Re-education of trolls of the cowardly cabal
Stumper
the resident trolls
of the cowardly cabal.
As I am not qualified
to be a teacher of Taoism,
I will post some articles
available on the Internet
and let the visiting teachers
explain things and answer questions.
~Stumper.
First Article:
----------
*Tolerance: Chuang-Tzu's Epistemological Approach*
http://www.international-relations.com/cm3-2/Tolweb.html
"Chuang-tzu advocates tolerance, he favours the co-existence of diverse
thoughts and values, and opposes a human recognition system conforming to
one single standard. This, surely, would be beneficial to the development of
knowledge and the process of civilisation. In this sense, the thought of
Chuang-tzu is a unique flower in the philosophical circle of pre-Qin China."
----------
Isqu...@aol.com
Stumper wrote:
> It's time to re-educate
> the resident trolls
> of the cowardly cabal.
>
> As I am not qualified
> to be a teacher of Taoism,
> I will post some articles
> available on the Internet
> and let the visiting teachers
> explain things and answer questions.
>
> ~Stumper.
>
you really are a boring little fuck
Stumper
You didn't like the article?
~Stumper.
Isqu...@aol.com
Stumper wrote:
> Isqu...@aol.com wrote:
> > Stumper wrote:
> >
> >>It's time to re-educate
> >>the resident trolls
> >>of the cowardly cabal.
> >>
> >>As I am not qualified
> >>to be a teacher of Taoism,
> >>I will post some articles
> >>available on the Internet
> >>and let the visiting teachers
> >>explain things and answer questions.
> >>
> >>~Stumper.
> >>
> >
> >
> > you really are a boring little fuck
> >
>
> You didn't like the article?
>
> ~Stumper.
I don't bother reading about taoist things any more- haven't in years
:-) do you know why? (of course not)
Stumper
That explains a lot of things.
Anyhow,
I usually judge the tree by its fruit.
Have you healed anyone ever?
Have you helped anyone lately?
What did you do this week
to show your achievement in Taoism?
Anything other than
your profanity and intolerance?
~Stumper.
Isqu...@aol.com
> That explains a lot of things.
>
> Anyhow,
> I usually judge the tree by its fruit.
yep. and i would teach you something here but then your ridicule nae
wooks on me
>
> Have you healed anyone ever?
> Have you helped anyone lately?
why would i bother?
>
> What did you do this week
> to show your achievement in Taoism?
i farted.
>
> Anything other than
> your profanity and intolerance?
>
>
> ~Stumper.
no.
8 |
<Isqu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1107130658.7...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
than a 'boring little fuck'
woohoo!
8 |
Stumper
Sounds like a parasite
to the society.
So much intelligence,
so much education,
so much caring of their parents,
Wasted!
So sad...
~Stumper.
David Lindauer
Isqu...@aol.com
i'm sorry was i neglecting you lately canuck?
{:-])))
>It's time to re-educate
>the resident trolls
>of the cowardly cabal.
You are not tolerant.
You want to change things.
>As I am not qualified
>to be a teacher of Taoism,
Not qualified wrt Taoism.
Not tolerant of those whom you find
in a group in which you arrived.
>I will post some articles
>available on the Internet
>and let the visiting teachers
That would be?
>explain things and answer questions.
I think Jim is a teacher
but while he is quite busy at times
I would not call him a visitor.
Not sure if any other teachers are here.
Usenet is Usenet.
>~Stumper.
>
>First Article:
>----------
>*Tolerance: Chuang-Tzu's Epistemological Approach*
>http://www.international-relations.com/cm3-2/Tolweb.html
>
>"Chuang-tzu advocates tolerance,
Got that?
Can you put it into practice?
>he favours the co-existence of diverse
>thoughts and values,
Is this difficult for you to do?
>and opposes a human recognition system conforming to
>one single standard.
Ergo, drop your standard.
> This, surely, would be beneficial to the development of
>knowledge and the process of civilisation.
Surely,
you arrive in a group
about which you know nothing
and begin to talk about a topic
about which you also know next to nothing.
You are intolerant of what you find
and you find yourself unable to coexist
with these diverse thoughts and values.
You have standards you want to uphold
even though the first article you present
says to oppose such a thing.
So far you have not been of any benefit
to the development of knowledge and the process of
civilisation. So far you have generated conflict
with your lack of netiquette and misunderstanding.
>In this sense, the thought of
>Chuang-tzu is a unique flower in the philosophical circle of pre-Qin China."
Interesting quote.
>----------
8 |
> about which you know nothing
> and begin to talk about a topic
> about which you also know next to nothing.
>
hahaha
> You are intolerant of what you find
> and you find yourself unable to coexist
> with these diverse thoughts and values.
>
ooohooohooo!
> You have standards you want to uphold
> even though the first article you present
> says to oppose such a thing.
>
> So far you have not been of any benefit
> to the development of knowledge and the process of
> civilisation. So far you have generated conflict
> with your lack of netiquette and misunderstanding.
>
very well said master.
heheheheeh
Tzaddik
>
> It's time to re-educate
> the resident trolls
You are going to teach yourself a lesson?
>
> As I am not qualified
> to be a teacher of Taoism,
> I will post some articles
> available on the Internet
> and let the visiting teachers
> explain things and answer questions.
>
How very important you are to yourself.
Tzaddik
> That explains a lot of things.
Without the ability to understand anything
how would it explain anything to you?
>
> Anyhow,
> I usually judge the tree by its fruit.
I usually judge the fruit by it's juice.
If I squeeze your head, what comes out?
>
> Have you healed anyone ever?
yes.
> Have you helped anyone lately?
why?
>
> What did you do this week
> to show your achievement in Taoism?
Achievement in Taoism?
Oxymoronic.
Forty-Eight
" In the pursuit of learning, every day something is acquired.
In the pursuit of Tao, every day something is dropped.
Less and less is done
Until non-action is achieved.
When nothing is done, nothing is left undone.
The world is ruled by letting things take their course.
