dust

Yeah, the low-fat thing is still pretty strong. The fact that articles such as the one in the OP still need to be written is evidence of that. We're still seeing all manner of low-fat foods in the supermarkets, promoted in magazines, etc. The one that really pisses me off is low-fat milk. I would have all makers and drinkers of skimmed milk put behind bars. But... like I said earlier, the fact that someone is vegetarian should have nothing to do with their opinion on fat. There are people on ketogenic vegan diets these days. We're a bit off topic, and might be on the verge of going round in circles here, but... I do not like seeing a non-meat diet blamed for all this, when the misinformation is spread by all sorts. http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/weight-loss-guide/Pages/successful-diet-tips.aspx I searched "weight loss diet" and this came up. So many are obsessed with weight loss, of course, and the UK's health service decides that "Fruit and veg are low in calories and fat, and high in fibre – three essential ingredients for successful weight loss." Well, this isn't anything to do with vegetarianism, but the misinformation is there. I've looked him up, and no, his diet advice isn't good. But... yes, not eating meat can be perfectly healthy for nearly everyone (nearly -- there are digestive conditions etc which preclude certain people from eating most plant foods). It took me many years to even give the idea of vegetarianism a chance. For the whole of my 20s I was absolutely convinced that a diet must contain meat, and convinced myself that veganism was for weak people. I never let the notion that cutting out meat could be healthy enter my head. In all my googling, all my discussions, all my experimentation with food, the one thing I refused to try was not eating animals every day. Only last year did I start to warm to the idea. One thing that turned my head was my recognition of the relatively high number of vegan/veggie athletes. Veggies make up a much smaller proportion of the general population than the world-class athlete population. In other words, there are more veggies at the peak of their sport than one would expect. This might be because vegetarian people are on average more concerned with health and fitness, I suppose, but I think it far more likely that it is because a well-balanced plant-based diet is actually superior to a diet with meat. Well, this recognition, and some (for once) honest research into large-scale epidemiological evidence on diet, finally allowed me to admit to myself: there is no need to eat meat, and thus no excuse to do so (when considering the devastating affect animal agriculture has in so many areas). Anyway.. the fact that Ornish and his ilk demonize fat doesn't mean that all vegetarians must! Please, blame the diet plan, not vegetarianism as a whole. I'm sure you're right. I hope she's on the road to recovery...? It might. I won't argue against the fact that many vegetarians are complete fuckwits. But, again, this doesn't make a plant-based diet unhealthy.

Absolutely. Maybe. I think Yueya might have a point though (not very much influence). And I have to say, veggies who feel they need to demonize fat because they think they can't get enough in their diet... well, they are morons, really. Since going veggie my fat intake has increased. About? Overconsuming protein is just as bad as overconsuming sugar. The major problem comes when people eat too much of one thing. Modern obese people are often obese because they consume too much protein, processed sugar, fat, and alcohol, and not enough fibre and vitamins and water. Fruit and veg are criminally underrated, even by our governments. I haven't read it in full, but from the section quoted in the OP... it seems like the article simplifies things a bit too much. When someone blames a single dietary component / macronutrient for such general problems as obesity, I smell bullshit. Too much sugar is bad. Too much protein is bad. Too much fat is bad. Too much of anything is bad. But foods containing sugar are essential for us. Nonsense! We are not carnivorous, we are omnivorous. Like gorillas, chimps, dogs, pigs... we can eat all sorts, and indeed it is our very capacity for being adaptive that made us so successful, that enabled us to spread across the world from African plains to deserts to forests and jungles and mountains and lands of ice and snow... When we were hunter-gatherers, we did not eat meat all day every day. Can you imagine a world in which they regularly successfully hunted animals large enough to fill everyone's bellies every day of the week? Since the beginning, fruit, berry, root, nut -- our ancient ancestors ate far more fibrous and carb-containing foods than we do, and far less meat. http://nutritionfacts.org/video/paleopoo-what-we-can-learn-from-fossilized-feces/

I didn't know what 'wildcrafting' meant until I read your post. In the UK I think we just call it foraging...? I love bramble fruits. Some excellent blackberries around here, picked a lot the last two summers. Went looking for hazels last year but was too late. Will try and think of it earlier this year. Would love any advice those in the UK can offer...

