dust

Right, it's not intrinsically valuable -- nothing is. But neither do I choose to value it. (I don't think...) I'd say that, on a basic level, my life is dear to me in the very same way that a dog's life is dear to it. It enjoys being alive; it does not desire to die. It is an instinct -- the same instinct we do not have for all others of our species. A dog doesn't value all other dogs' lives; only its own and those (of dogs/humans/etc) who are emotionally close to it. On a more complex level, my life is dear to me because I am capable (in a way that a dog is not) of consciously recognizing the wonder in being alive. In either case, I don't think I can choose, in my present state, not to value my life. I think that would go against all instinct that billions of years of evolution has endowed us with. And if I cannot choose not to value my life, so I also cannot choose to value my life. I place value upon my existence by virtue of existing (in a happy state). I don't have to do anything. True, instinctively I will do my best to preserve and enhance the lives I care about, but I can choose not to -- if my human reason, my logical side, decides that it is for some reason a good idea. Again, I don't think it's a choice. Not for most of us. We live far more in the realm of instinct, emotion, and knee-jerk reaction, than we do in the realm of pure logic. And actually the majority of people just do what they're told, to a greater or lesser extent. No. I don't advocate killing anyone in particular. You keep inferring that I want humans all dead, but I've repeatedly stated that I don't. I don't really care either way. My life is pretty good, I do very little harm. I'm enjoying things. That is not to say that I can't recognize the human species as a whole as a devastating force. I can, and I do, because it is. Erm..I absolutely did not say that! "I hold my own life dear, and those of my loved ones, but will not claim that they are intrinsically valuable. The value that they have to me is the value that they have to me. That which I place on them." What I said was, once again, that I indeed place value on myself and certain other people, but recognize that nobody is intrinsically valuable -- that is, there is no universal power such as God endowing all humans with some magical power of "value". But my loved ones are absolutely valuable to me. And perhaps we're all part of this 'plague', but I have not argued for anyone's annihilation. And not because it would be contradictory to say that I value my loved ones and desire an end to humanity, but because I don't desire an end to humanity. I simply don't understand why you think an expansion of humanity throughout the universe is worth pursuing. You have either not understood me or are pretending I've said things that I haven't. I think I've made myself quite clear! Once again: I have not, at all, argued for the elimination of humankind. I do not hate all humans, nor do I value all humans. I do value my loved ones. Getting back to the original thing: the spread of humankind across the universe would be a dreadful plague. The world is rife with war and poverty and the destruction of all kinds of habitat & species and blah blah blah, after thousands of years we're still killing each other over pathetic things, but you speak of spreading "ourselves throughout the galaxy and the universe." I just don't think it's a particularly worthwhile pursuit, considering.

OK, you are not commanding me. Good But what I said was that I hold my own life dear, and those of my loved ones, but will not claim that they are intrinsically valuable. The value that they have to me is the value that they have to me. That which I place on them. By definition, value and meaning are applied/ascribed/inserted/inferred/etc, but they are never universal or intrinsic. To claim that each or any human life is universally valuable is itself meaningless. Value depends on perspective. From a star's perspective, human life has no value. From my perspective, the Sun has much value, but other stars less so. From my perspective, my life is valuable to me, and I recognize that the life of another is valuable to them -- and it is this empathy, this understanding of what it is to be alive, that means I would be sad to see another human in pain. And indeed every time I turn on the news I get a little sad. And this might make me think that I value others' lives, but really they can have no value to me until I have some kind of contact with them. A child just died somewhere, and I have no idea who he was, and his life did not affect me, and his death does not affect me. What value did his life have to me? And yet how terribly upset would I have been to watch him die? I did not argue against them. I said it sounded like a dreadful plague. It does. It is evident that humanity is already a dreadful plague on this planet, but I'm not arguing for our annihilation. I am as an animal. I am an animal. So are you. No more "valuable" than any other.