It cannot be ruled by interfering. " -Tao Te Ching
8 |
"Tzaddik" <Tza...@taotalk2.homestead.com> wrote in message
news:41FE52...@taotalk2.homestead.com...
soon you will have enlightened the enemy,
and all will be well in the great grove again.
was he a problem waiting for you to happen,
or were you the problem waiting for him to happen?
and were do we go from here?
why not come to Canada my friends.
free surgery, but bring your own tobacco.
and blankets and shovels and old
copies of the lao tzu.
Stumper
Thank you.
Your opinion is noted.
Can you be a little more
tolerant to my opinion, please?
~Stumper.
8 |
> Stumper wrote:
>
> > That explains a lot of things.
>
> Without the ability to understand anything
> how would it explain anything to you?
>
> >
> > Anyhow,
> > I usually judge the tree by its fruit.
>
> I usually judge the fruit by it's juice.
> If I squeeze your head, what comes out?
>
hohhohohhohooh
8 |
"Stumper" <stu...@newvessel.com> wrote in message
news:uo-cnY67rON...@ptd.net...
can't you see that you're disregard
for netiquette is hampering civilization?
Stumper
Then,
why are you clinging to
profanity and pornography?
Stumper
Second Article:
Ethics and Zhuangzi: Awareness, Freedom, and Autonomy
By Christian Helmut Wenzel
http://www.flld.ncnu.edu.tw/Wenzel/JOCP%20endgueltig.pdf
Isqu...@aol.com
I'm sure there are at least 10 articles on every subject you want to
support your idea that taoism is actually confucism because there are
at least a thousand taoist wanabes for every one that has the smallest
inkling of what taoism is really about, and i do mean the smallest
inkling. College philosophy book and paper writers especially are known
for being complete fucking idiots. Just the idea one would write of
these things shows ones level of comprehension - to say nothing of the
rediculas content.
Stumper
Do you wanna talk about Taoism at all?
If so, pick an article to talk about.
I don't trust you enough to go around
talking about the major sources or
key concepts without guidance.
If not, tell me why you are here,
just one more time, please.
~Stumper.
Isqu...@aol.com
If you don't trust me well thats even better. I agree. Now you need the
same attitude with the crap you read. Its all bullshit for the most
part.
I will talk about anything.. except articles or books- it just comes
down to being a lot of work with little rewards.see my above opinion.
If you want to have a real conversation that works about any area of
taoism I'll usually jump in. I really don't see the purpose in
repeatedly telling you how fucked i find some of these articles to be..
it probably be better to just write a form letter.
I would suggest you look into te and its implication on what you
perceive to be taoism's underlying morality. You are not that off base
here with your accusations but you are off base and with your volume of
posts it is pushed into everyones's face. I see a lot of "myself and
others here" in you.
Keynes
wrote:
Jigsaw puzzle. Plug the dike with whatever comes to hand.
No. No. Don't read. Don't think. Just pile up that
junky stuff and build the wall high.
Stumper
Do you have any homosexual in your group?
~Stumper.
jim fish
But you'll choose a minor source and use it as a keystone for your
perspective?
> If not, tell me why you are here,
> just one more time, please.
I'm here to hang out, partake of the jug, listen, speak, and a whole host of
other things. I'm not here to tell folks how they should treat others in
conversation. That would make of me a non-daoist if not boorish.
I actually do write those ridiculous papers that Isquare spoke of and I
certainly don't agree with his broad assessment, but no philosopher worth
his salt tells others *how* to be. He simply offers a perspective and lets
others choose their own paths.
Just a quick (well, not too quick) reflection on the two papers you've
offered:
One of them has a section entitled 'Tolerance is not Relativism'. Neither is
intolerance relativism but the author is speaking of an epistemological
approach (i.e. a method for acquiring knowledge) He does not mention
Zhuangzi's apparent intolerance when he (Zhuangzi) uses the word "Fool!" to
cut off another. Since the author of that article says those chapters were
written by Zhuangzi's students, it goes far in saying what his
contemporaries thought about him and his tolerance or lack thereof. This
author also writes "Chuang-tzu advocates tolerance, he favours the
co-existence of diverse thoughts and values, and opposes a human recognition
system conforming to one single standard." - If there isn't a single
standard, then what is there, if not relativity in standards?
The second paper states at least twice that both tolerance and relativistic
readings of Zhuangzi are "legitimate". He also points out Zhuangzian
epistemology when referring to Cook Ting's sizing up a difficult area. Cook
Ting acknowledges that learning is an on going process.
And yet, nowhere does the author point out Zhuangzi's lack of tolerance for
those who speak of Dao in a Confucian manner (i.e., "Fool!")
He also betrays his position as a specialist of Kant by using Kantian ethics
as a foundation for his perspective and, in his conclusion, mentioning him 9
times and the supposed subject of his paper only 8.
Finally, Zhuangzi speaks of sorting. He judges between this and that. He
knowingly decides what to be tolerant of and what not to be tolerant of. How
does he ultimately handle either situation?
rgds.
:-)
jim
Isqu...@aol.com
>
>
> Do you have any homosexual in your group?
>
> ~Stumper.
do you like to play kerplunk?
I think we did have one guy that was gay that posted here awhile back.
Was an interesting guy. Why do you ask?
jim fish
> I will talk about anything.. except articles or books- it just comes
> down to being a lot of work with little rewards.
Not if you get paid for it ;-)
Stumper
Tolerance.
> The second paper states at least twice that both tolerance and relativistic
> readings of Zhuangzi are "legitimate". He also points out Zhuangzian
> epistemology when referring to Cook Ting's sizing up a difficult area. Cook
> Ting acknowledges that learning is an on going process.
> And yet, nowhere does the author point out Zhuangzi's lack of tolerance for
> those who speak of Dao in a Confucian manner (i.e., "Fool!")
> He also betrays his position as a specialist of Kant by using Kantian ethics
> as a foundation for his perspective and, in his conclusion, mentioning him 9
> times and the supposed subject of his paper only 8.
