Taomeow

I could do that, but I'd have to be talking nine to five, for a year. And someone would have to pay me. But on the latest little tidbit, I don't mind supplying a tiny little truth to fix the tiny little lie: Trump did not call the president of Taiwan. She called him.

What about poetry? I'd like to see logic applied to... let's say, William Blake's Jerusalem to prove it true or false. Think you can show me how? And did those feet in ancient time Walk upon Englands mountains green: And was the holy Lamb of God, On Englands pleasant pastures seen! And did the Countenance Divine, Shine forth upon our clouded hills? And was Jerusalem builded here, Among these dark Satanic Mills? Bring me my Bow of burning gold; Bring me my Arrows of desire: Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold! Bring me my Chariot of fire! I will not cease from Mental Fight, Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand: Till we have built Jerusalem, In Englands green and pleasant Land

Possibly. But the vast majority of Taiwanese believe it is not. Ethnically most of the two are the same, but culturally they are truly citizens of distinctly different countries. How it came about is a long story, but it came about. One of my Taiwanese friends is a direct descendant of the naval commander who took Taiwan for the Qing emperor in 1683. Guess what -- before that, Taiwan was colonized by the Spanish, before that, by the Dutch, and before that, for tens of thousands of years, inhabited by indigenous peoples, some of whom still survive, in the mountains and in places like Orchid Island. And after China first grabbed it too, the history of Taiwan was colorful. A few decades ago Japanese was spoken there more than Chinese. The first Russian bakery in Asia was established in Taiwan (I still find familiar Russian pastries in Taiwanese bakeries in California.) The American military bases contributed to a new direction... and so on. It is culturally cosmopolitan, and its inhabitants mostly feel like foreigners in mainland China, and are perceived as such -- on sight! -- despite no ethnic differences. So, I wouldn't discount the possibility that it wants to stay distinct and separate, and that a politician who notices what the population of a particular place thinks of where they do or don't belong is not all that unreasonable. Far as I know, for most Taiwanese the idea of being absorbed into mainland China is their worst nightmare, although the opposite view also exists... Oh, and it's never been a "democratic" country. It was a puppet military dictatorship since its inception, in a semidemocratic wrapper. Again, not all that unreasonable for a president who is a foreign affairs virgin to familiarize himself with what most Americans, presidents or not, haven't the foggiest about, and do it first hand... unorthodox, but not unreasonable.

There's different levels of decay and destruction. A cold is not the flu. The flu is not the plague. As a song goes, Rejoice, rejoice, you have no choice.

My PPF is current. In taiji, only the now matters, no one cares (me least of all) what my taiji was like twelve years ago. But the art itself is not what was created now, or twelve years ago. It is what it is for me now because of what Chen Wanting did four hundred years ago, plus what I've been doing for the past twelve. In politics, it's the same. So I don't think it's wrong to go far back to figure out the present and anticipate the future. Taiwan is currently armed to the upper teeth and Trump had nothing to do with it while all of his predecessors had everything to do with it. A phone call? Good grief. I don't know all the details of the current squabble between the globalists and the imperialists, but Trump may be an indicator of the imperialists having won a round. That's good news, folks. Much as I hate imperialism, much as I think it has been the root of all evils past, the evils future embedded in globalism are way, way worse. If we can delay this future, it is good news. If we can avert it altogether... let there be Trump. I never thought I would derive hope from someone like this, but I swear -- I wasn't following the elections, I thought it was a done deal, and then a friend (who happens to be Taiwanese) called me late at night on the 8th and said, guess what, Trump is winning! And I swear... I felt as though a huge weight which I didn't even know I was carrying was suddenly lifted from my shoulders and from my LDT, the organ whose main function, in my case, is to issue warnings and promises. Trump is winning? It means I don't have to live on subliminal red alert for a while, anticipating a global war every minute of every day? It may be delayed? It may be even averted, who knows? Damn... I couldn't ask for more, for now.