No... I recognize that villainy and heroism are just ideas. They are not real. It is the human tendency to believe in good and evil, hero and villain, to need to think of life in these terms, but in reality we have 2 analogous but very different concepts: pleasure and pain, or happiness and unhappiness. These are real, physical -- if anything can be said to have meaning, it is the experience of sentient life. And it is this human tendency to believe in good and evil as absolutes, and our love for fighting over them, that means I do not doubt that if humanity did spread throughout the universe, it would do no more than spread the fighting. It would only create more of what we have now. That sounds like a plague. Rather than locusts feeding and moving on, humans feeding and fighting and moving on. Really, I don't care either way, but I cannot understand why one would think this a particularly wonderful idea. If you were to look back, even in this very thread at my posts on evolution, you might find that I do not actually believe in 'spirit' (except in the sense of 'mood' or 'attitude'). My Daoism is of the philosophical spirit of the Zhuangzi, where one might tell fantastical stories and ponder on "Dao" and meander through life conversing with skulls, all the while recognizing that it's all temporary. Most here, I realize, do not agree that this is a valid version of Daoism or a valid interpretation of the Zhuangzi, but there we are. Recognizing the nature of reality as such does not mean that man's life is a value I "must hold as a principle", whatever that means. My life I hold dear, and that of my loved ones, but I will not claim that any life, human or other animal, has any kind of special and intrinsic meaning or value, that we're here for a reason, that we have a duty to do anything in particular, or that human life is more valuable than anything else. Life has the value that we ascribe to it.

Something you are in favour of? Why? Sounds like a dreadful plague to me.

Some of us think that the world, in terms of human culture, was better long ago -- that humans lived in greater harmony, had a better perspective, more real power, did less harm... Some of us think that we're better and more advanced now -- that our 'advances' in tech far exceed anything prior, that we're healthier and longer-lived, that we're more peaceful, that we're going to spread across the universe... I don't see why it must be either-or. Pretending to know one way or the other, claiming that there is an objectively better way of being, seems to me to be missing the point. I suspect that early humans did have a greater connection to the Source, that there was a great time of relative peace and equality that we can barely imagine. I also suspect that it can't have been all that great if it led us to the world we have now. (edit: removed a whole thing about evolution because I realized it wasn't at all relevant...)

Indeed. Not my usual, I must say. They're covering 2 hip-hop tracks, which is how I came across them...but now, like I said, I can't get the cover versions out of my head...

I was only being silly. Though now I think about it, I would be kinda curious to read or hear words/languages invented by individuals and how they varied between people.

Fair enough. Well, actually I disagree that logic/rationality/reason should ever be replaced with baseless speculation and story-telling. But that's for other threads, I suppose. Anyway, I would not classify the Zhuangzi / Chuang Tzu as 'religious Daoism', but as it is certainly one of the great texts -- not only in Daoism or China, but in world history -- I'd say it's very worthy of study.

I cannot get these tunes out of my head.

He said "in your own words". All those words were invented by other people.

Yeah... I might say something like that. That evolution is likely, even a certainty, in the unfolding of things, as an aspect of Dao. But I don't think that there's any purpose or meaning behind it. It just is; or, it just does. To me, that's wonderful in itself. By the way, going back to the wings etc: I'm sure there is a lot of missing fossil evidence, and I do agree that we must make some small assumptions about how certain incredible phenomena have evolved, but I also think that it can all be explained very well using the kind of observations we can make with bats.

There is fossil evidence, but there's even evidence alive right now. Flying fish, flying squirrels, flying lemurs....bats.. What the mammals have in common is a flap of skin, like webbed feet, between arm and leg; an easy mutation, one imagines, considering we know that humans can be born with similar mutations. The fish? Just bigger fins. Bats are an example of more developed flight-capable wings. Just like the pterosaurs, which probably evolved 150-200 million years ago, they basically have long arms with long digits with flaps of skin between them. It is easy to imagine that, 200 million years ago, a creature mutated webbed hands, or a flap of skin between elbow and torso, which enabled it to jump slightly higher, or glide down from a tree, and gave it an edge in catching prey or running from predators. No need for an agent, no need to infer 'meaning' or 'purpose.

I wonder, how do you know you're interested in "religious Daoism" if you haven't yet read the "scripture" ?