>
> Finally, Zhuangzi speaks of sorting. He judges between this and that. He
> knowingly decides what to be tolerant of and what not to be tolerant of. How
> does he ultimately handle either situation?
>
He stops theorizing and
stares at the nothingness.
> rgds.
> :-)
> jim
>
>
>
I am trying to figure out
what it means to use relativistic perspective
to the perspectival relativism.
~Stumper.
Stumper
Value judgment.
What is your view about homosexuality?
~Stumper.
Isqu...@aol.com
actually, i don't think i've ever met one i did not like. They seem to
have heart - sole. :-)
Stumper
Any other group of people you hate
except the Confucianists?
~Stumper.
jim fish
> >
>
> Tolerance.
Which the second paper legitimizes as acceptable along with relativism.
> >
> > Finally, Zhuangzi speaks of sorting. He judges between this and that. He
> > knowingly decides what to be tolerant of and what not to be tolerant of.
How
> > does he ultimately handle either situation?
> >
>
> He stops theorizing and
> stares at the nothingness.
<nodding>
He doesn't proselytize his perspective.
> > rgds.
> > :-)
> > jim
> >
> >
> >
>
> I am trying to figure out
> what it means to use relativistic perspective
> to the perspectival relativism.
That seems like a koan... although my kneejerk reaction is to say the former
is immediate and actualized and the latter is the base by which one can
analyze the former (but I'd rather just stare at nothingness...)
Isqu...@aol.com
thats funny. Actually i'm not so fond of lawyers :-)
Stumper
Aha!
I practiced only a little.
How about child molesting Catholic priests?
~Stumper.
Isqu...@aol.com
what's your point this could go on for days...
MsAnthrope
Tzaddik
>
> Jigsaw puzzle. Plug the dike with whatever comes to hand.
> No. No. Don't read. Don't think. Just pile up that
> junky stuff and build the wall high.
You wouldn't want to translate the crap would you?
I have no idea what you said, but you really
shouldn't plug dikes, they will kick your ass.
Tzaddik
Fuck off idiot.
Tzaddik
>
> I am trying to figure out
> what it means to use relativistic perspective
> to the perspectival relativism.
Why not spend the time instead
trying to figure out how to
pull your head out of your ass?
Stumper
You still don't realize
you are picking on the wrong person?
I guarantee you that
from now on whatever you say
will be ridiculed to absurdity.
You will be just babbling
your profanity and obscenity.
Try saying something intelligent.
I will show you it is stupid.
~Stumper.
Tzaddik
Yeah, your wit is astounding
I'm sure I will soon be in tears.
> You will be just babbling
> your profanity and obscenity.
> Try saying something intelligent.
> I will show you it is stupid.
Stumper is probably dumber than he looks.
I wonder if we can get him to post a photo of himself.
>
> ~Stumper.
Stumper
Such babbling is not counted
as an intelligent posting.
Therefore, no need to ridicule it
because it is ridiculous already.
Do you even realize
what you have become?
You are a TROLL!
~Stumper.
Stumper
Third Article:
http://www.geneseo.edu/~liu/Daoist.html
The Daoist Conception of Truth:
Laozi's Metaphysical Realism vs. Zhuangzi's Internal Realism
JeeLoo Liu
----------
In this paper, I shall present a comparative study of two leading Taoists’
different conceptions of truth in the context of modern metaphysical debate
on realism and antirealism. My basic contention in this paper is that both
Laozi and Zhuangzi embrace the realist's thesis that the world is largely
independent of us and the way we are; it has its own objective nature. But
Laozi and Zhuangzi differ in their opinions on whether our judgments could
reflect, depict or correspond to the way the world is. In my analysis,
Laozi’s view on truth is likened to metaphysical realism, while Zhuangzi’s
view on truth is likened to internal realism. Hilary Putnam at one time or
another championed both forms of realism. My exposition of the two forms of
realism will be based on Putnam’s interpretation and others’ analysis of
Putnam’s usage. I will analyze Laozi’s and Zhuangzi’s views on truth and
reality to demonstrate the justification for this comparative study. I will
also compare Laozi’s and Zhuangzi’s views to see if they can proffer a
coherent Taoist conception of truth and reality.
----------
Keynes
>
>Third Article:
>
>http://www.geneseo.edu/~liu/Daoist.html
>
>The Daoist Conception of Truth:
>Laozi's Metaphysical Realism vs. Zhuangzi's Internal Realism
>JeeLoo Liu
>
>----------
>In this paper, I shall present a comparative study of two leading Taoists’
>different conceptions of truth in the context of modern metaphysical debate
>on realism and antirealism. My basic contention in this paper is that both
>Laozi and Zhuangzi embrace the realist's thesis that the world is largely
>independent of us and the way we are; it has its own objective nature. But
>Laozi and Zhuangzi differ in their opinions on whether our judgments could
>reflect, depict or correspond to the way the world is. In my analysis,
>Laozi’s view on truth is likened to metaphysical realism, while Zhuangzi’s
>view on truth is likened to internal realism. Hilary Putnam at one time or
>another championed both forms of realism. My exposition of the two forms of
>realism will be based on Putnam’s interpretation and others’ analysis of
>Putnam’s usage. I will analyze Laozi’s and Zhuangzi’s views on truth and
>reality to demonstrate the justification for this comparative study. I will
>also compare Laozi’s and Zhuangzi’s views to see if they can proffer a
>coherent Taoist conception of truth and reality.
>----------
" Zhuangzi is a realist with regard to the way the world is, but he is also a
relativist with regard to the way we conceive the world. His arguments show that
we can never have a conception of the way the world is independently of our
perspective, but he does not go as far as radical relativists in upholding that
all perspectives are equally right. We can probably say that Zhuangzi's internal
realism serves as the middle path between metaphysical realism and radical
relativism.
