The Playstation Underground Update
Anders Honore
<psxunde...@cjb.net> skrev i en
nyhedsmeddelelse:fh3Q4.2913$zRy1.1...@tomcat.sk.sympatico.ca...
> The Real PSX Underground
> check us out online @ http://modchip.50megs.com
>
> Our URL changed cause CJB.net was being a total Bitch and thinks our site
is in Violation of there terms ... Sorry for posting this twice but I think
you should alll know the new URL atleast ... Thanks
>
> Hello fellow PSX owners and Fans
>
> Ive just setup the coolest new Hideout, here you can Buy, Sell and Trade
Playstation games as well as the latest PSX addons like Modchips, VcD cards
and so on.
>
> You can even get plans on how to build you own ModChip Burner to make your
own modchips from parts from RadioShack, we have all the plans and software
you will need to make them for -FREE- although we also sell them.
>
> We also got the plans and software to make your Own DreamCast ModChips
which is very cool.
>
> and for a limited time we are Giving away a Free System of your Choice
from DreamCast, Playstation, N64 or even the Jap PSX2 ...
>
> we sell everything that deals with Modifying or Backing-up games.
>
> We also have DVD Players with No Country Lock or Copy protection as low as
$400 Canadian
>
> The Real PSX Underground
> check us out online @ http://modchip.50megs.com
Arrghh! I just had to reply to this one! Forgive me, aliens forced me to do
it!
Moonshadao
>
>
Bullshit snipped...
>
> Arrghh! I just had to reply to this one! Forgive me, aliens forced me to do
> it!
No one in alt.philosophy.taoism cares.
Please leave alt.philosophy.taoism out of the news groups
when crossposting bullshit to other newsgroups
Anders Honore
Moonshadao <Moons...@aol.com> skrev i en
nyhedsmeddelelse:391179...@aol.com...
You know, I wasn't even aware that I was crossposting to APT. I posted from
APZ, and it just never crossed my mind that APT was on the list. next time,
I'll will be more attentive :-)
No hard feelings?
--
"Don't let school interfere with your education." - Mark Twain
Anders Honoré
Moonshadao
> next time,
> I'll will be more attentive :-)
> No hard feelings?
>
No feelings at all.
Anders Honore
Yikes! That's not a very healthy state of mind. Is that in general or merely
me.
Moonshadao
In general. 'Feelings' are emotions which involve mind and body.
A physiological state of being that is more than
just state of mind. Similar to 'getting your panties in a wad'.
I don't allow emotions to control what I do.
I have emotions, as does anyone, but they
are not a dwelled on. They come and go. So having no
'feelings' means I 'do without doing' or 'feel without feeling'.
Nathan Engle
> > > next time,
> > > I'll will be more attentive :-)
> > > No hard feelings?
> > No feelings at all.
> Yikes! That's not a very healthy state of mind.
Moonshadow thereby demonstrates the old Thurber fable
moral that "You might as well fall flat on your face as
lean over too far backwards".
Clearly to allow your life to be controlled and dictated
by feelings is extreme and unwise, yet to turn away from
feelings completely is just as extreme and just as unwise.
Most humans *do* have feelings, and in my view it is
more constructive for the many-headed masses to moderate
their feelings than extinguish them.
--
Nathan Engle
Shop Steward Electron Juggler's Guild, Local #1
nen...@indiana.edu http://php.indiana.edu/~nengle
"Some Assembly Required"
Anders Honore
> Anders Honore wrote:
> >
> > Moonshadao <Moons...@aol.com> skrev i en
> > nyhedsmeddelelse:3911A8...@aol.com...
> > > Anders Honore wrote:
> > > > next time,
> > > > I'll will be more attentive :-)
> > > > No hard feelings?
> > > >
> > >
> > > No feelings at all.
> >
merely
> > me.
>
> In general. 'Feelings' are emotions which involve mind and body.
> A physiological state of being that is more than
> just state of mind. Similar to 'getting your panties in a wad'.
> I don't allow emotions to control what I do.
> I have emotions, as does anyone, but they
> are not a dwelled on. They come and go. So having no
> 'feelings' means I 'do without doing' or 'feel without feeling'.
Ah, detaching to feelings. I follow you. But you gotta admit, 'no feelings
at all' in a thread with the header 'The Bullshit Update' could be
misinterpreted. >g<.
So, have you reached a state of complete detachment to your feelings, or are
you striving to attain that state?
--
"Don't let school interfere with your education." - Mark Twain
Blessings,
Anders Honoré
musician
> > > No feelings at all.
> >
> > Yikes! That's not a very healthy state of mind. Is that in general or merely
> > me.
>
> In general. 'Feelings' are emotions which involve mind and body.
> A physiological state of being that is more than
> just state of mind. Similar to 'getting your panties in a wad'.
> I don't allow emotions to control what I do.
> I have emotions, as does anyone, but they
> are not a dwelled on. They come and go. So having no
> 'feelings' means I 'do without doing' or 'feel without feeling'.
enjoyed this muchly Moonshadao
--
musician
lisa
>> > > next time,
>> > > I'll will be more attentive :-)
>> > > No hard feelings?
>
>
>> Yikes! That's not a very healthy state of mind.
>
>moral that "You might as well fall flat on your face as
>lean over too far backwards".
>
> Clearly to allow your life to be controlled and dictated
>by feelings is extreme and unwise, yet to turn away from
>feelings completely is just as extreme and just as unwise.
>
> Most humans *do* have feelings, and in my view it is
>more constructive for the many-headed masses to moderate
>their feelings than extinguish them.
>
I think a lot of conflict arises when one tries to determine what they should
feel in a particular circumstance, instead of simply feeling what comes
naturally. I also think that it is the worrying about or predetermining what
emotion is to be expected which causes extremes in either direction (too much
emotion or none at all.)
I *try* to follow Chuang Tzu's example of feeling what spontaneously arises
fully, letting it wash through me, and then moving on. Of course this in
itself is a prescribed way of reacting and can also have its rough spots.
Is there any set answer that works for all occasions? I doubt it. I do tend
to agree with you though, Nathan, that if it comes down to a choice of the
masses to either moderate feelings or get rid of them altogether, FEELING is
much preferable!
rgds,
lisa
The Bellman
Anders Honore <anders...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
news:Yi9Q4.39$jL4....@news.get2net.dk...
aliens forced me to do
> it!
>
>
Ah, them God cursed aliens. I always knew there was a good
reason for xenophobia.
And, LOL LOL LOL, Anders. Good one.
Bellman
Nathan Engle
> Is there any set answer that works for all occasions?
> I doubt it.
Agreed. If universal wisdom was something that could
be read from a book of regulations there'd be a darned
sight more of it about.
> I do tend
> to agree with you though, Nathan, that if it comes down to a choice of the
> masses to either moderate feelings or get rid of them altogether, FEELING is
> much preferable!
And despite any preferences even unavoidable. The
inevitability of feelings is what makes coping with them
effectively so very important.
tao frog
> The
> inevitability of feelings is what makes coping with them
> effectively so very important.
Hi Nathan,
This relates well to Chuang Tzu's story of falling into the swirling
waters, only to emerge unharmed. It isn't through denial of the
feelings (fighting the current) that Chuang Tzu survives, but through
acknowledging them and flowing in accordance with them.
regards,
tf
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Moonshadao
>
> So, have you reached a state of complete detachment to your feelings, or are
> you striving to attain that state?
>
I don't strive to attain anything.
If I attain something I accept it and go on.
If I don't attain something I accept it and go on.
Striving sounds exhausting and
I try to stay away from 'states'.
Anders Honore
Douglas Henderson
It would be nice if it were true. The objective evidence is against him
though.
k...@springhaven.org
for wei-wu-wei.
even chuang tzu mourned.
* * *
hemingway quoted the phrase "religion is the opiate of the masses."
in the same context that he questioned if radio was the opiate
for a wounded man. the opiate easing the pain of existence.
people often cling to an ideal to address the pain of existence.
some cling to honor. other cling to goodness. others cling to
passion. other cling to dispassion.
* * *
my group at work is working on their mission statement.
on the way there people were asked what their long term goals
were. one of the team members aid it was "the ability to live
life for more hours than after work." i was struck with the thought
that i would never have thought of that; i think of myself
as living life all the time.
peter li'ir key
k...@springhaven.org
Moonshadao
What evidence?
You know nothing about what I do in my life,
only what I do here. Here is very non-representitive
of real life. Especially mine.
Eat shit and die dougie.
Nathan Engle
So much for irony.
Jaybuzin0000
[...]
>my group at work is working on their mission statement.
>on the way there people were asked what their long term goals
>were. one of the team members aid it was "the ability to live
>life for more hours than after work." i was struck with the thought
>that i would never have thought of that; i think of myself
>as living life all the time.
When I had finished with secondary school
I used to work for a month or two and then
a month or two would pass and I wouldn't work.
That appeared to be my pattern.
When I began a career
and settled in for the long haul
I'd rationalize it by figuring
that if I worked for 30+ years
and then took 40+ years off
that'd be a fair trade.
-in the meanwhile;
punching clocks
and passing bottomless-
{:-])))
kungm...@mindspring.com
wrote:
><Moonshadao wrote:
><> Douglas Henderson wrote:
><> > Anders Honore wrote:
><> > > >bows<
><
><> > It would be nice if it were true. The objective evidence is against him
><> > though.
><
><> What evidence?
><> You know nothing about what I do in my life,
><> only what I do here. Here is very non-representitive
><> of real life. Especially mine.
><>
><> Eat shit and die dougie.
><
>< So much for irony.
Gee, I wonder if that could count as a death threat delivered by his
ISP?
(slightly ironic)
--
Lao Wombat
Civet Cat
> Douglas Henderson wrote:
> >
> > Anders Honore wrote:
> > >
> > > nyhedsmeddelelse:3912EF...@aol.com...
> > > > Anders Honore wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > So, have you reached a state of complete detachment to your
feelings, or
> > > are
> > > > > you striving to attain that state?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't strive to attain anything.
> > > > If I attain something I accept it and go on.
> > > > If I don't attain something I accept it and go on.
> > > > Striving sounds exhausting and
> > > > I try to stay away from 'states'.
> > >
> >
> > It would be nice if it were true. The objective evidence is against him
> > though.
>
> What evidence?
> You know nothing about what I do in my life,
> only what I do here. Here is very non-representitive
> of real life. Especially mine.
Seperating were no seperation takes place. This is as much your real life as
anything.
> Eat shit and die dougie.
Doh, I should kept my mouth shut!
--
"Ricki Ticki Tavi? Wasn't that some kind of snake-eating rat or
something?" --- Homer Simpson
Civet Cat a.k.a. Anders Honoré
lisa
>
>
>it occurs to me that some peole have replaced detachment
>for wei-wu-wei.
>
>even chuang tzu mourned.
>
between subtleties has been mistaken for wei-wu-wei and it becomes tedious
trying to "figure everything out." I think it is very easy to fall into
thinking things out exclusively instead of trusting in the spontaneously
"right" action of wei-wu-wei.
>* * *
>
>hemingway quoted the phrase "religion is the opiate of the masses."
>in the same context that he questioned if radio was the opiate
>for a wounded man. the opiate easing the pain of existence.>>
Do you sincerely take Hemingway quotes as aphorisms to live by? True, religion
is an opiate of the masses. Yet, it is so much more than that. Like using
one's "God" to justify heinous crimes, is one who universally reviles religion
any less guilty? Do you believe that each person needs to choose the path that
is best for them at specific times in their lives and that sometimes religion
can serve a non-negative role in one's life?
>
>people often cling to an ideal to address the pain of existence.
Yes.
>some cling to honor. other cling to goodness. others cling to
>passion. other cling to dispassion.
Some cling to peaches. So? Such is the way of humans.
>
>* * *
>
>my group at work is working on their mission statement.
>on the way there people were asked what their long term goals
>were. one of the team members aid it was "the ability to live
>life for more hours than after work." i was struck with the thought
>that i would never have thought of that; i think of myself
>as living life all the time.
>
When I look at all of who I have been over the years, there probably isn't
anyone I haven't been. The me I am now is not the me that will be tomorrow.
It's a fascinating journey. Being alive is a gift. As I said before, even the
bad bits are good.
rgds,
lisa
ken
Douglas Henderson <kungm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:39131D14...@mindspring.com...
> Anders Honore wrote:
> >
> > Moonshadao <Moons...@aol.com> skrev i en
> > nyhedsmeddelelse:3912EF...@aol.com...
