Why did YHWH Allah (LORD God) pick Hele Stone for Hiding his Tabernacle? Hele is to hide or conceal; keep secret; cover.

[Garry Denke]

Why did YHWH Allah (LORD God) pick Hele Stone to Hide his Tabernacle?
Hele is to hide or conceal; keep secret; cover.

http://boards.4channel.org/his/thread/14080315
https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/14080315
http://archived.moe/his/thread/14080315

[Return] [Catalog] [Bottom]0 / 0 / 1 / 1 [Update] [Auto]
File: Dan7 Ez1 Rev4 Cow248.gif (853 KB, 1024x1024)
853 KB
Anonymous 10/17/22(Mon)05:05:18 No.14080315▶
Why did YHWH Allah (LORD God) pick Hele Stone to Hide his Tabernacle?

Hele is to hide or conceal; keep secret; cover.
[Post a Reply][Return] [Catalog] [Top] 0 / 0 / 1 / 1[Update] [Auto]

http://boards.4channel.org/his/thread/14080315
https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/14080315
http://archived.moe/his/thread/14080315

DI

https://groups.google.com/g/soc.history.ancient/c/I-_OotMjVKk
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.archaeology/c/QEZDX5Ob6xE
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.archaeology/c/6dpn_QGJqfY
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.archeology/c/wsnLDMRPfb8
https://groups.google.com/g/anti-theism/c/K86O86o21Ag
https://groups.google.com/g/antitheism/c/_bGqVooWPn4
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.atheism/c/U-uO85oBO9c
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.atheism/c/T-XoB6JJiRE

G-D

[Jeffrey Rubard]

What the hell is this doing in a Taoism newsgroup?
"They're not that different, you know."
Does *anybody* know that? I think Chinese people are under a different impression...

[Jeffrey Rubard]

More Non-Taoism: Allah isn't Jehovah. ("Have you visited Planet Earth before?")

[one]

Jeff defined axiomatically:

> Allah isn't Jehovah.

For some believers in a deity they call, God,
there is one and only one God who has many names
among which are Allah and YHWH, aka, Jehovah
when anthropomorphized as who is as is
and shall be as shall be.

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

<< the common Arabic word for God >>

<< The pre-Islamic Arabs worshipped a supreme deity whom they called
Allah, alongside other lesser deities. Muhammad used the word Allah
to indicate the Islamic conception of God. >>

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

<< the proper name of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible/Old
Testament. The Tetragrammaton is considered one of the seven names
of God in Judaism and one of the names of God in Christianity. >>

Tao, otoh, in Tao Chia, is not any sort of deity and,
assuming there exists a Supreme Being, Lord on High, Ti
would be its name. Tao is prior to Ti ontologically.

- thanks! Cheers!

[aye]

one wrote:

> Tao is prior to Ti ontologically.

DDJ 4, speaking of Dao,
using pinyin romanization reads:

http://www.wuwei.org/Taoism/taochinese.html

<< dao chang,
...
...
wu bu zhi shui zhi zi,
xiang di zhi xian. >>

http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap04.htm#top

<< It is older than the concept of God. >> - World

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

<< It is the forefather of the gods. >> - Feng

Interpretations, words being such as they argh,
subject to opinion seeing as they mean what
ever a translator chooses to name them
as meaning being God, gods and sew
froth as long as they wave, vary.

Some versions have the word, di, aka Ti,
meaning a different meaning as they sew chose.

<< before the creation of images. >> - Cleary

<< It is before the emperor of signs! >> - Hansen

<< An image of what existed before God. >> - Lin Yutang

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

Hatcher has the word, di (ti) meaning:

<< divinity; the divine, supreme sovereign; gods >>

Words often have connotations. Tao, for example, connotes
various meanings to various readers of the logogram.

Hatcher's matrix has, for dao:

<< way, path, course; process, truth; nature >>

To say there is one and only one meaning of a word
such as Tao sounds rather like dogmatic Confucianism
and not really very Taoistic, imo.

- aye. thanks again! Cheers!

[one]

aye wrote:
>one wrote:
>
>> Tao is prior to Ti ontologically.
>
>DDJ 4, speaking of Dao,

>http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap04.htm#top
>
><< It is older than the concept of God. >> - World
>
>https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html
>
><< It is the forefather of the gods. >> - Feng

><< An image of what existed before God. >> - Lin Yutang

Aye, Chef Ting's Tao and Hunchy Bugcatcher's Tao may
be said to be the exact same one and only one Tao t'hat
is the same as a Confucian Tao with which Tao Chia is
seen as contrasting among the many Tao that argh.

- being vorpal and such knots ... Cheers!

[aye]

Well one may speak of a Tao that is the Tao eh.

In Fung Yu-lan's, _Short History_, he writes of Neo-Taoism
and Kuo Hsiang/Hsiang Kuo who edited the 52 chapters
of the Chuang-tzu down to 33 received today.

Neo-Taoists, according to Fung, saw Tao as Wu, Nothing
or Nonbeing t'hat was from which Being emerged and/or
from which the One was born of their Tao.

https://viden.io/index.php/knowledge/26473/file/attachments/46075

<< according to the
Hsiang-Kuo interpretation, the Tao is really literally nothing. "The
Tao is everywhere, but everywhere it is nothing." (Commentary on the
Chuang-tzu, ch. 6.)

The same text says: "In existence, what is prior to things? We say
that the Yin and Yang are prior to things. But the Yin and Yang
are themselves things; what then, is prior to the Yin and Yang? We
may say that Tzu Jan [nature or naturalness] is prior to things. But
Tzu Jan is simply the naturalness or things. Or we may say that the
Tao is prior to things. But the Tao is nothing. Since it is nothing,
how can it be prior to things? >>

<< The Tao is "Nothing"

The Hsiang-Kuo interpretation
made several most important revisions
in the original Taoism of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu. The first
is that the Tao is really Wu, i.e., "nothing" or "nothingness."
Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu also had maintained that the Tao is Wu,
but by Wu they meant having no name. That is, according to them,
the Tao is not a thing; hence it is unnamable. But according to the
Hsiang-Kuo interpretation, the Tao is really literally nothing.
"The Tao is everywhere, but everywhere it is nothing."
(Commentary on the Chuang-tzu, ch. 6.) >>

Reminds one of space. It's every where and makes room
for all things naturally without a mind nor any care.

Some body such as Jeff might insist it's the one and only
one thing or non-thing and go from there going no where
until he finds an elf here in a bamboo grove naturally.

Why is a different story.

- thanks again! Cheers!

[one]

aye wrote:

>In Fung Yu-lan's, _Short History_, he writes of Neo-Taoism
>and Kuo Hsiang/Hsiang Kuo who edited the 52 chapters
>of the Chuang-tzu down to 33 received today.

Hsiang was known as Hsiang and yet
the Hsiang that was Hsiang was not always the same.

https://viden.io/index.php/knowledge/26473/file/attachments/46075

<< One of the greatest, if not the greatest, philosophical works of
this period is the Commentary on the Chuang-tzu by Kuo Hsiang
(died ca. 312). There has been a historical problem as to whether
this work was really his, for he was accused of being a plagiarist by
his contemporaries, who asserted that his Commentary was really the
work of another slightly earlier scholar, Hsiang Hsiu
(ca. 221-ca. 300).

It would seem that both men wrote Commentaries on the Chuang-tzu,
and that their ideas were very much the same, so that in the course of
time their Commentaries probably became combined to form a single
work. The Shih-shuo Hsin-yu (ch. 4), for example, speaks of a
Hsiang-Kuo interpretation (i.e., an interpretation by Hsiang Hsiu
and Kuo Hsiang) made on the "Happy Excursion"
(the first chapter of the Chuang-tzu), ... >>

- almost time for beer o'clock again! future cheers!

[one]

one wrote:
>aye wrote:
>
>>In Fung Yu-lan's, _Short History_, he writes of Neo-Taoism
>>and Kuo Hsiang/Hsiang Kuo who edited the 52 chapters
>>of the Chuang-tzu down to 33 received today.
>
>Hsiang was known as Hsiang and yet
>the Hsiang that was Hsiang was not always the same.

People cans be funny aye.

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/Zhuangzi-Burton-Watson.pdf

<< 滴e who dreams of drinking wine may weep when
morning comes; he who dreams of weeping may in the
morning go off to hunt. While he is dreaming, he does not
know it is a dream, and in his dream, he may even try to
interpret a dream. Only after he wakes does he know it was
a dream. And someday there will be a great awakening when
we know that this is all a great dream. Yet the stupid believe
they are awake, busily and brightly assuming they
understand things, calling this man ruler, that one herdsman
揺ow dense! Confucius and you both are dreaming! And
when I say you are dreaming, I am dreaming, too. Words
like these will be labeled the Supreme Swindle. Yet after
ten thousand generations, a great sage may appear who will
know their meaning, and it will still be as though he
appeared with astonishing speed. >>

http://www.daoisopen.com/ZZ2.html

<< "One who dreams of a drunken banquet wakes up in the morning
weeping and sobbing. One who dreams of weeping and sobbing wakes up in
the morning and goes hunting. While they're dreaming, they don't know
they're dreaming. In the middle of a dream they might think they're
actually a part of the dream, but when they wake up they realize it
was just a dream. After one has completely woken up they realize it
was all just a big dream. A fool believes himself to be awake,
inwardly and privately actually believing he knows who he really is.
Princes! Paupers! Indeed! You and Qiu (Confucius) are both dreaming.
When I call you a dreamer, I'm also a dreamer. As for what I've said,
it could be called a flight of fancy. If in all the generations to
come we could meet up with someone who had such great wisdom that they
knew how to explain all this, it would be like dawn and sunset
occurring at the same time. >>

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/ChuangTzu-palmer.pdf

<< 舛ome the morning, those who dream of the drunken
feast may weep and moan; when the morning comes, those
who dream of weeping and moaning go hunting in the
fields. When they dream, they don稚 know it is a dream.
Indeed, in their dreams they may think they are interpreting
dreams, only when they awake do they know it was a dream.
Eventually there comes the day of reckoning and
awakening, and then we shall know that it was all a great
dream. Only fools think that they are now awake and that
they really know what is going on, playing the prince and
then playing the servant. What fools! The Master and you
are both living in a dream. When I say a dream, I am also
dreaming. This very saying is a deception. If after ten
thousand years we could once meet a truly great sage, one
who understands, it would seem as if it had only been
a morning. >>

What Correa translates as, a flight of fancy
and Palmer interprets as being, a deception,
Watson sees a scene as, the Supreme Swindle.

When some people, awaken,
having experienced a mystical state beyond
those of many mortal folk who don't, they know
how their knowing of separation was indoctrinated,
inculcated by their culture as they were enculturated
to see their selves as being separate beings from all else.

TTC 2 speaks of how dualities tie
what was not a duality and goes
without going too far as it wells.

To say people can be cans rolling and gathering know moss
in the Great Bamboozle Groove after a time being time beings
can be said and mean virtually nothing at the same time.

- approaching beer o'clock ... in the future ... Cheers!

[aye]

one noted how:

>What Correa translates as, a flight of fancy
>and Palmer interprets as being, a deception,
>Watson sees a scene as, the Supreme Swindle.
>
>When some people, awaken,
>having experienced a mystical state beyond
>those of many mortal folk who don't, they know
>how their knowing of separation was indoctrinated,
>inculcated by their culture as they were enculturated
>to see their selves as being separate beings from all else.
>
>TTC 2 speaks of how dualities tie
>what was not a duality and goes
>without going too far as it wells.
>
>To say people can be cans rolling and gathering know moss
>in the Great Bamboozle Groove after a time being time beings
>can be said and mean virtually nothing at the same time.
>
>- approaching beer o'clock ... in the future ... Cheers!

