Unlearner

Japanese fan-made electronic music based on a video game series (Touhou doujin electronica). It's better than most people would expect (assuming you like electronic music).

Well, in my situation, when I was younger I was rather opposed to being in any sort of intimate relationship. However, that also allowed me time to learn about maintaining general relationships with other people; the result of this is that I'm still with the first partner I've ever had (and I am her first as well), and we have a very strong relationship together. I would also add here that we became very close friends with each other before ever considering a relationship (I think we knew each other for about 6 years before we started dating), so we're both very familiar and very comfortable with each other, so there's a lot of mutual trust and understanding between us. Probably the two things I'd say has been the most helpful is good communication and not being self-centered. From my perspective, with regards to being with a practicing versus non-practicing partner, I feel that it has to do more with openness and support between partners. Comparing the two of us, we are both very understanding and open-minded people. To begin with, we're already going against the grain in our respective families by crossing racial barriers (mixed European and Vietnamese). We certainly have our own opinions about certain things, but for the most part we can tend to be understanding of each other and can reach agreements quite easily on most topics, since we're both willing to give quite a bit. Whereas she tends to be more of pragmatic and logical sensibilities, I linger a bit more in the abstract and theoretical, which is what brought me to explore more into Taoism and Buddhism in the first place. While she does not follow this way, necessarily, we both enjoy discussing it and sharing our perspectives with each other. I think this has helped me a lot with reducing my ego and avoiding getting stuck in single-minded thinking (a significant problem with me before). Even though she doesn't practice with me, she still supports me with what I choose to do, which has definitely been good for me in a place that does not typically follow with such practices; after all, I'm still not perfectly able to deal with such things as having absolute confidence in practicing a system that no one else I know follows with me. That being said, though, with regard to the original topic at hand, I would certainly say that this is also a question that I have been wondering about myself: is having such an intimate relationship with a single person hindering my development? In the ideal sense, I would say that focusing the majority of your love and care on one person would seem to go against this way. However, I also feel that it would be a mistake to end such a healthy relationship for such a reason. As I still remain within society as a laborer and try to maintain social connections, there are a great number of deviations from the ideal within my personality; I feel that the support my partner provides for me helps to compensate for that. In addition to this, as I mentioned before, it allows me to focus my mind caring for another besides myself. Even if it's one person, it's better than getting wrapped up with my own self and not showing kindness or compassion for anyone. Still, this is definitely a topic that I have not come to a solid conclusion myself, so I'm also very interested in hearing what others have to say on the issue, so I will continue to observe.

Ah, a fellow Oregonian, welcome not currently there, but I was born and raised in Portland. Actually, I will be taking vacation to go back, so I will be there soon ^^

Pretty much this ^, in preserving any organic material, you want to limit the exposure to oxygen and moisture to keep it from breaking down over time. Cold would also help to slow down any decomp reaction if you wanted to freeze it, so long as it doesn't have moisture in it.

@Brian: Nice, I'm a big fan of RoT. @thelerner: I'm jealous, I wish I had a tea shop close by. Oh well, I already have way too much tea anyway, so getting more would probably be a bit overload Also, I've never had pue erh, but I've heard of it before, how is it? Have either of you ever been to a tea house? I'm going to Portland next week and I was going to visit one, I'm pretty excited for it. They even do a matcha set with the Japanese tea ceremony and everything

No personal experience, but I do remember reading about this back in college. I tried looking into it more to follow up, but I've only heard mixed reports, so I never saw a solid conclusion. Some people said it worked for a while, but I've also heard that the Uberman sleep schedule, while it can work for a while, eventually started making people go crazy. In any case, whether it works or not, I've heard universally that the first week or so really sucks. Again, no personal experience with this, I'm not that dedicated to losing sleep

All I'll simply say to this is that it just seems like there is so much anger that I've been seeing here lately. I didn't really see much when I first got here (which wasn't very long ago), but it seems like I've been seeing it a lot, even in just what seem to be normal discussions. I understand that some people feel very strongly about certain things, but I suppose I'm just a little surprised at just how quickly people can jump to insults with very little pressure, and most of the time it's not even over disagreements, but rather because someone who commented didn't say exactly what the other person wanted or expected them to say. I mean, I understand that this is the internet after all, but I am just a little disappointed that there would be so much anger on a forum that's supposed to focus on promoting peace and harmony.

