if you're ever short on
> lint, plenty here to share with friends.
>
>
I've never had lint. Perhaps mine is to shallow?
rc
(in article <g27jt2hflkls4s1g2...@4ax.com>):
Not to me, I could care less if he's a real daoist.
rc
(in article <sekjt2lrffvjrooqc...@4ax.com>):
The question is unclear, were it clear, it would not be asked. Which is a
fairly sound interpretation of your question, psychodynamically. Considering
we are relying on logical scientific frameworks here. t
So the question is. What part is unclear to you?
The God Bad Thing Happen question is not logically sound because it is so
rife with metaphysical presupposition. For instance, if I answer "Because you
have no idea what good and bad are, and the whole point that god intends is
for you to figure it out"., would be equally, but appropriately a bullshit
answer. Logically that is.
If you want to know why water is wet, ask a scientist. If you want to know
why water is wet, well now thats a different story.
rc
(in article <s46mt2l0glb7qdfr8...@4ax.com>):
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 06:29:18 -0800, "{:-])))" <sc...@the.ed-line>
> wrote:
>
>> sjoerd wrote:
>>> shazi wrote:
>>>> rc wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> To further clarify: The laws don't exist. Which is to say the laws exist
>>>>> but
>>>>> they don't. Paradoxes don't exist in nature, but only in the mind. Which
>>>>> is
>>>>> to say that the mind may exist only in the mind since its a paradox. Of
>>>>> course, if the mind exists, surely it exists in nature as is the case
>>>>> with
>>>>> existent things.
>>>>
>>>> some might say that paradox is dao.
>>>> in the cyclic nature of things
>>>> this becomes that and that reverts to this
>>>> opposite poles chase each other around a pivot.
>>>>
>>>> is it the mind that makes it so?
>>>>
>>>> or is the mind merely a place to trap nothingness?
>>>
>>> The mind is just a tool to perceive reality.
>>
>> I've tried to look, to perceive, the infinity
>> that appears when two mirrors are bouncing
>> images within each other.
>
> Is that not scientifically explainable?! I think it is.
To some extent.
>
>
>> A problem however
>> seems to be that my head gets in the way.
>
> Yes, and the eyes don't see far enough for that. Just a physical
> limitation.
You won't find the answer your looking for here, there.
>
>
rc
(in article <o6mjt2pc596sok3uh...@4ax.com>):
Sounds like a stated identity crisis to me.
rc
(in article <e4ojt25faflqb0skp...@4ax.com>):
Can you teach me how to realize when I am being banged upside the head? No
really. I notice other people getting banged upside the head, but I'm to dumb
to realize it for myself sometimes.
rc
(in article <vqojt25ar4k0g7r0b...@4ax.com>):
What country you from Sjoerd?
rc
(in article <3p0mt29qtg7dkighc...@4ax.com>):
> shazi <shazi....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> rc <nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> To further clarify: The laws don't exist. Which is to say the laws exist
>>> but
>>> they don't. Paradoxes don't exist in nature, but only in the mind. Which
>>> is
>>> to say that the mind may exist only in the mind since its a paradox. Of
>>> course, if the mind exists, surely it exists in nature as is the case with
>>> existent things.
>>
>> some might say that paradox is dao.
>
> Does (or do) dao contain dao?
Is god the big daddy, or is god everything?
Sjoerd Bakker
Exactly, so why bother at all?! We've got a life to live and that can
be complicated as it is without what's there. I can understand why
people would want to blame a God for anything that seems wrong, but we
probably have a limited perception of what's going on anyway so we can
never be sure that our judgments are correct.
noname
Wurdz agin. The brain is part of the manifestation. The thinking
mind as embodied by the brain is part of the manifestation. If I was
the scholarly type I could spew some chinese words like "te" and
"shen" and maybe get some sense of it across, but I don't speak
chinese. I'll just settle for your "probably not" and shrug about the
rest.
noname
Nor to me, I'm not a real daoist myself, I have no lineage of teachers
and no certificates to prove that I'm a "real" anything.
