Geof Nanto

Yes, the police are literally in firing line of deeper societal problems. I don't live in the US but I'm wondering if there is any talk of redirecting some of the massive defence budget to social programs, with the aim of redressing some of the underlying problems that cause so much violence. Surely that's what defence is all about; namely making the country a safe place to live. Below is a chart showing annual military expenditure for the top five nations (2014). As can be seen the US budget could be massively trimmed and still be the world leader.

An artist's impression of Zhenyuanlong suni, dubbed a 'fluffy feathered poodle from hell'. Scientists have unearthed a spectacularly preserved, nearly complete fossil in north-eastern China of a feathered dinosaur with wings like those of a bird, although they doubt the strange creature could fly. The researchers said the fast-running meat-eater was about 1.8 metres long and covered with simple hair-like feathers over much of its body, with large, quill-like feathers on its wings and long tail. It is the largest-known dinosaur with wings and lived about 125 million years ago during the Cretaceous Period. Considering its mouth full of sharp teeth and its overall oddness, University of Edinburgh palaeontologist Steve Brusatte dubbed the dinosaur, named Zhenyuanlong suni, a "fluffy feathered poodle from hell". http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-17/new-dinosaur-called-fluffy-feathered-poodle-from-hell/6626470

Agreed. (At the same time I'm curious as to your recent seemingly contradictory thoughts expressed in your post on the Emperor thread. BTW I suspect that we all hold contradictory views within ourselves, that being the nature and dynamic of our human consciousness.) Here are some thoughts on progress from philosopher John Gray about his book Straw Dogs. (You’d be correct in assuming the title is a borrowing from Laozi.)……… Straw Dogs is an attack on the unthinking beliefs of thinking people. Today liberal humanism has the pervasive power that was once possessed by revealed religion. Humanists like to think they have a rational view of the world; but their core belief in progress is a superstition, further from the truth about the human animal than any of the world's religions. Outside of science, progress is simply a myth. In some readers of Straw Dogs this observation seems to have produced a moral panic. Surely, they ask, no one can question the central article of faith of liberal societies? Without it, will we not despair? Like trembling Victorians terrified of losing their faith, these humanists cling to the moth-eaten brocade of progressive hope. Today religious believers are more freethinking. Driven to the margins of a culture in which science claims authority over all of human knowledge, they have had to cultivate a capacity for doubt. In contrast, secular believers – held fast by the conventional wisdom of the time – are in the grip of unexamined dogmas. The prevailing secular worldview is a pastiche of current scientific orthodoxy and pious hopes. Darwin has shown that we are animals; but – as humanists never tire of preaching –how we live is 'up to us'. Unlike any other animal, we are told, we are free to live as we choose. Yet the idea of free will does not come from science. Its origins are in religion – not just any religion, but the Christian faith against which humanists rail so obsessively. In the ancient world the Epicureans speculated about the possibility that some events may be uncaused; but the belief that humans are marked off from all other animals by having free will is a Christian inheritance. Darwin's theory would not have caused such a scandal had it been formulated in Hindu India, Taoist China or animist Africa. Equally, it is only in post-Christian cultures that philosophers labour so piously to reconcile scientific determinism with a belief in the unique capacity of humans to choose the way they live. The irony of evangelical Darwinism is that it uses science to support a view of humanity that comes from religion. Some readers have seen Straw Dogs as an attempt to apply Darwinism to ethics and politics, but nowhere does it suggest that neo-Darwinian orthodoxy contains the final account of the human animal. Instead Darwinism is deployed strategically in order to break up the prevailing humanist worldview. Humanists turn to Darwin to support their shaky modern faith in progress; but there is no progress in the world he revealed. A truly naturalistic view of the world leaves no room for secular hope. Among contemporary philosophers it is a matter of pride to be ignorant of theology. As a result, the Christian origins of secular humanism are rarely understood. Yet they were perfectly clear to its founders. In the early nineteenth century the French Positivists, Henri Saint-Simon and Auguste Comte, invented the Religion of Humanity, a vision of a universal civilization based on science that is the prototype for the political religions of the twentieth century. Through their impact on John Stuart Mill, they made liberalism the secular creed it is today. Through their deep influence on Karl Marx, they helped shape 'scientific socialism'. Ironically, for Saint-Simon and Comte were fierce critics of laissez-faire economics, they also, inspired the late twentieth century cult of the global free