> > > Anders Honore wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > So, have you reached a state of complete detachment to your
feelings, or
> > are
> > > > you striving to attain that state?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't strive to attain anything.
> > > If I attain something I accept it and go on.
> > > If I don't attain something I accept it and go on.
> > > Striving sounds exhausting and
> > > I try to stay away from 'states'.
> >
> > >bows<
>
> It would be nice if it were true. The objective evidence is against him
> though.
Can't agree with you there Doug. Rgds Ken
ken
<k...@springhaven.org> wrote in message
news:RKGQ4.5125$z7.3...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
> it occurs to me that some peole have replaced detachment
> for wei-wu-wei.
>
> even chuang tzu mourned.
>
>
> hemingway quoted the phrase "religion is the opiate of the masses."
> in the same context that he questioned if radio was the opiate
> for a wounded man. the opiate easing the pain of existence.
>
> passion. other cling to dispassion.
>
>
> my group at work is working on their mission statement.
> on the way there people were asked what their long term goals
> were. one of the team members aid it was "the ability to live
> life for more hours than after work." i was struck with the thought
> that i would never have thought of that; i think of myself
> as living life all the time.
>
>
Where does this pain of existence come in. Seems to me that for the majority
of people in the western world life is relatively easy. Rgds Ken
ken
Jaybuzin0000 <jaybuz...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20000505185441...@ng-fj1.news.cs.com...
> peter wrote:
> [...]
>
> >my group at work is working on their mission statement.
> >on the way there people were asked what their long term goals
> >were. one of the team members aid it was "the ability to live
> >life for more hours than after work." i was struck with the thought
> >that i would never have thought of that; i think of myself
> >as living life all the time.
>
> I used to work for a month or two and then
> a month or two would pass and I wouldn't work.
> That appeared to be my pattern.
>
> When I began a career
> and settled in for the long haul
> I'd rationalize it by figuring
> that if I worked for 30+ years
> and then took 40+ years off
> that'd be a fair trade.
>
> -in the meanwhile;
> punching clocks
> and passing bottomless-
> {:-])))
Guess I've been lucky. Almost always enjoyed my work and enjoy doing nothing
now just as much. Rgds Ken
htShen
Hello Ken,
Question for you: if a person cannot distinguish truth (true statement)
and falsehood, how can the person know that he is making a true
statement and behaves as the statement
If he thinks that his statement is true, then he posses the distinction.
Then, he contradicts to his own beginning/assumption.
If he thinks that his statement is neither true nor false, then his
statement has no value/truth for the listener. Because the listener
cannot decide that statement made is true or false per given assumption.
Rgds,
ht
kungm...@mindspring.com
><
><Douglas Henderson <kungm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
><news:39131D14...@mindspring.com...
><> Anders Honore wrote:
><> >
><> > Moonshadao <Moons...@aol.com> skrev i en
><> > nyhedsmeddelelse:3912EF...@aol.com...
><> > > Anders Honore wrote:
><> > > >
><> > >
><> > > > So, have you reached a state of complete detachment to your
><feelings, or
><> > are
><> > > > you striving to attain that state?
><> > > >
><> > >
><> > > I don't strive to attain anything.
><> > > If I attain something I accept it and go on.
><> > > If I don't attain something I accept it and go on.
><> > > Striving sounds exhausting and
><> > > I try to stay away from 'states'.
><> >
><> > >bows<
><>
><> It would be nice if it were true. The objective evidence is against him
><> though.
><
><
><Can't agree with you there Doug. Rgds Ken
><
Hope you're right. His "going on" seems to consist of his "going on
and on" about certain things. Posting to other ngs to harass posters
certainly seems like striving to me.
--
Lao Wombat
Jaybuzin0000
>Ken wrote:
[...ht wrote...]
>><Can't agree with you there Doug.
>certainly seems like striving to me.
many facets exist
while a diamond is said to be a single thing.
from one view the wheel-write
or a pao-ting or hunchback or diver
looks as if they are doing something.
from another view
wu-wei is the term used.
-imso
Jaybuzin0000
>Guess I've been lucky. Almost always enjoyed my work and enjoy doing nothing
>now just as much.
Doing nothing is what I like best!
When there's nothing to do and noplace to go
'mellow is the word I use to describe ...'
Work is a trip for me.
At times the road is bumpy,
at other times it's smooth sailing.
lu liang
falling down
a rabbit whole
jumps up and
runs a way
k...@springhaven.org
>Where does this pain of existence come in.
same place it goes when a person lets go of it.
is love real?
>Seems to me that for the majority of people in the western
>world life is relatively easy.
having one's needs fulfilled does not necessarily settle
the uneasy heart.
elsewise song of unrequitted love would be less popular.
* * *
pretending a tiger is not there does not mean it will not attack you.
k...@springhaven.org
>peter writes:
>>it occurs to me that some peole have replaced detachment
>>for wei-wu-wei.
>>even chuang tzu mourned.
>between subtleties has been mistaken for wei-wu-wei and it becomes tedious
>trying to "figure everything out." I think it is very easy to fall into
>thinking things out exclusively instead of trusting in the spontaneously
>"right" action of wei-wu-wei.
>>hemingway quoted the phrase "religion is the opiate of the masses."
>>in the same context that he questioned if radio was the opiate
>>for a wounded man. the opiate easing the pain of existence.>>
>Do you sincerely take Hemingway quotes as aphorisms to live by?
hemingway is not something to live by.
it is something that points at other things.
>True, religion is an opiate of the masses.
truth isn't the objective here.
it is debatable that religion is the opiate as hemingway quotes, and
marx wrote.
>Yet, it is so much more than that.
what more is it?
>Like using one's "God" to justify heinous crimes,
>is one who universally reviles religion any less guilty?
who will be the judge to condemn the guilt?
ask that one.
>Do you believe that each person needs to choose the path that
>is best for them at specific times in their lives and that
>sometimes religion can serve a non-negative role in one's life?
each person is where they are at.
most people have places they want to be.
most people have ways they travel.
when these things do not align, then unease enters in.
>>people often cling to an ideal to address the pain of existence.
>Yes.
>>some cling to honor. other cling to goodness. others cling to
>>passion. other cling to dispassion.
>Some cling to peaches. So? Such is the way of humans.
people who continue to eat past the point they are full are
asking for tummyaches later.
>>my group at work is working on their mission statement.
>>on the way there people were asked what their long term goals
>>were. one of the team members aid it was "the ability to live
>>life for more hours than after work." i was struck with the thought
>>that i would never have thought of that; i think of myself
>>as living life all the time.
>When I look at all of who I have been over the years, there probably
>isn't anyone I haven't been.
that is arrogant.
>The me I am now is not the me that will be tomorrow.
>It's a fascinating journey. Being alive is a gift.
>As I said before, even the bad bits are good.
all things lead up to this moment and the next.
WoN ereH
oneself.
Then again,
it is a shield, to hide behind.
Peek a boo.
D
lisa
What would being offensive to someone signify?
And is the perception of defensiveness or offensiveness necessarily a shared
definition between communicator and message receiver, or is it dependent on one
or the other to achieve validity? Simply put, who decides whether someone is
being defensive or offensive?
rgds,
lisa
lisa
>
>pretending a tiger is not there does not mean it will not attack you.
>
believing a sick kitten is a tiger and then pretending it doesn't exist, soon
it reveals a sick kitten and is of no concern.
think tiger, tiger.
a sick kitten is sick kitten.
rgds,
lisa
CQ
>
> rgds,
> lisa
I think you know that very well, Lisa. I think it signifies that one has
come into a public place and heaped abuse and lies on people who did not
deserve it. Perhaps called a good and honest person names and
made accusations against them designed to hurt them. Wouldn't you agree
that that would be one definition?
CQ
WoN ereH
>What would being offensive to someone signify?
Aggession. Throwing the first punch.
>And is the perception of defensiveness or offensiveness necessarily a shared
>definition between communicator and message receiver, or is it dependent on
>one
>or the other to achieve validity? Simply put, who decides whether someone is
>being defensive or offensive?
I guess I don't understand the question. Do you not know the difference? Or
are we looking for semantic extrapolations here?
lisa
>lisa <oneo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>peter writes:
>>>it occurs to me that some peole have replaced detachment
>>>for wei-wu-wei.
>>>even chuang tzu mourned.
>>Do you think the replacement has been conscious, or perhaps distinguishing
>>between subtleties has been mistaken for wei-wu-wei and it becomes tedious
>>trying to "figure everything out." I think it is very easy to fall into
>>thinking things out exclusively instead of trusting in the spontaneously
>>"right" action of wei-wu-wei.
>>>* * *
>>>hemingway quoted the phrase "religion is the opiate of the masses."
>>>in the same context that he questioned if radio was the opiate
>>>for a wounded man. the opiate easing the pain of existence.>>
>
>>Do you sincerely take Hemingway quotes as aphorisms to live by?
>
>hemingway is not something to live by.
>it is something that points at other things.
>
>>True, religion is an opiate of the masses.
>
>truth isn't the objective here.
>
>it is debatable that religion is the opiate as hemingway quotes, and
>marx wrote.
Most things are debatable, but what is your take on it? Mine is that people
choose to think they need to distract themselves from unpleasantries in their
lives instead of facing them, learning from them, and moving on. I also
believe that some people will go to great lengths to avoid thinking about
unpleasantries. Whether the need is valid or the avoidance is necessary are
worth consideration, so yes, I agree.
li
>>Yet, it is so much more than that.
>
plk
>what more is it?
For some people I see it as their anchor in need, a reason to gather with
others for a sense of community, a signpost in what can be perceived as a
chaotic existence, a legacy of rules to pass on to their children. These are
just a few. Of course it could be used in a dark way of exclusionism,
moralism, and condemnation of those different too. All of these are human
attributes, and I list them without judgement.
li
>>Like using one's "God" to justify heinous crimes,
>>is one who universally reviles religion any less guilty?
>
plk
>who will be the judge to condemn the guilt?
>ask that one.
Isn't the judge ultimately one's self?
li
>>Do you believe that each person needs to choose the path that
>>is best for them at specific times in their lives and that
>>sometimes religion can serve a non-negative role in one's life?
>
plk
>each person is where they are at.
>most people have places they want to be.
>most people have ways they travel.
>
>when these things do not align, then unease enters in.
I can relate to the first and the third, but not the second. I also believe in
your conclusion. However, what continues to keep me wondering is whether those
ways of travel are the result of conditioning that may not be in our best
interest, or whether they are an immutable expression of our te. What do you
think?
plk
>>>people often cling to an ideal to address the pain of existence.
li
>>Yes.
plk
>>>some cling to honor. other cling to goodness. others cling to
>>>passion. other cling to dispassion.
li
>>Some cling to peaches. So? Such is the way of humans.
plk
>people who continue to eat past the point they are full are
>asking for tummyaches later.
Clinging is an extreme, agreed. Detachment is at the other end of the
continuum. IIRC someone recently mentioned that slipping into extremes helps
with navigation. It gives a that to contrast with a this.
plk
>>>my group at work is working on their mission statement.
>>>on the way there people were asked what their long term goals
>>>were. one of the team members aid it was "the ability to live
>>>life for more hours than after work." i was struck with the thought
>>>that i would never have thought of that; i think of myself
>>>as living life all the time.
li
>>When I look at all of who I have been over the years, there probably
>>isn't anyone I haven't been.
>
plk
>that is arrogant.
Not really. What I mean by that is that every human feeling I know to exist
has passed through my body at one time or another.
rgds,
lisa
ken
htShen <sierra...@oakweb.com> wrote in message
news:3914BF97...@oakweb.com...
> ken wrote:
> >
> > Douglas Henderson <kungm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > news:39131D14...@mindspring.com...
> > > Anders Honore wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Moonshadao <Moons...@aol.com> skrev i en
> > > > nyhedsmeddelelse:3912EF...@aol.com...
> > > > > Anders Honore wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > So, have you reached a state of complete detachment to your
> > feelings, or
> > > > are
> > > > > > you striving to attain that state?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't strive to attain anything.
> > > > > If I attain something I accept it and go on.
> > > > > If I don't attain something I accept it and go on.
> > > > > Striving sounds exhausting and
> > > > > I try to stay away from 'states'.
> > > >
> > > > >bows<
> > >
> > > It would be nice if it were true. The objective evidence is against
him
> > > though.
