dust

I was gonna mention the butcher. I think it's the best story I've come across that illustrates the point. For those who don't know it:

Can you imagine a world where everyone is nice to each other? I can't. I mean, I can picture a fantasy world where that happens, and it's great, but I cannot imagine it ever actually happening here... without the aid of major genetic modification.. or robot masters. (robot masters..a contradiction in terms eh..)

I think looking for a very specific meaning in any particular few lines of the Zhuangzi is often going to be futile. One paragraph often does contain a full parable or offer a concrete idea, but there's also a lot of vague talk designed largely to simply make us look at things differently..

I'm currently wearing a Spider-Man t-shirt and odd socks (among other things..not just those things). Not sure if dapper is the word to play I hope it's also not money, muscle, power, or high intelligence that maketh the man... Maybe "good intentions maketh the man"? That would work for me I think. OK.. so ...if it's about knowing the joy of others.. how does what ZZ says add to the discourse?

Like a Chinese version of thismaybe? Though the morals are far less pithy

I doubt you were honestly expecting everyone to answer "yes" to the original question...?

What are your thoughts? Not too much of an impressive historical interpretation, please..you'll make the rest of us look bad

Its point is to be a story

The men are standing by the river, watching the fish, and (I assume) enjoying the experience. They are doing what comes naturally to them -- being humans, strolling as they please, talking with a friend. The fish are swimming in the river, doing what fish do, and Zhuangzi assumes -- as I have about him -- that the fish are enjoying the experience. They are doing what comes naturally to them -- being fish, flitting around, swimming as they please. that's what I got from it anyway

I know not enough to discuss thoughtfully. Personally, though, I don't believe -- at all -- that national issues are fixed in a few years (especially when the opposition needs the President to be seen to be ineffective). People expect instant change, and it doesn't happen in modern "democracy". I say this not in defense of Obama, but in defense of any world leader who is genuinely trying to affect change and finds him or herself unable (whoever they might be..it's hard to tell) "soon be overrun by a terrorist organization" ? You watch a lot of Fox / CNN news? Right. Well, I firstly disagree that "reverse racism" has increased -- perhaps an acceptance of black people being outspoken about things in the media has increased, but there's no extra belief that "whitey" is the devil -- black people have been thinking that for a long long time. And much of that time, for good reason. Obviously this "reverse racism" as you call it is indeed racism, I agree. Any form of discrimination based on skin colour is absolutely ridiculous. But just because people with black skin are more vocal about racial things and people with white skin are less vocal about them (I assume because of a culture of shame and guilt surrounding slavery -- which is quite silly, as no people alive today had anything to do with slavery) doesn't mean that white people are any less racist now than they were 20 years ago or that black people are any more racist now than they were 20 years ago. I assume you have white skin. If that's the case, I think your problem is with not being allowed, as a white person, to talk about race with the same openness that "people of colour" seem to have these days. I agree that this is discriminatory... however: What I see is a majority-white country where "people of colour" are still getting killed quite frequently when they've done very little wrong. Cases where, if the victim was white, the situation would have played out quite differently. Seems to me that you perceive differently-coloured people as a threat, talking of impending race wars and terrorist organizations looming on your doorstep. This kind of paranoia is not helpful, in my opinion.

An integral part, yes

Not sure... if it's not in the Inner Chapters (it might be..but I can't remember) then I probably am not fully aware of it.. why?

The irony of that just clicked.

Sounds like a bad sci-fi movie

I no longer know what to think about Obama, but... Will Smith likes him. If the point is that you have no idea that they're even your leader, how do you know you don't have a leader like that?

Has he been spending all this money himself? You mean... like in a democracy? ... really.. no race issues in the '90s? Do we want to rethink that? https://sites.google.com/a/micds.org/townsley-race-and-racism/home/1990s But there are now?

I hope you realize I wasn't really asking if you were Jewish.. what religion/"race" one is isn't really relevant. And it would be quite racist to assume that only Jews can or should defend Jews. Indeed, I agree that it's mostly about semantics as far as "Jew" and "Muslim" and "Christian" and "brown" and "black" and "white" etc are concerned.

Are you Jewish? Cos it seems like... nobody who doesn't have a vested interest in all this would be quite so.. pro-Jew, anti-Muslim...

No need for bold. You want to talk about propaganda? Media manipulation? http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/11/world/charlie-hebdo-paris-march/ I wasn't there, so I can't say who was... But I'm willing to bet that some of those people listed were there. At the very least, Cameron was there, no? http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/article1492815.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_12_06 Free speech my arse. I likely don't agree with the opinions of those who wish they could express themselves more freely about immigration etc, but I believe they should be allowed to say whatever the fuck they want.

I find it not a little amusing that babies are more deadly than terrorists in the USA (recently..recently)...

As little as possible. That's why I asked. edit: and I was asking in reference to the situation in France, not some nonsense about Israel-Palestine talks not working out. Are you honestly blaming Obama for it this time??