Z-plane! Z-plane!

Tis a complex plane eh,
when the x and y are plotted
by those who plot plots and hatch
their chickens without counting on t'hems thar.

At times only two argh, in terms of planes, width
one of them being x called the Real and the
other known as y for a time being seeing
as how it's irrational having at root a
square one of a minus one t'hat is.

Beer o'clock with its booze in a bamboo grove has
a groove that is so groovie it's like an old-time movie.

- cobbler stones vary. aye. .. ... Cheers!

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 5:47:41 AM UTC-7, aye wrote:
> one noted how:
> >What Correa translates as, a flight of fancy
> >and Palmer interprets as being, a deception,
> >Watson sees a scene as, the Supreme Swindle.
> >
> >When some people, awaken,
> >having experienced a mystical state beyond
> >those of many mortal folk who don't, they know
> >how their knowing of separation was indoctrinated,
> >inculcated by their culture as they were enculturated
> >to see their selves as being separate beings from all else.
> >
> >TTC 2 speaks of how dualities tie
> >what was not a duality and goes
> >without going too far as it wells.
> >
> >To say people can be cans rolling and gathering know moss
> >in the Great Bamboozle Groove after a time being time beings
> >can be said and mean virtually nothing at the same time.
> >
> >- approaching beer o'clock ... in the future ... Cheers!
> Z-plane! Z-plane!

Is this a *Fantasy Island* reference?

[one]

Jeff asked:
> aye'd written:
>> one noted how an it was:

>> >- approaching beer o'clock ... in the future ... Cheers!
>>
>> Z-plane! Z-plane!
>
>Is this a *Fantasy Island* reference?

Tis mite bit complex eh.

Obscure references may bring a bout
of reflection and projection to a reader who
happens to read on one foot, or two, hopping.

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/Zhuangzi-Burton-Watson.pdf

<< Cloud Chief was traveling east
and had passed the branches of
the Fuyao when he suddenly came upon Big
Concealment. Big Concealment at the moment was
amusing himself by slapping his thighs and hopping around
like a sparrow. When Cloud Chief saw this, he stopped in
bewilderment, stood dead still in his tracks, and said, “Old
gentleman, who are you? What is this you’re doing?”

Big Concealment, without interrupting his thigh slapping
and sparrow hopping, replied to Cloud Chief,
“Amusing myself.”

“I would like to ask a question,” said Cloud Chief.

“Oh dear!” said Big Concealment, for the first time
raising his head and looking at Cloud Chief. >>

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

<< Hong Meng, Hung Meng, or Hung Mung, literally the Vast Mist,
is a character in the Daoist text Zhuangzi and a metaphor for the
"primordial world, primeval chaos" in Chinese creation myths. Like
many Zhuangist names, Hong Meng is a word play, translated as
"Mists-of-Chaos", "Vast Obscurity", "Big Concealment", "Vital
Principle", "Natural Energy" and "Big Goose Dummy". >>

<< Yun Jiang meets Hong Meng twice in three years,
both times when wandering or traveling eastward. >>

https://discuss.yangfamilytaichi.com/viewtopic.php?t=459

<< Yesterday I received my copy of the October 2006 issue of T’ai Chi
Magazine. There’s a pretty good article about an old gentleman named
Dong Bin who teaches in Shanghai. The article has some very good
information about Dong Bin's personal learning history in the Yang
tradition. One of the things Dong Bin mentions is that one of his
early taiji teachers taught “jumping” practice. This sounds very much
like what we’ve discussed here as “hopping,” or “sparrow hopping.” I
once described my understanding of sparrow hopping as, “a way of
maintaining your frame, and quickly re-establishing your equilibrium”
when launched by a push hands opponent. >>

<< Considering the alternative, stumbling backwards
and banging your head, you will understand why sparrow hopping is
popular in many styles of martial arts. >>

- learning and unlearning! thanks again! Cheers!

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at 5:00:21 PM UTC-7, one wrote:
> Jeff asked:
> > aye'd written:
> >> one noted how an it was:
> >> >- approaching beer o'clock ... in the future ... Cheers!
> >>
> >> Z-plane! Z-plane!
> >
> >Is this a *Fantasy Island* reference?
> Tis mite bit complex eh.

"The neurologist was encouraging, right? It was good news, basically?"

[one]

Jeff wrote:

>"The neurologist was encouraging, right? It was good news, basically?"

"What did your neurologist tell you?"

Speaking of TTC 4, if not for the non-
existence of neurology as practiced to-
day is the day the Lord made once again.

How does it begin. TTC 4 t'hat is.
How does it end. Once again.

Is it akin to TTC 16.
Ore is TTC 16 akin to it.

- in a bamboozle groove ... Thanks! Cheers!

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 6:30:54 AM UTC-7, one wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>
> >"The neurologist was encouraging, right? It was good news, basically?"
> "What did your neurologist tell you?"
>
> Speaking of TTC 4, if not for the non-
> existence of neurology as practiced to-
> day is the day the Lord made once again.
>

That is just... that is just... what did the virologist say?

[one]

Jeff wrote:
> one wrote:
>> Jeff wrote:
>>
>> >"The neurologist was encouraging, right? It was good news, basically?"
>>
>> "What did your neurologist tell you?"
>>
>> Speaking of TTC 4, if not for the non-
>> existence of neurology as practiced to-
>> day is the day the Lord made once again.
>
>That is just... that is just... what did the virologist say?

When did your test suggest you became negative?

[Jeffrey Rubard]

It didn't. I stayed negative. The same is not true for you, n'est-ce pas?

[one]

Jeff wrote:
> one wrote:
>> Jeff wrote:
>> > one wrote:
>> >> Jeff wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"The neurologist was encouraging, right? It was good news, basically?"
>> >>
>> >> "What did your neurologist tell you?"
>> >>
>> >> Speaking of TTC 4, if not for the non-
>> >> existence of neurology as practiced to-
>> >> day is the day the Lord made once again.
>> >
>> >That is just... that is just... what did the virologist say?
>>
>> When did your test suggest you became negative?
>
>It didn't. I stayed negative.

Jest like dub's mother eh.

>The same is not true for you, n'est-ce pas?

Without practicing any behavior to put me at risk,
there is no particular reason to be tested
for that virus in particular as you
say you get tested each
year after year.

And, you've said your mother gets tested
which is very strange, imo, as I know of no so-
called other mothers nor people in general who get
such a test every year for a virus where there is no risk.

Semantics could play in
to how Taoism widths words at lengths
and depths vary. Some sayings speak of immortals
which could be about an issue of apophatic mystical types
of beings who did not identify with physical forms
such as tiny cells of life, or a virus.

You appear to be a mite bit obsessed
with a southern man who can be infected
as you see him in your mind, heart or brain
train of thought using eyes that may see
what is not really there in fact.

Have you discussed your issue
with your very own shrink wrapping
all things together for a spell?

- thanks! Cheers!

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 4:45:53 AM UTC-7, one wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> > one wrote:
> >> Jeff wrote:
> >> > one wrote:
> >> >> Jeff wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >"The neurologist was encouraging, right? It was good news, basically?"
> >> >>
> >> >> "What did your neurologist tell you?"
> >> >>
> >> >> Speaking of TTC 4, if not for the non-
> >> >> existence of neurology as practiced to-
> >> >> day is the day the Lord made once again.
> >> >
> >> >That is just... that is just... what did the virologist say?
> >>
> >> When did your test suggest you became negative?
> >
> >It didn't. I stayed negative.
> Jest like dub's mother eh.
> >The same is not true for you, n'est-ce pas?
> Without practicing any behavior to put me at risk,
> there is no particular reason to be tested
> for that virus in particular as you
> say you get tested each
> year after year.

Your "weasel-words" are just not as good as you think they are, dude.
If you woke up this morning infected with HIV/AIDS, you did.
Science says so. If your doctors say you have it as well, well, mine don't.
If other doctors say *your* former partners have it...

>
> And, you've said your mother gets tested
> which is very strange, imo, as I know of no so-
> called other mothers nor people in general who get
> such a test every year for a virus where there is no risk.
>

"Libelous misrepresentation". I certainly have said no such thing.
As for what I said about a prominent politician's mother, well...
(For the audience: No, she doesn't. My mother has "no risk factors"
for the illness and is super-vocal about this. But "you know" that
routine medical tests involve testing for this illness, like those that
turned up HIV in this guy.)

[one]

Jeff wrote:

>Your "weasel-words" are just not as good as you think they are, dude.

Your projections are your projections naturally

>If you woke up this morning infected with HIV/AIDS, you did.
>Science says so.

Agree. It isn't semantics.

If your dub-dub bub has it, then he does.
You seam to see him as having it.

If his mother never had it, then she didn't recover from it.

To suppose she became negative might've bin semantics
if it was not what you'd intended to be saying when
you said what you wrote writing previously.

>If your doctors say you have it as well, well, mine don't.

Why would your doctors say I don't have it?

>If other doctors say *your* former partners have it...

What other doctors?

You are not making sense.

Looks as if you've got a lot
of hypothetical situations
going on in your brain train
of thoughts off the rails.

Me three!
How dew any of t'hats pertain to Taoism?

- thanks! Cheers!

[one]

Jeff wrote:

> one wrote:

>> you've said your mother gets tested
>> which is very strange, imo, as I know of no so-
>> called other mothers nor people in general who get
>> such a test every year for a virus where there is no risk.
>>
>
>"Libelous misrepresentation". I certainly have said no such thing.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

>As for what I said about a prominent politician's mother, well...

Why do you post such material here?

>(For the audience: No, she doesn't. My mother has "no risk factors"
>for the illness and is super-vocal about this. But "you know" that
>routine medical tests involve testing for this illness, like those that
>turned up HIV in this guy.)

Sounds as if you are talking about routine medical tests
that involve you in various thoughts going strange places.

Why is your mother, super-vocal, about having no risk factors?
It sounds as if she is protesting very loudly.

You are not making sense.

If it's a routine medical test that you and your mother get
as you stated here which you now deny with certainty,
then what are you talking about?

You appear to be saying a routine medical text
turned up HIV in whom you are not calling
a prominent politician instead of a double-you.

Your mirror world is very strange, imo.

Can't think of how it pertains to Taoism.

- thanks! Cheers!

[aye]

one wondered:

> Jeff wrote:

>>If your doctors say you have it as well, well, mine don't.
>
>Why would your doctors say I don't have it?

Maybe he meant, his doctors don't have it.

- speaking of a Tao. aye. Cheers!

[one]

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap04

Thanks for the re-
minder that goes unminded
without a mind two begin width.

- dualities vary. Cheers!

[aye]

one wrote:

>Can't think of how it pertains to Taoism.

It is a word. A pronoun. It is able to stand,
to take the place of, and mean a thing.

At times it could mean an animal who
is not a person by various standards. Ore
even a baby when spoken of as being an it eh.

Pertaining to Taoism, as a name, a ming, it is it.
And yet at the same time, an it that is it may not be
some other it which happens, two be. Three follow and
after that emerge ten thou sand its which are they
and thems elves at play.

- in a bamboozle groove many a day. aye. Cheers!

[who]

aye wrote:

>Pertaining to Taoism, as a name, a ming, it is it.

http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap04.htm#top

Tao may be likend to space out
where in some people argh.