This is something I've been wondering for a while, but I can't seem to figure it out myself, so I'm just going to go ahead and ask: how is the quality of curiosity viewed from the perspective of a Taoist? On one hand, it seems to me that it would be considered not necessarily bad, but frivolous and unnecessary, but there's still a small part of me that feels that curiosity is a good quality to have. This is an open-ended question, I don't really have a particular answer I'm looking to defend or support, I'm just interested to see what other people have to say on the matter.

I feel like we've started to go onto two different tracks of discussion. I'm not trying to disagree with you, I'm simply trying to explain that I'm focusing on something else, which is the nature of the beliefs themselves, not of the perceptions. It's not that I'm rejecting sense perception in favor of the abstract; our perception is the only thing that actually connects us with the external universe, and without it we would have no information about the universe. I'm simply saying that we must recognize the limitations of those perceptions. If you feel that the information which your brain receives and processes from your eyes and ears allows you "direct" insight into the universe, then we would be at a disagreement. However, it's not that I'm saying that this information allows no insight whatsoever (I wouldn't be very interested in science if that were so), I'm just trying to recognize the limitations. That's what I mean when I say that "it doesn't matter whether it hurts or not" to stick your hand into the fire. In your perception, it may hurt, but to someone who has little or no feeling in their hand, or simply someone with extremely thick skin, it may not hurt. It's all based on our perceptions, but those perceptions have their limits. Is not the title of this topic "The idea that beliefs and philosophy is meaningless and silly"? I'm simply trying to share my perspective, I'm not trying to go on the offensive and start an argument. Perhaps this is so, but how many philosophers and scholars have come to the same conclusion? "I know that I know nothing." -Socrates "Learning consists in daily accumulating; The practice of Tao consists in daily diminishing" -Tao Teh Ching, Ch 48 Then again, knowledge is simply a word, just like any other word. It only contains whatever meaning we assign to it. In this context, I'm using it to illustrate that to "know" something means to have an absolute 100% certainty, without any doubt there could possibly be any other alternative. And yes, I disagree with this mindset. In the context of my explanation above, yes. The way I am trying to differentiate between "knowledge" and "understanding" in this discussion is that to say that I "know" means that I have absolutely no doubt in my mind; to say that I "understand" means that, from what I have contemplated, interpreted, and gathered from my own perceptions and experiences, it is the best way that I can explain it, even though I'm acknowledging that this understanding may or may not be accurate. Again, you seem to be thinking that I outright reject beliefs based on perception, which is why I said that you were missing my point. If I said anything that implied as such in my explanation, then I take it back, as that is not what I intended to say. I will even reiterate once more, that our perceptions and senses are the only things we have that connect us to the external reality. In regards to how I may gain an understanding in the first place, well, I have to start somewhere, I'm simply trying to achieve the "fewest assumptions possible" goal, but without getting caught into the trap of claiming more than I am actually capable of. My understanding is not that which I claim that I know, it is simply the best way I can explain what I have observed. Understanding is something that everyone has, regardless of whether it is an accurate or inaccurate understanding, we all have some way of explaining how we perceive the world around us, not simply to others but to ourselves. I don't believe I said that my aim was to gain a "true understanding", but I do attempt to gain a better, more accurate understanding. Rather, the entire focus of my explanation up to now has been that one cannot gain a true understanding through the means of beliefs which have been formulated through our perceptions. That is the limitation. That is why we have beliefs in the first place. This is more of just an ad hominem attack, so I'm not going to comment on it. I'm not here to argue, I'm just trying to express an opinion. Also, I'm doing my best to answer your questions directly as you ask them to me. If you feel that I'm doing a bad job of that, please let me know.

