dust

Life expectancy is prolonged, yes. So people have fewer children. This is very well documented. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/Resources-and-Media/Annual-Letters-List/Annual-Letter-2014#MYTHTHREE "The fact is that a laissez faire approach to development—letting children die now so they don’t starve later—doesn’t actually work, thank goodness. It may be counterintuitive, but the countries with the most deaths have among the fastest-growing populations in the world." I don't know what he means, and I don't believe people should force cultural changes upon each other, but I do believe that culture should be fluid. People whose culture is clearly detrimental to their health or wellbeing need to realize that. Clinging onto culture just because that's the way my parents did it... is ridiculous. We in the West need to realize that too, though perhaps the changes we need to make are different.

I'm honestly not quite sure what your post has to do with the topic at hand. Yes...but this is difficult when the message is consistently contradictory. So people pick out the bits they like... just like they do with the Bible. Benefit, yes. I've never argued that the author didn't want to benefit people. I have argued that this suppression of speech is not something people think about when they talk of the Dao De Jing. Suppression (of expression, or other things) is not usually considered to be a hallmark of Daoism, or of Laozi, is it? Yes...in some chapters, we can interpret it like this. Not in others. Again, I'd ask you to look at a number of chapters where the king is not advised to simply follow nature, but to manipulate people.

There is a reality where I can see myself accepting that. But I do believe that global warming is, at the very least, being catalyzed or increased by humans. But as I said above, we could debate this till the cows come home. I do not wish to debate it. I think that without even considering global warming, we can see clearly that we do all sorts of senseless things that are detrimental to ourselves and many other forms of life. It should be obvious to each individual that their actions must change. But it isn't. And they won't.

Just a reminder of some effects (arguably of overpopulation) that are irrefutably caused by humans.. Global warming can be debated till the cows come home. But the cows are only coming home in pieces, in airtight plastic bags, stacked pound upon pound in the supermarkets where sweaty fat capitalists cram together drooling over this tasteless, tortured meat, and throw the leftover cow in landfills when they realize they bought too much and are too stupid to know how to cook with leftovers.

Don't be sorry. I was just being silly. Though that is interesting info, so thanks for the clarification. So...exactly what kind of giving are you talking about? Everyday good deeds? Working in a soup kitchen? Doctors without borders? Donating one's fortune to charity? I've done the odd good deed here and there, and it's certainly nice to make people smile, but I've never had the strong urge to volunteer my time for charity or anything. Perhaps I should...

...because you're bowing all the time? Or bending over backwards to help people?

I don't often check these intro posts but your title was all but impossible to ignore. Hi

- not sure how cheap it is to print on canvas... ? - copyright issues from photos/digital images you've used? - not sure how easy it is to just start selling art on ebay... ? - colour mixing is (imo) the hardest part of painting aside from those (potential) issues..,well, can't hurt to try. if you like it, try and sell it. if nobody buys it...at least you like it! edit please take my opinion lightly i think the image itself has potential, the idea is cool and the layout and colour scheme are interesting, but... some refining wouldn't hurt. I mean, for example, the digital elements could be more uniform in line strength and colour. But I am a perpetual critic, so..

On a language humour note, engrish.com

電気アンマ復活 I don't know katakana but the kanji read "electricity" and "resurrection / revival" Weird indeed

Since I first used a PC, I've had a little folder called "Other" with various folders and files in that has followed me from computer to computer. It has sentimental value; it's got some MS Paint drawings I did back then, some stuff that I wrote, and a folder called "Funny", in which I saved a number of chain emails. Here's one that shows its age: WHY E-MAIL IS LIKE HAVING A PENIS: 11. Those who have it would be devastated if it was ever cut off. 10. Those who have it think that those who don't are somehow inferior. 9. Those who don't have it may agree that it's neat, but think it's not worth the fuss that those who have it make about it. 8. Many of those who don't have it would like to try it, a phenomenon psychologists call email Envy. 7. It's more fun when it's up, but this makes it hard to get any real work done. 6. In the distant past, its only purpose was to transmit information vital to the survival of the species. Some people still think that's the only thing it should be used for, but most folks today use it mostly for fun. 5. If you don't take proper precautions, it can spread viruses. 4. If you use it too much you'll find it becomes more and more difficult to think coherently. 3. We attach an importance to it that is far greater than its actual size and influence warrant. 2. If you're not careful what you do with it, it can get you into a lot of trouble. AND... 1. If you play with it too much, you can go blind. ... I found it funny at the time, anyway..

