dust

No idea where the first half of Star's came from. Not just linguistically. I generally don't love Red Pine's translations but he hits much closer imo. What are the three ideas you see? Comparing to the Guodian, we can see that parts of it were likely added over time. The GD says simply, Henricks: 天地之间， 其猷橐龠与。 虚而不屈， 动而愈出 The space between heaven and earth - Is it not like a bellows? Though it is empty it does not collapse; When put into motion it sends forth all the more. It's preceded by 25 and followed by 16 (or, the GD versions of these chapters -- they're also somewhat different to the received). They are not directly linked on the slips, divided by markers or a new slip, but the order makes good sense; if we put 5 and 16 together, The space between heaven and earth - Is it not like a bellows? Though it is empty it does not collapse; When put into motion it sends forth all the more. Take emptiness to the limit; Cautiously guard the void. The ten thousand things, side by side they arise; Sitting still we await their return. Now, the forms come forth in great numbers, But each returns to its root.

Translating Zhuangzi, in multiple parts, part 1. The idea is to discuss the Zhuangzi from the Chinese up, with a view to finding ideas not always obvious in the English translations and to look thoroughly at alternative possibilities. I think the best way might be looking at the Chinese section by section (as divided on ctext), doing some translation ourselves, and comparing various translations, as well as identifying and discussing the various concepts and meanings within. We could all learn a bit of ancient Chinese as well as some philosophy, history, history of philosophy, etc... All input is welcomed. It should be good for anyone who (like me) feels like a nuisance posting constant language problems in threads where everyone else is mostly aiming to discuss the philosophy; but it will be dry and much less stimulating without such philosophical input, so don't hold it back; and do not think that not speaking Chinese is a reason not to participate in the language part of it: everyone with internet and a brain is capable of doing basic research on Chinese and ancient Chinese, even if it is slower going for some! So: I post a section in the Chinese, and we discuss that section; discussion of the next section doesn't start until this previous section has been covered (and there doesn't seem to be much left to say about it), at which time I'll post the next. It's an experiment. First section of chapter one in next post.

Ah, I'll improve upon it, at some point

Well, no conversation there so I guess I'll move on to the next bit. Probably don't need to spend long on this as it's mostly repetitive. 內篇 Inner Chapters 逍遙遊 Enjoyment in Untroubled Ease / Carefree Wandering / Free and Easy Wandering Section 2 湯之問棘也是已。 Tang ask Ji is the same 窮髮之北，有冥海者，天池也。 poor/bare barren North, there is deep ocean, Pool of Heaven 有魚焉，其廣數千里，未有知其脩者，其名為鯤。 there is fish, many thousand li, nobody knows the length, name is Kun 有鳥焉，其名為鵬，背若泰山，翼若垂天之雲， there is bird, named Peng, a back like Taishan, wings like clouds hanging in the sky, 摶扶搖羊角而上者九萬里， flaps and soars (spinning up like the whorls of a) goat's horns and rises 90 thousand li, 絕雲氣，負青天，然後圖南，且適南冥也。 cut cloudy air, bear blue sky, then head south, goes to the southern deep 斥鴳笑之曰： ridiculing quail laughs saying: 「彼且奚適也？我騰躍而上，不過數仞而下，翱翔蓬蒿之間，此亦飛之至也。而彼且奚適也？」 Where is it going? I spring up, come down after a few ren (fathoms), fly among the plants, this is the height of flight. So where is it going? 此小大之辯也。 this is difference between small and great Well this feels like a waste of time... Legge's translation is not to be faulted here, as I can see.