I just saw your Diary of a novice Taoist topic. It seems slightly ironic that you are looking for the path of least resistance and putting time into resistance training

.

That's impressive! (to me anyway...) I was always the opposite to you, working upper body and neglecting lower, so I never got that high. I used to work with 100kg (220lbs) for sets of 10. Max was around 120kg. Not great. Haven't been to a gym in over 2 years but currently doing 5x5 single-leg squats with a 20kg weight. (I figured yesterday that, for my weight, +20kg for a single-leg squat is roughly equivalent to a +120kg squat on both legs. So..that's not bad..) Of course, Jonesboy was talking about bodybuilding -- relatively high reps, high intensity, minimum rest between sets. If we're talking about Oly and power lifting, training for strength/power over mass, we're talking fewer reps, longer rest between sets, etc, right? So... I agree higher frequency is necessary. But also note that the Bulgarians -- along with most other weightlifters, bodybuilders, other athletes of the time -- were on massive amounts of PEDs. I mean, most current world-class athletes are on something, but probably not that much... I guess since you're previous squat PR is much better than mine I'm not really qualified to give you advice on squats, but I'd still caution against heavy lifting 6 days every week.

It entirely depends on what kind of squatting we're talking about, but yeah, if we're talking about bodybuilding 6x week is definitely too much. Heavy squats every day is certainly going to do more harm than good, especially without any supportive mobility and recovery work. But the deep squat itself is the basic human resting position. Integrating this (the "Asian squat" or the "3rd World Squat" as I've seen it called) into your every day life is a great idea. I'd suggest a heavy weighted squat session no more than 2-3 times per week. Veezel, how much are you squatting?

I haven't read the last 3 pages of this topic yet but I can see that you (roger) aren't actually trying to say anything positive about the Holocaust. I almost want to apologize for the tone of my earlier post... but at the same time, I think that what you said was extreme, and indeed the type of thing that can lead to dangerous thinking, and so deserved a somewhat extreme reaction. Bindi, I think belief in souls is generally harmless... but in the end I honestly believe that it is nonsense, and that belief in nonsense can be dangerous. I don't know anything about Neo-Advaita, but it certainly cannot be blamed for Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or a number of other religions in which the soul can be used to excuse all manner of behaviour, and so I can only at this point say that the belief in souls is itself negative.

I'm sure a number of members have had similar experiences. A bit surprised nothing has been offered yet. I'd like to try, though don't expect too much. (I don't know if there's a 'Taoist' approach to it... though I'm sure others will correct me. I'll just go by experience.) To answer your last question first: yes, I think 'self-improvement' is a trap. But this does not mean that one cannot change the way one lives. If you want to quit toking, you can. It will likely make you happier in the long run (I enjoy life a lot better without it, though if you'd told the 17-20 year old me that, he'd have laughed at you). I'll start with some presumptions (mostly evident in your post): you live in the same country, probably the same area, that you did when you started toking; you're on good terms with at least one or two dealers; you have a number of friends who toke. The first time my dog experienced snow, she went nuts. Out in the back, running around jumping in the air trying to catch it. She gets so excited in that little garden she can't be let out without supervision, regardless of snow. In my grandparents' old garden, she had a fixation on one particular tree. She'd run in a big loop, jump and try to catch the branch. To this day we have no idea why, but it was hard to get her to stop. Put her in any other garden, she'll be fine -- until she reacts to some stimulus or other, and develops another pattern. Easy to break a bad pattern if you catch it early, but not so much later. Humans are the same. When I'm in my hometown, there are all sorts of stimuli that I'm both aware and unaware of, and that I am consciously and unconsciously reacting to. It puts me in a certain mood, a certain way of doing things, that is often not conducive to happiness. When I'm in Beijing, the same happens, though I react to an entirely different set of stimuli, and my behaviour changes dramatically. My friends from back home travel to Beijing to visit, and my behaviour becomes a mix of the two (can bring quite a bit of anxiety, actually). I'm not saying that you have to emigrate and cut ties with all your friends (though it couldn't hurt to lose your dealers' numbers). That might be an answer, and it works for many, but it might be that you can start working to recognize and eliminate some of the stimuli that cause you to toke when you're at home. If you and your partner agree that it's becoming detrimental, or that you're getting bored of it, why not agree to stop completely? Find other things to pass the time with, make some new friends, change up your diet... Apologies if I'm totally wrong about you. Hopefully more advice is forthcoming.