- Cheers!

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 4:02:47 AM UTC-7, one wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>
> >Your "weasel-words" are just not as good as you think they are, dude.
> Your projections are your projections naturally
> >If you woke up this morning infected with HIV/AIDS, you did.
> >Science says so.
> Agree. It isn't semantics.
>

Right. So it's a matter of (trivially easy) scientific fact whether, say,
former President George W. Bush is currently infected with the
HIV/AIDS virus. "Talking circles around people" touches no part
of the matter of objective fact.

> If your dub-dub bub has it, then he does.
> You seam to see him as having it.
>

Is Mr. Bush rumored to have passed the disease to male partners as well?
The lawsuit concerning the TV character that rather obviously appears to be him
involves only women.

[one]

Jeff wrote:

> it's a matter of (trivially easy) scientific fact whether, say,
>former President George W. Bush is currently infected with the
>HIV/AIDS virus.

Why is this important to you?

What does HIV have to do with Taoism?

[one]

Jeff wrote:

>Is Mr. Bush rumored to have passed the disease to male partners as well?

You are the only person who appears to be concerned.

>The lawsuit concerning the TV character that rather obviously appears to be him
>involves only women.

No idea what that is about. Never heard of it.

How does it pertain to Taoism?

Beer o'clock, on the other hand of a watch, is
a kind of second nature of a sort called tzu-jan.

- thanks! Cheers!

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"Point taken", but --
Your comments (even the "pseudo-learned" ones) have little to do with it as well.
It's *non sequitur* material --
But mostly we all really think "it's true if it's true" about such factual claims.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 2:59:45 PM UTC-7, one wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>
> >Is Mr. Bush rumored to have passed the disease to male partners as well?
> You are the only person who appears to be concerned.

If I were Mr. Bush, I'd be concerned too. Probably most of his voters didn't
think that was what "compassionate conservatism" amounted to:
heavy breathing and NDAs. (It's really not that relevant to me whether he
contracted the disease by being the receptive partner in anal sex, but
that's some "Texas-sized effrontery" considering the traditional values
of the area.)

[one]

Jeff wrote:
> one wrote:
>> Jeff wrote:
>>
>> >Is Mr. Bush rumored to have passed the disease to male partners as well?
>>
>> You are the only person who appears to be concerned.
>
>If I were Mr. Bush, I'd be concerned too.

You think he'd be concerned that you are concerned
about an imaginary scenario going on in your brain?

Tis a mite bit strange, t'hat.

How does it pertain to Taoism?

- thanks! Cheers!

[one]

Jeff wrote:
> one wrote:
>> Jeff wrote:
>>
>> > it's a matter of (trivially easy) scientific fact whether, say,
>> >former President George W. Bush is currently infected with the
>> >HIV/AIDS virus.
>>
>> Why is this important to you?
>>
>> What does HIV have to do with Taoism?
>
>"Point taken", but --
>Your comments (even the "pseudo-learned" ones) have little to do with it as well.

When feeding trolls, t'hats about par.

>It's *non sequitur* material --

It's what trolls troll for, at times.
Some mitesimply want attention.

>But mostly we all really think "it's true if it's true" about such factual claims.

Who is we?

How many of you are there
where y'all argh?

- jest curios hopping in a bamboozle groove. Thanks! Cheers!

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 3:23:34 PM UTC-7, one wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> > one wrote:
> >> Jeff wrote:
> >>
> >> > it's a matter of (trivially easy) scientific fact whether, say,
> >> >former President George W. Bush is currently infected with the
> >> >HIV/AIDS virus.
> >>
> >> Why is this important to you?
> >>
> >> What does HIV have to do with Taoism?
> >
> >"Point taken", but --
> >Your comments (even the "pseudo-learned" ones) have little to do with it as well.
> When feeding trolls, t'hats about par.

I think people who intentionally give people HIV/AIDS (putatively assumed, and not
quite "for the sake of the argument", to be W. as subject of this lawsuit) call it
"feeding". A *little* gross, huh?

> >It's *non sequitur* material --
> It's what trolls troll for, at times.

Oh yeah, it's *just* what they wanted. (That's not what *non sequitur* means, though..)

> Some mitesimply want attention.
> >But mostly we all really think "it's true if it's true" about such factual claims.
> Who is we?

Do you know a lot of Schopenhauerians?

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Monday, October 31, 2022 at 3:23:34 PM UTC-7, one wrote:

> Jeff wrote:
> > one wrote:
> >> Jeff wrote:
> >>
> >> > it's a matter of (trivially easy) scientific fact whether, say,
> >> >former President George W. Bush is currently infected with the
> >> >HIV/AIDS virus.
> >>
> >> Why is this important to you?
> >>
> >> What does HIV have to do with Taoism?
> >
> >"Point taken", but --
> >Your comments (even the "pseudo-learned" ones) have little to do with it as well.
> When feeding trolls, t'hats about par.

I think those people who intentionally give people HIV (putatively assumed to be
W., not quite "for the sake of the argument" as I indicated) call it "feeding".
A *little* gross, huh?

> >It's *non sequitur* material --
> It's what trolls troll for, at times.

They "ask for it", to get infected by "stealthers" with a serious, horrible, fatal, incurable illness?
You are indeed "serene", dude.

> Who is we?

People in general. Do you think they are Schopenhauerians, or something?

[one]

Jeff wrote:
> one wrote:
>> Jeff wrote:

>I think those people who intentionally give people HIV (putatively assumed to be
>W., not quite "for the sake of the argument" as I indicated) call it "feeding".
>A *little* gross, huh?

Can't think of how that pertains to the thread
nor the topic of the group now what you're talking about.

TTC 80 arrives in mind
and may apply, oar knots.

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

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap80

<< Their food is plain and good,
their clothes fine but simple,
their homes secure;
They are happy in their ways. >>

>> >It's *non sequitur* material --
>>
>> It's what trolls troll for, at times.
>
>They "ask for it", to get infected by "stealthers" with a serious, horrible, fatal, incurable illness?

You appear to be in your own virus infected world.
Some trolls insult people and want to make tribbles.

>You are indeed "serene", dude.

No idea what that is supposed to mean
assuming your meaning is to communicate
naturally unless, in your reality, it isn't.

TTC 80 hearkens back to a time after TTC 4
with its ideal and metaphysical reflections.

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap04

Trolls, such as you appear to be, may seek.

http://www.urban75.com/Mag/troll.html

<< People post such messages to get attention,
to disrupt newsgroups, and simply to make trouble. >>

>> Who is we?
>
>People in general. Do you think they are Schopenhauerians, or something?

No idea what you're talking about.

Why do you refer to people in general
and include yourself, that elf of yours,
among thems elves?

Do you feel better
belonging to a group you call people in general?

An impression of mines is t'hat you generalize, stereotype
and project as if you were taking a roar shock test and fail
to grok concepts of Tao Chia seeing as you screen screens.

- going spelunking. Thanks! Cheers!

[one]

Jeff asked:

>Do you know a lot of Schopenhauerians?

Epistemology may be related.

How does a knower know if a name is known?

As far as any recollection of collections of mines is,
there is no knowing of any Schopenhauerians.

A composer by t'hat name occurs and yet
to say what composition or compositions
was ore were is a known unknown.

How did the author of TTC 4 know
what was written about when
before the gods or God
a Tao was, ontologically.

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap04

Feng's translation says: It is the forefather of the gods.

http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap04.htm#top

Red Pine translates: it seems it was here before the Ti,
at the website above and yet in his book there is no, the.

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/Taoteching_withCommentaries.pdf

Commentaries included include:

<< JIN CHI-YU says, "In ancient times no one denied the existence of
Ti, and no one cilled his supremacy into doubt. Lao-tzu, however, says
the Tao is 'the ancestor of all things: which presumably included Ti
as well" >>

<< LI YUEH says, "Ti is the Lord of Creation. All of creation comes
after Ti, except the Tao, which comes before. But the nature of the
Tao is to yield, hence Lao-tzu doesn't insist it came before. Thus
he says, 'it seems.'" >>

It seems you have some thought about your Schopenhauerians
about whom I don't know what you are referring to except
it probably isn't TTC 4 nor Tao Chia.

- fwiw. Thanks! Cheers!

[aye]

one wrote:
>Jeff asked:
>
>>Do you know a lot of Schopenhauerians?
>
>Epistemology may be related.
>
>How does a knower know if a name is known?
>
>As far as any recollection of collections of mines is,
>there is no knowing of any Schopenhauerians.
>
>A composer by t'hat name occurs and yet
>to say what composition or compositions
>was ore were is a known unknown.

Dude, you're thinking of, like, Chef Ting who didn't chop
except he wasn't a shredder like Schroeder neither.

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

Jeff is prehaps referring to a philosopher's followers.

Such followers are probably not Chuangtzuvians.

Tao has no will and doesn't mind trolls trolling. Tao is said
to be akin to water and yet some translators translate
the second Tao in the first line of the first verse of
Chapter One as talking about talking as Tao is
able to mean, speech, speaking, etcetera.

The talk that is a Tao that is talked about, spoken
in other words is said by sum to be not the Tao
t'hat cannot be talked about which is funny
a mite bit like when Chef Ting carves the bull.

- aye. thanks! Cheers!

[mite]

aye found:
> one thought:

>>Jeff asked:
>>
>>>Do you know a lot of Schopenhauerians?

Blind energy will travel along
lines of least resistance naturally.

Water will
go and flow, sit and be still,
know without knowing how to be
a sea or an ocean without a notion being.

>>Epistemology may be related.
>>
>>How does a knower know if a name is known?

Ways exist. Meditation mites bring to mind inklings
which then grow to be full fledged trains of thought
flying off rails and in to swamps, like water that does
not mind being muddy and is likened to a Tao of sorts.

http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap08.htm#top

<< It gathers in unpopular places. Thus it is like the Tao. >>

<< It dwells in (the lowly) places that all disdain -
Wherein it comes near to the Tao. >>

Translations vary.

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/Taoteching_withCommentaries.pdf

Red Pine's TTC has a comment by a commentator
saying, in p'art: Water can take any shape, ... .

Another other writes:
Those whose minds are empty can plumb the depths.

<< LI JUNG says, "Water has no purpose of its own.
Those who can remain empty
and not compete with others follow the natural Way." >>

Water waves. It isn't pessimistic nor optimistic and yet fish
are happy darting in it. Chuang Tzu knew. How did he know
was a question Huizi asked Zz once upon a time at the Hao.

>Tao has no will and doesn't mind trolls trolling. Tao is said
>to be akin to water and yet some translators translate
>the second Tao in the first line of the first verse of
>Chapter One as talking about talking as Tao is
>able to mean, speech, speaking, etcetera.
>
>The talk that is a Tao that is talked about, spoken
>in other words is said by sum to be not the Tao
>t'hat cannot be talked about which is funny
>a mite bit like when Chef Ting carves the bull.

When forms of Life form naturally they appear.
They appear to move, by their own selves, tzu-jan. Ziran
is a different word that spells the same idea. A notion of an ocean
with waves which wave this Way and t'hat Way naturally.

A physicist or a chemist mite insist all forms are mere forms
and go and flow moving by movers without any minds seeing
as how they're all simply chemicals, elements, atoms, particles
and waves naturally.

If some body were to tell such a tale to a single cell that
single cell might not mind. To tell a dog to mind or not mind
could be a Way to tell him or her from a single cell too.

To have an inclination, a blind inclined plane may.
To seek food, shelter and know how things argh.

>- aye. thanks! Cheers!