> >
>
> Hello Ken,
>
> Question for you: if a person cannot distinguish truth (true statement)
> and falsehood, how can the person know that he is making a true
> statement and behaves as the statement
>
> If he thinks that his statement is true, then he posses the distinction.
> Then, he contradicts to his own beginning/assumption.
>
> If he thinks that his statement is neither true nor false, then his
> statement has no value/truth for the listener. Because the listener
> cannot decide that statement made is true or false per given assumption.
>
> Rgds,
> ht
Thanks for your hypothetical.Cant quite see where it's relevant.
The objective evidence doesn't prove what Rick is saying is either
true or false.
Therefore I cannot agree that it shows what he is saying to be false
(i.e that the objictive evidence is agoinst him)
Eually If Doug had said the objective evidence is for him I couldn't agree
with
that either.. If I was a taoist I'd probably say that true / false is duali
stic or something
like that. Fun playing with words sometimes.
Rgds Ken
ken
<kungm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:apk9hsoqe6mvj33n0...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 6 May 2000 09:50:40 +1000, "ken" <po...@cnl.com.au> wrote:
>
> ><
> ><Douglas Henderson <kungm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> ><news:39131D14...@mindspring.com...
> ><> Anders Honore wrote:
> ><> >
> ><> > Moonshadao <Moons...@aol.com> skrev i en
> ><> > nyhedsmeddelelse:3912EF...@aol.com...
> ><> > > Anders Honore wrote:
> ><> > > >
> ><> > >
> ><> > > > So, have you reached a state of complete detachment to your
> ><feelings, or
> ><> > are
> ><> > > > you striving to attain that state?
> ><> > > >
> ><> > >
> ><> > > I don't strive to attain anything.
> ><> > > If I attain something I accept it and go on.
> ><> > > If I don't attain something I accept it and go on.
> ><> > > Striving sounds exhausting and
> ><> > > I try to stay away from 'states'.
> ><> >
> ><> > >bows<
> ><>
> ><> It would be nice if it were true. The objective evidence is against
him
> ><> though.
> ><
> ><
> ><Can't agree with you there Doug. Rgds Ken
> ><
> and on" about certain things. Posting to other ngs to harass posters
> Lao Wombat
Some things irritate you and you go on an on about them
Somethings irritate Rick and he goes on and on about them
I guess ssomethings irritate me and I do the same.
Rgds Ken
lisa
CQ cqu...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> rgds,
>> lisa
>
>I think you know that very well, Lisa. I think it signifies that one has
>come into a public place and heaped abuse and lies on people who did not
>deserve it. Perhaps called a good and honest person names and
>made accusations against them designed to hurt them. Wouldn't you agree
>that that would be one definition?
>
>CQ
LOL! Welcome to the grove, CQ. Did you miss me? I'm pleased that you took
the time to come looking :)
rgds,
lisa
k...@springhaven.org
>peter writes:
>>it is debatable that religion is the opiate as hemingway quotes, and
>>marx wrote.
>Most things are debatable, but what is your take on it?
people feel pain.
there are many ways to deal with pain.
>>who will be the judge to condemn the guilt?
>>ask that one.
>Isn't the judge ultimately one's self?
no.
>>people who continue to eat past the point they are full are
>>asking for tummyaches later.
>Clinging is an extreme, agreed. Detachment is at the other end of the
>continuum. IIRC someone recently mentioned that slipping into extremes helps
>with navigation. It gives a that to contrast with a this.
do the right thing at the right time.
>>>When I look at all of who I have been over the years, there probably
>>>isn't anyone I haven't been.
>>that is arrogant.
>Not really. What I mean by that is that every human feeling I know
>to exist has passed through my body at one time or another.
can you conceive of that which you do not know?
lisa
Not me! You'll never see me doing something like that!
Li,
aka "Ol' Burr Under the Saddle"
ken
<k...@springhaven.org> wrote in message
news:tfiR4.4159$Lx.4...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
> ken <po...@cnl.com.au> wrote:
> >Where does this pain of existence come in.
>
> same place it goes when a person lets go of it.
We make it ourselves?
>
> is love real?
To me it is. But youcan't buy it in a packet at the supermarket
>
> >Seems to me that for the majority of people in the western
> >world life is relatively easy.
>
> having one's needs fulfilled does not necessarily settle
> the uneasy heart.
We make it ourselves?
>
> elsewise song of unrequitted love would be less popular.
>
> * * *
>
> pretending a tiger is not there does not mean it will not attack you.
What if its not there?
>
Rgds Ken>
Jaybuzin0000
>lisa had written:
[...cq also responded...s]
>>What would being offensive to someone signify?
>
>Aggession. Throwing the first punch.
throwing off-topic posts
into a newsgroup that has a topic
is akin to being agressive
and punching a paper
bag in the grove
out of
>>And is the perception of defensiveness or offensiveness necessarily a shared
>>definition between communicator and message receiver, or is it dependent on
>>one
>>or the other to achieve validity?
some bridges are never crossed,
some are burned, some get flooded.
>> Simply put, who decides whether someone
>is
>>being defensive or offensive?
behold,
when this is beautiful
that becomes ugly.
>I guess I don't understand the question. Do you not know the difference? Or
>are we looking for semantic extrapolations here?
-in search of
tao chia
{:-])))
Moonshadao
> ><> Eat shit and die dougie.
> Gee, I wonder if that could count as a death threat delivered by his
> ISP?
>
How moronic of you to ask.
The request requires you to consume the shit first.
Being an action you have taken upon yourself,
it becomes suicide if you die.
If you are dumb enough to think the request is a threat,
you are dumb enough to eat the shit.
Moonshadao
> > >
> > > Douglas Henderson <kungm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > > news:39131D14...@mindspring.com...
> > > > Anders Honore wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Moonshadao <Moons...@aol.com> skrev i en
> > > > > nyhedsmeddelelse:3912EF...@aol.com...
> > > > > > Anders Honore wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, have you reached a state of complete detachment to your
> > > feelings, or
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > you striving to attain that state?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't strive to attain anything.
> > > > > > If I attain something I accept it and go on.
> > > > > > If I don't attain something I accept it and go on.
> > > > > > Striving sounds exhausting and
> > > > > > I try to stay away from 'states'.
> > > > >
> > > > > >bows<
> > > >
> > > > It would be nice if it were true. The objective evidence is against
> him
> > > > though.
> > >
> > > Can't agree with you there Doug. Rgds Ken
> >
> >
> > Question for you: if a person cannot distinguish truth (true statement)
> > and falsehood, how can the person know that he is making a true
> > statement and behaves as the statement
> >
> > If he thinks that his statement is true, then he posses the distinction.
> > Then, he contradicts to his own beginning/assumption.
> >
> > If he thinks that his statement is neither true nor false, then his
> > statement has no value/truth for the listener. Because the listener
> > cannot decide that statement made is true or false per given assumption.
> >
> > Rgds,
> > ht
>
> Thanks for your hypothetical.Cant quite see where it's relevant.
> The objective evidence doesn't prove what Rick is saying is either
> true or false.
>
> Therefore I cannot agree that it shows what he is saying to be false
> (i.e that the objictive evidence is agoinst him)
> Eually If Doug had said the objective evidence is for him I couldn't agree
> with
> that either.. If I was a taoist I'd probably say that true / false is duali
> stic or something
I would say it sounds like someone is hung up on truth.
Truth is always relative.
I agree that it seems a taoist would not care to distinguish
true and false. Perhaps HT is a buddhist and doesn't know it.
Moonshadao
>
>. Here is very non-representitive
> > of real life. Especially mine.
>
> Seperating were no seperation takes place. This is as much your real life as
> anything.
What I do here?
This is diversion from a long work day.
The work is real. The life after work is real.
Reading and posting to USENET is like playing a video game.
Are video games real for you dude?
>
> > Eat shit and die dougie.
>
> Doh, I should kept my mouth shut!
>
Perhaps you should've figured out who you are talking to.
;-)
>
> Civet Cat a.k.a. Anders Honoré
Which is the real you?
"Everything under the sun is in tune
but the sun is eclipsed by the moon."
Moonshadao a.k.a. Tzaddik a.k.a. rick
Moonshadao
>
> Wouldn't you agree
> that that would be one definition?
>
> CQ
I don't know perhaps we should ask Dale Kirby?
What he thinks.
Moonshadao
>
> Posting to other ngs to harass posters
> certainly seems like striving to me.
> --
Classified as a 'tactical persuasion'.
Used as incentive to motivate you dougie.
Keeps you in line does it?
k...@springhaven.org
><k...@springhaven.org> wrote in message
>> ken <po...@cnl.com.au> wrote:
>> >Where does this pain of existence come in.
>> same place it goes when a person lets go of it.
>We make it ourselves?
i doubt one does it alone.
>> is love real?
>To me it is. But youcan't buy it in a packet at the supermarket
but you may be able to get it fresh from the community.
>> >Seems to me that for the majority of people in the western
>> >world life is relatively easy.
>> having one's needs fulfilled does not necessarily settle
>> the uneasy heart.
>We make it ourselves?
perhaps.
>> pretending a tiger is not there does not mean it will not attack you.
>What if its not there?
then you're not pretending.
Jaybuzin0000
[...]
>Reading and posting to USENET is like playing a video game.
totally interactive!
kinda sorta.
>Are video games real for you dude?
I've been getting a brain-tickle
out of playing sokoban lately.
At work (for really-real) I move containers
and tend to smile a lot.
{:-])))
Jaybuzin0000
[...lisa wrote...]
>CQ wrote:
[...]
>ask Dale Kirby?
sea cue, see que.
my eye is on the b'all
yet sum ting; it misses.
-scratch
what did I lose?
tao l?
-jest curious
tia
{:-])))
Moonshadao
>
> rick wrote:
> [...lisa wrote...]
> >CQ wrote:
> [...]
>
> >ask Dale Kirby?
>
> sea cue, see que.
> my eye is on the b'all
> yet sum ting; it misses.
>
> -scratch
> what did I lose?
Nothing .
Just keeping comments in perspective.
You got to be able to dig where they are coming from.
>
> tao l?
naw, seems to be a private thingy.
Deception is a quirky thing.
hts...@my-deja.com
(Hi Ken, just for playing words per what you said:)
or true (so you mean to tell me that you also are telling me the
statement will be equivalent for you to say ‘Therefore I cannot agree
that it shows what he is saying to be true’?).
However, it was not intent to be hypothetical, it was totally in the
realm of reasoning. So, I was saying: Whatever that was said under the
assumption (no truth/falsehood), the statement has no meaning,
meaningless as it is.
The relevant part is that: to agree or disagree a meaningless thing is
an interesting phenomenon.
> > Eually If Doug had said the objective evidence is for him I
couldn't agree
> > with
> > that either.. If I was a taoist I'd probably say that true / false
is duali
> > stic or something
Yes. However, dualism is part of reality, by denying/excluding the
dualism as part of reality, the reality will no longer be as whole. It
will only be a partial (not whole) view.
>
> I would say it sounds like someone is hung up on truth.
> Truth is always relative.
> I agree that it seems a taoist would not care to distinguish
> true and false. Perhaps HT is a buddhist and doesn't know it.
>
The above statement is meaningless statement for the reason of:
"if a person cannot distinguish truth (true statement) and falsehood,
how can the person know that he is making a true statement and behaves
as the statement.
If he thinks that his statement is true, then he posses the
distinction. Then, he contradicts to his own beginning/assumption.
If he thinks that his statement is neither true nor false, then his
statement has no value/truth for the listener. Because the listener
cannot decide that statement made is true or false per given
assumption."
[If he thinks that his statement is false...]
Therefore, meaningless as is.
ht
Moonshadao
>
> >
> > I would say it sounds like someone is hung up on truth.
> > Truth is always relative.
> > I agree that it seems a taoist would not care to distinguish
> > true and false. Perhaps HT is a buddhist and doesn't know it.
> >
>
> The above statement is meaningless statement for the reason of:
>
> "if a person cannot distinguish this\truth (true statement) and that\falsehood,
> how can the person know that he is making a this\true statement and behaves
> as the statement.
>
How can a person let another person know that it just doesn't matter?
How can a person let another person know that it is just 'this' and
'that' and reality is somewhere between this and that.
> If he thinks that his statement is this/true, then he posses the
> distinction. Then, he contradicts to his own beginning/assumption.
What if he doesn't think about the true/false of a statement?
What if he just doesn't care if it is either?
>
> If he thinks that his statement is neither true nor false, then his
> statement has no value/truth for the listener.
Then the listener has no value for the person making the statement.
