dust

Have these 8 pages really been devoted to debating whether or not the Earth is (more or less) spherical? Or is it the 'more or less' part that's in question?

Maybe.. The text is about all sorts of things. One can argue that any given chapter necessarily involves Dao and De, whether they are mentioned explicitly or not, but one might also argue that people tend to focus on these terms too much simply because they are considered to be the 'titular' words. Oh, it's obviously about 'Dao'. But it's not only about 'Dao'. You expressed curiosity in the list, I simply provided. But I think that it does offer some bare, elemental evidence about the content of the text. One can read the text and focus on things that one tends to focus on, but a list like this points out that many other things are mentioned just as frequently. 民 min 'the people' are mentioned 15 times in the GD -- more than the 聖人 ‘sage’; 惪 De is mentioned 11 times, more than 善 'good'. Doesn't that already illustrate some difference in focus from the modern DDJ? Yes; this is part of the problem that I have. I am saying that whoever first gave the text the title Dao De Jing was wrong to. Because it's not a classic specifically and purely about Dao and De. But does every discussion of the Laozi have to defer to the greater Daoist tradition? Can't we try and read the text on its own, without interference from later commentators? Ethics is about 'right' and 'wrong' action. The use of 善 in the text is not always in the context of 'right' or 'wrong'. No?

Well, yes indeed. So.. that 'De' is mentioned as often as it is does not mean that there are not other concepts running through the text that are named less frequently but that are equally important..? And I would assert that articles about accidents probably mention the word 'accident' once or twice but that it is considered good writing practice to use synonyms (mishap, crash, collision, etc) in copy and related media, and indeed to offer more emotive, dramatic words (trauma, tragedy, disaster, catastrophe...). In the New Testament, we find that 'God' and 'Jesus' and their synonyms (Lord, Christ) are by far the most common words. I've put what I would consider the more 'important' / 'meaty' characters in bold. Top 30 (according again to a Word doc I have on my computer): 之 91 也 58 不 56 以 53 亓 45 而 40 爲 37 wei 亡 32 wang (wu) 天 32 tian heaven 大 28 great 下 27 可 26 道 25 Dao 智 22 zhi know / knowledge 弗 20 是 20 者 20 人 19 又 18 you have 若 18 古 17 民 15 min people 事 14 足 14 zu sufficient 得 13 於 13 自 13 zi self 身 13 shen body 曰 12 聖 12 sheng sage Often, but it's not so common that most people are aware of it. Yes -- it was obviously considered, by some, to be focused around Dao and De, hence the 'title'. I am contesting that these people were wrong Well..I disagree. Whether or not 'Daoism' is focused mainly on Dao and De should not colour our view of the Laozi. When we analyze its concepts we should do so based on their importance in the text, not 'Daoism' as a whole. OK, but have you engaged in many discussions about 'zhi' in the Laozi specifically? This is the Laozi / DDJ subforum.. It is commonly translated as 'good', but it does not refer strictly to moral goodness. It has a number of layers, and the fact that some think it only means 'morally good' shows how poorly it is understood. OK. Cool. I both agree and disagree with you here. But my fingers are tired of typing. Next post maybe.

What would a 'scientific section' consist of? The scientific method can be applied in almost any area.. Science is not just lab experiments. The above should be the basic procedure we apply to each opinion/belief we hold, all the way down our spiritual path (or any other path). Ask a question, research, experiment, see if it works, perhaps tell others about it. (People follow the process to different degrees of strictness, of course, and some just believe what they want for no logical reason. Oh well.) 'Science' should not be thought of as a specific field of study; it refers to all 'knowledge' uncovered using the scientific method. In my opinion, 'good' Daoism, Buddhism, and any other -ism, require good science. Just a thought.

Well..aside from SC's microbe theory.. In the last book of the His Dark Materials trilogy, The Amber Spyglass, Pullman writes about 'mulefa', creatures that slot their fore and hind legs into wheels and propel themselves with 2 middle legs. So when I was younger I did used to think about it a bit... why wouldn't that be possible? A wheel has to be detachable, separate from the axis/frame/body it moves with, and so can't grow together with it. I can't think of any creatures that exist in separate parts in that way (obviously lots of organisms live in symbiosis with each other, but none have detachable accessories). A world with wheels would have to have produced something like the giant seed-pods that the 'mulefa' use; but nothing so sturdy and perfectly round has ever grown on Earth, and so no creature has evolved to utilize it as a wheel.. A world of wheels also relies on smooth/flat surfaces; the only reason human-invented wheeled vehicles have been so successful is that we have flattened tens of millions of miles of land to allow them to zoom around, blowing holes in mountains, building huge bridges, and making tunnels in the sea..