- Cheers!

[who]

one wrote:
>Jeff asked:
>
>>Do you know a lot of Schopenhauerians?
>
>Epistemology may be related.
>
>How does a knower know if a name is known?

Three, the Three t'hat is, emerges.

Once up
on a time within time there
was the Two. Yes. The one and only Two.

Duality.

It, t'hat very It of all Its, was born. Naturally, It was
born of the One, Yi. And the Yi was born of Tao.

Sew goes an ontology.

- epistemologies vary. Who knew! Cheers!

[mite]

who wrote:
> one wrote:
>>Jeff asked:
>>
>>>Do you know a lot of Schopenhauerians?
>>
>>Epistemology may be related.
>>
>>How does a knower know if a name is known?
>
>Three, the Three t'hat is, emerges.

Jah mon. The bull that is the bull is the bull.
Winkles winkle and wrinkles wrinkle. Inklings ink.

Kings are kings and to say One is the King well
the wells which well is the Well t'hat wells.

Rocky knew. Bullwinkle didn't wink. He knew!
Beyond any shadows boxing in doubt, he knew!

Then again, he said, Uh. Must be the wrong hat.

>Once up
>on a time within time there
>was the Two. Yes. The one and only Two.
>
>Duality.
>
>It, t'hat very It of all Its, was born. Naturally, It was
>born of the One, Yi. And the Yi was born of Tao.
>
>Sew goes an ontology.

Mythologies emerge from myths.
Myths are myths, naturally.

Some people, some folk, sum
and an it all adds up. They may th'ink their it is the It.

A zone is a zone. At times a Zone exists. Aye. Jah mon.
Such a zone is the Zone and to know it evokes.

To invoke a word, the Zone, one mite might and could.

>- epistemologies vary. Who knew! Cheers!

Words are words. Some folk tales tell of a tale that is
the Tale that is so far beyond words it is the Word.

- once upon a time ... Cheers!

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 7:31:36 AM UTC-7, mite wrote:
> who wrote:
> > one wrote:
> >>Jeff asked:
> >>
> >>>Do you know a lot of Schopenhauerians?
> >>
> >>Epistemology may be related.
> >>
> >>How does a knower know if a name is known?
> >
> >Three, the Three t'hat is, emerges.
> Jah mon. The bull that is the bull is the bull.
> Winkles winkle and wrinkles wrinkle. Inklings ink.
>
> Kings are kings and to say One is the King well
> the wells which well is the Well t'hat wells.
>
> Rocky knew. Bullwinkle didn't wink. He knew!
> Beyond any shadows boxing in doubt, he knew!

Um, dude.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 5:39:16 AM UTC-7, mite wrote:
> aye found:
> > one thought:
> >>Jeff asked:
> >>
> >>>Do you know a lot of Schopenhauerians?
> Blind energy will travel along
> lines of least resistance naturally.

Oh, wow. Man, that is like, cosmic.

[one]

Jeff wrote:

>Um, dude.

Speaking of aum, om, um, etc.,
I can't recall, or simply don't know,
whether Taoism has any mantra type
sounds that sound like they're the Way
to be meditating on going for a spell.

Chants are chants and yet to say
one chant is, the Chant, or that none
which are chanted are the Chant may
be a claim claimed by a claimer of claims.

- thanks! Cheers!

[one]

Jeff wrote:

>mite wrote:

>> >>Jeff asked:
>> >>
>> >>>Do you know a lot of Schopenhauerians?

>> Blind energy will travel along
>> lines of least resistance naturally.
>
>Oh, wow. Man, that is like, cosmic.

I don't know anything about Schopenhauer
nor if there are any followers as you seam to be
inclined given your plane of being dimensional.

To suppose there is a will
when there is a Way, or is, the Way, you may.

What occurs to me, at times, is how there appears
to be a kind of motivation, a teleology of a sort,
drawing organisms, for example, a plant
to reach for the light of a sun and
flower along its Way of being
a flowering form of Life.

A single cell might be said to be driven
by environmental factors and have no will
of its own. Pure chemistry. No internal
mind nor desire to search for food.
It divides and multiplies tzu-jan,
ziran, naturally of its own
self there being no elf
nor elves working.

DMT suggests a different story.

- thanks again! Cheers!

[aye]

one wrote:
>Jeff wrote:
>
>>Um, dude.
>
>Speaking of aum, om, um, etc.,
>I can't recall, or simply don't know,
>whether Taoism has any mantra type
>sounds that sound like they're the Way
>to be meditating on going for a spell.

https://www.wikihow.com/Do-Taoist-Chanting

<< Chway to expel heat
Hoo to expel cold
Shee to relieve tension
Her to release tension
Hsü to eliminate general illness
Sss to regain equilibrium. >>

[aye]

one wrote:
>Jeff wrote:
>>mite wrote:
>
>>> >>Jeff asked:
>>> >>
>>> >>>Do you know a lot of Schopenhauerians?
>
>>> Blind energy will travel along
>>> lines of least resistance naturally.
>>
>>Oh, wow. Man, that is like, cosmic.
>
>I don't know anything about Schopenhauer
>nor if there are any followers as you seam to be
>inclined given your plane of being dimensional.
>
>To suppose there is a will
>when there is a Way, or is, the Way, you may.

Some people, having had a cosmic mind expanding
experience with ego dissolving solved bending
puzzles unlike spoons and knew how stars
helped create orbs such as Earth and
shed their vibes in processes that
are geared without gears in an
order bringing Life out of what
was not living physically when
suddenly filled to a brim, Life is.

>What occurs to me, at times, is how there appears
>to be a kind of motivation, a teleology of a sort,
>drawing organisms, for example, a plant
>to reach for the light of a sun and
>flower along its Way of being
>a flowering form of Life.
>
>A single cell might be said to be driven
>by environmental factors and have no will
>of its own. Pure chemistry. No internal
>mind nor desire to search for food.
>It divides and multiplies tzu-jan,
>ziran, naturally of its own
>self there being no elf
>nor elves working.
>
>DMT suggests a different story.

To say Tao has no will
may evoke a duality of sorts.

Tao may be viewed ontologically as prior
to even any form of odd unity. One emerges from Tao,
says the TTC. Two is born of Yi, t'hat is, the One.

Tao neither has will nor does not have will.
Yu, with/having and Wu, without or not having,
are noted in TTC 1 after talking about names
and how Tao that are Tao are, fei chang.

Interpretations vary.

>- thanks again! Cheers!

- aye. Cheers!

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 1:11:42 PM UTC-7, aye wrote:
> one wrote:
> >Jeff wrote:
> >>mite wrote:
> >
> >>> >>Jeff asked:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>>Do you know a lot of Schopenhauerians?
> >
> >>> Blind energy will travel along
> >>> lines of least resistance naturally.
> >>
> >>Oh, wow. Man, that is like, cosmic.
> >
> >I don't know anything about Schopenhauer
> >nor if there are any followers as you seam to be
> >inclined given your plane of being dimensional.
> >
> >To suppose there is a will
> >when there is a Way, or is, the Way, you may.
> Some people, having had a cosmic mind expanding
> experience with ego dissolving solved bending
> puzzles unlike spoons and knew how stars
> helped create orbs such as Earth and
> shed their vibes in processes that
> are geared without gears in an
> order bringing Life out of what
> was not living physically when
> suddenly filled to a brim, Life is.

Have you been "smoking", guy?

[eh]

Jeff asked:

>Have you been "smoking", guy?

Taking tokes occurs. At times, aye, he does partake.

- one never knows eh ... Cheers!

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 6:12:06 AM UTC-7, eh wrote:
> Jeff asked:
> >Have you been "smoking", guy?
> Taking tokes occurs. At times, aye, he does partake.
>

So a crackhead got HIV/AIDS? "Film at 11", as we used to say.
"You shouldn't have said that." That the former president is
apparently a crackhead and contracted HIV/AIDS?
"No, the 'film at 11' bit."

[one]

Jeff wrote:

>So a crackhead got HIV/AIDS? "Film at 11", as we used to say.
>"You shouldn't have said that." That the former president is
>apparently a crackhead and contracted HIV/AIDS?
>"No, the 'film at 11' bit."

Are you having fun yet?

https://iamsober.com/blog/george-w-bush-sober-story/

<< sober since 1986 >>

<< a day after his 40th birthday >>

https://abcnews.go.com/images/pdf/800a1BushCocaine.pdf

<< ABC NEWS POLL: BUSH and COCAINE – 8/22/99 >>

<< Questions about whether Bush ever used cocaine came to a head last
week; he responded by saying he had not taken any illegal drugs since
at least 1974, when he was 28. Beyond that, he said, he won’t say. >>

Some people might think this is an Ancient History newsgroup.

If Jeff's double-you dub dude stopped using illegal drugs in 1974,
and crack wasn't invented at the time then, Jeff's fantasy projection
might be a reflection of his elf and thems elves in his mirror world.

https://rehabs.com/blog/a-complete-history-of-crack-cocaine/

<< Crack first appeared in small batches in major cities in 1981. >>

- aum ... om .. a .

[Jeffrey Rubard]

So, about the HIV/AIDS? Texas Awesome Medical Center says it's "fake news"?
Elsewhere: "We sure didn't." (Yeah, it could be.)

[one]

Jeff wrote:

>So, about the HIV/AIDS? Texas Awesome Medical Center says it's "fake news"?
>Elsewhere: "We sure didn't." (Yeah, it could be.)

What does that have to do with TTC 8?

- thanks! Cheers!

[aye]

one wondered:

You might have a look sea at TTC 15 eh.

>- thanks! Cheers!

- aye. thanks! Cheers!

[mite]

aye said:
> one wondered:

>>What does that have to do with TTC 8?
>
>You might have a look sea at TTC 15 eh.

Aye from a water form
being the best ever to ancients who
were idealized being beings beyond time and
spaced out mites have bins there and then sum.

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap15

The ancient masters were subtle, mysterious, profound, responsive.
The depth of their knowledge is unfathomable.
Because it is unfathomable,
All we can do is describe their appearance.
Watchful, like men crossing a winter stream.
Alert, like men aware of danger.
Courteous, like visiting guests.
Yielding like ice about to melt.
Simple, like uncarved blocks of wood.
Hollow, like caves.
Opaque, like muddy pools.

Who can wait quietly while the mud settles?
Who can remain still until the moment of action?
Observers of the Tao do not seek fulfillment.
Not seeking fulfillment, they are not swayed by desire for change.

>>- thanks! Cheers!
>
>- aye. thanks! Cheers!

- like. totally. Thanks! Cheers!

[Jeffrey Rubard]

Damn, there is just no "end-run" that ought not to be explored for that sort of thing, huh?
"From Enkidu to Wally on Leave It To Beaver" stuff?

[one]

Jeff wrote:
> one asked:

>> Jeff wrote:
>>
>> >So, about the HIV/AIDS? Texas Awesome Medical Center says it's "fake news"?
>> >Elsewhere: "We sure didn't." (Yeah, it could be.)
>>
>> What does that have to do with TTC 8?
>
>Damn, there is just no "end-run" that ought not to be explored for that sort of thing, huh?
>"From Enkidu to Wally on Leave It To Beaver" stuff?

No idea what you're talking about.

A possible situation is
that you are unable to read
and comprehend the subject of a thread.

Maybe in Google Groups a topic doesn't appear
unless some attention is being given.

- cud be! thanks! Cheers!

[aye]

one speculated:

Jah mon. Looking at what does appear,
superficially a reader would have no idea.