"Does it mean that there is no such thing as a "true universe" beyond the beliefs you ascribe to it?" No, it is quite the opposite in my understanding; rather, it is the beliefs themselves, based on my perceptions, which limit my understanding of reality. However, this is the only way that I can begin to try to understand anything about the true nature in the first place. It is not so much that it empowers me, but that I can acknowledge that my understanding is going to be incomplete to begin with. By seeing the limitations of my perception, the nature of what it means to have belief, and how my beliefs limit my ability to understand the true nature of the universe, this is where understanding can actually begin. For a practical example, let's apply this to science. There have been many times throughout the history of scientific exploration in which there has been a general feeling that everything had been "figured out". Pack it up boys, we're done here, we got nothing else to do, we'll leave the rest to the lawyers and politicians. Yet, in their secure feelings, time and time again someone would come along to show them that they were not only completely incorrect, but that there was an entirely new level of understanding that was just below where they decided to stop digging. Why did this happen? Closed-mindedness. Lack of understanding of the limitations of their perceptions. Mistaking what they "believed" they were observing for concrete, unquestionable knowledge. That is why today we say "theory" instead of "law". We do not "prove" something, we "provide evidence" for it. By not mistaking a simple observation for complete, concrete proof that the universe is exactly the way we think we understand it to be, we can avoid getting to far ahead of ourselves and falling into this trap again. Mathematics is another good example that this can be applied to. In this case, consider how we can substitute "belief" in reality for the term "assumption" within mathematics. Mathematics on its own is just a language, created and used by people. It's basically an imaginary construct which we can use to create models, which we can make to resemble our universe. How do we do this? By making assumptions about the construct. With no assumptions, the construct is formless and infinite; however, because it is formless, we can not use it for anything, it cannot be applied to anything, it cannot be made to resemble anything or perform any function, and we cannot understand all of the subtleties and nuances which lie within it. It is only once we begin to make assumptions that we can begin to apply it, mold it, and understand what it is capable of, what is contained within the domain of its existence. If we make too many assumptions, though, then whatever we learn about it cannot be used to understand its true nature. We can make assumptions to the point where we can create a model which matches anything we want it to resemble, however it comes at the cost of not being able to generalize it to a more appropriately applicable level; it can be exactly what we want to see, but it only exists within the realm of those many assumptions, and has no use anywhere else. Thus, it is the goal of any mathematician to discover new solutions and models while making as few assumptions as possible. I think to say that I am trying to enter into a realm of pure ideation is missing the point a little bit. By understanding the nature of belief, I am not describing what I can understand about the true nature of things, I am describing what I am aware that I cannot understand about the true nature of things. I am acknowledging my inability to gain such an intimate relationship with reality through the mere experience of my senses. I am affirming that the many properties of fire that I experience through my senses does not give me a direct insight into what fire is. To make such claims, to say that I can use my senses and perceptions and observations to attain a direct "knowledge" of the true nature of the universe, in my own personal opinion, is absolute, pure, unadulterated ignorance. To learn is to increase one's knowledge. By recognizing that I now see claims to knowledge of the external universe as a form of ignorance, I can only simply say that I believe.

Haha, I definitely work with a lot of weapons, but not the kind you're probably thinking of ;P

Fair points, but consider this as well: when you stick your hand into the fire, you feel pain. However, are you actually feeling what fire is? or are you merely interpreting a sensation (pain, heat, etc) to get a better understanding of the actual nature of fire? When you look at a fire, or a picture of a fire, or someone describes to you what fire is, do you automatically understand every single thing about fire from just that? Of course not, things tend to be much more complicated than our senses and descriptions give them credit for, and yet somehow they retain the ultimate simplicity of the natural way of things. It's not about whether it hurts or not, it's about being able to understand that fire is not merely "something that is painful to stick my hand into", that is merely one singular property from an observation made by the observer. In regards to the dream scenario, though you recognize a dream only as a dream when you wake up, how is there any way of knowing that this is not a dream, or even some simulation? How do we even know what happens when we die? How can we understand the nature of the "true universe" through our mere sensations? How do we even know that there even is a true nature of the universe? It is only the opinion of one person, but I feel that one must think extraordinarily highly of their ability to perceive the universe in order to claim that they can "know" the answer to any of these questions without considering a single iota for belief. That is the role that belief plays in my understanding. I "believe" that there is a true nature to the universe. I "believe" that our senses, while not able to show us the true nature of the universe itself, can provide us with information and insight that reflect the true nature of the universe. After all, our senses are the only thing that allow us contact with anything external to ourselves.

I like this observation, though I feel that our senses are not the beliefs themselves, but they are what we base our beliefs upon, as they are what connect us to the universe. We make an observation through our senses, and we interpret that as in some way reflecting the true nature of reality, and we use that to form an idea of what we believe "the true universe" to be.

My apologies for not reading four years worth of threads, it seems I do not understand what you are saying after all. Perhaps you could elaborate a little more on that rather than simply insulting me? Are you disagreeing with what I said or simply my use of the term "philosophical taoism"? Also, I think it should have been clear that my observations were not objective based on the entire point of my post.

