dust

Hehe. Just yesterday I stopped to watch a herd of cows lying in the sun in the middle of a large field, all quietly chewing on grass. No animal was more at peace than them in that moment. That they'll eventually be (relatively painlessly) killed is, as you say, no more or less than part of the life cycle. Most people I know eat meat every day, probably for at least 2 of every 3 daily meals. And nobody buys quality meat when they're eating that much of it. It's insane.

I'm reminded of a story from my school days. On a school hiking trip, one of the most high-achieving, 'intelligent' boys in the year was chosen as his group leader, in charge of navigation. After hours wandering around, now late to the meeting site, his group started questioning his navigation skills. He explained to them: "No, we'll get there. It's easy, really -- the N always points North, and the red arrow tells you where to go." He ended up going to Oxford, and is apparently now a very rich man.

I really appreciate both of the above posts Orion: yes, I too believe (it seems like clear common sense) that a "local diet" -- something based on local climate & season -- is more fitting than eating things transported from all over the world. Obviously most animals eat local stuff, and it's the way humans ate for thousands of years until the major trade routes were established. Not to mention the 'carbon footprint' of all the transport of produce that goes on these days... It would seem that those living in cold climes survive very well on meat and dairy (people in Iceland have excellent life expectancy), though I would suggest that it is fats and proteins that are beneficial here, as opposed to animal products themselves...? i.e. I might suggest that it's just as healthy to have a diet rich in nuts, seeds, and beans (and fruit & veg). Bud: I agree with your choice (picking fruit vs ripping an animals insides out & chopping it up). Just recently a friend invited me to a barbecue. He'd bought a large amount of meat, and claimed (half-seriously) that having so much meat to cook was "manly". I see nothing at all "manly" about paying a number of other people to raise, kill, butcher, package, and place the pieces of a cow on a shelf so that I can push a cart around a supermarket in a suit and tie exclaiming how manly I am. That said, I do eat meat and drink milk, on occasion . I do believe in a climate-specific diet (to a certain extent), and do not believe that it's completely healthy to live on (largely tropical or out-of-season) fruits and vegetables all year round, beyond a certain latitude. Though I might change latitude at some point...

Miseducated religious people who think vaccinations are a threat: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/3/3/pakistan-arrests-parents-for-refusing-polio-vaccination.html Nigeria beats polio: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-33650543 India beats polio: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/01/how-india-won-over-polio-drop-drop-20141178138210376.html

Well I'm not really a historian but I had a look through some images of old Chinese carriages, chariots, war chariots, etc. The most I counted is 26 spokes. Many have 16 or 18. Then I thought to consider a more specific time frame, and searched for Chu vehicles.. and found this: http://m.secretchina.com/node/330431 edit: It says that these are typical command chariots, found with various weapons (lances etc), dating from around 344 BC. I count perhaps 30-32 spokes on the wheel in the picture. The time period, number of spokes on these wheels, and number of spokes in LZ's ch.11 all seem to fit...

No idea.. just the way I like it.. Really, I suppose my main hope is to learn a little more about my own thoughts, and those of others. Interesting. I will look at finding some of her statements/text. Yes. I'm now not quite sure what you're talking about.. but yes, if you feel that individual examples are insufficient I'm sure many of us would be interested in any other documents/analyses you have to offer.

I think what he's getting at is simply that the name is ambiguous. Population Affairs could mean anything. A term such as Office of Population Control for Low Income Households might be more accurate...? I've edited the OP to make a little more clear. Without getting into a debate over the definition of propaganda, anything that fits those definitions and involves (manipulation of) language. If you have some examples that would fit here please bring them along. That topic is concerned with language / parts of speech we use ourselves, that is embedded in English (or any other language), part of our everyday lives, that we don't realize is misleading or confusing in some way. Clever, though I might suggest that this is pretty direct advertising. The average person is surely aware that this is advertising, and as such intended to manipulate? And that we allow ourselves to be impressed by it, but choose (on a semi-conscious level) whether or not to be influenced by it?

Hmm. The thing that can be said to have a 'self' must be inherently 'selfish' -- by definition... Although there would seem to be a difference between a self that pleases itself without regard for any other self, and a self that pleases itself through pleasing others (aka "putting others first"). In both cases, without doubt the self is trying to gratify itself, and though it may not believe so, it must always either put its own needs first or die. I would change the language a little, just to make it somewhat clearer / prevent circular arguments: A self can be compassionate, or it can be indifferent to the needs and wishes of others. Clearly (to me) at least in theory if people are honest about their 'selfish' needs and able to be compassionate, more people will benefit (be happier / harmed less) than if people lie about the fact that they must be selfish and/or are completely indifferent to the needs and wishes of others.