Google Groups, viewed in a browser, looks very different
from how this group looks using a newsreader, apparently.

>- cud be! thanks! Cheers!

Little wonder why Jeff th'inks as he may well sew dew.

- aye. Cheers!

[one]

aye searched and found:

>one speculated:
>>Jeff wrote:
>>> one asked:
>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >So, about the HIV/AIDS? Texas Awesome Medical Center says it's "fake news"?
>>>> >Elsewhere: "We sure didn't." (Yeah, it could be.)
>>>>
>>>> What does that have to do with TTC 8?
>>>
>>>Damn, there is just no "end-run" that ought not to be explored for that sort of thing, huh?
>>>"From Enkidu to Wally on Leave It To Beaver" stuff?
>>
>>No idea what you're talking about.
>>
>>A possible situation is
>>that you are unable to read
>>and comprehend the subject of a thread.
>>
>>Maybe in Google Groups a topic doesn't appear
>>unless some attention is being given.
>
>Jah mon. Looking at what does appear,
>superficially a reader would have no idea.
>
>Google Groups, viewed in a browser, looks very different
>from how this group looks using a newsreader, apparently.

Totally. From Jeff's pov he might presume the Subject is:

<< Why did YHWH Allah (LORD God) pick Hele Stone for Hiding his
Tabernacle? Hele is to hide or conceal; keep secret; cover. >>

- ore knot ... Cheers!

[aye]

one wrote:
>aye searched and found:
>>one speculated:
>>>Jeff wrote:
>>>> one asked:
>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >So, about the HIV/AIDS? Texas Awesome Medical Center says it's "fake news"?
>>>>> >Elsewhere: "We sure didn't." (Yeah, it could be.)
>>>>>
>>>>> What does that have to do with TTC 8?
>>>>
>>>>Damn, there is just no "end-run" that ought not to be explored for that sort of thing, huh?
>>>>"From Enkidu to Wally on Leave It To Beaver" stuff?
>>>
>>>No idea what you're talking about.
>>>
>>>A possible situation is
>>>that you are unable to read
>>>and comprehend the subject of a thread.
>>>
>>>Maybe in Google Groups a topic doesn't appear
>>>unless some attention is being given.
>>
>>Jah mon. Looking at what does appear,
>>superficially a reader would have no idea.
>>
>>Google Groups, viewed in a browser, looks very different
>>from how this group looks using a newsreader, apparently.
>
>Totally. From Jeff's pov he might presume the Subject is:
>
><< Why did YHWH Allah (LORD God) pick Hele Stone for Hiding his
>Tabernacle? Hele is to hide or conceal; keep secret; cover. >>

Google Groups, after taking over DejaNews, at first
had lotsa potential options. Now, to even see a Subject
change over time appears to be lost to a reader.

It's as if m'ore than one poster could actually
virtually be seeing what various other posters do not see seeing
as how Google Groups does not have options that other Newsreaders
provide naturally, such as: Subject Line, Headers, etc.

[mite]

aye thought:

>one wrote:
>>aye searched and found:
>>>one speculated:
>>>>Jeff wrote:
>>>>> one asked:
>>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >So, about the HIV/AIDS? Texas Awesome Medical Center says it's "fake news"?
>>>>>> >Elsewhere: "We sure didn't." (Yeah, it could be.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does that have to do with TTC 8?
>>>>>
>>>>>Damn, there is just no "end-run" that ought not to be explored for that sort of thing, huh?

Google Groups appears to be a mite bit limited.

>>>>>"From Enkidu to Wally on Leave It To Beaver" stuff?
>>>>
>>>>No idea what you're talking about.
>>>>
>>>>A possible situation is
>>>>that you are unable to read
>>>>and comprehend the subject of a thread.

Google Groups is w'hat an it cud be aye.

>>>>Maybe in Google Groups a topic doesn't appear
>>>>unless some attention is being given.
>>>
>>>Jah mon. Looking at what does appear,
>>>superficially a reader would have no idea.

Prehaps even less than any knowing knower knows.

>>>Google Groups, viewed in a browser, looks very different
>>>from how this group looks using a newsreader, apparently.

Imagine a smart-phone being even less t'han
when people were not the people who were
before Taoism was invented by historians.

>>Totally. From Jeff's pov he might presume the Subject is:
>>
>><< Why did YHWH Allah (LORD God) pick Hele Stone for Hiding his
>>Tabernacle? Hele is to hide or conceal; keep secret; cover. >>
>
>Google Groups, after taking over DejaNews, at first
>had lotsa potential options. Now, to even see a Subject
>change over time appears to be lost to a reader.

Sewn asit seams.

>It's as if m'ore than one poster could actually
>virtually be seeing what various other posters do not see seeing
>as how Google Groups does not have options that other Newsreaders
>provide naturally, such as: Subject Line, Headers, etc.

Private worlds vary.

>>- ore knot ... Cheers!
>>
>>>>- cud be! thanks! Cheers!
>>>
>>>Little wonder why Jeff th'inks as he may well sew dew.
>>>
>>>- aye. Cheers!

- one mite wonders ... Cheers!

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 5:36:39 AM UTC-8, mite wrote:
> aye thought:
> >one wrote:
> >>aye searched and found:
> >>>one speculated:
> >>>>Jeff wrote:
> >>>>> one asked:
> >>>>>> Jeff wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> >So, about the HIV/AIDS? Texas Awesome Medical Center says it's "fake news"?
> >>>>>> >Elsewhere: "We sure didn't." (Yeah, it could be.)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What does that have to do with TTC 8?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Damn, there is just no "end-run" that ought not to be explored for that sort of thing, huh?
> Google Groups appears to be a mite bit limited.

I guess. But if George W. Bush has that disease, he has it every day.
Worrying about others' "mental wellness" is just a tiresome subterfuge, comparatively.

[one]

Jeff wrote:

> aye wrote:

>> Google Groups appears to be a mite bit limited.

You, for example, might not be able to see
how the title of this thread changed from TTC 8,
which changed from TTC 4, which changed from what
ever it was when it first began to now being CT 1.

>I guess.

There used to be an option to, show the original,
along with cross-posts, and other material.

That menu item appears to be gone.
Disappeared. Vanished. And yet,
perhaps it remains. Hidden.

>But if George W. Bush has that disease, he has it every day.

Why you suppose he has it, why that matters to you,
appears to be very strange to me. What it has to do with Taoism,
why you post such posts here is also a strange phenomenon, imo.

>Worrying about others' "mental wellness" is just a tiresome subterfuge, comparatively.

Then, if it makes you tired, if you are able to stop doing that,
along with obsessing about any virus he probably doesn't have,
you may feel better and be well, like Froggy, the well-frog
even if not Caguama, the sea turtle in the Chuang-tzu.

Hakuna matata could be Taoistic.

In the Chuang-tzu, speaking of a form of Taoism, Tao Chia
that is to say, the philosophy as it were of Lao-Chuang
as far as basic texts go, Chapter One has a title.

http://oaks.nvg.org/zhuangzi1-.html

<< Enjoyment in Untroubled Ease >> - Legge.

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/ChuangTzu-palmer.pdf

<< Wandering Where You Will >> - Palmer.

http://www.daoisopen.com/ZZ1.html

<< Carefree Roaming >> - Correa.

https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu.html#1

<< FREE AND EASY WANDERING >> - Watson.

The title that is a title could be called, the Title
and prehaps all the authors who translated
what was written in a language chose
among words they thought best
described ideas in the text.

No worries might suggest
how to know worries and forget.

Wandering, roaming, with ease, free.

- thanks! Cheers!

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 4:33:26 AM UTC-8, one wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> > aye wrote:
>
> >> Google Groups appears to be a mite bit limited.
> You, for example, might not be able to see
> how the title of this thread changed from TTC 8,
> which changed from TTC 4, which changed from what
> ever it was when it first began to now being CT 1.
>
> >I guess.
>
> There used to be an option to, show the original,
> along with cross-posts, and other material.
>
> That menu item appears to be gone.
> Disappeared. Vanished. And yet,
> perhaps it remains. Hidden.
> >But if George W. Bush has that disease, he has it every day.
> Why you suppose he has it, why that matters to you,
> appears to be very strange to me. What it has to do with Taoism,
> why you post such posts here is also a strange phenomenon, imo.

It would not be "the Way", you could say. It would also be "a fact".

> >Worrying about others' "mental wellness" is just a tiresome subterfuge, comparatively.

> Then, if it makes you tired, if you are able to stop doing that,
> along with obsessing about any virus he probably doesn't have,
> you may feel better and be well, like Froggy, the well-frog
> even if not Caguama, the sea turtle in the Chuang-tzu.

I don't have fatigue problems.
(Does it really make you quite tired, then? You don't have to tell us, I guess.)

>
> Hakuna matata could be Taoistic.

Um, could you not just mix *everything* together? (Not about the medical question.)

[one]

Jeff wrote:
> one wrote:
>> Jeff wrote:

>> >But if George W. Bush has that disease, he has it every day.
>>
>> Why you suppose he has it, why that matters to you,
>> appears to be very strange to me. What it has to do with Taoism,
>> why you post such posts here is also a strange phenomenon, imo.
>
>It would not be "the Way", you could say. It would also be "a fact".

If he doesn't have it, then he doesn't have it.

Not having various noun-things and/or
not doing various verb-actions may be Tao.

Then again, in the Chuang-tzu are some tales told
about people who did have various problems and
were not concerned, as you appear to have and be.

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/Zhuangzi-Burton-Watson.pdf

<< Master Si, Master Yu, Master Li, and Master Lai were all
four talking together. “Who can look on nonbeing as his
head, on life as his back, and on death as his rump?” they
said. “Who knows that life and death, existence and
annihilation, are all a single body? I will be his friend!”

The four men looked at one another and smiled. There
was no disagreement in their hearts, and so the four of
them became friends.

All at once, Master Yu fell ill. Master Si went to ask how he was.

“Amazing!” said Master Yu. “The Creator is making
me all crookedy like this! My back sticks up like a
hunchback, and my vital organs are on top of me. My chin
is hidden in my navel, my shoulders are up above my head,
and my pigtail points at the sky. It must be some dislocation
of the yin and yang!”

Yet he seemed calm at heart and unconcerned. Dragging
himself haltingly to the well, he looked at his reflection
and said, “My, my! So the Creator is making me all
crookedy like this!”

“Do you resent it?” asked Master Si.

“Why no, what would I resent? If the process continues,
perhaps in time he’ll transform my left arm into a rooster.
In that case I’ll keep watch during the night. Or perhaps in
time he’ll transform my right arm into a cross-bow pellet,
and I’ll shoot down an owl for roasting. Or perhaps in time
he’ll transform my buttocks into cartwheels. Then, with my
spirit for a horse, I’ll climb up and go for a ride. What need
will I ever have for a carriage again?

“I received life because the time had come; I will lose it
because the order of things passes on. Be content with this
time and dwell in this order, and then neither sorrow nor
joy can touch you. In ancient times this was called the
‘freeing of the bound.’ There are those who cannot free
themselves because they are bound by things. But nothing
can ever win against Heaven—that’s the way it’s always
been. What would I have to resent?”

Suddenly Master Lai grew ill. Gasping and wheezing, he
lay at the point of death. His wife and children gathered
round in a circle and began to cry. Master Li, who had come
to ask how he was, said, “Shoo! Get back! Don’t disturb the
process of change!”

Then he leaned against the doorway and talked to Master
Lai. “How marvelous the Creator is! What is he going to
make out of you next? Where is he going to send you? Will
he make you into a rat’s liver? Will he make you into a
bug’s arm?”