I think this is more of a confusion of language than anything. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that while Lin is speaking of the practiced Taoism, deci belle is speaking more generally in the terms of philosophical Taoism. While, culturally, Taoism is focused mostly in China, philosophically speaking Taoism points toward true wisdom, which is universal, is what it seems deci belle is emphasizing. So, in that sense, Tao is not merely restricted to Taoism, as all things tend to point toward the one universal wisdom. Rather than thinking of it in terms of right or wrong, think of it this way: by the nature of the universe, which is based on a singular "Tao"/"Truth"/"Way" etc, all things that are observed, analyzed, and interpreted are at some point an iteration of a reflection based on the true way of nature; it's simply a matter of what perspective you're viewing from and how many different "reflections" of the truth you're observing, and even the bias of the observer, that determines what the resulting conclusion would be. If a conclusion, whether it shows true wisdom or not, were reached by someone making an observation, it would be impossible to say that such a conclusion was impossible, since someone did indeed reach that conclusion it must somehow be a reflection of the original. Is this somewhat in line with what you were trying to say? I believe this is mostly a matter of miscommunication, so it shouldn't be so serious as to warrant such anger. I would like to say in regards to this comment: revenge is a futile aim, in my perspective. If there is a present problem that persists, try to solve that one rather than dwelling on a past occurrence. I don't mean this to be rude, although it seems we've already gone beyond that point, but there is no need for such a spiteful comment to get your point across.

Got an email saying someone tried to recover my password, and it wasn't me. It says it was sent from IP address 31.41.45.235; does that look familiar to anyone? Just thought I'd see if anyone found this information useful at all, doesn't look like anything happened with it.

Those are some interesting observations. There are just a few things that I'd like to add for you to consider, if I may. 1) Knowledge of the universe attained through the scientific method is based on experimenting on that which is external to us. However, can we ever really "know" anything outside of ourselves? We must rely on our senses, on specialized equipment, on sets of assumptions that are required to progress, such as the assumption that the universe even makes sense in the first place. All of these are mere reflections of the universe, not the universe itself, so is it really appropriate to say that there is no need for belief? 2) Mathematics is a language, pure and simple. It is a means to express certain ideas in a very precise way, but its entire existence is only an imaginary construct developed by humans and has no real connection to the physical universe itself. However, we can progress this construct to new levels which tend to reflect similar properties of the actual universe by utilizing assumptions (you could compare this to belief), which establish limitations on the capabilities of the construct, but also direct it to assume a more precise form which can be utilized for practical purposes. In other words, to make no assumptions leaves the construct in a formless, infinite state; to make assumptions about it results in limitations, but that which can be used to further explore the depths of the construct itself. Thus, the goal of any mathematician is to discover new concepts within the construction of mathematics while making as few assumptions as possible. These are just ideas to consider. I think you have some very good insights. You said that you are training to be a physicist, yes? May I inquire as to what your focus is? I majored in math and physics when I was in college a few years ago (my interest is in quantum and nuclear physics mostly), and currently I'm now going for a degree in electrical engineering for my job.