Perhaps there is no need of a listener.
Perhaps there is no need of a statement.
Perhaps there is no need of true or false, or this and that.
> Because the listener
> cannot decide that statement made is true or false per given
> assumption."
Sounds like a personal problem.
Ichin Shen
>
> ken wrote:
> >
> > htShen <sierra...@oakweb.com> wrote in message
> > news:3914BF97...@oakweb.com...
> > > ken wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Douglas Henderson <kungm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:39131D14...@mindspring.com...
> > > > > Anders Honore wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Moonshadao <Moons...@aol.com> skrev i en
> > > > > > nyhedsmeddelelse:3912EF...@aol.com...
> > > > > > > Anders Honore wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > >
> > > Hello Ken,
> > >
> > > Question for you: if a person cannot distinguish truth (true statement)
> > > and falsehood, how can the person know that he is making a true
> > > statement and behaves as the statement
> > >
> > > Then, he contradicts to his own beginning/assumption.
> > >
> > > cannot decide that statement made is true or false per given assumption.
> > >
> > > ht
> >
.....
>
> I would say it sounds like someone is hung up on truth.
Without knowing the truth, you wouldn't know whether what you know is
valid, "as it cannot be determined, it is like a young bird chirps."-CT
2-
> Truth is always relative.
A relative truth only valid in a small domain, as your statement, yet
Tao encompasses a domain that is all-inclusive?
While Peng (a mythical condor) rises for a ninety thousand miles
excursion, "a cicada and a young dove laugh at Peng, saying, 'When we
try hard, we can reach the trees, but sometimes we fall short and drop
on the ground. How is it possible to rise ninety thousand li and head
south?'"-Chuang Tsu, "Happy Wandering," Ch. 1-(Tr. Gia-Fu Feng)
> I agree that it seems a taoist would not care to distinguish
> true and false.
And a lot of so-called Taoists/non-Taoists have no idea what Tao is.
Actually, "The one who attains Tao must comprehend Li
(reason/principle/truth); the one who comprehends Li
(reason/principle/truth) then knows the balance [of power]; the one who
knows the balance [of power] does not let the worldly possessions (ego)
to hurt one's self nature."-CT 17-
> Perhaps HT is a buddhist and doesn't know it.
HT is a Tao practitioner who "comprehends Li," and you think that a
buddhist cannot comprehend what Tao is?
:)
IS
Moonshadao
>
> Moonshadao wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > I would say it sounds like someone is hung up on truth.
>
> Without knowing the truth, you wouldn't know whether what you know is
> valid,
Why does it need to be valid?
> > Truth is always relative.
>
> A relative truth only valid in a small domain, as your statement, yet
> Tao encompasses a domain that is all-inclusive?
Yes. So there is no need to distinguish it.
That which is all-inclusive contains all elements
of this and that, of true and false.
In an all-inclusive environment true has no meaning
without false. Chuang-tzu asks you to see beyond
right and wrong, as a 'this' and 'that'.
Is true and false any different?
>
>
> > I agree that it seems a taoist would not care to distinguish
> > true and false.
>
> And a lot of so-called Taoists/non-Taoists have no idea what Tao is.
>
As it should be.
Mysterious isn't it?
> Actually, "The one who attains Tao must comprehend Li
Somebody give me another translation for Li.
I need a second opinion.
> (reason/principle/truth); the one who comprehends Li
> (reason/principle/truth) then knows the balance [of power]; the one who
> knows the balance [of power] does not let the worldly possessions (ego)
> to hurt one's self nature."-CT 17-
Balance is obtained between two halfs. Reason/principle/truth
is balanced by unreason/non-principle/false.
One who has truth as a goal, possesses the ego of truth.
When the goal is met, the truth is an unbalanced possession.
Leaving false behind he cannot be balanced and has the
possession of 'truth' to hurt his self nature.
>
> > Perhaps HT is a buddhist and doesn't know it.
>
> HT is a Tao practitioner who "comprehends Li," and you think that a
> buddhist cannot comprehend what Tao is?
>
> :)
> IS
I think a buddhist distinguishes between this and that.
Truth is a goal, a that, not a balance, there are no goals in tao,
only balance. Balance, all things return to tao. Goals, all things
start here and go there, only to obtain the ultimate end which never
returns. That is why I have always said Ultimate Truth is not tao.
Nothing returns from ultimate, all things return to tao.
Here we are back in the same arguement.
Lets quit here.
You will never convince me that truth has any meaning,
and I will never convince you that doesn't.
So, what are you doing now that the snow is melting?
ken
lisa <oneo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000507211253...@ng-fe1.aol.com...> >news:apk9hsoqe6mvj33n0...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 6 May 2000 09:50:40 +1000, "ken" <po...@cnl.com.au> wrote:
> >>
> >> ><
> >> ><Douglas Henderson <kungm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >> ><news:39131D14...@mindspring.com...
> >> ><> Anders Honore wrote:
> >> ><> >
> >> ><> > Moonshadao <Moons...@aol.com> skrev i en
> >> ><> > nyhedsmeddelelse:3912EF...@aol.com...
> >> ><> > > Anders Honore wrote:
> >> ><> > > >
> >> ><> > >
> >> ><feelings, or
> >> ><> > are
> >> ><> > > > you striving to attain that state?
> >> ><> > > >
> >> ><> > >
> >> ><> > > I don't strive to attain anything.
> >> ><> > > If I attain something I accept it and go on.
> >> ><> > > If I don't attain something I accept it and go on.
> >> ><> > > Striving sounds exhausting and
> >> ><> > > I try to stay away from 'states'.
> >> ><> >
> >> ><> > >bows<
> >> ><>
> >> ><> It would be nice if it were true. The objective evidence is
against
> >him
> >> ><> though.
> >> ><
> >> ><
> >> ><Can't agree with you there Doug. Rgds Ken
> >> ><
> >> certainly seems like striving to me.
> >> --
> >
> >Some things irritate you and you go on an on about them
> >Somethings irritate Rick and he goes on and on about them
> >I guess ssomethings irritate me and I do the same.
> >Rgds Ken
>
> Not me! You'll never see me doing something like that!
>
> Li,
> aka "Ol' Burr Under the Saddle"
>
>
>
SorryLi
I meant to mention that Lisa is the only one I know
that doesn't get irritated and go on an on about things
LOL Rgds Ken
ken
<hts...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8f76l4$uv7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <3916C5...@aol.com>,
> Moons...@aol.com wrote:
> > ken wrote:
> > >
> > > htShen <sierra...@oakweb.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3914BF97...@oakweb.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > Douglas Henderson <kungm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:39131D14...@mindspring.com...
> > > > > > Anders Honore wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Moonshadao <Moons...@aol.com> skrev i en
> > > > > > > nyhedsmeddelelse:3912EF...@aol.com...
> > > > > > > > Anders Honore wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, have you reached a state of complete detachment to
> your
> > > > > feelings, or
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > you striving to attain that state?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I don't strive to attain anything.
> > > > > > > > If I attain something I accept it and go on.
> > > > > > > > If I don't attain something I accept it and go on.
> > > > > > > > Striving sounds exhausting and
> > > > > > > > I try to stay away from 'states'.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >bows<
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It would be nice if it were true. The objective evidence is
> against
> > > him
> > > > > > though.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can't agree with you there Doug. Rgds Ken
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Question for you: if a person cannot distinguish truth (true
> statement)
> > > > and falsehood, how can the person know that he is making a true
> > > > statement and behaves as the statement
> > > >
> > > > If he thinks that his statement is true, then he posses the
> distinction.
> > > > Then, he contradicts to his own beginning/assumption.
> > > >
> > > > If he thinks that his statement is neither true nor false, then
> his
> > > > statement has no value/truth for the listener. Because the
> listener
> > > > cannot decide that statement made is true or false per given
> assumption.
> > > >
> > > > Rgds,
> > > > ht
> > >
> > > The objective evidence doesn't prove what Rick is saying is either
> > > true or false.
> > >
> > > Therefore I cannot agree that it shows what he is saying to be false
> > > (i.e that the objictive evidence is agoinst him)
>
> (Hi Ken, just for playing words per what you said:)
>
> or true (so you mean to tell me that you also are telling me the
> statement will be equivalent for you to say 'Therefore I cannot agree
> that it shows what he is saying to be true'?).
>
> However, it was not intent to be hypothetical, it was totally in the
> realm of reasoning. So, I was saying: Whatever that was said under the
> assumption (no truth/falsehood), the statement has no meaning,
> meaningless as it is.
>
> The relevant part is that: to agree or disagree a meaningless thing is
> an interesting phenomenon.
The world is full of interesting phenomenon
however as far as I know I didn't agree or disagree a meaningless
thing. I only said I can't agree with the half of a polarity put forward
by Doug.
>
> > > Eually If Doug had said the objective evidence is for him I
> couldn't agree
> > > with
> > > that either.. If I was a taoist I'd probably say that true / false
> is duali
> > > stic or something
>
> Yes. However, dualism is part of reality, by denying/excluding the
> dualism as part of reality, the reality will no longer be as whole. It
> will only be a partial (not whole) view.
You could try transcendng the dualism.
Rgds Ken
>
> >
> > I would say it sounds like someone is hung up on truth.
> > Truth is always relative.
> > I agree that it seems a taoist would not care to distinguish
> > true and false. Perhaps HT is a buddhist and doesn't know it.
> >
>
> The above statement is meaningless statement for the reason of:
>
> "if a person cannot distinguish truth (true statement) and falsehood,
> how can the person know that he is making a true statement and behaves
> as the statement.
>
> If he thinks that his statement is true, then he posses the
> distinction. Then, he contradicts to his own beginning/assumption.
>
> If he thinks that his statement is neither true nor false, then his
> statement has no value/truth for the listener. Because the listener
> cannot decide that statement made is true or false per given
> assumption."
>
ken
<k...@springhaven.org> wrote in message
news:RyAR4.9897$Lx.18...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
> ken <po...@cnl.com.au> wrote:
> ><k...@springhaven.org> wrote in message
> >> ken <po...@cnl.com.au> wrote:
> >> >Where does this pain of existence come in.
> >> same place it goes when a person lets go of it.
> >We make it ourselves?
>
> i doubt one does it alone.
But we can get rid of it alone
>
> >> is love real?
> >To me it is. But youcan't buy it in a packet at the supermarket
>
> but you may be able to get it fresh from the community.
When you don't need it, it's all around.
>
> >> >Seems to me that for the majority of people in the western
> >> >world life is relatively easy.
> >> having one's needs fulfilled does not necessarily settle
> >> the uneasy heart.
> >We make it ourselves?
>
> perhaps.
>
> >> pretending a tiger is not there does not mean it will not attack you.
> >What if its not there?
>
> then you're not pretending.
Right!
>
>
> peter li'ir key
> k...@springhaven.org
>
>
Rgds Ken
lisa
>lisa <oneo...@aol.com> wrote in
>> >news:apk9hsoqe6mvj33n0...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Sat, 6 May 2000 09:50:40 +1000, "ken" <po...@cnl.com.au> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ><
>> >> ><Douglas Henderson <kungm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> >> ><news:39131D14...@mindspring.com...
>> >> ><> Anders Honore wrote:
>> >> ><> >
>> >> ><> > Moonshadao <Moons...@aol.com> skrev i en
>> >> ><> > nyhedsmeddelelse:3912EF...@aol.com...
>> >> ><> > > Anders Honore wrote:
>> >> ><> > > >
>> >> ><> > >
>> >> ><> > > > So, have you reached a state of complete detachment to your
>> >> ><feelings, or
>> >> ><> > are
>> >> ><> > > > you striving to attain that state?
>> >> ><> > > >
>> >> ><> > >
>> >> ><> > > I don't strive to attain anything.
>> >> ><> > > If I attain something I accept it and go on.
>> >> ><> > > If I don't attain something I accept it and go on.
>> >> ><> > > Striving sounds exhausting and
>> >> ><> > > I try to stay away from 'states'.
>> >> ><> >
>> >> ><> > >bows<
>> >> ><>
>> >> ><> It would be nice if it were true. The objective evidence is
>against
>> >him
>> >> ><> though.
>> >> ><
>> >> ><
>> >> ><Can't agree with you there Doug. Rgds Ken
>> >> ><
>> >> and on" about certain things. Posting to other ngs to harass posters
>> >> certainly seems like striving to me.
