dust

I appreciate the post, and I agree with most of the aims of the plan there, but do you really think any of this is within the realms of likelihood? Do you think any of it will actually happen? Do you think Trump is the man who will make it happen? I'm not saying that because it is unlikely you should not support it. You've highlighted one good point about the man -- at the least, he has a desire to make some positive changes. But so did Obama, and I see people on here claiming he's ushered in the end of humanity. So... is one reason, one unrealistic 5-point plan, a good reason to be pro-Trump? Well I said I'd stay out of it but it's pretty damn good theatre..

I didn't miss your point, you just don't have as much of a point as you think you do. Firstly, "offensive language" is only one of many many things people dislike about Trump. Secondly, as far as "racial slurs"... if that's the thing that bugs you about Jay Z, I'm stunned. He claims he used to sell drugs. If true, he has probably done violence and sold crack and owned an illegal firearm. That's probably what should bother you about him. But none of that means that he is a bad person now. People can grow. He regrets what he did. I obviously don't know what he's really like, as I said, but as far as I know he and Beyonce are pretty decent people now. As far as the word "nigga" -- I think you need to think about that. I don't know what colour your skin is, but the wider social acceptance of a word is the main feature here. 'Nigger' is a racial slur, 'nigga' is generally different. In the USA, a lot of black people don't like it, but a lot use it. It has become ubiquitous. Nasty slur to some, but simple term of acknowledgement to many. This is how language works sometimes. It's the same with 'queer' -- originally pejorative, LGBT etc people use it now as a term of acknowledgement. The word has been reappropriated. I don't feel I have any right to say that 'queer' should never be used because it was an insult in the 19th Century, and I don't feel I have any right to say that 'nigga' should never be used because it's a version of an insulting word.

Not literally every single word -- I think that's obvious as it's essentially impossible...! "I'm thirsty." "Liar!!" But every interview I see with him, every rally, most of what he says -- and basically every claim he makes -- is false or distorted. This is not to say that Clinton and others don't do the same...but not as consistently. Well.. I can't say I haven't thought along the same lines. That not just 'spring cleaning' the government but 'tearing the house down and building a new one' is a nice daydreamy long-term solution. But do you really think that's a likelihood? Do you even truly believe it's possible without a lot of turmoil? Even civil war? And do you really think that Trump even as prez would have the power to do all that? I can't comment on the term "nigga" as I've listened to a lot of hip-hop in my time and the word is just a noise that happens now..! But as far as beacons of light..put it this way: Trump, a billionaire who describes himself as a philanthropist, has donated $3.7mil to his own foundation in 20 years. He hasn't donated since 2008. And he has used foundation money to buy a portrait of himself among other things. What a beacon. Beyonce, who is not as rich, has contributed to numerous charities and, for example, quietly donated $7million to the homeless in Houston. So..y'know.. I don't know about Jay-Z but it appears that Beyonce at least is a bit more of a philanthropist than ol' Trumpy.

And I still haven't heard a single cogent argument for supporting him...

This doesn't seem to be unanimous. There's some real pro-Trump sentiment here. I'm not pro-Clinton (or pro-anyone who's been in the spotlight for the job for that matter), but the pro-Trump sentiment still really confuses me. And I still haven't heard a single cogent argument for supporting him. Choosing between (what one perceives as) the lesser of two evils is understandable. Some think it's him, some think it's her. But actually being pro-either of them...wow. And Trump has been so obviously a nasty little shite for a long long time. Obnoxious rich kid, filed for and received bankruptcy protection four times, thousands of lawsuits, every word out of his mouth is false, seemingly indecent with women, completely uncharitable, unable (or unwilling) to speak in words of more than two syllables, massive narcissist... and more. Awful!

Are you all trolls? What exactly do you think Trump is going to do should he win?