Sure, the USA sends its light out all over the place. Generally in the form of missiles, muzzle flare, and McDonald's signs.

American way, truth, justice, all in the same sentence, without irony? I mean are you seriously serious?

Sometimes I like to pretend that I am a dog. I growl and run on all fours and eat things I shouldn't. But I almost always know that it's just pretend.

I haven't read all 21 pages but it seems that the conversation has left its original territory? Re: defence Anyone or anything that wants to survive should be able to defend itself. There is a difference, of course, between having a gun or a baseball bat hidden away in case of attack, and stockpiling bombs, and sending tanks and warplanes and hired guns around the area, killing anyone who doesn't behave the way you like, and stealing other people's shit, ”just in case“. In the latter case, one is always going to end up with many enemies...

Yes.. I suppose I really knew what your point was and was being deliberately obtuse. But at the same time, I do think it's very much worth noting that rivers (and everything in them) are generally unconcerned with "doing well" or "the best they can", but are still quite successful at being what they are. Sometimes we can become so caught up in being true that we become completely false. 上德不德，是以有德下德不失德，是以無德 (DDJ ch.38 line 1 -- find your favourite translation!) I agree that talk of next lives etc is neither logical nor helpful in any way, and that, regardless of anyone's belief in such things, one should probably still be concerned with one's own life in the present moment before anything else. Certainly my own present condition is the only thing I can be said with any certainty to have any direct control over. And yes, in the words of Aceyalone, "If it ain't worth doin' now, it ain't worth doin' at all"

Surely a stone is a product of the flowing water, and the flow of the water likewise a result of the stones? And neither have any intention to leave a "better" river? It is precisely because the stones don't go around chipping away at themselves and each other in the pursuit of "betterment" that they remain so true and sound. Just a thought.

Firstly, on an almost-movie note, the Netflix series Sense8 is a stunning piece of work. Written & directed by the Wachowskis (The Matrix team) Intriguing plot, varied and interesting characters, excellent acting, a beautiful vision, and some incredible action scenes. A near-perfect mix of drama, thriller, action, romance, tragedy, and sci-fi). Season 1 is basically an amazing 12-hour movie. Cannot recommend enough. So much better than The Matrix, by the way, and not nearly as silly. Anyway, as far as real movies..well, I don't go to the cinema much, so most of this was released in or since 2014, but I've recently been entertained / impressed by: Action: John Wick (Keanu doing some serious violence) The Equalizer (Denzel doing some serious violence) Kingsman: The Secret Service (very silly and very fun; a cross between 007 and MiB) Guardians of the Galaxy (I'm a sucker for superhero stuff, even though most of the movies are garbage. This was fun.) Drama/thriller: Leviathan (I had no idea what this was going to be... it's pretty brilliant. Russian. Slow but gut-wrenching) Foxcatcher (slow and fairly intriguing psychological study based on true story) The Imitation Game Sorry if I'm a bit behind the times..

Here's one I have a problem with: "It's science" or "It's just science" A while back I was walking with a friend. Passing through a wildflower meadow, I exclaimed something along the lines of: "Look at the mud.. and then the grasses and flowers and bushes and trees. All sorts of colours and shapes and scents and incredible patterns, forming from a seemingly useless brown sludge mixed with some tiny seeds. How amazing!" To which he replied, slightly confused by my wonder: "Yeaahh... it's just science.." The thing is, of course, it's not science. The scientific method helps us to intellectually understand/explain how life evolved, the wonders of genetic code, how seeds grow into plants etc etc, yes, but saying it like that -- "It's science", or "It's just science" -- seems to imply that 'science' is responsible for it. That we can thank 'science' for everything wonderful in the world, and really it's not all that special anyway, is it? Of course, my friend knows that science didn't create the universe, that science is not responsible for inventing life. When I explained my point -- that it is nature itself, not science, that we can thank for the wonders of nature -- he agreed. Something like: "Well, yeah... but science is cool though." Yes, science is cool, and can be very helpful, but that language is misleading and I might even say slightly dangerous. And I don't know if this is the fault of the English language, or people not having the concepts quite clear in their head in the first place. Some people really do worship science, praise it every day, ascribe every good thing in life to it. From this deceptive modern perspective, it's easy to see how people would start using language that places science at the centre of things, to the point that 'science' has insinuated itself into the position of Creator. On the other hand, it could be that it's easier linguistically to say "It's science" rather than "All of this can be explained using the scientific method", and that "It's science" then becomes the go-to response for a number of things that it doesn't really apply to. Either way, the dismissiveness with which the sentence is usually uttered irks me. "It's just simple science, nothing to get excited about." Then what IS??