>> >> --
>> >> Lao Wombat
>> >
>> >Some things irritate you and you go on an on about them
>> >Somethings irritate Rick and he goes on and on about them
>> >I guess ssomethings irritate me and I do the same.
>> >Rgds Ken
>>
>> Not me! You'll never see me doing something like that!
>>
>> Li,
>> aka "Ol' Burr Under the Saddle"
>>
>>
>>
>
>SorryLi
>I meant to mention that Lisa is the only one I know
>that doesn't get irritated and go on an on about things
>LOL Rgds Ken
::blushing::
::batting eyelashes::
Now that's better!
:)
rgds,
--li
lisa
>
>Here we are back in the same arguement.
>Lets quit here.
>You will never convince me that truth has any meaning,
>and I will never convince you that doesn't.
>
>So, what are you doing now that the snow is melting?
Hey guys, I've got this ol bottle of wine sitting here, just waiting for some
swigging. Care to join me?
rgds,
lisa
Jaybuzin0000
Ichin fashioned a pattern:
[...]
>> Actually, "The one who attains Tao must comprehend Li
>
>Somebody give me another translation for Li.
>I need a second opinion.
that which is dry and pedantic
as overlaid upon that which is fluid
is not particularly li.
as reason\principle\truth
li is not-li but a paper cut-out.
>> (reason/principle/truth); the one who comprehends Li
>> (reason/principle/truth) then knows the balance [of power]; the one who
>> knows the balance [of power] does not let the worldly possessions (ego)
>> to hurt one's self nature."-CT 17-
th'air is a reason, a principle, a truth
about the grain of wood, the markings in jade,
or the way in which a cloud takes shape.
one who knows this li
then knows a balance
between types of reason
between dry and pedantic.
there is an order\li, in a way, a reason;
but what the order of a cumulo-nimbus is
cannot quite be pinned down in words.
true\false is an overly-simplistic paradigm
pertaining to statements made
in order to obtain value thru logic
which has very little to do with li
as a matter of principle.
forgetting about true\false
one's eyes may cl'ear in order to sea
the nature of things, as they are.
the li of a mountain range, can it be false?
the li of an ocean waving, can it be false?
a rorsach ink blot is what it is, li.
things, events, life, li
are neither true nor false.
interpretations may be useful maps
but the map is not the territory.
communication\words carry meaning.
patterns may emerge, li, which in thems'elves
are neither true nor false. birds chirp while
people talk, the sounds are neither true
nor are the waves false.
>> Without knowing the truth, you wouldn't know whether what you know is
>> valid,
>
>Why does it need to be valid?
do away with knowledge and wisdom.
those who seek knowing, and truth,
will find their menu to be quite tasty.
some folks like to eat flowers.
as birds also like to chirp.
> So there is no need to distinguish it.
rabbit falling
down whole
jumping up runs
a way out of a snare
yet the meaning
is caught by words
for sum
Ichin Shen
>
> Ichin Shen wrote:
> >
> > Moonshadao wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > valid,
>
> Why does it need to be valid?
When a knowledge is found to be valid, it is sound; if the knowldge is
sound, it can be applied without second guessing; without second
guessing, you then know what you know and achieve what you after.
Otherwise, you only think that you know. Let's see if you do know?
Without proven to be true, a knowledge can only be believed as true;
believing that you know is then your faith, it is then your religion. Is
your religion valid?
>
> > > Truth is always relative.
> >
> > A relative truth only valid in a small domain, as your statement, yet
> > Tao encompasses a domain that is all-inclusive?
>
> Yes.
> So there is no need to distinguish it.
Then, how do you know that Tao is different from God?
> That which is all-inclusive contains all elements
> of this and that, of true and false.
And how do you know that you have accounted the "all-inclusive"?
> In an all-inclusive environment true has no meaning
> without false.
Only in the inspeakable realm of Tao all-inclusive exists (as language
cuts/partitions), in the realm of inspeakable, truth and false don't
exist. Nevertheless, the first speakable word "Tao" is the Truth itself.
> Chuang-tzu asks you to see beyond
> right and wrong, as a 'this' and 'that'.
What CT said is for partitioned people.
> Is true and false any different?
Yes, obviously.
>
> >
> >
> > > I agree that it seems a taoist would not care to distinguish
> > > true and false.
> >
> > And a lot of so-called Taoists/non-Taoists have no idea what Tao is.
> >
>
> As it should be.
> Mysterious isn't it?
Not particularly amused.
>
> > Actually, "The one who attains Tao must comprehend Li
>
> Somebody give me another translation for Li.
> I need a second opinion.
>
> > (reason/principle/truth); the one who comprehends Li
> > (reason/principle/truth) then knows the balance [of power]; the one who
> > knows the balance [of power] does not let the worldly possessions (ego)
> > to hurt one's self nature."-CT 17-
>
> Balance is obtained between two halfs.
Only in dualism. Tao, like nature, knows no balance.
> Reason/principle/truth
> is balanced by unreason/non-principle/false.
And you'd provide the "unreason/non-principle/false" part for the
balance?
> One who has truth as a goal, possesses the ego of truth.
> When the goal is met, the truth is an unbalanced possession.
> Leaving false behind he cannot be balanced and has the
> possession of 'truth' to hurt his self nature.
No, when the Truth is obtained, the question vanished, one returns to
Tao.
>
> >
> > > Perhaps HT is a buddhist and doesn't know it.
> >
> > HT is a Tao practitioner who "comprehends Li," and you think that a
> > buddhist cannot comprehend what Tao is?
> >
> > :)
> > IS
>
> I think a buddhist distinguishes between this and that.
No, in [Chinese/Ch'an] Buddhism, Kong, "emptiness," is to be sought.
Kong is a state of emptiness of mind, a no-mind, just as Wu in Taoism.
Enlightenment in Kong just as attainment of Wu, different ways of saying
but both point to the same state of no-mind-Unism.
> Truth is a goal, a that, not a balance, there are no goals in tao,
> only balance.
No goals for goal? There's no "balance" in Tao, only partitioned people
seeks for balance.
> Balance, all things return to tao. Goals, all things
> start here and go there, only to obtain the ultimate end which never
> returns. That is why I have always said Ultimate Truth is not tao.
Ultimate is T'ai-Chi, and T'ai-Chi is Tao.
> Nothing returns from ultimate, all things return to tao.
You have no ideas, you have no ideas.
>
> Here we are back in the same arguement.
Haven't gone too far, have we?
> Lets quit here.
Ok.
> You will never convince me that truth has any meaning,
> and I will never convince you that doesn't.
>
> So, what are you doing now that the snow is melting?
Sailing, maybe. Being given a 17' sailboat, there are three cracks in
the hull, need to learn how to patch them, and to rig the sails and to
sail the boat. Hopefully the knowledge I'll learn is "valid," wouldn't
want the boat flips over in the middle of Lake Tahoe, one of the deepest
alpine lakes in the world.
And, of course, there's always T'ai-Chi-Rollerblading, :)
Summer time... have funs, :)
IS
lisa
>lisa <oneo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>peter wrote:
[...]
>>>who will be the judge to condemn the guilt?
>>>ask that one.
>>Isn't the judge ultimately one's self?
>
>no.
Who then? What then? Does there need to be a judge? Do distinctions
necessarily connote judgment? May there be distinctions without attachment?
Are preferences attachment? Are they non-desirable?
[...]
>>>>When I look at all of who I have been over the years, there probably
>>>>isn't anyone I haven't been.
>>>that is arrogant.
>>Not really. What I mean by that is that every human feeling I know
>>to exist has passed through my body at one time or another.
>
>can you conceive of that which you do not know?
When I think of conceive I think of bringing forth creatively; so with that
definition, yes, I can. I think it happens all of the time, through
spontaneity. Who knows where the ripples will travel? What do you think?
rgds,
lisa
Ichin Shen
>
.....
> You could try transcendng the dualism.
Being ignorant of dualism does not mean trancending it.
:)
IS
>
> Rgds Ken
k...@springhaven.org
>ken wrote:
>> You could try transcendng the dualism.
>Being ignorant of dualism does not mean trancending it.
that is the nature of the tiger.
also, transcendence is dualistic.
k...@springhaven.org
>peter writes:
>>lisa <oneo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>peter wrote:
>>>>who will be the judge to condemn the guilt?
>>>>ask that one.
>>>Isn't the judge ultimately one's self?
>>no.
>Who then?
what is the self that one can own it?
where does the self start?
where does the other end?
>What then?
look around.
>Does there need to be a judge?
in context. yes.
elsewise surrender humanity.
>Do distinctions necessarily connote judgment?
choosing it is own judgment
>May there be distinctions without attachment?
could be.
>Are preferences attachment?
yes.
>Are they non-desirable?
if this, then that.
non-desire harkens to its dark twin.
>>>>>When I look at all of who I have been over the years, there probably
>>>>>isn't anyone I haven't been.
>>>>that is arrogant.
>>>Not really. What I mean by that is that every human feeling I know
>>>to exist has passed through my body at one time or another.
>>can you conceive of that which you do not know?
>When I think of conceive I think of bringing forth creatively; so with that
>definition, yes, I can. I think it happens all of the time, through
>spontaneity. Who knows where the ripples will travel? What do you think?
is there a limit to what you do not know?
you misdirect from your arrogance.
not everything you know covers all the anyones.
lday
k...@springhaven.org wrote:
>Ichin Shen <sierra...@oakweb.com> wrote:
>>ken wrote:
>>> You could try transcendng the dualism.
>>Being ignorant of dualism does not mean trancending it.
>
>that is the nature of the tiger.
>
>also, transcendence is dualistic.
A single point has no argument. Add another point of view for
two. Now, within duality a linear line is possible.
To me transcending the duality suggests a higher perspective
midway along the line and perpendicular.
This would be trinitarian, like the judge balances the two sides
in court; or like the third eye lies midway and above the two
outer-facing eyes. Using two eyes allows for depth perception.
It is an automatic, unconscious calculation but based on some
advanced trigonometry. One-eyed people see things flat and
navigate poorly, bumping into things.
Also 'triangular' is the Shao-yung formula , principle plus
nature creates destiny.
--lawrence
>
>
>peter li'ir key
>k...@springhaven.org
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
ken
Ichin Shen <sierra...@oakweb.com> wrote in message
news:39183FD9...@oakweb.com...
> ken wrote:
> >
> .....
> > You could try transcendng the dualism.
>
> Being ignorant of dualism does not mean trancending it.
>
I can agree with you there. Rgds Ken
> IS
>
> >
> > Rgds Ken
ken
lday <ldayNO...@pathcom.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:159ffbc2...@usw-ex0103-023.remarq.com...
> In article <XGXR4.21203$Lx.36...@news-west.usenetserver.com>,
> k...@springhaven.org wrote:
> >Ichin Shen <sierra...@oakweb.com> wrote:
> >>ken wrote:
> >>Being ignorant of dualism does not mean trancending it.
> >
> >
> >also, transcendence is dualistic.
>
> A single point has no argument. Add another point of view for
> two. Now, within duality a linear line is possible.
> To me transcending the duality suggests a higher perspective
> midway along the line and perpendicular.
> This would be trinitarian, like the judge balances the two sides
> in court; or like the third eye lies midway and above the two
> outer-facing eyes. Using two eyes allows for depth perception.
> It is an automatic, unconscious calculation but based on some
> advanced trigonometry. One-eyed people see things flat and
> navigate poorly, bumping into things.
> Also 'triangular' is the Shao-yung formula , principle plus
> nature creates destiny.
> --lawrence
> >
> >
> >peter li'ir key
> >k...@springhaven.org
> >
> >
>
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network
*
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>
Can' t necessarily agree with you on the one eyed person
My right eye has a small cataract and has lost its accomodation. With this
eye
I see only a flat picture.
My left eye still has its accomodation and I see three dimensional pictures
using it. Going from right eye to left eye the difference is striking,
Probably one eyed people keep bumping into things because their field of
vision is
greatly constricted. . Just to muddy the view. Rgds Ken
Civet Cat
Civet Cat (Anders' real name?)wrote:
> Seperating were no seperation takes place. This is as much your real life
as
> anything.
What I do here?
This is diversion from a long work day.
The work is real. The life after work is real.
Reading and posting to USENET is like playing a video game.
Are video games real for you dude?
Isn't this duality? anyway, to asnwer: Why not? They affect reality. I move
my fingers across the joypad when obstacles occur. My eyes and ears sense
light and sound. definitely real. I'm not saying that a car game is the same
as driving a car. But video games are definitely a part of reality.