"Long, long ago, 10 suns rose in the sky and they scorched all the crops, leaving people in extreme poverty. A hero named Hou Yi shot down nine of the suns, saving the Earth from the destructive heat. Heavenly Empress Wangmu rewarded him with a vial of elixir that would make a person immortal and allow life in the Heavens. Hou Yi’s wife, Chang E, was known for her beauty and kind heart. Out of his deep love for her, Hou Yi gave the elixir to Chang E for safe-keeping until they could share it when he returned from hunting. An evil man, Peng Meng, spied this through the window. Three days later, when Hou Yi left to hunt, Peng broke in with sword in hand, planning to force Chang E into giving him the elixir. Chang E quickly put the vial to her mouth and swallowed all its contents. As soon as she had swallowed the elixir, she floated off the ground. She dashed out of the window and flew toward the moon. When Hou Yi returned home that night, he learned from the maidservants what had happened. Tearfully, he looked up into the night sky and called out the name of his beloved wife. At that moment, the moon became especially clear and bright. Hou Yi saw a shadow of his wife who was looking down at him. Hou Yi set up an altar with incense in the garden. On the altar, he put the sweet cakes and fresh fruits that Chang E enjoyed most. Then, he held a memorial ceremony for his wife in the moon. It was the 15th day of the 8th month of the lunar year. The news that Chang E had turned into a celestial being and was living in the moon spread fast. Many people arranged altars with incense in the moonlight and prayed for the kind-hearted Chang E, the Moon Lady, to look after them. Eventually, word of this reached the ear of Heavenly Empress Wangmu, who was greatly moved by the story. She sent a messanger straight away to summon Hou Yi. When Hou Yi appeared before her, she expressed her sympathy for his loss. Although she had no more of the elixir, she told Hou Yi the location of the alchemist who created it, a hermit who lived on the side of a mountain. At once, Hou Yi set off, determined to be reunited with Chang E. After several days of travel, Hou Yi found the alchemist's abode, a small hut far up the side of the mountain. Hou Yi told the alchemist his story. Though the alchemist did not seem moved by the story, upon finishing, he contemplated Hou Yi's situation. The next day, the alchemist came to Hou Yi. The alchemist told Hou Yi that he would help, but that he needed a rare ingredient necessary for the elixir. He then gave Hou Yi information on the only place where the ingredient could be found, in a remote valley very far away. Hou Yi made preparations and set out to find the ingredient. Much time passed before he finally reached the valley, though he was unable to find the ingredient the alchemist had described to him. In despair, he turned back to return home. One evening on his journey back, Hou Yi noticed the moon shining brightly above him. He set up an alter for Chang E as he had before. While praying, a roaring gale arose about him, and he heard the voice of Chang E in the wind. In this way, she revealed the ways of Heaven and how to attain immortal life. Hou Yi, blessed with this understanding, returned home and began teaching on the ways of Heaven and Earth. Many people heard of this and travelled to hear his teachings. He quickly became celebrated as a great and wise teacher throughout the land. He spent the remainder of his life spreading his teachings. The people regarded him as one of the great Sages, and he became an adviser to the Heavenly Empress. Even in his old age, many sought him out for his wisdom. On his final day on Earth, while performing the memorial ceremony for Chang E, Hou Yi realized that his time had come. Looking up to the moon, he smiled as he saw Chang E waiting for him. He rose up off the ground and flew up into the Heavens toward the moon, where he was finally reunited with his wife."

I hate to break it to you, but I already do think way too much but don't worry, I can assure that I know all about punctuality

Ah time, such an elusive concept, it's really fun to think about, even though it's so hard to figure out. If you think from a relativistic view, time and space are interlinked, so what does this mean? By observation, space is expanding at an accelerating rate, pulling it tight like a sheet, so does this also apply to time? Does the expansion of the universe make time move forward? If the universe were shrinking, would time begin to recede as well? Would we simply freeze in time at the moment it begins collapsing in on itself? More over, if spacetime began shrinking, would it wrinkle up and fold over on itself? I could entertain myself for hours just imagining it

The question I'm asking does not have to do with the beliefs themselves, but the nature of accepting them as beliefs and not as Truth itself. However, to answer your question more directly, I'm simply curious, that's all

This should sum up most of what I have to say in response to this: http://thetaobums.com/topic/28469-atheism-is-realist-buddhist-definition-just-like-theism/?p=479394 Please don't take this as me being hostile, I don't mean it in that way, but it does not seem like you are a scientist yourself, so I'm curious as to why you have such strong conviction in it. You have several good points, but overall it appears as if you follow science devoutly as it's handed to you in books and classrooms, so how is it that you can accept such things of which you have no experience whatsoever as being "knowledge" without regarding anything for belief?

I don't really know if there's any other way to think about it, really. If you want to apply morality and ethics to human existence, you enter into such a gray area that you can technically justify anything for something else, depending on your perspective. "Crime" is most certainly a uniquely human concept, so there is plenty of subjectivity to it in the first place. Still, killing is killing, regardless of reasons. You can argue, and you can win a court case, but you'll still have to live with having killed someone. If it was to defend yourself, so be it. If it was to defend someone else, so be it. If it was for mere convenience, so be it. However you justify it, killing is killing. Is it right or wrong? Who knows, my role is not the judge. As far as I'm aware, there is no just war, so that would make any act of war a crime.

Regarding anger: in my own experience, I used to be a very angry person when I was younger. Why? because I enjoyed it. I'm not sure why, but I really liked getting angry about things. Perhaps it was for the feeling of being energized and motivated to succeed. Perhaps it was because it gave me some feeling of having more control over my situation and over other people. I think what it boils down to really is that my anger made me feel more powerful. The desire for power is a very difficult thing to get rid of. Anymore, though, it is something I do not experience very often. Through understanding and lessening desire, there is not much reason for it. Sure, I can be frustrated sometimes, but if I can understand why it is that I'm getting frustrated, I see that there really is no reason for it for myself.

The dynamic of this thread is very intriguing... Though still seems to be developing, so I will continue to observe for now rather than respond.