What kind of illusion? What is the real you? Do you miss it?

Yueya, I suppose I have had so much trouble trying to respond to the Luhmann extract because it really answers everything it asks. There's not much left to say! However, to pick out a couple of concrete examples of language: The word "progress" has 2 basic meanings: 1. as a verb, to move forward; or, as a noun, forward movement 2. development towards a more advanced condition (Google) Number 1 makes sense: I want to cross the street, I take a step, I have progressed towards my destination, have made progress. Number 2 needs to be broken down further. What is a "more advanced condition"? When talking of evolution, we say that we are "more advanced" than chimpanzees, or pigs or birds, but surely something is "advanced" -- far on, ahead in development -- only insofar as it has a motive? Something to advance to? So what is advanced and advantageous for a human is likely entirely unhelpful for a flamingo. And besides, do we have a clear goal to advance towards? Where exactly are we going with all this development? If we're advanced, we're ahead in progress; if we're progressing, we're developing towards advancement. It's meaningless. Of course, we can argue that life today is better than it was 200 years ago. Most would agree. We're living longer, everyone can vote, we have TV (and it is better than ever), etc. Cool. But we're living longer with diabetes, heart disease, and cancer; our votes are generally meaningless; TV and all other technology has come at the expense of clean sky and water, the stability of our environment; etc. So all this 'progress' has simply lead us into other problems, hasn't it? Yet we continue to believe that we're "making progress". That eventually, everything will be problem-free. (Of course, it will -- when we're dead.) As well as recognizing this -- that progress, as it's often thought of, is really meaningless -- we should also see that we cannot take charge of our own evolution, that only the undivided power of the universe itself could actually be said to be "in control" (if anything can be). So even if we did have a clear goal, something solid and certain to progress towards, it would not be truly in our power to direct that progression.

Tehe In a way, yeah... I like many of your ideas from the previous post, and agree with the general direction you would like your Empire to go in, but I also have to assume that British people would not react well to decrees and overt violence. If I wanted to hold power, create long-term change, I think the best bet would be to start to change the way people think, and do it in secret. Revolutionize education, and everything else will fall more easily into place.

The first thing I would do is make sure that nobody knew I was the Emperor. My people would have to be strategically placed throughout the government, and we would have to find ways of infiltrating major corporations and combating corporate influence, but the democratic process would appear to continue as normal. Among a few other things, the most important step before I sat back in my old age to watch would be to make (gradual) changes to education: Perhaps a single class to replace Religious Studies and History (history classes are little more than an exercise in culture-centric brainwashing), in which students would learn a more general history of the human species and our role in the ecosystem etc, and some of the more important events of recent history. The whole of WWII -- not just about the defeat of the Nazis, but about what happened in Asia and Africa and everywhere else in the world. It's called World War 2 for a reason. No more memorizing the kings and queens of England or the date of a certain battle that holds little relevance to any living person. No more rejoicing over the genius of Chris Columbus and how great the Magna Carta was. Perhaps another class replacing sports/games and design technology/woodshop-style classes. This might be closer to the boy scouts or similar (I never did boy scouts so can't be sure), where students learn to work with their hands to build useful things, learn how to survive outside of a city, and learn to become physically strong and quick. How to reach our potential as the agile, powerful animals we are. No direct competition, no shaming; just learning how to control one's body, how to run and climb and swim and jump and throw things, etc. How to hunt and fish. I would keep art classes, though focus would not be on learning about old masters as much as learning how to express oneself through any physical medium. One would probably be allowed to specialize a little more in the type of art (music/painting/dance/etc) that they excelled in or that took their fancy. Basic numeracy and physical geography as a child would lead into various science classes. More or less the same as it is now -- maths, biology, physics, chemistry, geography -- but these would be bundled together more, as they are clearly all intricately related. Students would understand the way life, and existence, works. The way everything fits together. Less focus on the praise of individual scientists/mathematicians/etc from history, less glorification of people like Bell and Edison and Einstein. Less glorification of the brilliance of modern technology, and more focus on how we can use what we know to develop technology that makes our lives easier without slowly destroying everything. Later on, people could focus on more specialized areas, though like others here I am no fan of true specialization and would favour urging people to be able to understand every subject to a decent level and not going on to simply get a job and do one thing for the rest of one's life. There would be, from an early age, a choice of foreign language classes. Focus on enjoyment, natural learning. Maybe watching TV shows in the language, learning by listening and imitating. As little goddamn theory as possible. No more conjugation, no more rote. We learn our mother tongue by proximity to it, by trial and error; we should learn any other tongue in the exact same way. The idea would be to get students as fluent as possible in another language without ever scaring them away from language learning. Early English (/mother tongue) classes would teach the language, plainly and simply. Later on, students would focus much less than they do now on historical literary figures; less ancient poetry appreciation and extolling the virtues of Shakespeare. A little more reading of more modern authors such as Steinbeck and Orwell, and a little bit of discussion of the themes within. There would of course have to be continued reading and writing, but in learning our language, we must focus more directly on the power and structure of language itself; we must learn to recognize that our thoughts are our language; that most of our problems are created through our misunderstanding or mishandling of our language/thoughts; and that if we can learn to take control of our language, much of our anxiety and many of our social problems will basically go away. Zhuangzi would be required study. This English class would possibly be interlaced with some kind of critical thinking class. Philosophy. A mixture of Western and Eastern. Hindu, Buddhist, Daoist theory, as well as a complementary selection of Western thinkers. I would urge the importance of understanding what it is to be of service to others. At the beginning, in the first few years, every older student would be required to do paid work experience in a service industry, for at least a few months. Cleaning, hospitality, garbage disposal, etc. Everyone should know what it's like to be "at the bottom", in a position of servitude, both so that they appreciate more those who do it, and so that they come to realize that it is neither necessary nor indeed healthy for any human to have to do that kind of service. People should know how to clean their own shit, serve their own food, make their own bed. Students would be assessed by their teachers, and ideally as time went on each teacher would be able to teach a number of different classes. Eventually, it would get to the point that any adult or older student was competent enough to teach any subject to any younger student, and teaching would become a shared role. Or something like that..