And here we see a perfect example not only of the lunacy and illogicality of belief in 'souls' but, more importantly, the bizarre, disgusting, and potentially dangerous thinking it can lead to.

Well, regardless of whether or not one agrees that we know reality directly (it's a bit controversial and I make no claim either way), we can say that we experience reality as fully as we are able to by the time we hit a certain age. I will never experience reality more fully than I do now. We can then hold to a basic moral 'code' or understanding whilst still updating our behaviour and more specific rules when necessary. For example, a few hundred years ago most people would have agreed in 'do unto others', and that all men should be allowed the same basic freedoms. Most, at the same time, were fairly satisfied with slavery, bizarrely unequal voting rights (or indeed no voting rights), etc. Morality had to be updated to include all humans being allowed the same freedoms. In another hundred or so years, we will have recognized that all sentient life should then logically be allowed the same basic freedoms (life, freedom from unnecessary suffering, freedom from persecution, whatever..). I do think that our general moral code is following a recognizable progression based on these ideas (do unto others, basic rights/freedoms).

Can't one hold to the notion of an objective if not entirely knowable reality and a pragmatic system of ethics? Reality is a certain way. It is 'objectively' that way. But we experience it in our species-specific way, and we are continually learning more about it, both individually and as a species. Morality is our tool for regulating our own behaviour. It is based on our understanding of reality. As we learn new things, doesn't it follow that we will update our morality accordingly?

Hmm. I really don't get it. If I've understood you correctly. For most of human history, most people have believed in the silliest nonsense imaginable. Reason is barely touched upon by the believers of every religion, the unquestioning patriots of every nation, the adulating lovers of most monarchs, the proponents of most cultures... These people all still exist today, yes, but in times gone by they were far more common, and science and reason were available only to the few. As far as I can tell, it is in this very time, right now, that everyone has the opportunity to learn -- the poorest and most oppressed people have a chance to learn, if they want to -- and many of us do. A significant number of people today don't believe in nonsense. I'd say now more than ever, the scientific community has a large sway over public opinion and government decision-making. I don't know why you (seem to) think that right now is one of those times of ignorance & mysticism...? (though I'd agree that there is almost as much slavery, fear, and death as there ever was)

Just a note (not getting directly involved in the Jung conversation, but..) 1. One can be an exceptional talent in any area -- philosophy, literature, dance, painting, cinema, prostitution, etc -- and be a celebrity. I'm not arguing for or against Jung here, only pointing out that whether or not he was good at anything doesn't affect whether or not he was a 'celebrity'. (He obviously was a celebrity, but he might still be talented.) 2. Celebrity has existed for centuries. Talented and talentless celebrity alike. What were kings and queens? Frequently talentless! What was Mozart? Talented, for sure. Columbus? Jesus? You can read about all sorts of famous 'courtesans' and actors and faulty but famous academics, etc etc, from throughout human history, not to mention religious and political and military figures, aristocrats and talentless high society heirs and heiresses... People complain a lot about modern celeb culture, but it was just as bad 'back in the day'. Worse, really, because the majority of people wiped their arses with sticks. And are you suggesting that the era "losing Science and reason" is still ongoing? Because I'd argue that we (humanity) are still near the beginning.....