III. Laozi and Zhuangzi in Comparison
The debate between realism and antirealism is often seen as a local disagreement
in the assumed existence of a particular kind of thing. Both Laozi and Zhuangzi
acknowledge the existence of the Way, the reality that is beyond human
conception and even human understanding. With regard to this particular thing
then, both Laozi and Zhuangzi are "realists." But what makes the former a
metaphysical realist and the latter an internal realist? I think the dispute on
whether we can know about the ultimate reality, is what distinguishes Laozi's
and Zhuangzi's realism.
Laozi does not share the same skepticism that Zhuangzi adopts in his approach to
this mind-independent reality. Laozi says, "From the present back to antiquity,
its name never deserted it. It serves as a means for inspecting the fathers of
the multitude. How do I know that the fathers of the multitude are like that? By
means of this." (italics mine) (XXI, p. 26) Even though it is not exactly clear
what Laozi means by "this" in the quote, it is at least obvious that he does not
deny that he can know the father of the multitude, or we may say, the Way.
Furthermore, Laozi does not think that different opinions simply express
different points of view, and that our judgments are necessarily confined to our
perspectives. To Laozi, there can be one true perspective: the perspective of
the Way. He says, "From the point of view of the way these are excessive food
and useless excrescences. As there are Things that detest them, he who has the
Way does not abide in them." (XXIV, p. 29) Laozi also says, "Those who are good
I treat as good. Those who are not good I also treat as good. In so doing I gain
in goodness." (XLIX, p. 56) This remark is different from Zhuangzi's remark that
good and bad are relative to one's judgment, in that for Laozi, there are people
who are good. Laozi's treating good people and bad people equally does not mean
that he is denying the true distinction between good and bad. Finally, Laozi
says, "It is the way of heaven to show no favoritism. It is forever on the side
of the good men." (LXXIX, p. 86) Here we clearly see his recognition of the true
good. Laozi is certainly not an ethical relativist by any means.
Zhuangzi, on the other hand, accepts a modest form of relativism. He is not a
radical relativist who holds the view that all opinions are equally right. He is
also not a radical skeptic who would even deny the validity of his own position.
But he is nonetheless a modest conceptual relativist concerning our thoughts and
beliefs, and a skeptic concerning our ability to know the ultimate Truth. Since
Laozi also has the premise that the Way cannot be spoken of and cannot be named,
Laozi himself should have come to the same conclusion that it is futile to
describe the Way, and that no one can ever know its truth.
In conclusion, I think Laozi and Zhuangzi do not hold incompatible view on the
nature of reality, but they have different evaluation of human's capacity to
understand or to depict this reality. What is the Taoist conception of Truth?
Ultimately it is still a form of correspondence relationship. But the
correspondence that constitutes Truth is not a relation between our statements
and the commonsensical world; it is rather a relation between our thought and
the world that exists independently of us and is forever closed to our
conception. Laozi's whole project is to depict this reality to the best
approximation he can accomplish, whereas Zhuangzi's endeavor is to prove how the
whole project of depiction is ultimately impossible. For Laozi, the Way is
indeed unspeakable, but he nonetheless tries to speak about it. Zhuangzi sees
that this attempt makes Laozi's metaphysical realism incoherent. I think
Zhuangzi's internal realism actually pushes Laozi's original thesis about
reality further, and thereby accomplishes a more coherent Taoist conception of
truth."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think both LZ and CZ are ultimately doomed to incoherence, and they admit
as much from the beginning. But they tell what can be told as far as non-sages
can comprehend it. The main point I get from this article is ---
"Zhuangzi, on the other hand, accepts a modest form of relativism. He is not a
radical relativist who holds the view that all opinions are equally right."
Thereby admitting an ultimate right and wrong beyond human conception.
Those who are contrary to Tao suffer for it.
Both LZ and CZ being realists, they acknowledge a reality beyond common
human judgements, but neither of them advocate that there is no 'truth',
because reality-Tao is the truth, and our task is to accord with it by the
emptying of human conceptual bias.
potts
"Keynes" <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
news:dpbuv090hk3sp0so5...@4ax.com...
thats Zen by coincidence) (G) Rgds Ken
8 |
<Isqu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1107214643....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
what do you mean, 'pushed into everyone's face'?
you don't have to read his volume of posts.
so far the only thing i see you excelling at is
telling people how fucked they are, and
saying how fucked most articles are.
now that you've established that most
things are fucked, including Canadiens,
i'm dying to hear what's not fucked.
beer, right?
beer is not fucked.
8 |
"Tzaddik" <Tza...@taotalk2.homestead.com> wrote in message
news:41FF0D...@taotalk2.homestead.com...
who cares how he looks?
for someone who thinks it's all
ascii, you sure got some strange ideas.
Isqu...@aol.com
probably, :-) I was not going to say anything as i'm sure a kerplunk is
in the works. :-)
Isqu...@aol.com
these guys are zen rejects both keynes, stumper, and jerry #2... they
think taoism will be a lot easier :-) as more is better.. and we all
know there is a shortage of more. :-)
Isqu...@aol.com
> I think both LZ and CZ are ultimately doomed to incoherence, and they
admit
> as much from the beginning. But they tell what can be told as far as
non-sages
> can comprehend it. The main point I get from this article is ---
> "Zhuangzi, on the other hand, accepts a modest form of relativism. He
Doomed to incoherance? :-)
no what he meant was people like yourselves are complete fucking idiots
so why bother.. you do nothing but prove his point and it took 2000
words to do it... not saying much as most do it in less than a thousand.
Tzaddik
>
> you've established that most
> things are fucked, including Canadiens,
> i'm dying to hear what's not fucked.
> beer, right?
> beer is not fucked.
Well maybe Canadian beer...
Tzaddik
>
> "Keynes" <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
> news:dpbuv090hk3sp0so5...@4ax.com...
Bullshit snipped here...
> Thought we were supposed to be learning less and less not more an more(.
> thats Zen by coincidence) (G) Rgds Ken
The bullshit is deep dude.
Got your hip waders handy?
8 |
<Isqu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1107258403.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
i used to hang out in zen when
things got to crude on me here.
i could never make heads or
tails out of zen.
i think perhaps some taoists
went insane and started zen.
