dust

http://www.oldtimestrongman.com/strength-articles/iron-henry-rollins

Some are guilty of misconduct, for sure. Not as many as some would like to believe, of course -- many people are just trying to make medicine. But yes, I don't see much difference between illegal drug dealers and the way pharmaceutical companies produce and ruthlessly market drugs that people only need because there is a continually developing dependence on medicine to make up for people's slovenly attitude towards life. http://www.economist.com/news/schoolsbrief/21584534-effects-financial-crisis-are-still-being-felt-five-years-article In theory a bank's job is simple: some people give you their money to take care of, and perhaps make a little profit with, and others come to you to ask for money so that they can set up a business (or whatever). A banker needs to be able to deduce which people to lend money to so that they get a greater return, and at the very least not lose the money that people have trusted them with. But many bankers and regulators all over the world, through some mixture of incompetence, arrogance, and laziness, failed at this most fundamental task, and the result was a worldwide 'crisis'. Partly as a result, entire countries have been adversely affected. If punishment is something that we as a society do, shouldn't it be meted out to people like that? I have no sympathy for him. He knew what he was doing. I just don't think I believe that the official attitude towards him and his ilk is warranted. People should be able to buy and sell what they like, as long as others don't get hurt in the crossfire.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150528-incredible-environmental-photographer-of-the-year-finalists?ocid=fbert Not sure if this has been mentioned yet. Some wow wow images, including

Samurai would have been able to deal with death for a number of reasons, I think They were obsessed with honour and loyalty They were well-trained with deadly weapons They studied Buddhism (Zen) and meditated We know from the Hagakure and others (thanks Ghost Dog!) that part of this meditation practice was to meditate on being ripped apart by arrows etc If they believed fully in honour and loyalty and Buddhist ideas of reincarnation/rebirth, what would they have to fear from death in the first place? Meditation on death would be the icing on the cake. I don't know that there's one specific meditation practice that makes you a fearless warrior...

Yeah..that's a thinker!

I'm slightly afraid of taking this thread off-topic, but... well, you started it with that post Yes. Probably the most important thing, in fact. Isn't one of the problems with modern life that we have all these silly dreams that we are taught we should try against all odds to realize, when really all we need to make us happy is to sit back and take things less seriously?

Because you're at least pretty close with your interpretation! So a smiley face didn't seem appropriate...

Not having enough money teaches at least as much about the value of it Yes, certain first-aid, survival and navigational skills would be good. I did a thing called the Duke of Edinburgh scheme when I was in school, and we went out camping and trekking around with maps. It was fun, though we could have learnt a lot more. Also I don't know what is offered these days but I might suggest a critical thinking class of some kind. Not just philosophy, learning about Plato and Hobbes and Kant, but actually learning to think for oneself. If a textbook were needed, Zhuangzi would be my text of choice I'd suggest that many things that are taught in school should be left out. I do not need, and have never needed, to know the names and years of all the monarchs that ever fought for the throne, for example.

Yes I'm sure it's something along that line... Not to turn this into a dream interpreting session or anything (unless anyone has a burning desire to share).. I just thought it was a solid example of dreams -- apparent fiction -- betraying reality. Is déjà vu relevant to this conversation, I wonder?

I have dreams with a recurring theme: Walking along the street, I jump into the air, and once in the air I 'jump' again, and with each jumping motion I get higher and higher, until I'm gliding around up in the sky. It's exhilarating. I've whizzed around all over the world. Every time, though, I eventually lose my mojo and fall to my death. When I wake up, I have no illusions about this actually having happened. But there is an underlying 'reality' to it. I don't know how often dreams mirror the subconscious, or to what degree, but there is no doubt in my mind that they do, sometimes, mirror a certain reality -- often one that we are not willing or able to face consciously.

A deer is less susceptible to illusion, or perhaps susceptible to fewer types of illusion, because it can't be tricked by language.. ..but you can spray deer piss on yourself and whistle a doe's mating call and a buck will be tricked into thinking he's about to get lucky (or so I've heard) And dogs dream (though probably just of being dogs) And we humans do have language, of course, which is how our conscious thought is constructed, and it tricks us daily without most of us ever realizing. And we are fooled constantly by our sight and hearing, and by the people around us and on the television, and by our plans for the future and by our memories... No, in my opinion the human life is very much illusory. Not 'fake' or 'imaginary', but certainly not entirely what we see it as, either.

Well, I know I've been trying because I keep falling over. Probably the answer is to not try so hard.