market. I have told this paradoxical and often farcical story in my book, Al Qaeda and What It Means To Be Modern. Humanism is not science, but religion – the post-Christian faith that humans can make a world better than any in which they have so far lived. In pre-Christian Europe it was taken for granted that the future would be like the past. Knowledge and invention might advance, but ethics would remain much the same. History was a series of cycles, with no overall meaning. Against this pagan view, Christians understood history as a story of sin and redemption. Humanism is the transformation of this Christian doctrine of salvation into a project of universal human emancipation. The idea of progress is a secular version of the Christian belief in providence. That is why among the ancient pagans it was unknown. Belief in progress has another source. In science, the growth of knowledge is cumulative. But human life as a whole is not a cumulative activity; what is gained in one generation may be lost in the next. In science, knowledge is an unmixed good; in ethics and politics it is bad as well as good. Science increases human power – and magnifies the flaws in human nature. It enables us to live longer and have higher living standards than in the past. At the same time it allows us to wreak destruction – on each other and the Earth – on a larger scale than ever before. The idea of progress rests on the belief that the growth of knowledge and the advance of the species go together – if not now, then in the long run. The biblical myth of the Fall of Man contains the forbidden truth. Knowledge does not make us free. It leaves us as we have always been, prey to every kind of folly. The same truth is found in Greek myth. The punishment of Prometheus, chained to a rock for stealing fire from the gods, was not unjust. If the hope of progress is an illusion, how – it will be asked –are we to live? The question assumes that humans can live well only if they believe they have the power to remake the world. Yet most humans who have ever lived have not believed this – and a great many have had happy lives. The question assumes the aim of life is action; but this is a modern heresy. For Plato contemplation was the highest form of human activity. A similar view existed in ancient India. The aim of life was not to change the world. It was to see it rightly. Today this is a subversive truth, for it entails the vanity of politics. Good politics is shabby and makeshift, but at the start of the twenty-first century the world is strewn with the grandiose ruins of failed utopias. With the Left moribund, the Right has become the home of the utopian imagination. Global communism has been followed by global capitalism. The two visions of the future have much in common. Both are hideous and fortunately chimerical. Political action has come to be a surrogate for salvation; but no political project can deliver humanity from its natural condition. However radical, political programmes are expedients – modest devices for coping with recurring evils. Hegel writes somewhere that humanity will be content only when it lives in a world of its own making. In contrast, Straw Dogs argues for a shift from human solipsism. Humans cannot save the world, but this is no reason for despair. It does not need saving. Happily, humans will never live in a world of their own making.

I have no strong opinion on the issue of minimum wage, especially not for as complex and diverse a country as the US. However, I suspect the relative equality of income distribution that has prevailed in Western countries for much of the last century is a thing of the past. For most of recorded history there has been enormous wealth disparities between rich and poor in all countries. And whilst we’ve lived well in the West over the last century or so, that certainly hasn’t been the case for most of the world’s population living in India, China, Indonesia, Mexico etc. As the world’s economy becomes increasingly globalised, along with increases in the material standard of living in many developing economies, there’s bound to be downward pressure on wages in Western countries. From Wikipedia, here are some statistics of annual minimum wage in international dollars, (a hypothetical unit of currency calculated based on the purchasing power parity of household final consumption expenditure.) For calculating the annual wage, the lowest general minimum wage was used. Australia $22194 Belgium $20408 Brazil $ 5980 Canada $16586 China $ 4197 France $19905 Germany $21442 Hong Kong$11595 India $ 2296 Japan $12426 Mexico $ 2256 Russia $ 4125 Taiwan $16001 UK $16810 US $15080

@ Karl The question of minimum wage is obviously a complex issue because it includes many value judgements pertaining to how a society views itself. For instance, it involves questions of human dignity as well as moral questions arising from stark differences in wealth. And from a strictly economic perspective, can our consumption based economies function efficiently if a significant percentage of the population have little purchasing power? For reference, here is a list of minimum wages worldwide...... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country (BTW. I'm interested to know your purpose in leaving such large spaces between your paragraphs. For me, it creates a disjointed feel to your posts.)