> > Eat shit and die dougie.
>
> Doh, I should kept my mouth shut!
>
Perhaps you should've figured out who you are talking to.
;-)
I didn't say anything! I just bowed!
> Civet Cat a.k.a. Anders Honoré
Which is the real you?
Neither. My birth certificate says Anders Honoré. Don't know if I'm supposed
to believe it though. Actually, I changed my name to Chivet Cat in response
to a good friend of mine named 'snakebite'. I'll probably dump it soon.
--
"Ricki Ticki Tavi? Wasn't that some kind of snake-eating rat or
something?" --- Homer Simpson
lisa
>lisa <oneo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>When I look at all of who I have been over the years,
there probably
>>>>>>isn't anyone I haven't been.
>>>>>that is arrogant.
>>>>Not really. What I mean by that is that every human feeling
I know
>>>>to exist has passed through my body at one time or another.
>>>can you conceive of that which you do not know?
>>When I think of conceive I think of bringing forth creatively;
so with that
>>definition, yes, I can. I think it happens all of the time,
through
>>spontaneity. Who knows where the ripples will travel? What
do you think?
>
>is there a limit to what you do not know?
As that which can be known is being spontaneously manifested
every moment, how could there be?
>you misdirect from your arrogance.
I don't see myself as being arrogant or misdirecting. Keep
trying though and I may yet see it.
>
>not everything you know covers all the anyones.
I never said it did. What i said was, "every human feeling I
know to exist has passed through my body at one time or
another."
rgds,
lisa
k...@springhaven.org
>k...@springhaven.org (peter)wrote:
>>lisa <oneo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>When I look at all of who I have been over the years,
>>>>>>>there probably isn't anyone I haven't been.
>>>>>>that is arrogant.
>>>>>Not really. What I mean by that is that every human feeling
>>>>>I know to exist has passed through my body at one time or another.
>>>>can you conceive of that which you do not know?
>>>When I think of conceive I think of bringing forth creatively;
>>>so with that definition, yes, I can. I think it happens all
>>>of the time, through spontaneity. Who knows where the ripples
>>>will travel? What do you think?
>>is there a limit to what you do not know?
>As that which can be known is being spontaneously manifested
>every moment, how could there be?
>>you misdirect from your arrogance.
>I don't see myself as being arrogant or misdirecting. Keep
>trying though and I may yet see it.
>>not everything you know covers all the anyones.
>I never said it did. What i said was, "every human feeling I
>know to exist has passed through my body at one time or
>another."
this started with you saying:
>>>>>>>When I look at all of who I have been over the years,
>>>>>>>there probably isn't anyone I haven't been.
the casual things people say belie the ideals they utter.
lisa
the casual things people say may or may not be starting points for further
dialogue. in the next bounce, i clarified what i meant by it. nothing exists
in a vacuum, as you know. to accept an idea/ideal, as-is, without context or
further discussion, in intellectual and/or philosophical discussion leads to
possible misperceptions by the perceiver and does not necessarily infer
"beliement."
rgds,
lisa
k...@springhaven.org
again this is a misdirection. of course it was used to start
further dialog.
>in the next bounce, i clarified what i meant by it.
hmm...
>nothing exists in a vacuum, as you know.
so?
>to accept an idea/ideal, as-is, without context or further discussion,
>in intellectual and/or philosophical discussion leads to
>possible misperceptions by the perceiver and does not necessarily infer
>"beliement."
my uncle preaches about the ideal of family and compassion.
he fostered one half-breed, and adopted 3 russian boys.
meanwhile he's never ever home. my adopted and foster cousins
only really see him when he's stopped home for a little sleep,
some food, a change of clothes, or at church when the family
goes to service (even then he's usually too busy being the pastor
to be the husband or father he says everyone else should be).
my aunt is in her late 50s with 3 new sons who don't speak
english or korean well. the children she gave birth to moved
out as soon as they could; she's been pining ever since.
* * *
it is the things you do/say without thinking about them
that are among the most honest expressions of one's te as
shaped by one's tao.
* * *
a person may have experienced much and still experienced
nothing of another's world.
one person will think that gives them great insight.
another person will think that they have gained some insight.
yet a third will think they will see more than they have.
* * *
there is the compassion one feels for those one has known always.
there is the compassion one feels for those that are like one's knowledge.
there is the compassion one feels for these that one can understand.
there is the compassion one feels for those that one cannot understand.
yet, the world remains whole.
lisa
misdirection from what? that i'm trying to make you forget what i initially
said?
>
>>in the next bounce, i clarified what i meant by it.
>
>hmm...
>
>>nothing exists in a vacuum, as you know.
>
>so?
so, in a discussion forum such as this, i expect contextual support either
before or after anything that's said, both from myself and from others.
sometimes i ask for it and don't receive it, and sometimes others ask it of me
and i don't give it; yet these things are expected too.
>
>>to accept an idea/ideal, as-is, without context or further discussion,
>>in intellectual and/or philosophical discussion leads to
>>possible misperceptions by the perceiver and does not necessarily infer
>>"beliement."
>
>my uncle preaches about the ideal of family and compassion.
>he fostered one half-breed, and adopted 3 russian boys.
>meanwhile he's never ever home. my adopted and foster cousins
>only really see him when he's stopped home for a little sleep,
>some food, a change of clothes, or at church when the family
>goes to service (even then he's usually too busy being the pastor
>to be the husband or father he says everyone else should be).
>
>my aunt is in her late 50s with 3 new sons who don't speak
>english or korean well. the children she gave birth to moved
>out as soon as they could; she's been pining ever since.
>
sounds like lives and stories i see and hear about all of the time. do you
honestly think there is anyone who can escape contradictory, hypocritical,
and/or well-meaning-but-horribly-wrong behavior at times? do you hold negative
judgement over your aunt and uncle for these things? would it be better if
uncle hadn't adopted the children and they wasted away in an orphanage? would
it be better if aunt went catatonic after her last child left and stopped her
pining? is the horse running away a good thing or a bad thing?
>* * *
>
>it is the things you do/say without thinking about them
>that are among the most honest expressions of one's te as
>shaped by one's tao.
maybe. but who we are when we think about things also says 'honest' things
about us. i like to regard each person as a package deal and not worry about
which are the good bits and which are the bad bits. from what i've seen, we
each have our shining moments and we each have moments that make us cringe--and
lots of iffy stuff balancing 'tween.
>* * *
>
>a person may have experienced much and still experienced
>nothing of another's world.
does it matter? if you're referring to my initial (in your eyes) offhand
remark, your assuming arrogance and not caring what i said to clarify signifies
arrogance of a sort on your part too. i ask you why do you cling to what i
said as it makes a case for you instead of saying oh, i thought she meant that
but through dialogue figured out she meant something else?
>
>one person will think that gives them great insight.
>another person will think that they have gained some insight.
>yet a third will think they will see more than they have.
>
yes. and probably all of us have been at each of these places at one time or
another. are we all so easily tagged and shoved into a drawer. do socks only
go in the socks drawer? if your drawers are anything like mine, there are all
sorts of odds and ends in them, not just what they have been designated for.
>* * *
>
>there is the compassion one feels for those one has known always.
>there is the compassion one feels for those that are like one's knowledge.
>there is the compassion one feels for these that one can understand.
>there is the compassion one feels for those that one cannot understand.
>yet, the world remains whole.
there is the reverse of each of them too; yet...
rgds,
lisa
Jaybuzin0000
>plk wrote:
>>lkf wrote:
[...]
>>>>>>lisa <oneo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>When I look at all of who I have been over the years,
>>>>>>>>>>>there probably isn't anyone I haven't been.
Heaven and Earth and Chuang-tzu
were born at the same time.
All of life is one.
-the walrus
>>>>>>>>>>that is arrogant.
I am arrogant, yes.
Eye seas; 10k things.
>>>>>>>>>Not really. What I mean by that is that every human feeling
>>>>>>>>>I know to exist has passed through my body at one time or another.
if any things is small
then every thing is small
>>>>>>>>can you conceive of that which you do not know?
which feeling,
to what degree,
has hsin not felt\known.
>>>>>>>When I think of conceive I think of bringing forth creatively;
>>>>>>>so with that definition, yes, I can. I think it happens all
>>>>>>>of the time, through spontaneity. Who knows where the ripples
>>>>>>>will travel? What do you think?
from one pov
ninuplets have not passed
thru a specific birth canal
in my body; no kids, no labourious pains.
>>>>>>is there a limit to what you do not know?
many things has this body not experienced.
and yet, as all life is one; eye has scene itall.
empathy is not temporally\spacially limited.
how much can the sage know
without leaving a room.
>>>>>As that which can be known is being spontaneously manifested
>>>>>every moment, how could there be?
th'air is only now.
intellectually, ceilings are bounced upon.
wu-hsin is unlimited.
>>>>>>you misdirect from your arrogance.
m'eye place-holder is nothing.
yet m'aye arrogance is held.
>>>>>I don't see myself as being arrogant or misdirecting. Keep
>>>>>trying though and I may yet see it.
>>>>>>not everything you know covers all the anyones.
I see myself as an ass-hole,
stuck up the butt and looking out
the holes in my head. And yet,
I know what peter and lisa are saying.
>>>nothing exists in a vacuum, as you know.
it's the only sure place to find it.
>>so?
do vacuums really suck?
or is the hub a peaceful pl'ace?
>so, in a discussion forum such as this, i expect contextual support either
>before or after anything that's said,
I like to get above, below,
and around all things;
as being One of the many
things eye is.
> is the horse running away a good thing or a bad thing?
mebbe it's both
mebbe it's neither
mebbe it can't be figured out
mebbe i'tall deep ends
>>it is the things you do/say without thinking about them
>>that are among the most honest expressions of one's te as
>>shaped by one's tao.
spontaneously
one thinks about thinking
about how to be spontaneous
>lots of iffy stuff balancing 'tween.
>>a person may have experienced much and still experienced
>>nothing of another's world.
>
>does it matter?
all life is one.
semantically, realistically,
who can say wear
each te draws
but te is beyond lines.
does the whirl not experience
all things in the river?
if the river _is_ the whirl pooling
then how can te be cut-off
from this\that?
when tao is lost, te appears.
>do socks only
>go in the socks drawer?
mine go on a shelf
>>there is the compassion one feels for those one has known always.
>>there is the compassion one feels for those that are like one's knowledge.
>>there is the compassion one feels for these that one can understand.
>>there is the compassion one feels for those that one cannot understand.
>>yet, the world remains whole.
a world made of animated dirt, and straw
>there is the reverse of each of them too; yet...
sacred bull
in a china shop
passing bottomless
for what it's worth
{:-])))
k...@springhaven.org
from the arrogance of what you said.
you're trying to make me forget or not forget, nor my possible
persception of that is not at hand.
>>>in the next bounce, i clarified what i meant by it.
>>hmm...
>>>nothing exists in a vacuum, as you know.
>>so?
>so, in a discussion forum such as this, i expect contextual support either
>before or after anything that's said, both from myself and from others.
>sometimes i ask for it and don't receive it, and sometimes others ask it of me
>and i don't give it; yet these things are expected too.
and this had what to do with your arrogance?
>>>to accept an idea/ideal, as-is, without context or further discussion,
>>>in intellectual and/or philosophical discussion leads to
>>>possible misperceptions by the perceiver and does not necessarily infer
>>>"beliement."
>>my uncle preaches about the ideal of family and compassion.
>>he fostered one half-breed, and adopted 3 russian boys.
>>meanwhile he's never ever home. my adopted and foster cousins
>>only really see him when he's stopped home for a little sleep,
>>some food, a change of clothes, or at church when the family
>>goes to service (even then he's usually too busy being the pastor
>>to be the husband or father he says everyone else should be).
>>my aunt is in her late 50s with 3 new sons who don't speak
>>english or korean well. the children she gave birth to moved
>>out as soon as they could; she's been pining ever since.
>sounds like lives and stories i see and hear about all of the time.
>do you honestly think there is anyone who can escape contradictory,
>hypocritical, and/or well-meaning-but-horribly-wrong behavior at times?
i don't think that.
however, your behavior is the behavior i was addressing. and again
you direct attention away from that. just because other people jump
off the bridge doesn't advise you to jump of the bridge. you spend
alot of time looking away from your own behavior.
comparable
or
incomparable
>do you hold negative judgement over your aunt and uncle for these things?