Apologies in advance for the sarcasm, but: Yeah, a quiet seaside hamlet sounds just like the Baltimore ghetto. It's not just that there's always somebody who wants something doing. I will suggest that there is always something that can be done -- for oneself or others. The problem is that modern humans rely on education to know anything about anything, and when people are not being raised or educated well from a very young age, and they live in a place where many people are poor, and many are addicted to drugs, and there is a constant threat of violence in the neighbourhood, it really isn't enough to say "There's plenty of work out there kid, just go out and look for it." Even with the best intentions, many will not be able to lift themselves out of that place, and though many will find work, for a large number it will be in not-very-nice occupations. What is needed is education. Long term thinking.

+1 for maths

Everyone loves gentrification

As Michael says; if 'the Dao' is sacred, isn't everything sacred? And if everything is sacred, sanctity (whatever it meant before) ceases to have meaning. And again, sanctity is of something set apart -- something forbidden. Something we perhaps don't feel we deserve. The Dao is not forbidden, just elusive. It is not something to be 'deserved', it simply is.

Haven't been paying much attention in here, but it looks like there's no topic about this yet. A week to go. I guess that some of the choices above won't be getting votes from people on here, but we must be fair -- these are the top 10 parties by number of seats (shifting Green into Alliance Party's spot because I might actually consider voting Green). And I've tried to think of other realistically applicable options. Please only vote here if you're actually British or living in the UK! I'm curious to see both how many people here are (British/living in the UK) and what kind of votes we'll be casting.

Not my intent to mock, I promise. Just a little silliness. Arrheton is a lovely word. In my view, there is/are "some thing/s" that cannot be spoken of. But I don't know how much further one can go with that thought. I'm going to keep trying to find a word that I prefer to 'sacred'.

He swore me to secrecy Oops. Never mind.

Yees.. As far as Red Pine.. did LZ mean 'spiritual', with all of its connotations? Legge uses "spirit-like thing"..which I think is much better, but still not quite there. Wang seems to miss out the 'shen' 神 altogether..

Indeed. Though it has never bothered me before, after thinking about some of that stuff in the ZZ thread, I cannot quite believe that all 3 of the quoted translations use "sacred". In my opinion, whether or not Laozi is suggesting that 天下 is 'special' and should not be messed around with, the connotations of the word 'sacred' are too loaded, and too particular to Western tradition, to be used with regard to an entirely different Eastern religious/philosophical text like the Laozi. I am thinking of cognates like sanctity, sanctify, sacrilege, sacrifice, sacrosanct, sacristy, sanctuary... all far too infused with Christian/Abrahamic religious suggestion to be used in connection with Daoism. Aside from that, even if we look only at a very general definition of sacred, one aspect that we cannot escape is "set apart". Well...the world isn't set apart. 天下 cannot be set apart from itself, can it? I would suggest that we need another term. Something to do with the spirit, soul, psyche, perhaps even emotions..

I suppose not. Thinking of the type of thing that someone or other might consider sacred, it's not all about thanks. From a Christian/Islamic/Jewish monotheistic perspective, though, it's also not just about awe and humility. Looking at the various cognates -- sanctity, sanctify, sacrilege, sacrosanct -- I think that in English, and in relation to the monotheistic religions at least, it has something to do with being set apart, to the extent that there is even a place to put sacred things (a sacristy) http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=sacred&searchmode=none Does, perhaps, the English/Christian sense of the word conflict with its use when talking of the monistic/panenhenic/panentheistic sides of Daoism? In which case we'd need another word, I think. edit: ooh, and I forgot "sacrifice" as another cognate.. Will do sometime later

Sacred sanctity, holy holiness, revered reverence.. hmm.. I suppose I revere existence, insofar as I find it quite spectacular. I often come over quite astonished at the fact that I seem to be alive and having experience. I wouldn't say that I hold it, or anything else, sacred. I feel no need to bow down to any particular concept or 'thing' and whisper a thousand passionate "Thank you"s..

I suppose what I mean is that for many people there is an assumption that applying the scientific method is always preferable to not applying it; that we should not rely on the human monkey-mind or intuition, but make sure everything is described and predicted with charts and experiments so that we can reduce all risk and continue to 'improve' things. In my opinion, the scientific method is brilliant and we have some really cool stuff as a product of it. But we also have some really not cool stuff. And one of my goals in life is to rely less on careful logic and more on intuition. .. does that make sense?

Another assumption is that it is 'better' not to rely on one's individual preference, right? Otherwise why bother? Well, your dogma isn't as dangerous as many others'...