Isqu...@aol.com
8 | wrote:
>
> i used to hang out in zen when
> things got to crude on me here.
> i could never make heads or
> tails out of zen.
> i think perhaps some taoists
> went insane and started zen.
no but a lot of insane people are attracted to zen and tao.
Zen is crap - nothing but a japanese theft of chan taoism and rename it
and put a lot of ritual in it - put it in a bottle and sell it :-)
8 |
<Isqu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1107262203....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
i think it's a sex cult
Stumper
You got a wrong impression.
Visit APZ again, please.
Follow the discussion
of the Diamond Sutra.
Tzaddik
> You got a wrong impression.
> Visit APZ again, please.
> Follow the discussion
> of the Diamond Sutra.
You got the wrong newsgroup.
Visit APZ again, please.
Follow the discussion
of the Diamond Sutra,
and stay there, don't come back.
{:-])))
>Thank you.
You are welcome.
>Your opinion is noted.
Thank you.
>Can you be a little more
>tolerant to my opinion, please?
Do you have some criteria
as to what you define as tolerance?
Please keep in mind that this is Usenet
and that all forms of language and attitude are
tolerated. What arbitrary lines do you wish to
draw in your reconstruction of the network?
What won't you tolerate?
>~Stumper.
Isqu...@aol.com
Stumper wrote:
>
> You got a wrong impression.
> Visit APZ again, please.
> Follow the discussion
> of the Diamond Sutra.
yes the buddhism was thrown in to adorn the bottle. You have to have a
pretty bottle if you want to sell. A lot of zen practicioners recognise
this and denounce the buddhist add-ons. The Buddhist fail to mention
the Taoist roots of zen. In other words take buddism out of zen and
what is left is tao by another name. I use to sell fishing bait as a
youngster. The packaging cost me a lot more than the product. :-)
Stumper
Are you afraid of the terrorist?
~Stumper.
Tzaddik
I'm not afraid of anything.
Why do you refer to yourself in the plural?
8 |
"{:-])))" <jay@.... --- -- .> wrote in message
news:ph5vv01d42tddctfh...@4ax.com...
they're not actually all
tolerated by some people.
some people are intolerant
of certain vulgarities and
would probably leave when
they get a wind of the incessant
filth that projects from your orifices
Stumper
Do you have any opinion about Al Qaeda?
Is it good?
Are you going to tolerate its members here?
Aren't you afraid of them?
~Stumper.
Stumper
Oh, you do have opinions.
Do you have one for Al Qaeda?
Do you like its members?
Would you like to meet one?
~Stumper.
Stumper
Is Al Qaeda good or bad?
~Stumper.
{:-])))
>>>>As I am not qualified
>>>>to be a teacher of Taoism,
>> I'm sure there are at least 10 articles on every subject you want to
>> support your idea that taoism is actually confucism because there are
>> at least a thousand taoist wanabes for every one that has the smallest
>> inkling of what taoism is really about, and i do mean the smallest
>> inkling. College philosophy book and paper writers especially are known
>> for being complete fucking idiots. Just the idea one would write of
>> these things shows ones level of comprehension - to say nothing of the
>> rediculas content.
>>
>
>
>Do you wanna talk about Taoism at all?
It might help to settle the idea of what Usenet
allows and how that pertains to attitudes and
language people are permitted to use.
This seems to be a difficult concept for some.
>If so, pick an article to talk about.
As for Taoism and scholarship,
there is a verse in the TTC that talks about how
when a great scholar hears of Tao what is done.
>I don't trust you enough to go around
>talking about the major sources or
>key concepts without guidance.
Tao Chia has been said to contrast with some of
the other Chia which were floating around at the
time. Some of them advocated scholarship.
Taoism might advocate laughter instead.
That would be foolish, wood-p'u it knot?
>If not, tell me why you are here,
Taoism can tend to turn things around.
Usenet can be a place people go for fun.
Some can't admit they are having fun.
>just one more time, please.
There is a study group Doug created
for those who desire scholarship without attitude.
There is a nice grove Lisa created
for those who desire Taoism with kind speech.
Both of them were regulars here long ago
and simply did not appreciate Usenet.
>~Stumper.
Usenet tolerates most all things
including but not limited to all attitudes
and all forms of language. It tolerates
intolerance as well. People sometimes realize
things such as
>>>>As I am not qualified
and then begin to attempt
>>>>to be a teacher of Taoism,
in an UNMODERATED Usenet forum,
when it is suggested that they really don't know
the essence of Taoism in some fashion they get
upset and want to argue how, since they think
Taoism would not approve (be intolerant) of
certain sorts of attitude or language, therefore
Usenet ought not to approve (be intolerant) of
various sorts of attitude or language. Both of
these premises are flawed.
Those who realize such things as
>>>>As I am not qualified
>>>>to be a teacher of Taoism,
but then want to harp on how Taoism is tolerant
and therefore it is okay to be intolerant of
somebody who is intolerant are sometimes said to
be in a sort of hypocritical stance. Usenet allows
for that and so the merry go round and round.
-passing bottomless jugs
and mugs n'ear teh campfire
in a bamboo grove
Stumper
Forget the children's play.
We are getting serious now.
You talked about Robber Chih a lot.
How about Al Qaeda?
Does Al Qaeda have Tao?
How about its capacity
to destroy things and kill people.
How good was it?
Pretty good?
Look at the number of the murdered!
What do you think of Al Qaeda exactly?
Good?
Bad?
~Stumper.
Keynes
>>
>Thought we were supposed to be learning less and less not more an more(.
>thats Zen by coincidence) (G) Rgds Ken
>
Maybe so, but being a toad in the sun is not my ideal.
Keynes
Wonderful. You don't understand zen so it's all bullshit.
You don't understand tao either, and now you compare them.
Let's have no zen in here! Get out of APT, you infidel!
Isqu...@aol.com
Isqu...@aol.com
did stumpie take his meds?
Tzaddik
> Let's have no zen in here! Get out of APT, you infidel!