The US health system is an embarrassment, and has been for some time. There's something to be said for Obama even attempting to improve it, knowing it highly unlikely that even with a perfect plan (which the ACA obviously wasn't) any improvements would be seen for a long time, and therefore highly likely that he would be blamed in the short term either way. And here you are, moaning about it... But the ACA has seen improved coverage and slowed medical inflation. It is better than nothing, and surely better than what most other presidents have done about healthcare in the US.

My understanding (such as it is): We have a problem when 'thought' and 'thinker' are separate. When the thinker thinks of itself as separate from the thoughts, or the thoughts think of themselves as separate from the thinker. Thought and thinker are the same, and the perceived division can be a source of anxiety. The division is affirmed in our language frequently. We speak of ourselves in pieces: my body, my brain, my thoughts, my self. As if they belong to us but are not actually us. We speak of ourselves as drivers; I hear it all the time: You have a body, you must take care of it; You are in a body, you must make use of it. No, we are bodies, and we must take care of ourselves; we are a body, we must make use of ourself. When "my body" ceases, I cease. At the same time, we must recognize consciousness. The thought/thinker is something that has experience. There is something that it is like to be you. You and your experience are, again, one and the same, inseparable. And experience is constantly changing. You, as a physical body and a thinker and an experience/r, are constantly changing. There is no constant you. What this all comes down to is that self is an illusion. There is no thinker in addition to the thoughts, no experiencer in addition to the experience, and no permanence or constancy to any of it. The goal, then, could be to reconcile these divisions. Rather than a problem between "thought is corrupt" and "concentration is the key", the problem is thinking that "thought is separate". Recognize that you are thought, thinker, experience, experiencer, body, mind, vehicle, driver, passenger. You do not have control over your experience, and yet you are not simply a leaf in the wind. When you understand this, you realize that you do not need to try to "be yourself" or to "be better" or to force your personality out. You realize that you are your personality.

nothing

Yes. Brian asked for your 'personal' definition of the terms. It was, perhaps, a simplified version of your very personal definitions of the terms, but I'm suggesting that your very personal definitions skew reality to a degree that is quite unhelpful. It makes people unable to have a fruitful discussion with you, I think. Anyway, if you are genuinely 'left' in all categories -- communism, looming government, rejection of tradition -- you'll find yourself in a pickle.

Dude.. it's not just simplified.. it's quite skewed.. We have to split the "wings" into 2 or 3 parts before having such a conversation. Economic 'wings': communistic sharing vs capitalistic competition Governmental 'wings': emphasis on governmental oversight vs emphasis on restriction of government's role Social/cultural 'wings': emphasis on forward motion & change vs emphasis on tradition & staying the same ..and a bunch more. Do you think communistic sharing always goes hand in hand with forward motion and rigid government? Or capitalistic competition always goes hand in hand with tradition and having suffocating laws? Left wing has connotations with communism, govt oversight, and change -- and I don't think these things fit together well Right wing has connotations with capitalism, restriction of govt, and tradition -- and I don't think these things fit either Left and right are an illusion. These terms serve only to force division and enmity. In my opinion, capitalistic competition with a social emphasis on sharing, restriction of govt role but emphasis on certain roles, and emphasis on forward motion and change but with some tendency to preserve useful traditions, is the preferable combination. How would you categorize this? Left or right? I hope you don't think such a personal subject can be so easily boxed up!

OI! That magazine stole my name!!!

You said something about buying a note book. I was going to say, if you make your own notes, do share them here. Anyway.. guess I'll carry on with the section.... 且夫水之積也不厚，則負大舟也無力。 Furthermore, accumulation of water not deep/substantial, then it has no power to support a great boat 覆杯水於坳堂之上，則芥為之舟， overturn cup of water onto (a depression in the ground?), a bit of grass will be as a boat 置杯焉則膠，水淺而舟大也。 place cup there it will stick, the water (too) shallow the boat (too) great 風之積也不厚，則其負大翼也無力。 Accumulation of wind not substantial, then it has no power to support great wings 故九萬里則風斯在下矣，而後乃今培風； So, with a wind beneath the full ninety thousand li, then can go with the wind 背負青天而莫之夭閼者，而後乃今將圖南。 bearing up the blue sky without hindrance, then can head south 蜩與學鳩笑之曰：「我決起而飛，槍榆枋，時則不至而控於地而已矣， cicada and turtle doves laugh, saying "I can hop up and fly, into an elm or sandalwood, but often as not I just drop back to the ground; 奚以之九萬里而南為？」 what's the point of going ninety thousand li?!" Mostly seems pretty straightforward but the last lines got me wondering. The animals seem to say, "Sometimes we don't even bother with that little distance..so what's the point of going a whole 90,000 li??!" This should fit with what comes next, where ZZ suggests that the understanding of these animals is limited: they don't see the point, but for some (like Peng) it is a necessity