>would it be better if uncle hadn't adopted the children and they wasted
>away in an orphanage? would it be better if aunt went catatonic after
>her last child left and stopped her pining? is the horse running away
>a good thing or a bad thing?
one of my friends was in an abusive relationship. she regularly
bemoaned the situation. she then moved onto another relationship
where she was the abuser. then somewhere along the way she learned
to pay attention to what she was doing and what was being done around
her. her relationships are less abusive each year as she brings
her life and ideals into alignment.
your questions are wrong. not stupid, but they look at the wrong
thing. they look to what you think as opposed to what is.
choices
>>it is the things you do/say without thinking about them
>>that are among the most honest expressions of one's te as
>>shaped by one's tao.
>maybe. but who we are when we think about things also says 'honest'
>things about us. i like to regard each person as a package deal and
>not worry about which are the good bits and which are the bad bits.
>from what i've seen, we each have our shining moments and we each have
>moments that make us cringe--and lots of iffy stuff balancing 'tween.
your actions/word here this last few year give the lie to your words now.
>>a person may have experienced much and still experienced
>>nothing of another's world.
>does it matter? if you're referring to my initial (in your eyes)
>offhand remark, your assuming arrogance and not caring what i said
>to clarify signifies arrogance of a sort on your part too.
>i ask you why do you cling to what i said as it makes a case for you
>instead of saying oh, i thought she meant that
>but through dialogue figured out she meant something else?
because my experience tells me otherwise.
>>one person will think that gives them great insight.
>>another person will think that they have gained some insight.
>>yet a third will think they will see more than they have.
>yes. and probably all of us have been at each of these places at one
>time or another. are we all so easily tagged and shoved into a drawer.
>do socks only go in the socks drawer? if your drawers are anything like
>mine, there are all sorts of odds and ends in them, not just what they
>have been designated for.
you would do well to ask these questions of yourself, and
provide yourself with thoughtful and honest answers.
>>there is the compassion one feels for those one has known always.
>>there is the compassion one feels for those that are like one's knowledge.
>>there is the compassion one feels for these that one can understand.
>>there is the compassion one feels for those that one cannot understand.
>>yet, the world remains whole.
>there is the reverse of each of them too; yet...
not all things are reversible.
Jaybuzin0000
[...]
>not all things are reversible.
things were what they were.
things are what they are.
things could not have been otherwise,
according to tao chia.
que sera, sera.
>not all things are reversible.
when a dog chases a cat
when a cat kills a rat
ought things be otherwise?
>not all things are reversible.
when arrogance is outlawed
only outlaws will be arrogant?
should the plague be forgiven
for being what it is?
was Soper wrong for tracking Mallon?
"Like the famous Typhoid Mary, a person who has recovered from Typhoid can
spread the disease to others, especially if they neglect to wash their hands
when coming from the bathroom. Travellers to the "developing" world are advised
to get vaccinated and watch what they eat."
http://www.diseaseworld.com/typhoid.htm
>not all things are reversible.
things reach a limit
according to the theory
-in the grove
{:- | )))
lisa
>lisa <oneo...@aol.com> wrote:
[...]
>>do you honestly think there is anyone who can escape contradictory,
>>hypocritical, and/or well-meaning-but-horribly-wrong behavior at times?
>
>i don't think that.
Don't think what?
>
>however, your behavior is the behavior i was addressing. and again
>you direct attention away from that.
Do you consider my "behavior" some words I typed and that showed up on a
screen?
just because other people jump
>off the bridge doesn't advise you to jump of the bridge. you spend
>alot of time looking away from your own behavior.
What you see here are words on a screen. How can you make sweeping statements
like that? I've been reading you here for years, peter; yet I could not begin
to presume to know anything about the way you spend your time, either through
your activities of daily living or the way your mind processes or directs its
attention. I can perhaps guess that part of you likes to lurk and read here
and occasionally participate. I could draw a conclusion from that that you
like to sit in judgement and occasionally come down from the Mount to give a
lesson. But this would be presumptuous, yes?
>
>comparable
>or
>incomparable
>
>>do you hold negative judgement over your aunt and uncle for these things?
>>would it be better if uncle hadn't adopted the children and they wasted
>>away in an orphanage? would it be better if aunt went catatonic after
>>her last child left and stopped her pining? is the horse running away
>>a good thing or a bad thing?
>
>one of my friends was in an abusive relationship. she regularly
>bemoaned the situation. she then moved onto another relationship
>where she was the abuser. then somewhere along the way she learned
>to pay attention to what she was doing and what was being done around
>her. her relationships are less abusive each year as she brings
>her life and ideals into alignment.
>
>your questions are wrong. not stupid, but they look at the wrong
>thing. they look to what you think as opposed to what is.
now who is misdirecting? peter, you are immersed in the situation with your
aunt and uncle and cousins. do you honestly think you can be objective about
it? and the woman in the abusive situations. do you think you could have
mouthed the words 'dont' do it' to her, either on the receiving or the giving
end of abuse, and her life would be transformed?
as far as your relatives' or your friend's situations, your experience cannot
tell you what their lives would be in alternative situations, and whether they
would be better or worse.
>choices
>
>>>it is the things you do/say without thinking about them
>>>that are among the most honest expressions of one's te as
>>>shaped by one's tao.
>>maybe. but who we are when we think about things also says 'honest'
>>things about us. i like to regard each person as a package deal and
>>not worry about which are the good bits and which are the bad bits.
>>from what i've seen, we each have our shining moments and we each have
>>moments that make us cringe--and lots of iffy stuff balancing 'tween.
>
>your actions/word here this last few year give the lie to your words now.
I am a work in progress and make no apologies :)
rgds,
lisa
k...@springhaven.org
when the tao is reversed,
it is the same.
* * *
what is your place in the tao?
arrogance? *shrug*
seeing things in terms of yourself? *shrug*
seeing things in terms of themselves? *shrug*
looking away.
looking away.
looking away.
that is not here and now.
k...@springhaven.org
>peter wrote:
>>>do you honestly think there is anyone who can escape contradictory,
>>>hypocritical, and/or well-meaning-but-horribly-wrong behavior at times?
>>i don't think that.
"there is anyone [etc.]"
>>however, your behavior is the behavior i was addressing. and again
>>you direct attention away from that.
>Do you consider my "behavior" some words I typed and that showed up on a
>screen?
not just.
> just because other people jump
>>off the bridge doesn't advise you to jump of the bridge. you spend
>>alot of time looking away from your own behavior.
>What you see here are words on a screen. How can you make sweeping
>statements like that?
exactly the same way YOU do it.
>I've been reading you here for years, peter; yet I could not begin
>to presume to know anything about the way you spend your time, either
>through your activities of daily living or the way your mind processes
>or directs its attention. I can perhaps guess that part of you likes
>to lurk and read here and occasionally participate. I could draw a
>conclusion from that that you like to sit in judgement and occasionally
>come down from the Mount to give a lesson. But this would be
>presumptuous, yes?
would it be?
that is for YOU to answer.
>>comparable
>>or
>>incomparable
>>>do you hold negative judgement over your aunt and uncle for these things?
>>>would it be better if uncle hadn't adopted the children and they wasted
>>>away in an orphanage? would it be better if aunt went catatonic after
>>>her last child left and stopped her pining? is the horse running away
>>>a good thing or a bad thing?
>>one of my friends was in an abusive relationship. she regularly
>>bemoaned the situation. she then moved onto another relationship
>>where she was the abuser. then somewhere along the way she learned
>>to pay attention to what she was doing and what was being done around
>>her. her relationships are less abusive each year as she brings
>>her life and ideals into alignment.
>>your questions are wrong. not stupid, but they look at the wrong
>>thing. they look to what you think as opposed to what is.
>now who is misdirecting?
not me.
your arrogance is a manifestation of your internal world.
as is your misdirection. the internal world an external
world are one thing. there is not misalignment, and yet
there is.
>peter, you are immersed in the situation with your aunt and uncle
>and cousins. do you honestly think you can be objective about
>it?
what does this have to do with your arrogance?
>and the woman in the abusive situations. do you think you could have
>mouthed the words 'dont' do it' to her, either on the receiving or the
>giving end of abuse, and her life would be transformed?
i never told her do or don't do any particular thing.
i told her to choose and follow that choice.
>as far as your relatives' or your friend's situations, your experience
>cannot tell you what their lives would be in alternative situations,
>and whether they would be better or worse.
not better. not worse. different.
perhaps more inline with their desires.
what does this have to do with your arrogance?
>>choices
>>>>it is the things you do/say without thinking about them
>>>>that are among the most honest expressions of one's te as
>>>>shaped by one's tao.
>>>maybe. but who we are when we think about things also says 'honest'
>>>things about us. i like to regard each person as a package deal and
>>>not worry about which are the good bits and which are the bad bits.
>>>from what i've seen, we each have our shining moments and we each have
>>>moments that make us cringe--and lots of iffy stuff balancing 'tween.
>>your actions/word here this last few year give the lie to your words now.
>I am a work in progress and make no apologies :)
very categorical.
again you choose and your actions flow from those choices.
rejecting this and accepting that.
* * *
"a work in progress."
who isn't?
why should that grant you special privileges?
k...@springhaven.org
>peter wrote:
>>>do you honestly think there is anyone who can escape contradictory,
>>>hypocritical, and/or well-meaning-but-horribly-wrong behavior at times?
>>i don't think that.
"there is anyone [etc.]"
>>however, your behavior is the behavior i was addressing. and again
>>you direct attention away from that.
>Do you consider my "behavior" some words I typed and that showed up on a
>screen?
not just.
> just because other people jump
>>off the bridge doesn't advise you to jump of the bridge. you spend
>>alot of time looking away from your own behavior.
>What you see here are words on a screen. How can you make sweeping
>statements like that?
exactly the same way YOU do it.
>I've been reading you here for years, peter; yet I could not begin
>to presume to know anything about the way you spend your time, either
>through your activities of daily living or the way your mind processes
>or directs its attention. I can perhaps guess that part of you likes
>to lurk and read here and occasionally participate. I could draw a
>conclusion from that that you like to sit in judgement and occasionally
>come down from the Mount to give a lesson. But this would be
>presumptuous, yes?
would it be?
that is for YOU to answer.
>>comparable
>>or
>>incomparable
>>>do you hold negative judgement over your aunt and uncle for these things?
>>>would it be better if uncle hadn't adopted the children and they wasted
>>>away in an orphanage? would it be better if aunt went catatonic after
>>>her last child left and stopped her pining? is the horse running away
>>>a good thing or a bad thing?
>>one of my friends was in an abusive relationship. she regularly
>>bemoaned the situation. she then moved onto another relationship
>>where she was the abuser. then somewhere along the way she learned
>>to pay attention to what she was doing and what was being done around
>>her. her relationships are less abusive each year as she brings
>>her life and ideals into alignment.
>>your questions are wrong. not stupid, but they look at the wrong
>>thing. they look to what you think as opposed to what is.
>now who is misdirecting?
not me.
your arrogance is a manifestation of your internal world.
as is your misdirection. the internal world an external
world are one thing. there is no misalignment between what
is and what is, but there is between what is desired and what is.
>peter, you are immersed in the situation with your aunt and uncle
>and cousins. do you honestly think you can be objective about
>it?
i made no claim of objectivity. you mentioned the loss of horses.
what does this have to do with your arrogance?
>and the woman in the abusive situations. do you think you could have
>mouthed the words 'dont' do it' to her, either on the receiving or the
>giving end of abuse, and her life would be transformed?
i never told her do or don't do any particular thing.
i told her to choose and follow that choice.
>as far as your relatives' or your friend's situations, your experience
>cannot tell you what their lives would be in alternative situations,
>and whether they would be better or worse.
not better. not worse. different.
perhaps more inline with their desires.
what does this have to do with your arrogance?
>>choices
>>>>it is the things you do/say without thinking about them
>>>>that are among the most honest expressions of one's te as
>>>>shaped by one's tao.
>>>maybe. but who we are when we think about things also says 'honest'
>>>things about us. i like to regard each person as a package deal and
>>>not worry about which are the good bits and which are the bad bits.
>>>from what i've seen, we each have our shining moments and we each have
>>>moments that make us cringe--and lots of iffy stuff balancing 'tween.
>>your actions/word here this last few year give the lie to your words now.
>I am a work in progress and make no apologies :)
very categorical.
again you choose and your actions flow from those choices.
rejecting this and accepting that.
* * *
"a work in progress."
who isn't?
why should that grant YOU special privileges?
lisa
1) my general attitude of arrogance has not been proven to my satisfaction,
although even if i am arrogant at times, so what?? is my admission that i can
be arrogant what you're after??