We are waiting...
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Tzaddik
You prefer the rain?
dez
> can't you see that your disregard
> for netiquette is hampering civilization?
now that's a classic
dez
{:-])))
>I think both LZ and CZ are ultimately doomed to incoherence,
Some are unable to sea.
While they may inch forward
they might never arrive at the n'ocean.
>and they admit
>as much from the beginning.
Perhaps.
The authors knew of an audience.
They also knew of those for whom what they wrote
would be incomprehensible. They waved.
> But they tell what can be told as far as non-sages
>can comprehend it.
They said what they felt like saying.
It is a funny thing to say lots of stuff.
Birds chirp.
People sing.
Some say there is a reason for this.
Others say things are for no reason.
> The main point I get from this article is ---
>"Zhuangzi, on the other hand, accepts a modest form of relativism. He is not a
>radical relativist who holds the view that all opinions are equally right."
>Thereby admitting an ultimate right and wrong beyond human conception.
The sage admits some things.
The sage knows when to stop.
Have you ever actually read the CT?
>Those who are contrary to Tao suffer for it.
Actually,
those who are contrary to the Tao of the TTC
end up with full plates while people starve.
They levy high taxes. They are rich.
They don't suffer much at all.
There is Tao.
And there is Tao.
Some people confuse the too.
>Both LZ and CZ being realists, they acknowledge a reality beyond common
>human judgements,
Perhaps.
Things are as they are.
They are neither bad nor good.
> but neither of them advocate that there is no 'truth',
The truth is, bad and good are human judgements.
>because reality-Tao is the truth,
Beyond distinctions.
Particularly beyond those of bad and good.
This is certainly so for the CT.
> and our task is to accord with it by the
>emptying of human conceptual bias.
A striving worthy of accomplishment.
Zz preferred mud, as turtles.
{:-])))
I used to drink Molson while at Humbolt.
Pretty good shit. Sure wish weed didn't get fucked
by people who decided good from bad. I'd be all
fucked-up by now. Moreso. Totally.
-passing jug
{:-])))
>"{:-])))" <jay@.... --- -- .> wrote in message
>> Please keep in mind that this is Usenet
>> and that all forms of language and attitude are
>> tolerated.
>they're not actually all
>tolerated by some people.
Actually, Usenet tolerates them all.
>some people are intolerant
That is true.
>of certain vulgarities
While Usenet itself is not.
Vulgarities are perfectly permitted in Unmoderated
newsgroups throughout the world. That is the
Usenet culture to which one subscribes. Not
everybody is happy with their subscription tho.
Probably they'd be happier in a moderated group.
> and
>would probably leave when
>they get a wind of the incessant
>filth that projects from your orifices
Is that a nice thing to say?
If you called me self-righteous
would that be an insult?
-just checking
{:-])))
>Do you have any opinion about Al Qaeda?
I believe I have already answered that.
How many times did you ask?
>Is it good?
My opinion is simply my opinion.
Each individual has at least one.
They are akin to assholes.
>Are you going to tolerate its members here?
I am not aware of any its members here.
>Aren't you afraid of them?
Are they out to get me?
>~Stumper.
Stumper
I have seen two would be terrorists here.
How do you know I am not one?
I might become one to defend myself
against the two members of the cowardly cabal
threatening bodily harm already.
Do you have anything against terrorism?
What would a Usenet terrorist do
to preempt an attack?
~Stumper.
{:-])))
>Forget the children's play.
Okay.
>We are getting serious now.
>You talked about Robber Chih a lot.
Yes.
>How about Al Qaeda?
How about it?
>Does Al Qaeda have Tao?
I don't recall the CT mentioning them.
How could Al Qaeda not have it?
You could set up a situation,
as their members perhaps do,
in which they meet the criteria of the great thief
as depicted by the CT. They would, therefore, have
Tao, as Tao is depicted in Chapter 10.
Chapter 10 goes even further.
It blames the sages for producing such atrocities.
You can also take the same term, Tao,
and set up a different scenario in which those who
make war, perhaps a preemptive war, or any war, do
not have Tao. The term is found in lots of places
in the texts which have become associated with
Taoism or Tao Chia.
Feel free to argue as it pleases you.
>How about its capacity
>to destroy things and kill people.
How about it?
>How good was it?
>Pretty good?
Not too bad.
They got, what, two out of three?
You are referring to the 9/11 escapade, yes?
>Look at the number of the murdered!
A fair number.
Not bad for a days activity.
>What do you think of Al Qaeda exactly?
I think they are on a mission
to wipe out what they think is bad.
They are exactly as you are.
Both of you are on a mission to get rid of what
you think is bad. In that sense neither of you are
Taoistic. Taoism goes another way.
But the way it goes is blind to you, hidden
as a result of your preconceptions. Same with
Keynes. For him it is incomprehensible.
Anyhow, you were talking about big Al.
>Good?
For what they do
they are fair to middle.
The United States is much better.
>Bad?
What is bad for indigenous people
is good for imperialists.
>~Stumper.
Tao is in all things.
It is in the ant.
It is in the grass.
It is even in shit.
But this misses the point.
At least, accordion to the CT.
red_h...@operamail.com
Stumper wrote:
>
> ----------
> In this paper,
> different conceptions of truth
in this paper both
embrace the the world
> independent of us
potts
<Isqu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1107258403.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> potts wrote:
> > "Keynes" <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
> > news:dpbuv090hk3sp0so5...@4ax.com...
> > > On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 00:23:55 -0500, Stumper <stu...@newvessel.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Third Article:
> > > >
> > > >http://www.geneseo.edu/~liu/Daoist.html
> > > >
> > > >The Daoist Conception of Truth:
> > > >Laozi's Metaphysical Realism vs. Zhuangzi's Internal Realism
> > > >JeeLoo Liu
> > > >
> > > >----------
> > > >In this paper, I shall present a comparative study of two leading
> Taoists
> > '
> > > >different conceptions of truth in the context of modern
> metaphysical
> > debate
> > > >on realism and antirealism. My basic contention in this paper is
> that
> > both
> > > >Laozi and Zhuangzi embrace the realist's thesis that the world is
> largely
> > > >independent of us and the way we are; it has its own objective
> nature.