The pessimist looks down and hits his head. The optimist looks up and loses his footing. The realist looks forward and adjusts his path accordingly. (Robert Kirkman)

This topic concept is a work in progress and I apologize for the tone of the OP when I first posted it. Edits have been made to it. I first suggested that "progress goes at my pace", realizing at the time how dictatorial it sounded but not knowing a better way to proceed. It seems obvious that such a task needs a bit of a guiding hand. It's something I've wanted to do for a while, and as nobody else has posted such a translation-based topic (recently anyway), I have created it and will guide it. But progress doesn't need to go at my pace: it will go at the pace it goes. It just won't go faster than it needs to; I won't post a section, and we won't discuss it, until conversation on the section before it has dried up. But nothing stopping us from going back to a section at some point and readdressing something -- just no skipping forward. Just seems to make sense this way.

Yeah. When I was going through it all, I thought it was odd that none of the translations I looked at -- Legge, Watson, Mair -- had used the word migration. I think it's suitable. "Where the sky was like a large lake" is unusual. I don't think the Chinese implies that. (ZZ uses 若 in this section to talk of likeness e.g. 翼若垂天之雲)

Thanks 9th. I don't need much convincing of the problems but it looks to be an interesting watch either way. Will give it a go sometime. On a related note, as I assume Leo talks about solar energy at some point (I know Musk makes an appearance): http://peswiki.com/reprint:teslas-solar-ideas People have been talking about directly harnessing the Sun's energy for a long time. Tesla was a very clever man. He was responsible for the first hydroelectric power plant, and he saw the future benefit of solar power -- over 100 years ago. And so did many others. The article ends: "Whether we shall ever have an efficient solar boiler and engine is a problem worth thinking about and a very interesting one at that, as we possess no greater source of natural energy, to be had without taxation or special leases from some money-grabbing coal, oil or other baron, than that of the sun. Some day we may be able to derive all necessary light and power, for our homes at least, by means of a solar-electric plant located on the roof, and who shall say that we must be taxed for utilizing such energy?"

Interesting read. Though I don't much like it. One would think a "leading scholar" would approach the subject with more subtlety than, "There are two distinct types of Taoism, religious Taoism and philosophical Taoism, and religious Taoism is the only indigenous religion in China, and it is nothing but a theocracy, and shamanism and neidan aren't worth even mentioning, and folk religion is all basically just Taoism..." ...?

I could have sworn I'd seen this part discussed before on the site, but I can't find it. It had to do with translation of 'horses' vs 'gusts' or whatever. 野馬也，塵埃也，生物之以息相吹也。 wild horses, dust, living things blown about by the wind (/ by each other's breath?) 天之蒼蒼， deep blue the heavens/sky, 其正色邪？ is this the true colour? 其遠而無所至極邪？ (or) is it so distant so as to be without such limitation? 其視下也亦若是，則已矣。 (when it [Peng]) looks down (from there) it appears the same