noname
Your "mind" is having a "conversation" with "the world" and it (not
you) recognizes where the conversation is headed and decides to change
the subject on you; you get interrupted by some "external" event. The
trick is to keep track of your last 6-10 thoughts and be able to
backtrack to see when/where your thoughts headed to a place that
needed a change of subject. Just a little practice and you'll be
listening to the voices in jet engines and baying at the moon, or
maybe receiving medication in a mental instution -- pinch the nurse
and tell her "Hi!" from me.
noname
It's easy to say clever things when you think you have a grasp of the
situation; by that I'm not trying to attack you rc, just saying hang
on, depending on how SB means those words, he could be pretty close to
precisely correct. The phrase "identity crisis" has a meaning in
general use, but if you ever want to get from the place where you
function as a normal member of society to the place where qi qi guai
guai is old hat, I can pretty much guarantee you some identity crises
along the way.
noname
To me, those sound like what I call "bullshit logic noises". What
makes you silly enough to assume that "we are relying on logical
scientific frameworks here"? Run the TTC through your "logic"
analyzer for a while and see how long it takes it to melt down.
>So the question is. What part is unclear to you?
>
>The God Bad Thing Happen question is not logically sound because it is so
>rife with metaphysical presupposition. For instance, if I answer "Because you
>have no idea what good and bad are, and the whole point that god intends is
>for you to figure it out"., would be equally, but appropriately a bullshit
>answer. Logically that is.
>
>If you want to know why water is wet, ask a scientist. If you want to know
>why water is wet, well now thats a different story.
Fuck "metaphysical presupposition", it's more logic bullshit talk.
The question is clear: why would an omnipotent/omniscient being allow
"bad" things to happen. The answer is simple enough: (a) people are
so fucking stupid they need to be banged upside the head once in a
while, and (b) if such a being is really omnipotent then making the
bad things go away after the stupid human has figured things out is an
exercise in triviality.
noname
Paradoxes exist where you find them, in the mind, AND in nature. BUT
the meaning of a paradox is not limited to what we have commonly
defined as "nature" because "nature" is nothing more than the
manifestation, the 10k things, it is NOT the whole deal. It's easy to
win at poker when you wear glasses that let you see a picture of the
other guy's cards broadcast by the camera behind his shoulder, then
you can see more of the whole deal. When you relegate yourself to a
restricted portion of what exists, you need to expect to run into some
paradoxes and contradictions from time to time, they're there to point
out that you are only looking at part of the picture.
noname
There is a place that can be reached where you can become much more
sure that your perceptions are correct for the simple reason that they
are not causing you to be banged in the head as the doors of the world
close in your face. To reach that place, or at least to become closer
to it, there is a simple Tao (one meaning of "tao" is "path") to
follow.
noname
Perhaps there's so much lint that the only way you can function is to
perceive it out of the way.
Sjoerd Bakker
What do you think I am doing?!
noname
I have no idea what you're doing SB, from time to time I've gotten the
impression that you could be into crystal-power. <g>
You seem to have a NL = Netherlands address there, is English a native
language for you?
Sjoerd Bakker
I actually do have a crystal, but I don't think that it stands in the
way of the Tao.
{:-])))
>shazi <shazi....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>or is the mind merely a place to trap nothingness?
>
>Lint. It's for collecting lint. Let me know if you're ever short on
>lint, plenty here to share with friends.
Is the mind in the belly button?
Or is the belly button in the mind?
{:-])))
> {:-])))wrote:
>> sjoerd wrote:
>>> shazi wrote:
>>>> rc wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>To further clarify: The laws don't exist. Which is to say the laws exist but
>>>>>they don't. Paradoxes don't exist in nature, but only in the mind. Which is
>>>>>to say that the mind may exist only in the mind since its a paradox. Of
>>>>>course, if the mind exists, surely it exists in nature as is the case with
>>>>>existent things.
>>>>
>>>>some might say that paradox is dao.
>>>>in the cyclic nature of things
>>>>this becomes that and that reverts to this
>>>>opposite poles chase each other around a pivot.
>>>>
>>>>is it the mind that makes it so?
>>>>
>>>>or is the mind merely a place to trap nothingness?