I liked your post though feel compelled to mention: yes there used to be many more species of animal, many that are extinct because of humans; we've hunted away large numbers, cleared forest and other habitat from large areas; etc -- and the majority of this is due to animal agriculture. The bison that roamed the Americas many years ago were not so many as the cows you see now on farms (factory or pasture). A small fraction of North American forests have survived the USA. The land that is now used is devoted to meat and dairy more than anything else. The red/pink is livestock and grain mostly fed to livestock; the light blue and yellow is livestock; the green is livestock and grain fed to livestock. The large majority of use is livestock-based. If the livestock were no longer raised, much of that land could be allowed to return to native habitat. An example from your own land: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/ac10b566f38f2068ca25779e001c4809!OpenDocument Almost two-thirds (63%) of land in Australia has been modified for human use, primarily grazing on natural vegetation. Grazing accounts for just over half of all land use. Environmental issues associated with sheep and cattle grazing include habitat loss, surface soil loss, salinity, and soil and water quality issues. http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/aclump/land-use Grazing natural vegetation: 44.87% Grazing modified pastures: 9.24% Dryland cropping: 3.59% It appears that the majority of harmful agricultural action has, also, been meat-based.

Some points to note: You don't live on a tundra. You aren't an ancient human required to hunt. Your brain is not "made of" animal fat in any sense other than that you are an animal and have some fat in your brain. Fat is easily available in high quality in various plants. There is nothing the human body needs that can only be found in dead animals. You have many options available. The healthiest modern people -- those with the lowest incidence of chronic disease, those who live the longest, those who live the longest with good health, and who apparently enjoy life very well -- all eat a minimal, minimal amount of meat, if any at all.

My mistake, then. My assumption of high-meat is based on old reading about the diet. Even counting some variation, it does seem the average paleo follower eats quite a bit of meat, still? I suppose this finding of "vegetarian neandertal" actually goes some way to proving both sides -- some paleolithic guys ate meat, some didn't. To be clear: Raising animals means more crops and therefore more pesticides and land clearing I do not expect everyone to become vegan. It would be better, but I'm not so silly as to expect it. If everyone did, many problems would be fixed. But even if only a fraction did, and we were to cut down on the amount of livestock raised, the very problems you speak of would be improved. I do not expect humans to stop farming. But with less animal farming, crop farming would also become less of a problem. It's a win-win for humans and other animals

I'm sorry to be so blunt again, but this is wrong. It's really quite simple. Crops > cows > humans Crops > humans Which is more efficient? When we raise animals in large numbers, they need a LOT of food. Worldwide, 40% of grain is fed to cattle. In the USA, 70%. The USA could feed way more than their entire population with that. But instead it's fed to cows and pigs, and so much energy is wasted, and so much extra pollution is created. In the extreme situation: if we just grew crops, and no livestock, overall we would need less land. We would not need to feed the cattle, and could crow a much more diverse range of crops for our own consumption. Fewer trees would be cleared, much less habitat would be destroyed. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/five-things-would-happen-if-everyone-stopped-eating-meat-a6844811.html And species that threaten livestock don't get killed? This is a condition of farming, not just farming plants. And again, if we ate less/no livestock, we would use less land, and fewer animals would be killed to protect the land. So far your position is untenable. I hope you will provide evidence for your claims.

The US could learn a thing or two from Europe. France, Italy, Portugal, Iceland. Even some countries with serious economic problems -- Greece, Ireland, Spain -- are ranked way higher than the USA. And not because of free market competition.

Yeah, that's the Mistborn books. 'Allomancy' is the consuming metals to gain certain powers. Most similarities I could easily put down to the fact that fantasy tends to repeat itself, as you say. Certainly I thought Allomancy was pretty original as far as magic power type stuff goes. No wands, no spells, no scepters or broomsticks... Of course, I know that Sanderson was influenced heavily by Jordan, but... for example, I find much more direct influence from Tolkien in Jordan's work. The three innocent souls who unwittingly set off from their quiet village on a dangerous adventure; the Ogier and Green Man so similar to the Ents; the Blight and Mordor; the Fades so similar to Ringwraiths, Trollocs so similar to Orcs; etc. For sure.