Well, to be sure of clarity: http://www.thedaobums.com/forum/254-daodejing/ The Daodejing forum is full of individual chapter studies, where many of us have come together to discuss translations / interpretations / understandings... But there is no reason one cannot make their own topic in there, as Flowing Hands as done, for example, here: http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/22407-the-dao-de-jhing-is-a-shamanistic-treatise/ where he talks of his unique understanding of the text, or as I did here: http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/37276-the-laozi-as-a-manual-of-manipulation-and-control/ where I outlined how my understanding of the text had changed since studying it more closely on this site. Then we even have a topic http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/34084-new-verses-of-the-ddj/ where a member (again, Flowing Hands) has shared some apparently hitherto-unknown verses. So you should certainly feel free to share your own, or jump in to any existing topic and get a discussion going again.

Yes, I read quite a bit of myself in your intro too. And I particularly enjoyed your comments about purposelessness and your welcome mat. You don't read classical Chinese -- does this imply that you do read modern Chinese? Either way, I'm sure many would be interested to read your long-considered thoughts on any number of chapters of the Laozi / TTC...

Ursula LeGuin says: “When Thoreau says to distrust any enterprise which requires new clothes, I distrust him…Lao Tzu knows that getting all entangled with the external keep us from the eternal, but he also understands that sometimes people like to get dressed up.” If she sometimes likes to get dressed up, that's fine, but nowhere in the LZ does it say "Dressing up in pretty things sometimes is nice if you can afford it." I don't see what relation all her talk of clothes and "innocent vanity" has to the text whatsoever. Quotes from Thoreau's Walden: I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes. No man ever stood the lower in my estimation for having a patch in his clothes; yet I am sure that there is greater anxiety, commonly, to have fashionable, or at least clean and unpatched clothes, than to have a sound conscience. Quote from LZ ch.53: what I should be most afraid of would be a boastful display (...) Their court(-yards and buildings) shall be well kept, but their fields shall be ill-cultivated, and their granaries very empty. They shall wear elegant and ornamented robes, carry a sharp sword at their girdle, pamper themselves in eating and drinking, and have a superabundance of property and wealth; such may be called robbers and boasters. This is contrary to the Dao surely! These have very little to do with each other, but she's trying to make a connection. Thoreau wasn't 'Puritan' as LeGuin suggests; sometimes austere, sure, but actually his writing is full of contradictory ideas and trying to sum it up as 'Puritan' is very silly. In Walden he wasn't suggesting never buying new clothes, or that doing well for oneself is a bad thing; and LZ makes no kind of statement about whether or not to patch clothes. In the lines quoted, Thoreau is simply being suspicious of the social custom of needing new clothes for certain enterprises (which, let's be honest, is fair). LZ is not bothered either way, as far as I can tell, though the stronger argument can be made that he was not keen on excessive displays... edit: However, I'm aware that I might just be getting excessively caught up in minor details and to be clear: I think your comment about not wanting to get in the way of others' paths is true, I just don't think it applies to what LeGuin was saying

I'd say... it is everything you've said, and more. And... it is nothing that you've said. Really, it's not even an 'it'. 'It' isn't there -- or here -- or anywhere. But you are 'it', so it must be where you are.