Well I don't know their reasons, but to be fair it was a mockery of free speech. https://storify.com/tometty/staunch-defenders-of-free-press-attend-solidarity In attendance: King Abdullah of Jordan, which last year sentenced a Palestinian journalist to 15 years in prison with hard labour Prime Minister of Davutoglu of Turkey, which imprisons more journalists than any other country in the world Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, whose forces killed 7 journalists in Gaza last year Foreign Minister Lavrov of Russia, which last year jailed a journalist for "insulting a government servant" Foreign Minister Lamamra of Algeria, which has detained journalist Abdessami Abdelhai for 15 months without charge The PMs of Georgia and Bulgaria, both of whom have a record of attacking & beating journalists Prime Minister Samaras of Greece, where riot police beat & injured two journalists at a protest in June last year Sec-Gen of NATO, who are yet to be held to account for deliberately bombing and killing 16 Serbian journos in '99 President Keita of Mali, where journalists are expelled for covering human rights abuses Sheikh Mohamed Ben Hamad Ben Khalifa Al Thani of Qatar, which jailed a man for 15 ys for writing the Jasmine poem Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, who had several journalists jailed for insulting him in 2013 Prime Minister Cerar of Slovenia, which sentenced a blogger to six months in prison for "defamation" in 2013 just as a selection. France opposed the war in Iraq, as I recall, and weren't forced into Afghanistan.. can't blame America for everything! Well, no argument there.

So I'm confused.. what's Obama done wrong now? (well...the stage was set..and I'm honestly curious..)

As the "father of economics" and (from what I've seen) a favourite source of quotes for endorsement of modern (capitalist/consumerist) society, I thought The Wealth of the Nations might be interesting to have a look at. It indeed was. On economics: "Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality." — Book V, Chapter I, Part II "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." — Book V, Chapter I, Part II "When national debts have once been accumulated to a certain degree, there is scarce, I believe, a single instance of their having been fairly and completely paid. The liberation of the public revenue, if it has ever been brought about at all, has always been brought about by bankruptcy; sometimes by an avowed one, but always by a real one, though frequently by a pretend payment." — Book V, Chapter III, Part V "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." — Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I "It is unjust that the whole of society should contribute towards an expense of which the benefit is confined to a part of the society." — Book V, Chapter I, Part IV, Conclusion "Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man, or order of men." — Book IV, Chapter IX "Were all nations to follow the liberal system of free exportation and free importation, the different states into which a great continent was divided would so far resemble the different provinces of a great empire. As among the different provinces of a great empire the freedom of the inland trade appears, both from reason and experience, not only the best palliative of a dearth, but the most effectual preventative of a famine." — Book IV, Chapter V "In the progress of the division of labour, the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labour, that is, of the great body of the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations, frequently to one or two. But the understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life. Of the great and extensive interests of his country he is altogether incapable of judging, and unless very particular pains have been taken to render him otherwise, he is equally incapable of defending his country in war. The uniformity of his stationary life naturally corrupts the courage of his mind, and makes him regard with abhorrence the irregular, uncertain, and adventurous life of a soldier. It corrupts even the activity of his body, and renders him incapable of exerting his strength with vigour and perseverance in any other employment than that to which he has been bred. His dexterity at his own particular trade seems, in this manner, to be acquired at the expence of his intellectual, social, and martial virtues. But in every improved and civilized society this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it." — Book V, Chapter I, Part III On politics: "Fear is in almost all cases a wretched instrument of government, and ought in particular never to be employed against any order of men who have the smallest pretensions to independency." — Book V, Chapter I, Part III "All registers which, it is acknowledged, ought to be kept secret, ought certainly never to exist." — Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Appendix to Articles I and II "The violence and injustice of the rulers of mankind is an ancient evil, for which, I am afraid, the nature of human affairs can scarce admit a remedy." — Book IV, Chapter III, Part II "That wealth, at the same time, which always follows the improvements of agriculture and manufactures, and which in reality is no more than the accumulated produce of those improvements, provokes the invasion of all their neighbours. An industrious, and upon that account a wealthy nation, is of all nations the most likely to be attacked; and unless the state takes some new measures for the public defence, the natural habits of the people render them altogether incapable of defending themselves." — Book V, Chapter I, Part I On life: "In the languor of disease and the weariness of old age, the pleasures of the vain and empty distinctions of greatness disappear. To one, in this situation, they are no longer capable of recommending those toilsome pursuits in which they had formerly engaged him. In his heart he curses ambition, and vainly regrets the ease and the indolence of youth, pleasures which are fled for ever, and which he has foolishly sacrificed for what, when he has got it, can afford him no real satisfaction. In this miserable aspect does greatness appear to every man when reduced either by spleen or disease to observe with attention his own situation, and to consider what it is that is really wanting to his happiness. Power and riches appear then to be, what they are, enormous and operose machines contrived to produce a few trifling conveniencies to the body, consisting of springs the most nice and delicate, which must be kept in order with the most anxious attention, and which, in spite of all our care, are ready every moment to burst into pieces, and to crush in their ruins their unfortunate possessor." — Book IV, Chapter I ______________ Hmm

From that About Us page, I wonder if they've read a single word past Book 1 (of The Wealth of the Nations) "Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man, or order of men." Cool. They'll acknowledge that bit. But: "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." Smith.. advocating interference? They won't like that... I find this part of Book 1 quite interesting, too: "It appears, accordingly, from the experience of all ages and nations, I believe, that the work done by freemen comes cheaper in the end than that performed by slaves." http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN3.html I.8.40