Well, your new healthcare plan certainly isn't fascist. Mussolini gave pretty good coverage as far as I know.

Do you mean that they physically can't live without it, or just prefer not to? Heard this kind of thing before on TDB, but I've yet to hear an explanation beyond "because energy". Sorry to be blunt, but other than a couple of rare illnesses (problems digesting fibrous foods or some such), I see no rational reason that a person cannot go without meat for any amount of time.

Yeah, the 'official' Paleo diet has its good points, but as a whole it is outweighed by the fact that a low-meat high-legume diet is all but proven to be the best for longevity and overall health.. and for the environment... and obviously for not killing animals. Not sure how I feel about insects (& arachnids?). Seems likely that the environmental impact of insect farming would be far less than that of cattle farming; and it's surely healthier too. As far as protein... some people need to think about that, but anyone like you or me, with access to whatever food we want, doesn't need to worry about protein intake. Eat a wide variety of food, enough calories, and there will be enough protein. I've tried a variety of animals and their parts, including locusts, silkworm pupae, and scorpions.. the locusts were not bad.

Yeah, I just bought Alloy of Law, to be read once done with WOT. Quite enjoyed the first era Mistborn series but wasn't sure if I'd read the next era...very cool imaginative stuff (Allomancy etc) but it got very stale at certain points. But his writing on the WOT books convinced me to go back to him again. Also recently bought Dune, which amazingly I haven't read yet.

I suspected you'd know it already wondered about making a topic about it recently There are minor problems I have with Jordan's writing style -- e,g. he unnecessarily repeated certain motifs a lot (in particular "Her face was a smooth mask of Aes Sedai serenity") -- but other than that I've enjoyed the whole series. The increasing complexity, new characters etc has kept me even more hooked. [i counted in my head the other day and figured that, at that point, we were dealing with the perspectives of about 15 major characters in almost as many different places. And yet it's rarely confusing, or tiring -- I just want to know how they all end up coming together!] I understand what you mean about the Seanchan, but don't you think they help balance the story, and offer another interesting perspective like the other 'outsider' groups? (I'm seeing Aiel, Tuatha'an, Atha'an Miere, Whitecloaks as the outsiders) Looping back to Game of Thrones (kind of) I've wondered about a WOT TV series -- apparently someone's got the rights to it now -- but not sure it would translate well to screen. Not sure how they'd portray Aes Sedai, or weaves (even with today's CG, would be crazy to make complicated weaves look good), or manage casting, etc. Would be interested to hear your thoughts on that. I recommended it to a friend recently and he's on the 3rd or 4th book by now (listening to the audiobooks, which are very well done BTW) but other than him I have nobody to discuss WOT with in real life...

My definition of expertness has nothing to do with benevolence and righteousness; it means being expert in regard to your Virtue, that is all. My definition of expertness has nothing to do with benevolence or righteousness; it means following the true form of your inborn nature, that is all. When I speak of good hearing, I do not mean listening to others; I mean simply listening to yourself. When I speak of good eyesight, I do not mean looking at others; I mean simply looking at yourself. He who does not look at himself but looks at others, who does not get hold of himself but gets hold of others, is getting what other men have got and failing to get what he himself has got. He finds joy in what brings joy to other men, but finds no joy in what would bring joy to himself. And if he finds joy in what brings joy to other men, but finds no joy in what would bring joy to himself, then whether he is a Robber Chih or a Po Yi he is equally deluded and perverse. I have a sense of shame before the Way and its Virtue, and for that reason I do not venture to raise myself up in deeds of benevolence and righteousness, or to lower myself in deluded and perverse practices. Zhuangzi doesn't get the deciding judgement on what is and what is not to be considered 'Taoist' -- nobody does. But he's well worth asking. I believe he would tell a gay person to follow their nature, else risk being perverse. Blind attachment to a simplistic understanding of 'yin' and 'yang' be damned.