Always wary of people who call Chinese characters "symbols". Who is this Linnell?

I checked this a few days ago and have been unsure how to respond... I knew this was a complex topic but hadn't anticipated quite so many insightful, dense responses on the first page! Maybe best if we just take a few examples to expand upon for now. I think it is along the lines of what I was asking for. If we're getting confused by the language we use. Can you explain why the present continuous is so confusing? Yes. I'd not considered this before. Since Philosophy class in school and until recently, I've accepted the Cogito almost unquestioningly. It just seemed to make sense...but it is still based on presumption I love what you've said. Is there any chance you could give a couple of concrete examples? I realize that we can't hope to list every single piece of language that can be misleading, but recognizing a few specific examples here might be helpful in enabling us to recognize more on our own.. to help us be more aware of our own potential 'misuse' of language..? For sure. This connects to something else that bothers me which I'll try and explain in another post. Yueya.. I just don't know where to start! That Moeller/Luhmann extract is so dense with discussable material...

For me, that depends on the strictness of the morality one is choosing. In theory, one could create a moral code which states that murder is right and relieving suffering is wrong. I'm sure there have been cultures where eating other people was considered correct, right? It's all a choice, all created by us. If your moral code says "It is always bad to tell a lie", and then the fate of the world comes to rest on your telling of a lie, and you don't, because it's against your moral code... well, unless everyone feels that they have benefited purely by the code itself being honoured, and the fate of the world is less important than that, I would say that the moral code is at fault. Such a strict code cannot prepare one for every eventuality. On the other hand, if your morality says something like "I must always try to do what I believe will cause the least suffering, whilst acknowledging that suffering is inevitable as long as there is life in the universe", you'll probably be OK.

edit: just saw Bud's comment above. He said it much better! Oh well. Morality is just a concept. It's not real. It's a tool we've created out of apparent necessity, and one that many know how to use to their advantage. Having a moral code is, in my opinion, silly. Better is to be compassionate, to be able to see what will cause desirable and undesirable results, and choose based on circumstance and one's intuition. If you were the best man for the job, or at least capable of doing it, and if everyone would have benefited from your getting it, why continue this moral game of self-imposed rules and regulations that benefits nobody? On the other hand, if you know you're not going to be particularly good at the job, or you're only going to stick it out for a week before you quit, or any other action that produces results that people are not going to appreciate or that might end up hurting your chances of getting a future job etc, then it might be a different story...

You make the beat too? Enjoying it. Flow a little bit like RZA, voice like Vinnie Paz... or maybe old Sticky Fingaz.. edit: though this should really be in Off Topic.....