Master Lai said, “A child, obeying his father and mother,
goes wherever he is told, east or west, south or north. And
the yin and yang—how much more are they to a man than
father or mother! Now that they have brought me to the
verge of death, if I should refuse to obey them, how
perverse I would be! What fault is it of theirs? The Great
Clod burdens me with form, labors me with life, eases me
in old age, and rests me in death. So if I think well of my
life, for the same reason I must think well of my death.
When a skilled smith is casting metal, if the metal should
leap up and say, ‘I insist on being made into a Moye!’ he
would surely regard it as very inauspicious metal indeed.
Now, having had the audacity to take on human form once,
if I should say, ‘I don’t want to be anything but a man!
Nothing but a man!’ the Creator would surely regard me as
a most inauspicious sort of person. So now I think of
heaven and earth as a great furnace, and the Creator as a
skilled smith. Where could he send me that would not be
all right? I will go off to sleep peacefully, and then with a
start, I will wake up.” >>

[one]

Jeff asked:
> one wrote a bout how:

>> Hakuna matata could be Taoistic.
>
>Um, could you not just mix *everything* together?

TTC 40 and TTC 42 arrive in mind at this time.

<< https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap42

The Tao begot one.
One begot two.
Two begot three.
And three begot the ten thousand things.

The ten thousand things carry yin and embrace yang.
They achieve harmony by combining these forces.
...
...

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html#Kap40

Returning is the motion of the Tao.
Yielding is the way of the Tao.
The ten thousand things are born of being.
Being is born of not being. >>

Everything as a thing, wan-wu, an all-thing, is
already mixed when seen as a thing.

As a verb, it could be like water. To water
the ground is possible for rain to pertain
without thinking about doing such a thing.

- thanks! Cheers!

[aye]

> Jeff wrote about how:

>>It would not be "the Way", you could say. It would also be "a fact".

A saying could be said, Tao is everywhere,
and/or, there is no place it is not. It might also miss a point.

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/Zhuangzi-Burton-Watson.pdf

<< Master Dongguo asked Zhuangzi,
“This thing called the Way—where does it exist?”

Zhuangzi, said, “There’s no place it doesn’t exist.”

“Come,” said Master Dongguo, “you must be
more specific!”

“It is in the ant.”

“As low a thing as that?”

“It is in the panic grass.”

“But that’s lower still!”

“It is in the tiles and shards.”

“How can it be so low?”

“It is in the piss and shit!”

Master Dongguo made no reply.

Zhuangzi said, “Sir, your questions simply don’t get at
the substance of the matter. When Inspector Huo asked the
superintendent of the market how to test the fatness of a
pig by pressing it with the foot, he was told that the lower
down on the pig you press, the nearer you come to the
truth. But you must not expect to find the Way in any
particular place—there is no thing that escapes its
presence! Such is the Perfect Way, and so too are the truly
great words. ‘Complete,’ ‘universal,’ ‘all-inclusive’—these
three are different words with the same meaning. All point
to a single reality.

“Why don’t you try wandering with me to the Palace of
Not-Even-Anything—identity and concord will be the basis
of our discussions, and they will never come to an end,
never reach exhaustion. Why not join with me in inaction,
in tranquil quietude, in hushed purity, in harmony and
leisure? Already my will is vacant and blank. I go nowhere
and don’t know how far I’ve gotten. I go and come and don’t
know where to stop. I’ve already been there and back, and I
don’t know when the journey is done. I ramble and relax in
unbordered vastness; Great Knowledge enters in, and I
don’t know where it will ever end.

“That which treats things as things is not limited by
things. Things have their limits—the so-called limits of
things. The unlimited moves to the realm of limits; the
limited moves to the unlimited realm. We speak of the
filling and emptying, the withering and decay of things.
[The Way] makes them full and empty without itself filling
or emptying; it makes them wither and decay without itself
withering or decaying. It establishes root and branch but
knows no root and branch itself; it determines when to
store up or scatter but knows no storing or
scattering itself.” >>

[one]

aye wrote:
>> Jeff wrote about how:
>
>>>It would not be "the Way", you could say. It would also be "a fact".
>
>A saying could be said, Tao is everywhere,
>and/or, there is no place it is not. It might also miss a point.

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/Taoteching_withCommentaries.pdf

http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap53.htm#top

TTC 53, you could say, speaks of what is not the Way.

Robbery may be said to be not Tao
and yet, a great thief must have Tao.

- accordion to the Chuang-tzu at play time ... Cheers!

[aye]

one wrote:
>aye wrote:
>>> Jeff wrote about how:
>>
>>>>It would not be "the Way", you could say. It would also be "a fact".
>>
>>A saying could be said, Tao is everywhere,
>>and/or, there is no place it is not. It might also miss a point.
>
>https://terebess.hu/english/tao/Taoteching_withCommentaries.pdf
>
>http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap53.htm#top
>
>TTC 53, you could say, speaks of what is not the Way.

Not to mention TTC 55 nor TTC 30 eh.

http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap55.htm#top

http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap30.htm#top

- translations vary. aye. thanks again! Cheers!

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Thursday, November 10, 2022 at 2:42:43 AM UTC-8, aye wrote:
> > Jeff wrote about how:
> >>It would not be "the Way", you could say. It would also be "a fact".
> A saying could be said, Tao is everywhere,
> and/or, there is no place it is not. It might also miss a point.

Is the HIV everywhere in your body, or are there organs/organelles
that are relatively free of it?

[Jeffrey Rubard]

It's an "either/or", really, right?

[one]

Jeff wrote:
>aye wrote:
>> > Jeff wrote about how:

>> >>It would not be "the Way", you could say. It would also be "a fact".
>>
>> A saying could be said, Tao is everywhere,
>> and/or, there is no place it is not. It might also miss a point.
>
>Is the HIV everywhere in your body, or are there organs/organelles
>that are relatively free of it?

You are not making sense.

Speaking of fraud, and other topics
t'hats are not particularly Taoism, you write
about wh'at appears to be an obsession and project
what is untrue, obviously, such as you well may sew dew.

Froggy was an happy camper
being in his well one day when
suddenly there appeared a sea
turtle whose name is named as
a ming ke ming.

To say a name is not, fei, the name
could be said and be an interpretation
of the poetry written in the sands of time
drifting like dunes with grains of truth buried
among the ruins found when going spelunking.

- given: Chuang-tzu, a book, Taoist philosophy. Cheers!

[mite]

Jeff questioned his elf:
> Jeff wrote of his elf:

>> Is the HIV everywhere in your body, or are there organs/organelles
>> that are relatively free of it?
>
>It's an "either/or", really, right?

If it has you in its grip and you gripe about it
then t'hats th'at in your mirror world reflecting
thoughts trained running off the rails in brains
apparently disconnected when your corpus call-
osum failed to add and subtracting did knot.

Neither/nor is able to be
a solution which compares
width, length and depths of
water having states naturally.

TTC 40 and TTC 42 exist given their Ways.
Sum may say there is one and only one Way.
And yet, given the two, which one is the one
may be asked of them speaking metaphysically.

From what is not duality, not either/or,
emerge dualities naturally when language is
and chopping, carving, to slice, dice and mince
words known and unknown by speakers, writers
and readers able to read between lines while
spaces between them, within and among
even all the letters they contain argh.

The emptiness of the screen is seen
and is what allows words to be being on it.

To say there is nothing to it
or it is nothing in particular
can be a saying said when
a scene shifts and lifts a
tribble going nowhere.

Having fits a shoe is worn
by those who wear them and
when they are torn between their ex-
president an hat mite marks how they see
Spot run. Run Spot. Run! And having fun
they know how to read and comprehend.

- words on screens. reflecting. thanks! Cheers!

[aye]

one wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>> aye wrote:
>>> > Jeff wrote about how:
>
>>> >>It would not be "the Way", you could say. It would also be "a fact".
>>>
>>> A saying could be said, Tao is everywhere,
>>> and/or, there is no place it is not. It might also miss a point.
>>
>>Is the HIV everywhere in your body, or are there organs/organelles
>>that are relatively free of it?
>
>You are not making sense.

Trolls troll. And yet. The troll who trolls may be said
to be the unless he is not, the, Troll who is the Troll.

Kinda like a tao that is a way
and at the same time is not the Way
t'hat assumes there is a way th'at is the Way.

Teh in TTC 38 may pertain.

- in a bamboozle groove. aye. thanks again! Cheers!

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 6:12:25 AM UTC-8, aye wrote:
> one wrote:
> > Jeff wrote:
> >> aye wrote:
> >>> > Jeff wrote about how:
> >
> >>> >>It would not be "the Way", you could say. It would also be "a fact".
> >>>
> >>> A saying could be said, Tao is everywhere,
> >>> and/or, there is no place it is not. It might also miss a point.
> >>
> >>Is the HIV everywhere in your body, or are there organs/organelles
> >>that are relatively free of it?
> >
> >You are not making sense.
> Trolls troll. And yet. The troll who trolls may be said
> to be the unless he is not, the, Troll who is the Troll.
>

"Well, do you suppose this George W. Bush infected sexual partners with the HIV virus or not?
It seems far-fetched, but it's a sort of 'binary', yes/no question. Which is it?"

[one]

Jeff wrote in quotes:

>"Well, do you suppose this George W. Bush infected sexual partners with the HIV virus or not?
>It seems far-fetched, but it's a sort of 'binary', yes/no question. Which is it?"

Why are you using quotes?

It looks as if your audience is having some sort of a conversation
with thems elves who are in the peanut gallery at three or four
in the morning or after noon.

http://www.daoisopen.com/ZZ2.html

<< What's meant by "three in the morning"? There was a monkey keeper
who gave these instructions for feeding nuts to the monkeys: "Give
them three in the morning and four at night." The monkeys were all
outraged. So he said: "Okay, give them four in the morning and three
at night." The monkeys were all happy. The amount they were fed didn't
change, but their reactions showing pleasure or anger got them what
they wanted. Therefore, a wise person finds harmony with Right and
Wrong and relaxes with the equality of the heavens. This is called
being able to adapt. >>

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Saturday, November 12, 2022 at 6:27:20 PM UTC-8, one wrote:
> Jeff wrote in quotes:
> >"Well, do you suppose this George W. Bush infected sexual partners with the HIV virus or not?
> >It seems far-fetched, but it's a sort of 'binary', yes/no question. Which is it?"
> Why are you using quotes?

It's "imagined discourse" by a person more rational than most of my "interlocutors".

>
> It looks as if your audience is having some sort of a conversation
> with thems elves who are in the peanut gallery at three or four
> in the morning or after noon.
>

No, they seem like a normal person rationally considering the issue, probably.
(So, does he have that shit or not? What sympathy are we to have for "Mr. Compassionate Conservative" giving it to other people, too?)

[one]

Jeff wrote:
>one wrote:
>> Jeff wrote in quotes:
>>
>> >"Well, do you suppose this George W. Bush infected sexual partners with the HIV virus or not?
>> >It seems far-fetched, but it's a sort of 'binary', yes/no question. Which is it?"
>>
>> Why are you using quotes?
>

>It's "imagined discourse" ...

So, the same imaginary person who asks a question
answers the question. Or there are two people
you imagine are having a conversation.

Except, in this case, above, your imaginary people
or person didn't answer the question yes or no.

Why was that?

- thanks! Cheers!