UK: http://england.shelter.org.uk/campaigns_/why_we_campaign/tackling_homelessness/What_causes_homelessness "Sadly, many people view homelessness as the result of personal failings, and consider that if the economy is going well, there is no excuse for not getting on. But this belief is belied by the facts, which show that homelessness is caused by a complex interplay between a person's individual circumstances and adverse 'structural' factors outside their direct control." Canada: http://homelesshub.ca/about-homelessness/homelessness-101/causes-homelessness "People who are homeless are not a distinct and separate population. In fact the line between being homeless and not being homeless is quite fluid. In general, the pathways into and out of homelessness are neither linear nor uniform. Individuals and families who wind up homeless may not share much in common with each other, aside from the fact that they are extremely vulnerable, and lack adequate housing and income and the necessary supports to ensure they stay housed. The causes of homelessness reflect an intricate interplay between structural factors, systems failures and individual circumstances. Homelessness is usually the result of the cumulative impact of a number of factors, rather than a single cause." Australia: http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/en/Who-We-Are/our-work/Homelessness/Why-are-people-homeless/ Homelessness can be caused by:poverty unemployment lack of affordable housing poor physical or mental health drug and alcohol abuse gambling family and relationship breakdown domestic violence physical and/or sexual abuse. Reality, eh, Karl? You love to talk of "man" and "men", never "humans" or "women" or "people" You assume that people who have less money, or even nowhere to live, are simply lazy and obnoxious. Your speech betrays your sexism and lack of compassion for other humans.

Yes, that would've been the truly literal way. Good point. The "Re:" are for your later consideration? I also forgot to mention further re: 是鳥也海運則將徙於南冥 The first bit, 是鸟也, doesn't seem to get translated, and I'm not sure what I've got is very good ('when it's a bird..') And Baidu suggests that 海运 refers to a tsunami: the ocean moves/lurches, and so it migrates to the Southern Deep

Wow. A lot to find in just this first little bit. I'm definitely convinced by the comparisons so far. If not alchemy (as Aetherous says, perhaps the timeline is a bit off?) it does at least fit perfectly with water and fire as laid out in the I Ching. How to highlight these comparisons in a translation (for people who might not catch them) without spelling it out? I'm also struck by some word choices. Particularly the last line there, with 息 Legge translates as 'rest', Watson as 'gale', and Mair as 'jet stream'. It has meanings in old Chinese as sigh, breath, rest, stop, calm down, and more -- perhaps 'wind' though I can't find it. Perhaps ZZ chose it because of these meanings, making it unclear whether Peng is riding a wind or a breath, whether the wind is his breath, or whether he's resting after 6 months. The structure 去以...者 seems to make it "travels by a..."

Ah. All tied to the Yijing, yes? Kun is 坎 kan, water/winter, the phase of stillness, the North; and Peng is 離 li, fire/summer, the phase of energy, the South. Cool. About 'pool of heaven' -- I'm not knowledgeable, but if we're talking points on the body, what about this? And so, the text is perhaps saying that the point (whether it's the top of the head or somewhere else) is a source of energy?

This should be fairly straightforward...? Gonna go with the very literal style for now. 北冥有魚，其名為鯤。鯤之大，不知其幾千里也。 The Northern deep has fish, its name wei (is) Kun. Kun's greatness/largeness, don't know how many thousand li 化而為鳥，其名為鵬。鵬之背，不知其幾千里也； turns into bird, its name wei Peng. (the breadth of) Peng's back, don't know how many thousand li 怒而飛，其翼若垂天之雲。 (when) in a passion it flies, its wings seem like clouds hanging in the sky 是鳥也，海運則將徙於南冥。 (when it) is a bird, (when) the ocean moves (stormy) it migrates to the Southern deep 南冥者，天池也。 The Southern deep is the pool/lake of heaven* 《齊諧》者，志怪者也。 "Qi Xie" is a record of curiosities (curious tales) 《諧》之言曰：「鵬之徙於南冥也，水擊三千里， Xie says: "On Peng's migration to the Southern deep, waters beat** for three thousand li 摶扶搖而上者九萬里， it flaps and soars up to ninety thousand li 去以六月息者也。」 and travels on a six-month wind / breath *pool of heaven? what does this mean? ** the waters are beaten, or the waters beat? is it Peng beating the water, or the roiling water causing it to migrate?