> > But
> > > >Laozi and Zhuangzi differ in their opinions on whether our
> judgments
> > could
> > > >reflect, depict or correspond to the way the world is. In my
> analysis,
> > > >Laozi's view on truth is likened to metaphysical realism, while
> Zhuangzi'
> > s
> > > >view on truth is likened to internal realism. Hilary Putnam at one
> time
> > or
> > > >another championed both forms of realism. My exposition of the two
> forms
> > of
> > > >realism will be based on Putnam's interpretation and others'
> analysis of
> > > >Putnam's usage. I will analyze Laozi's and Zhuangzi's views on
> truth and
> > > >reality to demonstrate the justification for this comparative
> study. I
> > will
> > > >also compare Laozi's and Zhuangzi's views to see if they can
> proffer a
> > > >coherent Taoist conception of truth and reality.
> > > >----------
> > >
> > > " Zhuangzi is a realist with regard to the way the world is, but he
> is
> > also a
> > > relativist with regard to the way we conceive the world. His
> arguments
> > show that
> > > we can never have a conception of the way the world is
> independently of
> > our
> > > perspective, but he does not go as far as radical relativists in
> upholding
> > that
> > > all perspectives are equally right. We can probably say that
> Zhuangzi's
> > internal
> > > realism serves as the middle path between metaphysical realism and
> radical
> > > relativism.
> > >
> > > III. Laozi and Zhuangzi in Comparison
> > >
> > > The debate between realism and antirealism is often seen as a local
> > disagreement
> > > in the assumed existence of a particular kind of thing. Both Laozi
> and
> > Zhuangzi
> > > acknowledge the existence of the Way, the reality that is beyond
> human
> > > conception and even human understanding. With regard to this
> particular
> > thing
> > > then, both Laozi and Zhuangzi are "realists." But what makes the
> former a
> > > metaphysical realist and the latter an internal realist? I think
> the
> > dispute on
> > > whether we can know about the ultimate reality, is what
> distinguishes
> > Laozi's
> > > and Zhuangzi's realism.
> > >
> > > Laozi does not share the same skepticism that Zhuangzi adopts in
> his
> > approach to
> > > this mind-independent reality. Laozi says, "From the present back
> to
> > antiquity,
> > > its name never deserted it. It serves as a means for inspecting the
> > fathers of
> > > the multitude. How do I know that the fathers of the multitude are
> like
> > that? By
> > > means of this." (italics mine) (XXI, p. 26) Even though it is not
> exactly
> > clear
> > > what Laozi means by "this" in the quote, it is at least obvious
> that he
> > does not
> > > deny that he can know the father of the multitude, or we may say,
> the Way.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, Laozi does not think that different opinions simply
> express
> > > different points of view, and that our judgments are necessarily
> confined
> > to our
> > > perspectives. To Laozi, there can be one true perspective: the
> perspective
> > of
> > > the Way. He says, "From the point of view of the way these are
> excessive
> > food
> > > and useless excrescences. As there are Things that detest them, he
> who has
> > the
> > > Way does not abide in them." (XXIV, p. 29) Laozi also says, "Those
> who are
> > good
> > > I treat as good. Those who are not good I also treat as good. In so
> doing
> > I gain
> > > in goodness." (XLIX, p. 56) This remark is different from
> Zhuangzi's
> > remark that
> > > good and bad are relative to one's judgment, in that for Laozi,
> there are
> > people
> > > who are good. Laozi's treating good people and bad people equally
> does not
> > mean
> > > that he is denying the true distinction between good and bad.
> Finally,
> > Laozi
> > > says, "It is the way of heaven to show no favoritism. It is forever
> on the
> > side
> > > of the good men." (LXXIX, p. 86) Here we clearly see his
> recognition of
> > the true
> > > good. Laozi is certainly not an ethical relativist by any means.
> > >
> > > Zhuangzi, on the other hand, accepts a modest form of relativism.
> He is
> > not a
> > > radical relativist who holds the view that all opinions are equally
> right.
> > > also not a radical skeptic who would even deny the validity of his
> own
> > position.
> > > But he is nonetheless a modest conceptual relativist concerning our
> > thoughts and
> > > beliefs, and a skeptic concerning our ability to know the ultimate
> Truth.
> > Since
> > > Laozi also has the premise that the Way cannot be spoken of and
> cannot be
> > named,
> > > Laozi himself should have come to the same conclusion that it is
> futile to
> > > describe the Way, and that no one can ever know its truth.
> > >
> > > In conclusion, I think Laozi and Zhuangzi do not hold incompatible
> view on
> > the
> > > nature of reality, but they have different evaluation of human's
> capacity
> > to
> > > understand or to depict this reality. What is the Taoist conception
> of
> > Truth?
> > > Ultimately it is still a form of correspondence relationship. But
> the
> > > correspondence that constitutes Truth is not a relation between our
> > statements
> > > and the commonsensical world; it is rather a relation between our
> thought
> > and
> > > the world that exists independently of us and is forever closed to
> our
> > > conception. Laozi's whole project is to depict this reality to the
> best
> > > approximation he can accomplish, whereas Zhuangzi's endeavor is to
> prove
> > how the
> > > whole project of depiction is ultimately impossible. For Laozi, the
> Way is
> > > indeed unspeakable, but he nonetheless tries to speak about it.
> Zhuangzi
> > sees
> > > that this attempt makes Laozi's metaphysical realism incoherent. I
> think
> > > Zhuangzi's internal realism actually pushes Laozi's original thesis
> about
> > > reality further, and thereby accomplishes a more coherent Taoist
> > conception of
> > > truth."