All I can contribute is the following pedantic linguistic note. I do feel it might be important to note the difference, though: Yes... "worship" is not a good translation of 尊. Revere, honour, respect... but not worship. Mozi said （tr. WP Mei): 其事上尊天，中事鬼神，下愛人 In the highest sphere they revered Heaven, in the middle sphere they worshipped the spirits, and in the lower sphere they loved the people In my opinion, traditional notions of worship do not fit when it comes to the Way. And I can find no suggestions of worship of Dao in either the Laozi or Zhuangzi (perhaps there are in other texts, but I am not so bothered about those) _____________________________ I suppose this links back to the OP... What are we worshiping? Why? I feel it important to note the difference because the traditional idea of worship, as opposed to respect or reverence (which I can feel for many things which I do not directly worship, like the sun, or a beautiful woman), implies the notion that Dao is some kind of god whose will one must obey. It is not. We are all the Way. Go against the flow of things and life will be harder, sure, but... that's entirely up to you. It might even be more fun like that for a while. Go with the flow, do wu wei, and things become easier. Simple.

Indeed, it applies to everyone.. I didn't mean that Dao cares for all except Shanlung!

Tao doesn't care about you. If you enjoy the work that you do -- if you get lost in it, and are content in the process -- you can find / have found the Way of it. Bian and Ting were lucky. Many never find such a thing. In my opinion.

Yes.... (organs are made of cells, by the way.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steroid_hormone_receptor Not sure why you think this proves anything.. Oh, that must be why I don't crave penis in the morning -- I was raised on wholemeal bread! I will say this: One man I know is from Nigeria. A black Muslim, raised very strictly. I don't know what he ate back there, but it wasn't McDonald's and frozen pizzas. He left his home -- a clan of homophobes -- to find a place of acceptance here. Erm... yeah, there's an agenda. The gay people want to be allowed to be gay. Yes... chemicals affect chemicals. Hormones affect cells. Cells, not the genome. If I inject myself with oestrogen from now on, my boobs will get bigger, my balls smaller, I'll get weaker, etc etc. And then I'll stop taking oestrogen and... I still won't be gay. http://www.roberttisserand.com/articles/TeaTreeAndLavenderNotLinkedToGynecomastia.pdf Yes, DDT is dangerous. It is toxic and has many negative affects. It does not, however, affect a person's genetic makeup. It does not make things gay. I'm blocking your posts from now on. Don't need to see this bizarre nonsense any more.

Michael, I wasn't hitting out at you. What you said about natural increase of homosexual tendency in response to population growth seems...possible. I don't believe it's the case, but I won't suggest that it's ridiculous. What I object to, what is absolutely ridiculous, is the idea that homosexuality appeared suddenly in the last few decades as a result of people ingesting/being fed special chemicals; that the governments of the world are intentionally making half the population gay, and promoting EQUAL RIGHTS for women, just to spread discord. Because of course, the world was a wonderland of stability and heterosexual love before 1900, and they just had to do something about it! This whole line of "reasoning" is ludicrous on so many levels I wouldn't even know where to start. And I can't quite believe that the feminism thing has, so far, passed under the radar. So, according to some, now the government, with the help of the media and health professionals, is injecting everyone with horrid poison in the form of vaccinations, filling people with gayness-inducing chemicals to make everyone gradually merge into one gender, and promoting equal rights so as to make things less equal... Holy fucking Christ. We're in even more trouble than I thought. The simple and very obvious fact is that sexuality is a spectrum, just like everything else. Most people prefer the opposite sex, but very many have always had at least a curiosity for their same gender, and evidence of same-sex relationships is widespread throughout cultures throughout history. I have a few gay friends. They come from a range of backgrounds, and are all very different people. The only thing they all have in common is that they prefer the tender embrace of a man to that of a woman.