LL, I know. Didn't mean you. Who I meant are not people who quite reasonably dismiss doomsday scenarios arising as social memes of zero plausibility every five minutes. I meant people who sweep all realistic scenarios (realistic because they already played out many times, albeit on a smaller scale, i.e. affecting hundreds of millions rather than billions, and elsewhere rather than here) under the same convenient rug of "conspiracy theories." Extremes converge. To me, there's no difference between "conspiracy theorists" and "coincidence theorists." Investigative researchers is who I listen to. Heck, I am one. And what I try to figure out is probabilities of events. For some events, it is zero, for others, one, on a scale from zero to one. Most fall somewhere in between. Closer to "can never happen" or closer to "imminent." People who throw all possibilities onto the "imminent" side of the scale and people who throw them all onto the "can never happen" side are both wrong. Wrong and either willfully ignorant (investigative research is work, unlike mindless listening to the brainwashing narratives, which for many is a form of fun I guess or else why would they?..), or willfully deceptive (for any number of reasons -- self-aggrandizing, gaining a sense of self-importance, or actually being plants, shills, disinformation agents), but I don't see much difference between them. I also don't see how they are different from all those post-hippie "universal love" peddlers, the "sit back and love thy murderer and you will ascend to glory" motherfuckers, the "everything is hunky-dory" spiritual con artists. Of which there's as many as of the doomsday peddlers, or more. In any event, anyone is free to believe what they want to believe. Beliefs are a dime a dozen. Whether doomsday beliefs or rapture beliefs. It's all the same to me. I'm after accurate assessment of probabilities. It's work, not fun. But someone has to do it. I can't possibly let anyone else do it for me because they've botched it in the past every single time. Those who promised the golden age and those who expected the end of the world alike. I have to sort things out for myself, and I can't turn away from my findings just because I don't like them, or rush into the true-believer mode just because I do like the best case scenario. But that's just me.

"When complexity strikes, meaningful statements lose precision and precise statements lose meaning." -- Lotfi Zadeh https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic

Logic is a tool of linear reductionist cognition. It is distinct and separate from reality which is acausal, not reducible to its part or a sum of its parts, and not necessarily cognizable. What's the logical reason for the ocean? For Jupiter? For neutrinos, the speed of light, the rate of depletion of uranium, the non-oxidation of gold? These are all in the domain of facts for which there is no logical anything to account for their existence. Yet they do exist. Throw in the domain of feelings. The five-year-old who responds with "I want some ice cream" to "how much is two times two" is not wrong. He is not committing a logical error. He is bypassing logic altogether as nonessential. The essential part of the exchange is, he has wants and needs, and his dad can either ignore them, or punish him for having them, or overindulge them, or satisfy them adequately. The main lesson will be derived from how his dad reacts to the acausal information -- to wit, to the illogical but indisputable fact that his son is more interested in ice cream than in arithmetic at the moment. Logic is a tool of linear intelligence, but many other kinds successfully bypass it, notably emotional intelligence, kinesthetic intelligence, sensory, proprioceptive, instinctual, artistic, musical, altruistic (sic! It's not dumb for parents to sacrifice their time and resources to raising the young, or for the young to take care of the old, or for the strong to support the weak, or for the healthy to tend to the sick, or for the hero to sacrifice himself to a cause, even though logically they all could figure out that they are stealing from themselves in the process in a completely illogical fashion), social, interspecies (cat people and dog people and horse whisperers and all other animal communicators are intelligent by methods logic can't grasp), and so on. The "so on" is infinite, as is intelligence. Logic is a tool. Someone who uses it wisely is a skilled artisan in his or her chosen craft, that of linear reductionist cognition. Someone who only knows how to use this one tool and no other is usually diagnosed with Asperger's, however... ...or is a computer.

No, I am suggesting that propaganda creates myths around actual events. Does it surprise you?

Ah, good old Europe.

Let me tell you what I know about logic. It was a compulsory subject at the university I graduated from, but I transferred there from another one where it was to be studied a year later, so I missed the whole year. I was allowed to take the exam and, should I pass, get the credit, but should I fail, no transfer for me. The catch being that the difference in programs was a late bureacratic discovery -- I had no idea I was missing a whole course -- and I was given 3 days to study what they spent a year on. I passed with flying colors. I had out of this world memory back then, which I don't have anymore, alas, maybe in part because I abused it so much, since at the time it was not unusual for me to spend three days cramming after a year of goofing off for nearly all purposes. So no one should blame me if my logic, today, is fuzzy. Especially considering that later I spent an honest month studying fuzzy logic, on my own, for my own enlighenment. But one of the few things I remember from the course in formal logic is a syllogism that still serves me well now that I'm a taoist alchemist: Thesis: All men die. Antithesis: I am not all men. Synthesis: I may be immortal.