There are a number of times/places I would love to visit, but I'm not sure what I'd take with me, if anything. I'd be most eager to try and find/identify certain historical or supposedly historical figures -- Laozi, Zhuangzi, Buddha, Jesus, Moses, etc (certainly not an exhaustive list!). On meeting any of them (and after learning all I can from them first!), I might share some modern music and art, and perhaps modern accounts of their lives, to see what they make of it all..?

An idea that I find relevant: the distinction between 'natural' and 'man-made' / 'artificial' is itself man-made. We seem to agree and somewhat disagree at the same time. Balance is the thing... but as it is not natural for everything to be balanced all the time, we cannot equate nature with 'perfect balance'. There is no such thing... Many forms of life, and other worldly (earthquakes, volcanoes, population cycles..) and otherworldly (meteors..evil aliens?) processes, disrupt what may be seen as balanced ecosystems. The Earth has seen all sorts of turmoil, some of it nothing compared to the silly things humans are doing, but all of it natural. As you say, eventually, everything balances out. So it is short-sighted of us to think that just because our current actions as a species are imbalanced (read: fucking stupid), we are an 'unnatural' phenomenon. We are, as a species, very young and, compared to the dinosaurs, eventually probably a short-lived phenomenon on Earth. We are not separate from nature, and we will discover this when the Balance catches up with us in the long-term. But we'll still have been natural... All life is gain and loss. And clothes are contrived (contrived = deliberately created). Every human creation that we find useful utilizes the so-called 'laws of nature' to its advantage, no?

I genuinely have no idea what 'naturalness' you're talking about now. Naturalness can be shaped? Naturalness is not about natural behaviour? So what exactly does 'natural' mean? To say that vanity is a 'genetic trait' is imprecise. I would say that it is a natural human tendency -- that is, something humans tend toward because of certain circumstances in our development/evolution -- to consider our appearance. Not all humans are vain, but almost all have, at least in a public environment, a preference for behaving and smelling and looking a certain way. I don't believe that if a man grows up all alone, with no human contact or language, he will make any effort each day to look 'nice'; but if he sees his reflection in a mirror or pool of water, he will become curious and experiment with his appearance.

I hear often that tattooing isn't part of Western culture. The media in particular would have us believe that tattooing was introduced to Europe by sailors returning from their exploration in the 'New World', and that it's been solely a sailors' thing ever since, until last week when that celebrity got a tattoo and now suddenly it's OK for 'normal' people to get them. Actually, tattooing has been a part of Western civilization since Western civilization has been a thing -- it's just that there's not much written about it. Sailors did introduce new patterns and forms of tattooing from the 'New World' to Europe, as well as the word 'tattoo', and the Victorian era saw the rise leading to today's level of popularity, but it's not like nobody knew how to tattoo before that. For good or bad, as art or punishment, tattooing has existed continuously on every continent for the last few thousand years. The idea that tattoos are new in popularity can be found in newspapers in every decade going back at least to the 1870s, including: NY Times, 1893 NY Times, 1908 Milwaukee Sentinel, 1933 BBC, 2011 "Sure, tattoos are not confined to sailors, bikers or convicts. My point is that they never have been. And strictly speaking, when the media says tattoos were 'once associated with bikers and sailors', that's true - they have been associated, but by the media. "It is like same old, same old," says Lodder. "It is like, 'Wow tattooing is the new big thing, it used to be like this but now it is like this.' "But what I can't quite work out is why that is the case, and why these myths persist. My working hypothesis is simply that if people can't empathise with somebody who has a desire to mark their body then it comes as a surprise and they go, 'Wow, that's weird and strange and people are actually doing that." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25330947

Yes. And in the Victorian era tattooing saw a particular rise in popularity among royalty and subsequently the upper classes. Edward VII -- the son of Victoria herself -- was tattooed, as was George V, Kaiser Wilhelm II, Tsar Nicholas II, and Frederick IX of Denmark:

Not sure about the bit in bold. People don't much care about quality, that much seems clear to me..

"beyond nature" "What is natural and what is not" "See the natural in oneself" What is "beyond nature"? What is there that is not natural? What in ourselves is unnatural, beyond the natural way of things? How is that possible? Indeed, I don't imagine that you're all long-bearded, scraggly-haired, and raven-clawed. I think there are 2 options: either everything that we do is 'natural', or everything that we do that the other animals don't do is 'unnatural'; in which case there's no hope for us, because our daily lives revolve around doing things that the other animals cannot begin to comprehend. Bears don't get hair cuts; nor do lions, nor dolphins (ah, though this might be due to a lack of hair, I suppose ). Monkeys might use tools, but they don't practice qigong or eat in restaurants or discuss the merits of body modification... I think one thing (relevant to this discussion) must be faced up to: humans have evolved to be vain, to groom and fuss over appearance. You're right, taking care of one's body is not unnatural; reproduction drives all life, and taking care of oneself is a large part of that. And in the spirit of reproduction, humans have evolved our own variety of strategies for courtship, for attracting mates and bonding with each other. Isn't that all natural, then? Challenge; experience; unfathomable desire..