The Guardian newspaper in the UK has been running a series of articles on the extraordinarily high rate of police homicides in the USA. Here's the link to one of them..... http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries

I'm no expert on the Chinese language, but to my understanding we have no way of knowing the pronunciation of words in ancient China.

Mountain Dialogue You ask why I've settled in these emerald mountains: I smile, mind of itself perfectly idle, and I say nothing. Peach blossoms drift streamwater away in deep mystery here, another heaven and earth, nowhere people know. - Li Po

There's a new film from Edward Burger (maker of Amongst White Clouds) seeking funding for final post production work. It's an intimate portrait of life inside one of China's most respected & austere Zen monastic communities. http://igg.me/at/onemindpost "This is the most challenging film I've made to date, by a long shot. From the first time I traveled to Zhenru Monastery to collect footage, I knew that I wanted ONE MIND to be a different kind of film. As much as possible, I wanted the audience to feel what it is like to live and practice in this community—to witness the wonder of centuries-old discipline and ritual, and to drink tea with some of China’s most serious and dedicated meditators. Therefore I chose to make ONE MIND a markedly quiet film, rich with the sounds of natural landscape, and spacious with a sparse use of dialogue and narrative. The audience is challenged to engage with both the beauty and struggle of the monks’ daily lives through a quiet presence with this cinematic experience."

For those interested who haven't seen it, here is the link to Edward Burger's earlier film, Amongst White Clouds..... www.youtube.com/watch?v=FumyvVOVbaY

Reading all the above posts has given me a great feeling of satisfaction in that I feel no strong desire to add anything. And that's exactly the attribute I was hinting at in my previous post. Those ancient Daoists were masters of satisfaction. At the core of classical Daoism is a profound acceptance of life in all its manifestations. It's grounded in nature and everyday experience. The Dao is totally present in this world; in the here and now. In the Zhuangzi we learn Dao is "in the ant, in the broken tile, in dung, in mire." Mystical states are accepted as aspects of the Dao but are not privileged. Like life itself, such experiences come and go according to the patterns of the Dao. Hence the Daoist saying that there's nothing to achieve because we are innately of the Dao. However for me, actually feeling this as a lived experience has meant many years of self cultivation. My path has been one of trial and error, and I'm particularly aware that all intense experience is potentially addictive. In classical Daoism we come back to what might seem from the outside to be a totally ordinary life; utterly simple, yet utterly sufficient.

Thanks. I've ordered the book. I went through a hugely traumatic experience a few decades ago have since worked my way through what I assume is called PTSD in Western medicine. I think of it as loss of soul. I'll be interested to read what Peter Levine has to say. (BTW I've ordered it from Book Depository in the UK. I've bought many books from them - they come highly recommended for price and free worldwide delivery. I'm a big reader and I always opt for printed books over eBooks where possible. .... http://www.bookdepository.com)

Thanks, you've introduced the subject very well. Something similar has been on my mind also. My current perspective - based on my lived experience - parallels a relatively neglected aspect of classical Daoist thought, particularly as presented by Zhuang Zhou. However I'll wait and see what others think before adding more words.