_/\_ The Katyn story is very controversial. It started out as a piece of Goebbels propaganda in 1943, blaming the Russians for what the Russians maintained was the doing of the Germans in 1940. This view lasted till the Gorbachev era, when some documents were presented supposedly implicating Stalin. However, experts later concluded that they were fake. The case went to European courts and human rights organizations several times, and was bounced back and forth as the side not getting what it sought to prove filed more lawsuits. No conclusive proof of Russia's involvement was ever obtained, but the myth fueled by propaganda acquired a life of its own.

My favorite example of the limitations of linear logic (from a book on Fuzzy Logic): Dad asks his five-year-old, "how much is two times two?" The kid's response: "I want some ice cream." Now take an adult and give him a cognitive assignment in hopes of his adjusting his current position, which you consider illogical. (I just did, in another thread.) He won't respond by undertaking it, analyzing the arguments presented, and adjusting his position. His response will still, in the final analysis, boil down to, "I want some ice cream."

No, of course not. Some are not black swans at all. Some are vultures. Vultures are interesting in that they don't "occasionally" get their nourishment from dead bodies. They always get it this way. To set up really weak targets to strike and defeat is very easy. There's four thousand years' worth of material to watch and read on public sites today, 99% of which is crap. Much of that crap is placed there strategically, to misguide, misdirect, distract, discredit, compromise the very idea of looking beyond the officialdom for information. Don't fall for it. There's always this 1% worth getting, and I know it's an ungrateful task to dig through a ton of crap before you dig up an ounce of truth. But without that ounce, you are getting crap from all sources, and zero information about what is really going on and where it might be headed. Here's an example (just one! -- do give a read, it's short and to the point) of what you may want to look into before dismissing everything you've never been told by CNN as "conspiracy theories." As Trinity said in one of those unforgettable Matrix scenes, "Dodge this..." https://off-guardian.org/2016/11/06/the-path-to-total-dictatorship-americas-shadow-government-and-its-silent-coup/