To me, the Earth is what the Earth is. No need to label it with 'perfect' or 'faulty' or 'good' or 'evil'. The Earth doesn't think of itself as 'perfect'; it is the God of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims who does that. (He is a damaging and terrible god, and I try my best not to think like him.) Hmm... I know a few who would disagree!

Realizing that many people see no difference between tattooing and plastic surgery, I feel like I will be seen as something of a hypocrite agreeing with you about this, but I am bemused by some people's need to 'improve' themselves. I suppose that, in the case of a rich Chinese woman, the biggest factor is showing off her riches. Got the money? Prove it. Spend it in unnecessary ways, show people that who you are is simply "richer than you, bitch." Another cultural meme that I cannot quite comprehend.

I can often be found arguing against the views of others. This is (I believe) generally intended as exploratory exercise, a way to refine my own beliefs, rather than a wholehearted desire to change people's perceptions (or a genuine belief that it is possible to). Though I will admit to having been irritated a number of times in my time posting on TDB. That we each have a different understanding of things should not necessarily prevent us from trying to understand the views of others, should it?

I have no problem with gardening. I do suspect many here who feel that tattooing is perverse are complicit in other acts of modifying nature, and are not necessarily aware of it. I should hope not! What about your buttock implants, then?

We create our own culture. You live in Beijing, right? My love for tattoos developed there. It's part of my culture now. I'm not saying that every white guy who lives in Beijing must love tattoos, just that having a certain skin tone should not dictate behaviour..

We are intentionally talking about landscape / wildlife modification, right? Don't matter to whom? Same here. Except for the ponytails. I am considering growing my hair out for the first time since I was 6. I own one suit, worn to both weddings and funerals (more funerals lately). For some reason, though, "body modification" (pretty pictures on my skin) is still on my mind..

She's a little terrifying eh. thelerner is not wrong; she clearly knows what she's doing. Not sure I agree with it, though.

Sure. I'm not sure either of us will have much to say on the matter, though...?

I think there is a "point in", or a "value in", eating tasty & healthy food; some see no point in this, no value. Things have only the point, or value, that we attach to them. Anything can be regarded as pointless by someone. The difference, then, between me and a Taoist is that I see the actions that I take as a continuation of the natural order of things. If a human modifying his physical appearance goes beyond 'nature' into the realm of the perverse, what about modifying the mind/spirit? Should we not just allow ourselves to be as we are, forget all philosophy and spiritual practice? Then isn't Taoism itself a perversion? Firstly: As I think I've mentioned somewhere, I find it hard to believe that a single member of this forum hasn't altered their physical appearance in any way in their lifetime. You cut and wash and brush your hair, trim your nails, wear clothes that you like the look of.. and most of this is done with factory-made tools, produced from felled trees and slaughtered animals and chemicals pumped from the recesses of the earth. Most of us listen to music, or appreciate art, or enjoy cinema, or practice exercise or cultivation of some sort. So let's not pretend that none of us have any hand in the modification and destruction of nature; let's not pretend that we sit around mesmerized by flowers and never modifying anything. Secondly: I was perfectly content with my physical appearance before I had any tattoos. If tattooing didn't exist, I'd be fine. But it does exist, and I'm a fairly experimental person...

I'm pretty sure that's a meaningless question. The point is not to "improve" anything. I'm not trying to look 'better' with tattoos, I simply enjoy having them. Again, you're saying a meaningless thing. Was the Earth 'perfect' before it was 'defaced' with life? (And if so, should we destroy life?) Were things 'perfect' before humans came along and started 'defacing' nature with war and overpopulation? (And if so, should we destroy ourselves?) Is every human 'perfect'? Mentally, spiritually? Perfection is a nonsense concept. Mentioning murder and tattooing in the same sentence as if this connects them to each other. Don't you feel a little shame in this? We could just as easily say, "Even predating cultural interest in spiritual practice, there were cultural interests in rape and pillage." I find history interesting; the history that we know of tattooing no less so. I have not claimed that tattooing is good because it has a long history.

Aussie: I enjoyed reading your thought process. And I would be interested to know why you no longer listen to music -- perhaps a discussion for another topic though.. Nungali: Sounds like a cool painting, even if the canvas has seen some wear. I love bird tattoos -- I have a pair of swallows (not a nautical thing..I just really love swallows) and plan on more birds. As to your first sentence: yes, modern tattoo artists are able to be more precise than in previous decades, with cleaner lines etc. But eventually, these tattoos will fade and disperse too. That's just the way of things.

Yes. My apologies. A silly mistake; I had every opportunity to research before commenting. Sorry. I understand this very well, which is why I would tend to warn against it.

That is excellent