[one]

Jeff wrote:

>> Jeff wrote:

>> >"Well, do you suppose this George W. Bush infected sexual partners with the HIV virus or not?
>> >It seems far-fetched, but it's a sort of 'binary', yes/no question. Which is it?"

>It's "imagined discourse" ...

> they seem like a normal person rationally considering the issue, probably.

They seem like a normal person
sounds as if there is a they who
is not a they you imagine argh.

>(So, does he have that shit or not? What sympathy are we to have for "Mr. Compassionate Conservative" giving it to other people, too?)

The parentheses mean, in your imaginary world,
a second, they, are involved in the discussion they,
meaning, you, are having about your double-you
who holds an odd place in your imaginary world.

In reality, aka, the real world, probably he doesn't have
what you, in your world, appear to project he might
and prehaps dew condenses as he leaves you
there and then again filming him at eleven.

- strange, a mite bit, as it seams ... Cheers!

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Monday, November 14, 2022 at 6:03:09 AM UTC-8, one wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> >> Jeff wrote:
>
> >> >"Well, do you suppose this George W. Bush infected sexual partners with the HIV virus or not?
> >> >It seems far-fetched, but it's a sort of 'binary', yes/no question. Which is it?"
> >It's "imagined discourse" ...
> > they seem like a normal person rationally considering the issue, probably.
> They seem like a normal person
> sounds as if there is a they who
> is not a they you imagine argh.

Sample discourse: "Is 'hele' a Hebrew word, then?"

[one]

How is that a discourse?

Cud be, what you are calling a discourse is
of course like an horse which reminds one of Taoism.

Using a word from a language that is not English
could be like riding an horse like a rocking horse
unless some body happens to be running round
with an horse called Hobby given by the Mingjia.

Hobby Horse was an horse of course
and little children talked with him naturally.

Gramps and Grams sat rocking in their chairs
that weren't rocking horses rocking like rocks
which are neither hear nor th'air.

- in a bamboozle groove. thanks! Cheers!

[aye]

one wrote:
>Jeff wrote:
>>one wrote:
>>> Jeff wrote:
>>> >> Jeff wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >"Well, do you suppose this George W. Bush infected sexual partners with the HIV virus or not?
>>> >> >It seems far-fetched, but it's a sort of 'binary', yes/no question. Which is it?"
>>> >
>>> >It's "imagined discourse" ...
>>> > they seem like a normal person rationally considering the issue, probably.
>>>
>>> They seem like a normal person
>>> sounds as if there is a they who
>>> is not a they you imagine argh.
>>
>>Sample discourse: "Is 'hele' a Hebrew word, then?"
>
>How is that a discourse?
>
>Cud be, what you are calling a discourse is
>of course like an horse which reminds one of Taoism.
>
>Using a word from a language that is not English
>could be like riding an horse like a rocking horse
>unless some body happens to be running round
>with an horse called Hobby given by the Mingjia.

http://oaks.nvg.org/zhuangzi1-.html#2

<< By means of a finger (of my own) to illustrate that the finger (of
another) is not a finger is not so good a plan as to illustrate that
it is not so by means of what is (acknowledged to be) not a finger;
and by means of (what I call) a horse to illustrate that (what another
calls) a horse is not so, is not so good a plan as to illustrate that
it is not a horse, by means of what is (acknowledged to be) not a
horse. (All things in) heaven and earth may be (dealt with as) a
finger; (each of) their myriads may be (dealt with as) a horse. Does a
thing seem so to me? (I say that) it is so. Does it seem not so to me?
(I say that) it is not so. A path is formed by (constant) treading on
the ground. A thing is called by its name through the (constant)
application of the name to it. How is it so? It is so because it is
so. How is it not so? It is not so, because it is not so. Everything
has its inherent character and its proper capability. >>

>Hobby Horse was an horse of course
>and little children talked with him naturally.
>
>Gramps and Grams sat rocking in their chairs
>that weren't rocking horses rocking like rocks
>which are neither hear nor th'air.

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/ChuangTzu-palmer.pdf

<< What is, is, what is not, is not.
The Tao is made because we walk it,
things become what they are called.
Why is this so? Surely because this is so.
Why is this not so? Surely because this is
not so. >>

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 4:43:18 AM UTC-8, one wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> >one wrote:
> >> Jeff wrote:
> >> >> Jeff wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >"Well, do you suppose this George W. Bush infected sexual partners with the HIV virus or not?
> >> >> >It seems far-fetched, but it's a sort of 'binary', yes/no question. Which is it?"
> >> >
> >> >It's "imagined discourse" ...
> >> > they seem like a normal person rationally considering the issue, probably.
> >>
> >> They seem like a normal person
> >> sounds as if there is a they who
> >> is not a they you imagine argh.
> >
> >Sample discourse: "Is 'hele' a Hebrew word, then?"
> How is that a discourse?

For the audience: "We've been here before."
Aw-shucks fooling about "discourse" having to mean "a discourse" is something I've seen *exactly* before from "this type of person".
Could we give this up?

[one]

Jeff wrote:
> one wondered:
>> Jeff appeared to ask:

>>
>> >Sample discourse: "Is 'hele' a Hebrew word, then?"
>>
>> How is that a discourse?
>
>For the audience: "We've been here before."

No idea what you're talking about.

You appear to tell your, audience, that you
and they have been here, where ever that is,
previously at times rather often.

>Aw-shucks fooling about "discourse" having to mean "a discourse" is something I've seen *exactly* before from "this type of person".
>Could we give this up?

Your audience seems to me to be imaginary.

If you and they were able to give something up,
then you could say you could, you being the plural
second person pronoun in this case where it appears
when you use the first person plural pronoun to refer
to them and your self. Themselves, like thems elves
appear to appear as often as knots. Cud be DMT.

Without knowing if, 'hele', is a Hebrew word,
to ask if it is, in a Taoist philosophy group is odd, imo.

Even still, when words have many connotations, e.g. Tao,
a Tao that is a Tao might not always be the Tao eh.

Hence the opening line of the TTC which
reads as, dao ke dao fei chang dao,
is able to be subject to various
interpretations naturally.

- poetic licenses vary. Thanks! Cheers!

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Thursday, November 17, 2022 at 4:42:25 AM UTC-8, one wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> > one wondered:
> >> Jeff appeared to ask:
> >>
> >> >Sample discourse: "Is 'hele' a Hebrew word, then?"
> >>
> >> How is that a discourse?
> >
> >For the audience: "We've been here before."
> No idea what you're talking about.
> You appear to tell your, audience, that you
> and they have been here, where ever that is,
> previously at times rather often.
> >Aw-shucks fooling about "discourse" having to mean "a discourse" is something I've seen *exactly* before from "this type of person".
> >Could we give this up?
> Your audience seems to me to be imaginary.

Your self-insight seems to me to be similarly fictitious.
I have had to read this kind of crap before, and I know what I think of it (little).
That such thoughts could "go around" seems to not occur to you at all.

[mite]

Jeff wrote:

>I have had to read this kind of crap before, and I know what I think of it (little).
>That such thoughts could "go around" seems to not occur to you at all.

Who made you read what you call
your kind of crap, before
is unknown to me
actually.

Sounds as if you were abused.

It appears you were forced, or created, made
to read some words on a screen or in books
prehaps and had a bad reaction to them
and then thems elves infected your
brain in a train of thought when
it went off the rails and now
finds its elf here which is
a mite bit strange eh.

There are trains that go round and round
without really going any where other than there
until a little child stops them or an adult pulls the plug
and says, that's enough for now is the time for all
good people to have dinner and go to sleep.

https://www.whiterosehobbies.com/collections/ho-scale-model-trains

<< HO scale is the most popular scale in the world with
the largest inventory of models, products and designs. Sometimes
referred to as OO scale in Europe, the scale is 1:87 and was
originally created to be half of O Scale to be more suitable for
smaller home railroads. HO is a nice balance between the smaller
N Scale and the larger O Scale trains. >>

The little engine that could, could.
At least, it thought it could until
it actually did taw a putty tat.

Scales are scales.
Fish and snakes have them.
Eyes vary. When scales weigh weights
at times a wait is over and then a waiter calls
for a clean plate or a move down like the Hatter eh.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 4:40:12 AM UTC-8, mite wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>
> >I have had to read this kind of crap before, and I know what I think of it (little).
> >That such thoughts could "go around" seems to not occur to you at all.
> Who made you read what you call
> your kind of crap, before
> is unknown to me
> actually.

My attention was focused, sort of. It's the kind of material which is ordinarily too unintelligent
to hold that attention.

[one]

Jeff wrote:
> mite wrote:
>> Jeff wrote:
>>
>> >I have had to read this kind of crap before, and I know what I think of it (little).
>> >That such thoughts could "go around" seems to not occur to you at all.
>>
>> Who made you read what you call
>> your kind of crap, before
>> is unknown to me
>> actually.
>
>My attention was focused, sort of.

Attention is an odd noun-thing, imo.

Being able to, ontologically, have it
and, some how or other be able to focus it,
appears to appear at various depths, at length
and its where with-all mites vary.

> It's the kind of material which is ordinarily too unintelligent
>to hold that attention.

Prehaps you can't increase its intelligence ore knot.

- thanks! Cheers!

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 1:26:29 PM UTC-8, one wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> > mite wrote:
> >> Jeff wrote:
> >>
> >> >I have had to read this kind of crap before, and I know what I think of it (little).
> >> >That such thoughts could "go around" seems to not occur to you at all.
> >>
> >> Who made you read what you call
> >> your kind of crap, before
> >> is unknown to me
> >> actually.
> >
> >My attention was focused, sort of.
> Attention is an odd noun-thing, imo.
>
> Being able to, ontologically, have it
> and, some how or other be able to focus it,
> appears to appear at various depths, at length
> and its where with-all mites vary.

Reference to ontology or "metaphysics" was once another famous legal ruse.
Really nobody, even fans of the subdiscipline, could see it as useful in "matters of dispute".

[one]

Jeff wrote:
> one wrote:
>> Jeff wrote:
>> > mite wrote:
>> >> Jeff wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >I have had to read this kind of crap before, and I know what I think of it (little).
>> >> >That such thoughts could "go around" seems to not occur to you at all.
>> >>
>> >> Who made you read what you call
>> >> your kind of crap, before
>> >> is unknown to me
>> >> actually.
>> >
>> >My attention was focused, sort of.
>>
>> Attention is an odd noun-thing, imo.
>>
>> Being able to, ontologically, have it
>> and, some how or other be able to focus it,
>> appears to appear at various depths, at length
>> and its where with-all mites vary.
>
>Reference to ontology or "metaphysics" was once another famous legal ruse.

No idea what you're talking about.

Taoism has its metaphysics, its myths, so to speak.

Prehaps you're not referring to Taoism eh.

If not, why bring up some other situation to amuse you and yours
elf and elves unless, well, there are trolling trolls like frogs here.

They may be your they who argh.

Your imaginary audience. They who con you,
who scam you and use your famous legal ruse which
might exist unless it does knot being ore in vain.

They could be smarter than even you
of all people and be like sea turtles
rather than well frogs.

>Really nobody, even fans of the subdiscipline, could see it as useful in "matters of dispute".

No idea what you're talking about.

TTC 40 and TTC 42 arrive in mind

at this time for time beings naturally.

- thanks! Cheers!