Yes, that's true. But America is far more ruthlessly free market than other Western countries. (Not that any country is free market; all modern economies are composites of socialism and capitalism.) In Australia, for instance, there are more comprehensive welfare safety nets and these are politically untouchable. Hence there is less freedom here for an individual both to succeed economically and to fail economically. The same applies to many European countries. My main comment though, is to question the sustainability of these policies applied since 2007. I'd suggest recessions are actually healthy and necessary phases of the economy. Nature evolves in cycles, and so too will a healthy economy. What we're doing with these excessively counter-cyclical policies is killing the economy. Sure, it's not dead, but it's not particularly alive either. We've trying to make the economy machine-like and predictable. Instead, to my observation, we're damming up a massive force of inevitable destructive consequences. The economic growth of the last few decades has been underpinned by rapidly expanding debt worldwide. Hence the expression 'Ponzi Capitalism'. Nothing has changed since 2007. The debt stimulation prior to 2007 could be likened to excessive coffee drinking, leading to overwork and collapse. The response of government and central bankers worldwide: "No problem, here's some cocaine to keep you going."

Yes, I do the same. This forum would decidedly lack content if we all only posted comments from actual experience.

Actually I would, but my natural affinity is towards Eastern cosmology so the myths and terminology you use are not familiar to me. My only knowledge of Western alchemy is via Jung's extensive research and writings. I have found his work on the subject extremely helpful for me personally. I note you tend to create polarity (opposition) with the tone of your replies. Is this intentional?

I know this doesn't make for very interesting discussion, but I'd prefer to say simply "I don't know what happens after death". I'm content to leave it to the unfolding of the mysterious Dao. We'll all reach it in our own ways.

You have misinterpreted my words here. My point was exactly "The product of one-sided masculine (or one-sided feminine) is dysfunction." However, I'd say consciousness cannot exist without polarity. The "One" you and others speak of with confidence as if it's something knowable, to my mind, is so far beyond and outside the human it's best left as an incomprehensible mystery.

The absolute certainty with which beliefs are held never ceases to surprise me.

Yes, the phrasing of the OP is definitely from a Buddhist perspective. For a comprehensive overview of Daoist beliefs (according to Louis Komjathy) see..... http://thedaobums.com/topic/38279-the-dream-of-the-butterfly/?p=624284

Of all the teachings I've encountered, Daoism resonates most strongly with me. However, to my mind, one area that history reveals classical Daoist thought to be wrong is in relation to the acquisition of conscious knowledge by us humans. I've explored this theme at length by way of allegory here... http://thedaobums.com/topic/38123-animalwise-a-parable-for-wayfarers/?p=619804

Meaning for you? In The Red Book, Carl Jung relates an encounter within his psyche between himself and Satan. He tells Satan "Listen, something has just happened to us; we have united the opposites. Among other things, we have bonded you with God"..... "This unification is an important principle. We have put a stop to never ending quarreling, to finally free our hands for real life." Needless to say Satan finds this to be foolish nonsense, and comments it smells of monism. However Jung counters "You're mistaken. Matters are not as rational with us as they seem to be. We have no single correct truth either. Rather a most remarkable and strange fact has occurred; after the opposites had been united, quite unexpectedly and incomprehensibly nothing further happened. Everything remained in place, peaceful and yet completely motionless, and life turned into a complete standstill."

Considering how much I appreciate the effort and intelligence that allows this Dao Bums site to function as well as it does, in proportion this is not a big issue. However from my personal perspective I find the gender designation of "Unknown" both inaccurate and borderline (unintentionally) offensive.

Yes, exactly. I think it's a product of one sided masculine consciousness. Within it there is an image, clear and rigid: the unity and power of the erect penis. Could also be it's a craving for certainty by blocking out half of reality rather than integrating it. Nothing to return to? The whole question is a complex one that's perplexed thinkers since the beginnings of recorded thought. There's been volumes written on the subject; my small insights are unlikely to clear anything up. As far as I'm concerned, from my Daoist perspective, "One Yin and one Yang, this is the Dao." So everything that exists in all realms is a dynamic dance of yin and yang. It's a reality we cannot escape from. Like you, I "push up and out" into the world of ten thousand things, but I also look to return to the root. Once again, the innate duality of life.

That's a tad general isn't it? You might well as say "I rarely look at comments because they are mostly ego based. "This is how I'd like reality to be."