>>>
>>>The mind is just a tool to perceive reality.
>>
>>I've tried to look, to perceive, the infinity
>>that appears when two mirrors are bouncing
>>images within each other.
>
>Is that not scientifically explainable?! I think it is.
I think it is too.
>>A problem however
>>seems to be that my head gets in the way.
>
>Yes, and the eyes don't see far enough for that.
>Just a physical limitation.
Maybe it was a metaphor.
{:-])))
>>> "{:-])))" <sc...@the.ed-line> wrote:
>>>> A problem however
>>>> seems to be that my head gets in the way.
>>>
>>> Yes, and the eyes don't see far enough for that. Just a physical
>>> limitation.
>>
>>You won't find the answer your looking for here, there.
>
>Exactly, so why bother at all?!
Because it can be fun!!!!
>We've got a life to live and that can
>be complicated as it is without what's there.
If life wasn't complicated
then things would have to be invented
in order to make life complicated.
> I can understand why
>people would want to blame a God for anything that seems wrong, but we
>probably have a limited perception of what's going on anyway so we can
>never be sure that our judgments are correct.
If an individual has, or is,
an immortal soul, be it by identification
with the entire cosmos or any other way,
then there really is no problem.
What appears to be very dramatic,
tragic, complicated, etc., is simply life,
stardust, a play, a movie, fun, fun, fun!!!!!
Sjoerd Bakker
wrote:
>sjoerd wrote:
If you think the head gets in the way, that's probably the head
tinking as well?! So I wonder what's the validity of that.
{:-])))
>On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 03:02:39 -0600, Sjoerd Bakker wrote
>(in article <n8pit2l3lpf92sb5m...@4ax.com>):
>> Gravity seems to exist real enough. Lose your balance on a ladder and
>> you may break your neck. Things like that seem to happen frequently.
>> Legato seems to be asking if accidents like these rule out the
>> existence of God. My vision on this is that they don't, but that the
>> question is not very relevant because you have to live with the laws
>> of nature either way.
>
>Maybe. Maybe not. Paradoxes exist in the mind and not in nature, probably.
>It's true that little g is 32 feet per second. But it's not, maybe.
Probably it's 32'/sec at some place on Earth.
On Mars or Jupiter or the Sun or Moon it might
be a little less or more, or much more or less.
If that is true, then what is it really?
Does it really exist as a constant, eternal,
immortal, measurement or way?
If it's given a name,
does that mean it's the same
in all instances everywhere?
{:-])))
>Paradoxes exist where you find them, in the mind, AND in nature. BUT
>the meaning of a paradox is not limited to what we have commonly
>defined as "nature" because "nature" is nothing more than the
>manifestation, the 10k things, it is NOT the whole deal.
It isn't?
You mean, there's more? Much more?
How much more? Does it ever end?
> It's easy to
>win at poker when you wear glasses that let you see a picture of the
>other guy's cards broadcast by the camera behind his shoulder, then
>you can see more of the whole deal. When you relegate yourself to a
>restricted portion of what exists, you need to expect to run into some
>paradoxes and contradictions from time to time, they're there to point
>out that you are only looking at part of the picture.
Can a picture exist
without something it's drawn on?
-just curio
shoppinging a round
in a bamboo grove
{:-])))
>rc <nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> noname wrote:
>>> "{:-])))" <sc...@the.ed-line> wrote:
>>>> noname wrote:
>>>>> stumper wrote:
>>>>>> {:-]))) wrote:
>>>>>>> stumper wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Was Zhuangzi a Daoist?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd say he was.
>>>>>>> Probably as much as Laozi
>>>>>>> and as much as Liezi.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tis a quibble, no?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A Daoist would not bother.
>>>>
>>>> I'm a Daoist, and I bother.
>>>>
>>>>> Games.
>>>>
>>>> Cud be I'm not a Real Daoist.
>>>
>>> Should that matter?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Not to me, I could care less if he's a real daoist.
>
>Nor to me, I'm not a real daoist myself, I have no lineage of teachers
>and no certificates to prove that I'm a "real" anything.
Are you any sort of daoist?
-checking mings
en passant