2) what do you mean by my special privileges?
ok, i'll add another:
3) you brought up your aunt and uncle and cousins, as well as your friend in
the abusive situations, yet you question my bringing up the story of the lost
horse. why?
rgds,
lisa
k...@springhaven.org
>peter, two things to say to your response:
>1) my general attitude of arrogance has not been proven to my satisfaction,
that wasn't my intent.
nor was i saying you are generally arrogant.
you manage to invent that.
>although even if i am arrogant at times, so what??
even if some else is arrogant at times, why do you get upset?
even if some else is evil at times, why do you get upset?
if outside, what about inside?
these are also here and now.
>is my admission that i can be arrogant what you're after??
only if it makes you pay attention to what you are doing here and now.
>2) what do you mean by my special privileges?
"so what??" why do you get to say that?
and other people don't?
>ok, i'll add another:
>3) you brought up your aunt and uncle and cousins, as well as your friend
>in the abusive situations, yet you question my bringing up the story of
>the lost horse. why?
pay attention to your inner dialog.
i didn't question why you brought up the horses.
my family and friends are horses.
you invented the other context.
* * *
your inventions, like your arrogance, are born of your tao and te.
pay attention.
Jaybuzin0000
>jay wrote:
[...lisa and peter conversed...]
>>>not all things are reversible.
>>[stuff]
>
>when the tao is reversed,
>it is the same.
okay.
>what is your place in the tao?
wherever I happen to be at the time.
>arrogance? *shrug*
it appears to me
that you consider lisa to be arrogant
and this is to what you respond.
>seeing things in terms of yourself? *shrug*
>seeing things in terms of themselves? *shrug*
shrugging things off
is one way to do
or to do-without-doing.
>looking away.
>looking away.
>looking away.
>
>that is not here and now.
there isn't anything nor event
that is not here and now.
to think otherwise
is to enter into delusion.
-imso
{:-])))
k...@springhaven.org
>>looking away.
>>looking away.
>>that is not here and now.
>there isn't anything nor event
>that is not here and now.
>to think otherwise
>is to enter into delusion.
looking away.
creates here and there.
claiming there is (not) anything nor event and behaving (not)
in that line is cause for cognitive dissonance.
Jaybuzin0000
>looking away.
>creates here and there.
naming creates here and there.
looking away from a 'thing' is derivative.
-a claim.
>claiming there is (not) anything nor event and behaving (not)
>in that line is cause for cognitive dissonance.
any claim may evoke dischord.
without making a claim
what can be said?
balance and imbalance
are mutually interwoven.
forgetting about things
is one way to head-go.
taoism claims many things.
staking one's heart-mind on things
may not be wu-hsin nor wu-wei
-a pov
kamerm
news:159ffbc2...@usw-ex0103-023.remarq.com...
> Using two eyes allows for depth perception.
> It is an automatic, unconscious calculation but based on some
> advanced trigonometry. One-eyed people see things flat and
> navigate poorly, bumping into things.
> --lawrence
Err, this ampleopic person is something of an archer and fencer
(the brain seems quite capable of adapting to such challenges)
perhaps you mean that you, having grown using two eyes
find using one eye awkward?
..another POV..
(Hay that makes too I's ;-)
-k
kamerm
news:20000509072702...@ng-bk1.news.cs.com...
...
> that which is dry and pedantic
> as overlaid upon that which is fluid
> is not particularly li.
>
> as reason\principle\truth
> li is not-li but a paper cut-out.
...
> th'air is a reason, a principle, a truth
> about the grain of wood, the markings in jade,
> or the way in which a cloud takes shape.
>
> one who knows this li
> then knows a balance
> between types of reason
> between dry and pedantic.
>
> there is an order\li, in a way, a reason;
> but what the order of a cumulo-nimbus is
> cannot quite be pinned down in words.
>
> true\false is an overly-simplistic paradigm
> pertaining to statements made
> in order to obtain value thru logic
> which has very little to do with li
> as a matter of principle.
>
> forgetting about true\false
> one's eyes may cl'ear in order to sea
> the nature of things, as they are.
>
> the li of a mountain range, can it be false?
> the li of an ocean waving, can it be false?
> a rorsach ink blot is what it is, li.
>
> things, events, life, li
> are neither true nor false.
> interpretations may be useful maps
> but the map is not the territory.
>
> communication\words carry meaning.
> patterns may emerge, li, which in thems'elves
> are neither true nor false. birds chirp while
> people talk, the sounds are neither true
> nor are the waves false.
...
> do away with knowledge and wisdom.
> those who seek knowing, and truth,
> will find their menu to be quite tasty.
> some folks like to eat flowers.
> as birds also like to chirp.
...
> rabbit falling
> down whole
> jumping up runs
> a way out of a snare
> yet the meaning
> is caught by words
> for sum
Hi Jay :-)
my take on li's a bit different --
it's the shape of the space between things
it changes as do they
but it's always there
a single fabric penetrating all things
unifying them by providing the openings
into which they penetrate
-- quite visible once you know wh'air too look
-k
Jaybuzin0000
>jay wrote:
[...]
>Hi Jay :-)
Hi k!
>my take on li's a bit different --
>
>it's the shape of the space between things
>it changes as do they
>but it's always there
>a single fabric penetrating all things
>unifying them by providing the openings
>into which they penetrate
>
>-- quite visible once you know wh'air too look
looking at ground-workings
a figure may reverse surroudings
while skating across frozen ice
in the midst of a wintery
stream of thoughts
the scene which you paint for two-sea
is what I'd call wu, or even tao.
opinions are variagated
'" ...flowing"
In Taoist thought, everything in the physical world is said to conform to a
basic pattern of flow.
"In the Chinese language this is called li, and the character for li means the
markings in jade. It also means the grain in wood and the fiber in muscle. We
could say, too, that clouds have li, marble has li, the human body has li. We
all recognize it, and the artist copies it whether he is a landscape painter, a
portrait painter, an abstract painter, or a non-objective painter. They all are
trying to express the essence of li. The interesting thing is, that although we
all know what it is, there is no way of defining it. Because tao is the course,
we can also call li the watercourse, and the patterns of li are also the
patterns of flowing water. We see those patterns of flow memorialized, as it
were, as sculpture in the grain in wood, which is the flow of sap, in marble,
in bones, in muscles. All these things are patterned according to the basic
principles of flow. In the patterns of flowing water you will find all kinds of
motifs from Chinese art immediately recognizable, including the S-curve in the
circle of yang-yin.
So li means then the order of flow, the wonderful dancing pattern of liquid."
- Taoism by Alan Watts '
http://www.peripheral.org/pages/tao.html
Dobador
>...We see those patterns of flow memorialized...
That's probably the best definition. The wood grain is as it is because it
records changes to the tree over time. The river flows as it does, skirting
some obstacles and overcoming others - we see the motion in the patterns
formed. My muscle fibers carry the memory of the types of exercise I practice
most, as my body adjusts to the stretching and shaping of dance, of tai chi, of
qigong.
Regards from Dobador
lisa
Your words shine, Dobador (and Jay.) I remember reading a quote on the jacket
of the Woodstock album and have been trying to find it ever since. It was
regarding the technical imperfections of the album. The quote went on to say
that the recording, like the scarring found on leather, is what gives the
object character. (If anyone knows where I can find this quote--last time I
read it was at 15--please let me know.)
rgds,
lisa
lisa
>"lday" wrote:
>...
>> Using two eyes allows for depth perception.
>> It is an automatic, unconscious calculation but based on some
>> advanced trigonometry. One-eyed people see things flat and
>> navigate poorly, bumping into things.
>...
>> --lawrence
>
>Err, this ampleopic person is something of an archer and fencer
>(the brain seems quite capable of adapting to such challenges)
>perhaps you mean that you, having grown using two eyes
>find using one eye awkward?
>
>..another POV..
>(Hay that makes too I's ;-)
>
>-k
In my hotel room, for an overnight conference for work, I watched a
tragic-though-fascinating show about a teenaged girl who developed a condition
where she eventually was hemorrhaging virtually all of the time. Nothing
alleviated them. Finally, one of the doctors suggested a drastic procedure:
remove half of her brain! As incredible as it sounds, they removed half of her
brain. The seizures stopped, but, as you might imagine, the she who was she
was no longer. The seizures were gone and so was the sparkle.
My heart went out to those parents, along with this young girl. How does one
choose when forced to choose between two really terrible things?
Sorry for the digression from the original subject. What I wanted to say about
it is, yes, they removed half of her brain, and the tasks normally reserved for
the removed portion of the brain shifted over to the remaining hemisphere.
rgds,
lisa
lisa
>lisa <oneo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>peter, two things to say to your response:
>>1) my general attitude of arrogance has not been proven to my satisfaction,
>
>that wasn't my intent.
>nor was i saying you are generally arrogant.
>you manage to invent that.
OK. I just thought that was it, since you seemed to be bringing that word up
time and again.
>>although even if i am arrogant at times, so what??
>
>even if some else is arrogant at times, why do you get upset?
>even if some else is evil at times, why do you get upset?
?? Why does anyone respond to anything the way they do? Are you suggesting
that a person should reach a state where nothing can upset them? I do what I
do because that is what I feel inside and how I respond to it.
>if outside, what about inside?
>
>these are also here and now.
naturally.
>>is my admission that i can be arrogant what you're after??
>
>only if it makes you pay attention to what you are doing here and now.
>
>>2) what do you mean by my special privileges?
>
>"so what??" why do you get to say that?
>and other people don't?
Hmmm... do you perceive others aren't afforded identical privilege? If so, how
did you come to this perception?
[..]
>* * *
>
>your inventions, like your arrogance, are born of your tao and te.
Agreed. Is this your distillation of all of this bouncing? If so, why didn't
you just say so to begin with?
Are my inventions real? Real enough. Inclusion of my hypothetical arrogance
that you initially presented in this thread is still a mystery to me though.
As a representative of the myriad attributes humans, myself included, possess,
yes; beyond that, no. I'm open to being shown direct passages from posts if
you care to present them.
rgds,
lisa
>pay attention.
lisa
correction. this should be having seizures, not hemorrhaging.
k...@springhaven.org
>>that wasn't my intent.
>>nor was i saying you are generally arrogant.
>>you manage to invent that.
>OK. I just thought that was it, since you seemed to be bringing that
>word up time and again.
yes. you do think.
>>>although even if i am arrogant at times, so what??
>>even if some else is arrogant at times, why do you get upset?
>>even if some else is evil at times, why do you get upset?
>?? Why does anyone respond to anything the way they do?
but you tend not to think about those thing in yourself.
>Are you suggesting that a person should reach a state where
>nothing can upset them?
another one of your inventions.
you aren't listening to me.
you are listening to what you think i must be saying.
>I do what I do because that is what I feel inside and how I respond to it.
what is that stuff inside?
how well does what you think reflect what you want for yourself and
what you think, really do inside, and what you do outside?
>>if outside, what about inside?
>>these are also here and now.
>naturally.
that is a glib thing to say in your case.
>>>is my admission that i can be arrogant what you're after??
>>only if it makes you pay attention to what you are doing here and now.
>>>2) what do you mean by my special privileges?
>>"so what??" why do you get to say that?
>>and other people don't?
>Hmmm... do you perceive others aren't afforded identical privilege?
most certainly by you.
>If so, how did you come to this perception?
madelynn.
esther.
any one else you have a beef with.
>>your inventions, like your arrogance, are born of your tao and te.
>Agreed. Is this your distillation of all of this bouncing?
were it only that simple.
>If so, why didn't you just say so to begin with?
when the meaning is transferred, then the word can be forgotten.
otherwise, perhaps words have some use.
>Are my inventions real? Real enough.
then what about inventions you don't care for?
>Inclusion of my hypothetical arrogance that you initially presented in
>this thread is still a mystery to me though.
i know.
>As a representative of the myriad attributes humans, myself included,
>possess, yes; beyond that, no.
>I'm open to being shown direct passages from posts if
>you care to present them.
if you were open as you claim, then you would have seen it already.
ciao,
kamerm
"lisa" <oneo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000514113828...@ng-fe1.aol.com...
> >where she eventually was hemorrhaging virtually all of the time.
>
> correction. this should be having seizures, not hemorrhaging.
Hi Li :-)
correction. that should be amblyopia, not ampleopia
I figure anyone who cares already knows, ya know ?-)
-k