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 3:31:29 PM UTC-8, one wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> > one wrote:
> >> Jeff wrote:
> >> > mite wrote:
> >> >> Jeff wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >I have had to read this kind of crap before, and I know what I think of it (little).
> >> >> >That such thoughts could "go around" seems to not occur to you at all.
> >> >>
> >> >> Who made you read what you call
> >> >> your kind of crap, before
> >> >> is unknown to me
> >> >> actually.
> >> >
> >> >My attention was focused, sort of.
> >>
> >> Attention is an odd noun-thing, imo.
> >>
> >> Being able to, ontologically, have it
> >> and, some how or other be able to focus it,
> >> appears to appear at various depths, at length
> >> and its where with-all mites vary.
> >
> >Reference to ontology or "metaphysics" was once another famous legal ruse.
> No idea what you're talking about.
> Taoism has its metaphysics, its myths, so to speak.

Whatever, say, a John Roberts or his "gurus" think, it was once regarded as "simple deception"
to attempt to be talking philosophically in a US courtroom. I've always interpreted your un-learned
pseudo-philosophical comments that way, at least.

[one]

Your interpretations, projections, reflections
and comments are appreciated at times.

Even though they may have nothing to do with Taoism,
when pondering how they might have to do with Taoism,
Taoism returns to me as being the topic, unusually.

A line, the opening line of the TTC, speaks
of a Tao that can be interpreted as being unusual
as, fei is able to mean, not, and chang can mean usual.

Tao k'o tao fei ch'ang tao
is able to be interpreted as meaning
the tao that is being spoken of
is an unusual tao.

It's unlike basic Confucian and Mohist tao, naturally.
Those two are m'ore artificial, and problematic.

Taoist Tao, plural, similar to the Zone, or, Zones
if more than one Zone is taken axiomatically not
as being written in stone, nor granite, granted
could be felt as unusual and yet they're every
where and at all times, unless they argh knot.

Take being able to breathe, for example,
or stand and walk, without falling nor to
be out of breath naturally. Such a Zone
might be learned or have bins born with.

Being able to see, eyes work
without working as light gathers
and passing thru a pupil or two,
yet to pay attention, to focus
might take some doing except
even that can be without doing.

Spontaneously, effortless action, wu-wei
may be an iconic form of Taoism per se.

Is such a state, such a phenomenon
physical or metaphysical and is there a Tao
beyond such a duality as either/or, both/and,
as wells of neither/nor suggest an apophatic
type of approach, approaching a mystical
xuan, or hsuan song being sung poetically.

- thanks! Cheers!

[aye]

> Jeff wrote:

>> one wrote:

>>> No idea what you're talking about.
>>> Taoism has its metaphysics, its myths, so to speak.
>>
>>Whatever

Kinda sums it all up eh.

Jeff trolls and posts his posts naturally.

His interest in Taoist metaphysics is,
using his word: Whatever.

Speaking of wu, aka Wu, which is able
to mean, nothing if not Nothing, Nonbeing
as well as Nothingness to name three possible
variations on a theme of what is not and yet
whether it is, not, and/or is a not-not mite
be found in a few lines in the Chuang-tzu.

http://www.daoisopen.com/ZZ2.html

<< I'll give you some abstract words to savor,
and you listen to them abstractly, okay? >>

<< Nowadays there are all sorts of words. There's no way to know which
category they fit into. Maybe they don't fit into any category. One
category may not fit in with another. Grouped together, they might
form a new category. If they were all grouped together, then there'd
be no need for distinctions. Although that may be so, please check out
these words. There was a beginning. There has not yet been a beginning
that began anything. There is existence. There is non-existence.
Existence and non-existence have not yet begun. There is no beginning
to existence just as there is no beginning to non-existence. If after
a while existence and non-existence came to an end, then not knowing
whether there actually was an existence or a non-existence, there'd be
no point in determining what was existence and what was non-existence.
Now that I've already made those statements, I don't know if I've
really said anything, or haven't said anything at all. >>

TTC 40 and 42 are m'ore explicit.

http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap40.htm#top

http://www.mobilewords.pro/Tao/chap42.htm#top

- interpretations vary. aye. thanks! Cheers!

[mite]

Jeff'd written a:

> "simple deception"

>I've always interpreted your un-learned
>pseudo-philosophical comments that way, at least.

Tis a funny Ting.
Carving Teh bull sighs.

One posts posts.
Jeff posts posts.

Jeff sees his, simple deception
if not plural and scams if not singular
boiler-plate lets letting him vent and sew froth.

He's an odd kinda guy even
not being very still as he objects
and corrects as if he knew new things
among the 10k, wan-wu, as a given ofold.

His interest in Taoist metaphysics is, whatever.

His obsession with a virus and homophobic fears
of spreading his obsession given his projections,
his words turn to south of where he is physically.

Disdaining others of his ilk being unkind such as
he is at times calling his others, queens and then
demeaning his kind of attractions and repulsions,
he is quite an interesting phenomenon being him.

His elves, thems elves, oh sew they dew and
condense as his words fall knots on deaf mutes
and to suppose blind eyes argh and able to here
hear his jeers of the crowds going wild he has
his, audience, his they, his we, and stereotypes.

- prehaps he is looking for blood ink blots ... Cheers!

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 2:11:33 AM UTC-8, one wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> > one wrote:
> >> Jeff wrote:
>
> >> >Reference to ontology or "metaphysics" was once another famous legal ruse.
> >>
> >> No idea what you're talking about.
> >> Taoism has its metaphysics, its myths, so to speak.
> >
> >Whatever, say, a John Roberts or his "gurus" think, it was once regarded as "simple deception"
> >to attempt to be talking philosophically in a US courtroom.
>
> No idea what you're talking about.
>
> >I've always interpreted your un-learned
> >pseudo-philosophical comments that way, at least.
> Your interpretations, projections, reflections
> and comments are appreciated at times.
>

"That's projecting/you're projecting" has already had its day, in a big way.

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 3:51:00 AM UTC-8, mite wrote:
> Jeff'd written a:

These "reheadings" of posts that you do are, I believe, understood as *none other*
than patent legal deception. *That is the only point or purpose of doing that.*

[one]

Jeff wrote:

>These "reheadings" of posts that you do are, I believe, understood as *none other*
>than patent legal deception. *That is the only point or purpose of doing that.*

Your belief system is very strange, imo.

The purpose of changing a Subject line is
to alert a reader that the topic has changed,
from, for example, TTC 4 to TTC 8 then to
the Chuang-tzu, CT 1, and then from there
to tribbles for what reason has bins forgotten.

You project your patent legal desception as
being the only point or purpose and why you do
could be a product of your hypocrisy, if and when
your projection bothers you, naturally.

It's a feed-back loop that occurs when a mirror
world happens to occur stemming from denial.
Those who deny they are to some degree
what they are in denial about get bothered.

If the only point or purpose for changing the Subject
line of a post, in your belief system, is understood
as patent legal deception and you are unable to
grok any other point or purpose then you may
be said to be very narrow minded as well.

- well frogs vary. Thanks! Cheers!

[aye]

one wrote:

>If the only point or purpose for changing the Subject
>line of a post, in your belief system, is understood
>as patent legal deception and you are unable to
>grok any other point or purpose then you may
>be said to be very narrow minded as well.
>
>- well frogs vary. Thanks! Cheers!

http://www.daoisopen.com/ZZ17.html

<< The god of the North Sea said:
"You can't tell a frog in a well about the sea since it's restricted
by its own confines. You can't tell a summer insect about ice since it
only survives for one season. You can't tell a biased scholar about
Dao since he's so tied up in his own theories. >>

The above may reflect tales told in the ZZ, Chapter 1.

http://www.daoisopen.com/ZZ1.html

<< A cicada and a young dove laugh together while saying: ... >>

- aye. thanks! Cheers!

[one]

Jeff wrote in quotes:

>"That's projecting/you're projecting" has already had its day, in a big way.

The projector that is the projector
isn't always the projector naturally.

Similar to how a dao can be the dao
but isn't always the dao as DDJ 1 may say
when it says: dao ke dao fei chang dao.

Projections vary.

You see as you saw and cut, chop, slice, dice
and mince words you read on a screen as dew
condenses while for me to sigh occurs too.

Your projections leave me like drops in a bucket
falling off leaves in the morning and evaporating
as a day warms until evening arrives and again
an other arrives and a cycle returns time and
time again for time beings, naturally.

Similar to how seasons go without going
any where aside from being seasons
known by knowers who know them.

Tides may be high or low and
at times higher or lower than before
while waves break time and time again and
again return to an ocean of thought in a notion all
stemming from words on screens and projected
to mean what a reader believes they mean
and might not be what a writer meant
when minted at a word factory.

- smiths vary. Thanks! Cheers!

[one]

aye wrote:
> one noted:

>>- well frogs vary. Thanks! Cheers!
>
>http://www.daoisopen.com/ZZ17.html
>
><< The god of the North Sea said:
>"You can't tell a frog in a well about the sea since it's restricted
>by its own confines. You can't tell a summer insect about ice since it
>only survives for one season. You can't tell a biased scholar about
>Dao since he's so tied up in his own theories. >>

<< "Haven't you heard about the frog who lived in a broken down well?
It said to the turtle of the East Sea: 'I'm really enjoying myself. I
can jump up to the wooden beam on top of the well and hang out there
for a while, then I can drop down and rest on the edge of one of the
old broken tiles. When I flop into the water it sloshes on my arms and
holds up my chin. As I slip and slide through the mud, it covers my
feet up to my ankles. Of all the earthworms, crabs and tadpoles, none
of them can do what I do. And to top that off, I'm the one in
authority over the water in this huge hole and I can do whatever I
please in here. This is really perfect! Why don't you come on down and
take a look any time you like?' Before the turtle of the East Sea
could get his left foot into the opening, his right knee had already
gotten stuck on something. So he pulled back to assess his situation
and took a few steps back. Then he started speaking about the sea:
'The measurements of a thousand football fields aren't sufficient to
describe its size. The depth of eight thousand feet couldn't reach its
deepest parts. During the time of Yu there were heavy rains that
flooded the land nine years out of ten, but all that water wasn't able
to overfill it. During the time of Tang there was a devastating
drought that parched the land seven years out of eight, but all that
evaporation didn't decrease it. It can't be made to be transformed by
any sudden occurrence nor by things that happen over longer periods of
time. Neither abundance nor lack in the world can make it advance or
retreat. This is also a great enjoyment - that of the East Sea.' As
the frog in the broken down well was listening to this, he became more
and more startled, and from his demeanor he seemed to have lost
himself in bewilderment. >>

[one]

>>>- well frogs vary. Thanks! Cheers!

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/Zhuangzi-Burton-Watson.pdf

<< The cicada and the little dove laugh at this, saying,
“When we make an effort and fly up, we can get as far as
the elm or the sapanwood tree, but sometimes we don’t
make it and just fall down on the ground. Now how is
anyone going to go ninety thousand li to the south!”
If you go off to the green woods nearby, you can take
along food for three meals and come back with your
stomach as full as ever. If you are going a hundred li, you
must grind your grain the night before; and if you are going
a thousand li, you must start getting the provisions together
three months in advance. What do these two creatures
understand? Little understanding cannot come up to great
understanding; the short-lived cannot come up to the longlived.

How do I know this is so? The morning mushroomknows nothing of
twilight and dawn; the summer cicada knows nothing of spring and
autumn. They are the shortlived. South of Chu there is a caterpillar
that counts five hundred years as one spring and five hundred years as
one autumn. Long, long ago there was a great rose of Sharon
that counted eight thousand years as one spring and eight
thousand years as one autumn. They are the long-lived. Yet
Pengzu alone is famous today for having lived a long time,
and everybody tries to ape him. Isn’t it pitiful! >>

- Zz 1, Watson's translation.