I used to walk everywhere, so much that I didn't walk for pleasure. Now, not needing to walk so far every day to work, and having a dog, I walk nearly every day in the woods. Walking to get somewhere, one probably keeps a steady fast pace, one is probably carrying a bag, one has their thoughts upon their destination, and upon arrival there's invariably something that needs doing. It's good exercise, it's a natural form of transportation that too many people have forgotten about, and one has time with one's thoughts... but there's little thought for relaxation or real reflection. Walking for walking's sake, to enjoy the outside and move the body, offers extra benefits, as everyone has said. I find it something of a diagnostic tool: walking comfortably, free to go at any pace, I'll notice muscles that ache, bits that need stretching, joints that are sore, etc, and I can focus on them later in the day; but often, by the end of the walk most of the aches are gone anyway. And of course, there's all the stuff mentioned above; going 'into nature', getting away from roads, being in a green or blue or yellow place, fresh air...it's energizing and therapeutic. Of all the animals (at least, of all mammals), we are the most adaptive. Foremost, I'd say that we're not 'built' for any type of exercise in particular. We can do them all pretty well, and if we specialize we can do one or two very well. We're opportunistic generalist movers, able to walk, jog, sprint, jump, flip, climb rocks and trees, swing, swim, throw, lift heavy things..... In terms of running, though, I don't think we're great sprinters. We're able to train for short sprints, but we're not nearly as fast as many mammals. Our very fastest sprinters (27mph) are outpaced by nearly all carnivores (wolves & other dogs, big cats, some bears, etc) and most herbivores (horse, deer, hare, kangaroo..). In terms of biomechanics, our 'design' is much better suited for long distance running, and our best long distance runners are not matched by any other land mammal (or any other land animal, full stop?) when all terrain is considered. http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/09/13/men-can-beat-horses-in-marathons/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Karnazes Ran 350 miles (560 km) in 80 hours and 44 minutes without sleep in 2005 http://www.thestandard.co.zw/2012/09/02/almost-superhuman-tarahumara-runners/ The Tarahumara record is a continuous 700km in just over 48 hours (435 miles)

Unless there's another Taoist text that all schools 'more or less accept' more than they do the Laozi, I wonder how the (arguably) most famous text that is more or less accepted by all Taoist schools might be said to not be the most influential? I suppose one might suggest the Yijing, and certainly a case can be made that it is the most influential text in the history of China, not just in the history of Taoism... but that would also mean that it does not belong to Taoism alone. Thank the gods

Well, I like that. But for it to really hit the spot, I think that 'scripture' needs to be replaced with something else -- the definition of 'scripture' is sacred writings of a religion..! Maybe "The text is neither philosophical nor religious, but your approach to it makes it so." ?

I can see 2 ways of looking at this. 1. "If it doesn't pass the THINK test you may be breaking the law." Well, yeah.... if 'I' stands for 'illegal', and a post/tweet doesn't pass the THINK test.... it might be that your post was illegal. Assuming one believes in the law, one should not be opposed to the law being upheld on the WWW as much as in the 'real world'. The laws of Canada and UK don't actually promise freedom of speech as absolute. "Limits on speech were incorporated in the criminal code in relation to treason, sedition, blasphemous and defamatory libel, disruption of religious worship, hate propaganda, spreading false news, public mischief, obscenity, indecency and other forms." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_Canada#Associations_and_controls So calling them "thought police" is kind of nonsense. If you write something, express it publicly, it's no longer just a thought -- it's speech. If it breaks a law limiting freedom of speech, it's illegal. 2. On the other hand, I am not a huge fan of most laws or police forces, and I think people should be able to say whatever they want unless it's clearly going to harm someone else. And even then, I don't think the punishments should be particularly harsh. Current laws on freedom of speech are not great. And when it comes to online abuse, victims are treated a little softly as far as I can tell. I mean, if you're on a website and people are telling you horrible things and suggesting suicide, you stop going on the website. Pretty simple. If you keep checking the website, and eventually kill yourself, you've got to take some of the blame. And all that stuff above... blasphemous and defamatory libel, disruption of religious worship, hate propaganda, spreading false news, public mischief, obscenity, indecency... In other words: saying things against religion, saying 'nasty' things, lying, being naughty, saying rude words... this is against the law?? So 'freedom of speech' is protected as long as nobody says anything bad about anyone or uses any non-PC words or phrases?