> > >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > I think both LZ and CZ are ultimately doomed to incoherence, and
> they
> > admit
> > > as much from the beginning. But they tell what can be told as far
> as
> > non-sages
> > > can comprehend it. The main point I get from this article is ---
> > > "Zhuangzi, on the other hand, accepts a modest form of relativism.
> He is
> > not a
> > > radical relativist who holds the view that all opinions are equally
> > right."
> > > Thereby admitting an ultimate right and wrong beyond human
> conception.
> > >
> common
> 'truth',
> > > because reality-Tao is the truth, and our task is to accord with it
> by the
> > > emptying of human conceptual bias.
> > >
> > >
> more(.
> > thats Zen by coincidence) (G) Rgds Ken
>
> think taoism will be a lot easier :-) as more is better.. and we all
> know there is a shortage of more. :-)
>
Now you come to mention it they talk like Zen guys who never managed to
break through.
Not to worry , just the group going through an active phase and everyone
having a bit of fun.
Rgds Ken
potts
<Isqu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1107272302.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
potts
"Tzaddik" <Tza...@taotalk2.homestead.com> wrote in message
news:41FF74...@taotalk2.homestead.com...
> potts wrote:
> >
> > "Keynes" <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
> > news:dpbuv090hk3sp0so5...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > Thought we were supposed to be learning less and less not more an more(.
> > thats Zen by coincidence) (G) Rgds Ken
>
> Got your hip waders handy?
And the beat goes on (G) Rgds Ken
Stumper
Confucians are wrong.
Al Qaeda is wrong.
What's the difference?
Why do you
support people
who is saying "Confucians are wrong" and
fight against people
who is saying "Al Qaeda is wrong"?
~Stumper.
MsAnthrope
>Zen is crap - nothing but a japanese theft of chan taoism and rename it
>and put a lot of ritual in it - put it in a bottle and sell it :-)
Zen is like looking for the spectacles that are sitting on your nose.
--
MsAnthrope
http://web.newsguy.com/rubyred
MsAnthrope
wrote:
>I used to drink Molson while at Humbolt.
>Pretty good shit. Sure wish weed didn't get fucked
>by people who decided good from bad. I'd be all
>fucked-up by now. Moreso. Totally.
I don't usually drink, but Molson Ice is good stuff.
--
MsAnthrope
http://web.newsguy.com/rubyred
wanderriver
potts wrote:
> "Keynes" <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
> news:dpbuv090hk3sp0so5...@4ax.com...
more(.
> thats Zen by coincidence) (G) Rgds Ken
Yeah, and after reading all of that, is it any wonder we Taoists love
Chuang Tzu! :))))))))))))) And Lao Tzu, and Leih Tzu....
by the way, read a thought-provoking book. "At Hell's Gate"...by a
Vietnam vet turned Buddhist. Man's name is Claude Anshin Thomas
wanderriver
they
> > think taoism will be a lot easier :-) as more is better.. and we
all
> > know there is a shortage of more. :-)
> >
>
> things got to crude on me here.
> i could never make heads or
> tails out of zen.
> i think perhaps some taoists
> went insane and started zen.
Such fools!
wanderriver
Isqu...@aol.com wrote:
> 8 | wrote:
>
> >
> > i used to hang out in zen when
> > things got to crude on me here.
> > i could never make heads or
> > tails out of zen.
> > i think perhaps some taoists
> > went insane and started zen.
>
>
> Zen is crap - nothing but a japanese theft of chan taoism and rename
it
> and put a lot of ritual in it - put it in a bottle and sell it :-)
wanderriver
I think it's disgraceful!
wanderriver
Tzaddik wrote:
> Stumper wrote:
>
> > You got a wrong impression.
> > Visit APZ again, please.
> > Follow the discussion
> > of the Diamond Sutra.
>
> Visit APZ again, please.
> Follow the discussion
> and stay there, don't come back.
Please, don't leave.
wanderriver
Isqu...@aol.com wrote:
> Stumper wrote:
>
> >
> > You got a wrong impression.
> > Visit APZ again, please.
> > Follow the discussion
> > of the Diamond Sutra.
>
a
> pretty bottle if you want to sell. A lot of zen practicioners
recognise
> this and denounce the buddhist add-ons. The Buddhist fail to mention
> the Taoist roots of zen. In other words take buddism out of zen and
> what is left is tao by another name. I use to sell fishing bait as a
> youngster. The packaging cost me a lot more than the product. :-)
Buddhism came over the water like a ship in a bottle. someone found the
bottle and liked the ship...then someone put the ship into another
bottle and it floated across another body of water and became a Zen
stick in a bottle.
wanderriver
No, he's a wanna bee Shake n spear looking for an owl kata for his
play.
Isqu...@aol.com
Keynes wrote:
> On 1 Feb 2005 06:57:32 -0800, Isqu...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Stumper wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> You got a wrong impression.
> >> Visit APZ again, please.
> >> Follow the discussion
> >> of the Diamond Sutra.
> >
> >yes the buddhism was thrown in to adorn the bottle. You have to have
a
> >pretty bottle if you want to sell. A lot of zen practicioners
recognise
> >this and denounce the buddhist add-ons. The Buddhist fail to mention
> >the Taoist roots of zen. In other words take buddism out of zen and
> >what is left is tao by another name. I use to sell fishing bait as a
> >youngster. The packaging cost me a lot more than the product. :-)
>
> You don't understand tao either, and now you compare them.
>
> Let's have no zen in here! Get out of APT, you infidel!
:-) what ever... :-)
and if yer dick was any shorter they would call you a woman
Isqu...@aol.com
Sometimes it take a complete insane idiot like stumpie to let you know
how great and lucky you are to be normal (and then there's me):-)
8 |
"{:-])))" <jay@.... --- -- .> wrote in message
basically the only real fool around
here is the one who thinks he can
keep in order that which he has no
real power to keep in order.
would that be a fair statement?
i'm certain that lao tzu (or was it ct?)
said something very similar.
8 |
"{:-])))" <jay@.... --- -- .> wrote in message
a doubt a connoisseur of beer would
drink that mass produced piss water
but don't say anything