If you like fantasy stuff and haven't read them yet, the Wheel of Time books might be worth investing some time in. 14 books altogether, each as long as one of the Game of Thrones / A Song of Ice and Fire books, and with many similarities, but the Wheel series actually has various protagonists (good and bad) who you can get to know and be pretty sure they're not going to die randomly because the author had too much wine one night and thought it would be fun. Owes a lot to Lord of the Rings, but the story is n times more complicated and the lead characters more interesting. I'm on the 13th book now and it's just as good as it was at the beginning.

What do you mean by 'justice'?

What are thoughts on Bonsai? I was curious to have a google. My grandma had an interest in them for a long time (she's given them away now to various family members, and I presume they're dying from dehydration somewhere) and I always thought they were kind of weird but cool. Also remember them from The Karate Kid... http://www.bonsaiempire.com/inspiration/top-10/bonsai http://www.bonsaiempire.com/inspiration/top-10/great-bonsai http://www.boredpanda.com/amazing-bonsai-trees/

Doing a quick scan of google it does seem that there's scant evidence of long-term harmful effects to humans or other animals in doses that are likely to be encountered. The same happened with vaccines and autism. Eventually, (most) people realized that the claims were nonsense. However, this does not go any way to proving that AGW is 'fake' or 'fraudulent', or that carbon is not a major factor in it. See my comment above. Sometimes, a genuine discovery is made and the majority of people ignore it out of convenience or arrogance; sometimes, no true discovery is made yet the majority are taken in by falsehoods.

A request for ideas. Recently I've been doing back squats, trying to improve both strength and comfortable range of motion in the deep squat position. Along with other hip and posterior chain exercises, my hips and hamstrings have opened up well in the last year or so. My adductors, however, don't seem to want to play along. It seems that whatever I try -- various stretches, strength work, patting (paida), etc -- after a few hours they go stiff and sore and it's like I never worked on them. Even after resting for a few days, they remain stiff. They haven't increased in flexibility in months. So I figure something else is going on. E.g. maybe the problem is with the opposing muscles, the abductors, being too tight? Or I'm doing something during the day that's killing any work I did during training? Something I'm eating?? Cheers

When Semmelweis discovered that the act of washing one's hands between dealing with corpses and living patients cut deaths in his hospital by 90%, he ended up beaten to death in an asylum because doctors didn't want to believe they had "dirty" hands.

I agree. But aren't there cases where transsexualism could be considered harmful? I believe a person should be able to whatever they want as long as they harm nobody else. I should be allowed to jump from a plane, or drink too much, or have my nipple pierced if I so choose. But what if a person has suffered some psychological trauma that influences them to do something that is harmful or that could harm them? http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/when-sex-change-is-a-mistake-some-transsexuals-suffer-bitter-regrets-sarah-lonsdale-reports-1512822.html People are much more likely to regret having plastic surgery than gender reassignment surgery, but then again, when someone does regret that gender reassignment, isn't it going to be a whole lot more difficult to come to terms with?

Yes, it does seem like the end-game is suicide... Certainly (from a non-religious perspective, anyway) the inevitable conclusion is the destruction of the planet at some point anyway. Meteor or sun burnout or whatever. But until then, we're here, and life is here, and it's pretty great. It's harsh and cold, but also beautiful and exciting. Personally... I'd rather have lived a life of more downs than ups than never lived at all. The fact of experience, even of just being able to sit here and write posts on the internet, is amazing. And if we want to prolong our harsh cold beautiful exciting existence (which, however illogically, most of us do -- and many of us agree that the other species should be protected, so that we can live alongside them and experience them too) we must choose to not allow that extreme future to happen. Yes, it seems like it will happen anyway. But I will be angry about it until I die.

I don't understand. If you're taking it to the extreme, where there's no room for anything but humans, we're dead anyway. Are you saying that there's no problem that Earth is trampled and most of its wildlife annihilated, because humans want more beef burgers?