Well, that's a bright start to the day! This is why, as well as more sustainable production methods, people need better education, wider access to contraception, and better health care (including wide access to vaccination) http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Who-We-Are/Resources-and-Media/Annual-Letters-List/Annual-Letter-2014#MYTHTHREE Thank you. I was going to have to say something otherwise. Dude has some seriously twisted ideas. Not just ancient Greek culture, by the way. And not just humans, by any stretch of the imagination.

No. A caricature is a gross exaggeration. The intent is to highlight and exaggerate things -- usually the things one might perceive as flaws. You did that well with the atheist and theist, but your caricature of the agnostic is entirely unfair, as it is far too tame. You must make the agnostic look as ludicrous as the others, or it is not a caricature and your entire (already fairly pointless) argument falls apart. One should not speculate on anyone else's "highest motivation"; one can only look at another's stance and create a caricature based on appearance. The appearance of an extreme theist is one of blind faith; an extreme atheist, a blind refusal of any faith; and an extreme agnostic, a refusal to make any decision one way or the other. "We cannot possibly know the answer." And, whether or not it was his motivation, the agnostic will feel safe and smug believing that he's gotten the better of the other 2, even though he might well be missing out on something grand. caricature of an agnostic And I suggest that you are pretty much spot off here. Stereotyping is always, "ALWAYS", harmful. Like I've already said, I'm NOT saying we should agree to their use. I was just trying to point out that there's very little point taking offense. But I don't care nearly enough to argue the point further. This topic has gone way off, and I put that down to petty bickering, which I have only been trying to diffuse. I give up.

Oh, yeah.. I'm not saying we must agree with the use of caricatures..just that the caricatures themselves are pretty much spot on. I do think that there's a place for gross exaggeration and generalization. Going to extremes helps sometimes. Maybe.

caricature n. a picture, description, etc., ludicrously exaggerating the peculiarities or defects of persons or things I don't believe that it's possible to disagree with Spotless here. His use of the term caricature is protective If one steps back from their attachment to a label (theist, atheist, agnostic, apathetic, who cares), one can see that these caricatures are a logical exaggeration of each stance; an extreme theist, someone who without any reason blindly believes in magical woo-woo, is necessarily self-assured that their woo-woo can explain everything (without needing a logical explanation); an extreme atheist, someone who believes that everything must be explicable and that there is nothing they cannot know (if they dig deep enough), is necessarily self-assured that they know enough about the nature of things to be able to say "I know that there is nothing I won't eventually be able to explain"; an extreme agnostic, someone who refrains from believing in anything, ever, is necessarily self-assured that their position is the safest and that they are more reasonable than everyone else. Few people are this extreme, though. And many are simply apathetic...

I like this. (But sorry, I know nothing about it..) The sun-moon thing works though, doesn't it? The cool, small, hazy moon vs the hot, big, bright sun; when the moon reflects sunlight, it borrows the sun's yang aspect; when the sun gets eclipsed by the moon, we're shown how yin may overcome yang, blocking out all light (if only for a moment) Also of course in simplified Chinese, yin 阴 and yang 阳 are made with moon 月 and sun 日

Good quote. And I might accept that ZZ was talking of intellect and attainment (of the Way!) 知止其所不知 至矣 reading this aloud just now I once more realize that ZZ was also a master of the tongue twister

And...this is where we will come to a stalemate, I think. I see how you got there, and cannot prove that you are wrong, but I don't think that 神 needs to be literally interpreted as a magical god-spirit, separate from the body, floating around and doing magical things. It can also mean essence, mind/psyche, talent, energy (in modern Chinese, as 精神) http://www.zdic.net/z/20/xs/795E.htm On a purely linguistic note, it's interesting that English "spirit" and Chinese 神 / 精神 share the same variation in meaning..

So mean! This is why I prefer the use of "understanding", which you so delicately removed Not just knowing of a fact, but real understanding. I might interpret it as "One who understands that he cannot understand everything possesses the highest understanding" There are a number of translations we could use for 至, but I have a feeling you wouldn't be happy with any that I chose.... http://www.zdic.net/z/22/xs/81F3.htm Highest, greatest, best... much of a muchness..

What makes you say that? I am the Perfect Man, dammit! No..but I found that Zhuangzi quote relevant both to the brewing argument and the larger topic in question (agnosticism): 故知止其所不知，至矣 Therefore knowledge/understanding that stops at what it does not know/understand is the highest