This is true. But... I'm not, in the first place, sure that I like the idea of people supposedly intent on the genuine search for 'truth' through logic referring back to ancient nonsense texts for inspiration on guidelines. It seems unnecessarily ironic and anachronistic. Rather than engineering precisely ten negative 'commandments', why not simply outline what logic should be, and then give exactly as many examples as deemed necessary to explain what to do and what to not do? I'm just being pedantic, of course

I was just on there, looking to see if there is a universally accepted definition of 'logic'. Of course: not! But a good quote is presented. "Upon this first, and in one sense this sole, rule of reason, that in order to learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with what you already incline to think, there follows one corollary which itself deserves to be inscribed upon every wall of the city of philosophy: Do not block the way of inquiry." I like to think that this is my driving force in the majority of discussions. Inquiry, not dogma. All of the "commandments" presented above really just serve to present a selection of things one should not do if one intends free inquiry into a subject. I'm sure we're all guilty of it far more than we realize, though...

Euch. I think it's probably time to call this one. One more response and then I'm done. Do you deny instinct? I might say that I both must value it and choose to value it. As you say later in your post, and as I have already said in this discussion: I recognize that I am an incredible being, and I recognize the wonder of being alive. If I didn't, I'd still instinctively feel that my life was precious, as it seems that most other sentient beings do. And I've met many unthinking people who hold their life dear without ever actively questioning why. Are they choosing to value their life, or do they just do it because it's in their nature? I'm writing my thoughts, I engage here, because I (for some inexplicable reason) enjoy it. I enjoy discussing things (not so much right now). I don't choose to enjoy it. It's one of the many things that I simply enjoy, that is part of the experience of being alive. I can't choose to not enjoy something that I enjoy. Your argument here is very silly. I'm not sure you understand that humans are animals. Nothing that we do comes purely from choice. Google >> "define plague" plague noun an unusually large number of insects or animals infesting a place and causing damage Yes, humanity is, at present, a plague. I'd be interested to see how you refute the application of this definition rather than repeatedly stating or implying that I hate life and hate people and don't care about anything. Yes, on average we're healthier, more comfortable, longer lived, have more opportunity to engage in enjoyable pursuits, there is greater equality, more knowledge, etc. I have not claimed that any of this is untrue. I do make the claim that most of this has been possible because of the widespread damage we have caused and are continuing to cause. Animal agriculture is responsible for the slaughter of tens of billions of animals every year for food, most of them raised in cages in which they cannot move; animal agriculture combined with various other large-scale practices has led to widespread deforestation, threatening and eliminating hundreds of species of plant and animal life, drastically reducing the Earth's energy supply (less biomass = less energy), and probably contributing to global warming; we've created simple packaged foods and other goods and amazing technologies, and eventually throw most of it into massive landfills; in many places on Earth, slavery and rape and murder is rampant, women and other 'social classes' are treated like garbage, homicide rates are increasing, crazy people with no actual respect for life (unlike me, who does respect life, in case you're still thinking that I don't) are building armies and nuclear weapons, religion and other irrational belief is ubiquitous and unlikely to see a decline any time soon............ What you say about war is true, in relative (though not absolute) terms, but I'm not sure that we should be wholeheartedly congratulating ourselves on a gradual and tentative decrease in violence since the Middle Ages (or whichever highly violent era you choose to start from). It's better, but it's not great. We're hardly free from devastating war. And the potential for destruction now is greater than ever. I really am starting to get annoyed. I have not complained, only observed. I have said numerous times now that I'm perfectly happy, nay ecstatic, to be alive, that like Zhuangzi my days are filled with wonder and the thrill of the ephemeralness of being alive, and that I simply am not bothered either way about whether or not humanity spreads itself across the universe, but that if it does, it's not gonna be all champagne and roses; I don't see the point. You've repeatedly told me that I am thinking a certain way when I have repeatedly and clearly explained how you are wrong. I think it is time that you stop to look at yourself and ask why you are so determined to see me as the bad guy. All I have done is observe things as they are.