The usual definition includes open land, grass or crops, and a boundary. I too say fields are beyond definition. One knows when one is in one, but one might not always be able to say why it is not, rather, a meadow, pasture, paddock, park, garden, yard, or green.

Life has certainly evolved. Is, certainly, evolving -- right now. Evolution is evident. That we, the human species, evolved from 'simpler' lifeforms is evident. I like to argue with people and contradict theories, but I don't see any need for discussion on evolution. I do not say it is proven, but it is evident. It makes such absolute sense, I do not see how anyone can seriously believe that it is "not true". The question then becomes: where/how did life, and evolution, begin? Well, I'd argue that it began right here. One can say that it came from "outer space", but in relation to anywhere else in the universe, we are in outer space right now. Whether it began right here or on another planet seems irrelevant, and impossible to know for sure. But it seems to me that this planet, having the perfect constitution for nourishing life, is as perfect as any other place in the universe for the conception of it. Why assume that it came from elsewhere?

The key: know your enemy. Victory lies in understanding. Watch this Isis piece to gain a better understanding, but be warned: you might come away thinking how cool Isis is.

Fair enough. It was the word 'outdated' that threw me I suppose. Sounds a bit like an implication that this version of forum isn't as good as the new variety. in all honesty, I suppose this kind of forum is somewhat outdated... but in the same way that cloaks are outdated. I'd love to be able to wear a cloak in winter, but society has moved on to ski jackets and tweed coats. A shame.

Indeed, though Isis did show mercy in the end. I must say I've got a bit of a thing for Isis now. Nobody had told me how sexy Isis can be.

Not sure what you mean... Facebook groups are awful for discussing things, and much worse for organizing/finding anything. What's wrong with the forum?

You get tired and spaced out in the middle of the day, and the explanation is that someone is somehow telepathically sucking energy from you? You don't think diet, workload, work environment, personal issues, climate, or any other real world factor, might be worth looking at first?

There is no catch-all answer. "When can we generalize and when can we not?" Well... we always can, but often we are incorrect in doing so. Are you looking for something in particular? On some topics, generalization is useful, maybe even 99% descriptive. On other topics, generalization is useless, often even harmful. Cows have legs. That's a generalization based on my experience. I'd imagine that not 100% of cows are born with legs. But it's true most of the time. It's descriptive of most cows, more than 99%. Dogs bite people. That's a generalization I've heard, based on some people's experience. And it's not true most of the time. Most dogs never bite people. One would be better saying "Dogs have the capacity to bite people." And the thing is, people believing that all dogs are biters will only lead people to treat dogs poorly, which in turn will make dogs more likely to bite people.

2014 hi-res version of the 'Pillars of Creation' photo of the Eagle Nebula (posted on page 1) Large: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Pillars_of_creation_2014_HST_WFC3-UVIS_full-res_denoised.jpg Small:

Stumbled across this just now. Seems like it's the kind of thing that is likely to have been posted before but I searched 'nebula' and 'pillars' and 'hubble' here and it didn't come up. 'Pillars of Creation' is a photo taken by the Hubble Space Telescope in 1995. The following photo is a recreation of it, a new hi-res photo, from 2014. Large: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Pillars_of_creation_2014_HST_WFC3-UVIS_full-res_denoised.jpg Small:

Took this earlier. I've known these trees since I was a little kid. Thought the very visual representation of their connectedness was relevant to this topic.

Not really. I had previously implied that another discussion on 'Dao' was not needed, but then decided I wanted to join in anyway, and said "I can't help it." That's all. Hopefully you and others will find that I tend to say what I mean. We can agree, again, to disagree. I would not say that we can definitely claim ZZ to have attributed anything to anyone. A lot of what is said in the text through the mouths of others is clearly made up. Knowing and accepting that a certain portion of one's existence is beyond one's own control. Don't fight it too much; go with the flow; work with the tools you are given; etc. Maybe this has no relation to your Daoism, but I think we can probably agree by now that your 'Daoism' and my 'Me-ism' are quite different. So, let's not fight about it any more.