Some technical problems may be solved by non-technical, human methods I hope -- we're still human after all, not fully computerized in our interactions even if we use computers to interact here. So, one technical problem that arises when certain human freedoms are exercised is that it may either interfere with what someone else perceives as freedom of expression, or create a complex interplay of expressions of needs that don't always coincide and occasionally mutually exclude each other's satisfaction. Some needs whose satisfaction is sought via computerized medium simply can't be met because they are unrealistic; while others can't be met due to the default settings of the medium. An example of the former would be, e.g., the need for neat and tidy, law-and-order, predictable, custom-run forums. No one can have such a forum, even an owner, because if that's what it is, it's not a forum -- it may be a government site where you fill out forms and can't deviate from the standard, or an online banking site or suchlike. Or an online shop where you come for specific goods and the form won't let you buy a white elephant if the seller offers office supplies. Those virtual pages are the only ones that are always neat and tidy and predictable (well, at least if you're not trying to buy anything from Chinese sites as I have.) The opposite need that can't be satisfied at a moderated forum is no moderation. Experience has taught us that unmoderated forums degrade and disintegrate and simply disappear. So a viable forum has to find an interplay of order and chaos that will suit its purposes best. This is often done via trial and error. This writing has the goal of proposing the practice of announcing the OP/Thread Owner Intent-in-Moderation for the custom-moderated sections in the hope that it will help minimize errors in using this feature. The goal of humanizing those interactions that can't (or shouldn't) be computerized is to minimize the number of unpleasant surprises while maximizing the enjoyment of engaging. I believe things should be clarified at the get-go toward this goal, it's not always necessary to just make something impossible to do technically, it can be done via other methods -- of which a declaration of intent may be one. If I intend to use a section of a forum that has such and such rules and premises and grants such and such rights and opportunities, I can announce in advance my clear intent of how exactly I intend to use them. This gives me an opportunity to think ahead about what I myself want or don't want to do (clarifying my intent to myself) and, by clarifying this intent for others, spare them as many potential unpleasant surprises as possible. Toward this goal I propose that every member with Owner Permissions for his or her own threads make a statement of sorts regarding how he or she intends to take advantage of these permissions. Here's mine. When I open a thread, think of it as a home I open to guests. I put a linen tablecloth on the table, arrange my best plates, put a fork to the left and a knife to the right of each and chopsticks for those who prefer them, arrange crystal wine glasses and light a few candles in a silver chandelier, and serve what I've cooked. You the guests are welcome to eat or not eat what I serve. You can bring your own potluck dish that may complement mine or surpass it in flavor and richness, or add the dessert I've overlooked. Guests are allowed to get loud, laugh, cry, talk nonsense, dance, sit quietly in a corner with one of my books, pet my cat, drink, smoke, sing, play musical instruments, order pizza if there's not enough food on the table, and so on. They are not, however, allowed to come in and announce that my linen tablecloth is obsolete and ridiculous and shows I'm putting on airs. They don't call my best plates tacky and don't examine each of them for cracks and stains to point out and gloat about. They don't throw the food offered either at me or at my other guests. They don't bring a pizza pie for the purpose of smashing it into my or any of my other guests' faces. They don't kick my beloved cat, don't write graffiti on my walls, don't drag in illegal substances, don't urinate on the rug in the living-room, don't shit in my Chinese porcelain or my Italian ceramic bowls and don't declare them unworthy of better treatment. They either enjoy themselves without offending the hostess and other guests and neighbors, or they go to someone else's party. If they come to mine and do any of the above, I immediately call the cops. I am the cops I call in this house that is the thread I opened, mind you. The cops gently handcuff and remove the intruder. The cops don't negotiate -- they aren't the court of law. There's nothing the intruder can say at this point that will stop them. Not even "I'm sorry." Yes, you may be sorry, so don't do it at your next party if you are -- but you have already ruined, or attempted to ruin, this one, and you can't take it back. Off you go. At any thread/virtual home I build. Either you are a dear, honorable guest and are treated as a guest, as a friend I am excited to spend time with and grateful to for having come. Or you are an intruder and are treated as an intruder. BIG difference. I hope every adult here can tell the difference between a guest and an intruder. So can I. These are my moderation intentions for purposes of my own threads. Do come and enjoy the party if it's a party to your liking. DO NOT come as an intruder. And if you do, I fully intend to throw you out. I don't set an ambush in my home, or a trap, I don't invite you for to throw you out. I only throw you out if you behave as an intruder. And, like I said, any reasonable adult can tell the difference, don't expect me not to notice the difference or do nothing about it. Now as to other guests whose conversations with the intruder got interrupted and are hanging in midair due to the intruder having been removed by the cops. The hostess is not responsible. She can't stop you from talking to an intruder. She can't blame you for it either, in fact she may applaud you for trying to reason with the intruder in an attempt to turn him or her into a guest. But should you fail, she has no way to unsay what you said to each other. You the guest, however, can. You can preface or append it with an edited-in note (e.g., "this was a conversation that took place between me and a participant who can no longer participate because the OP deemed his further contributions to her thread unacceptable, so any untidy/illogical/out of context statements are the outcome of this event unfortunate for all involved"); or just accept the fact that it's a forum, not a government site where every form is neat and tidy, leave it be, and move on. (Just like in any other section, please note, not just this one. People edit their posts, remove them, quotes are left hanging, etc.. That's the price to pay for the existence of the forum, because, as I said, if it's completely orderly it can't exist as a forum, and if it's completely disorderly it can't exist as a forum.) Or delete the conversation -- every guest can still take back whatever dish they brought to the potluck that they feel wasn't appreciated properly, and the hostess can't and won't stop them, though she will regret it if this does happen. Anyone who wishes to make their own statement of OP/thread mod intent is cordially invited to make such a statement, toward clarity and responsibility shared by all.

Thank you! Perfect.

Intrigued! How does it work?

In most places, it's just knowing history, knowing what has already happened, that causes people to "imagine things." About 5% of the world population have been spared first hand knowledge of how these things go. For them, it's very easy to extrapolate the "so far so good" state of affairs and dismiss what it was like for the rest of the world at least for the past one hundred years. For these lucky few, reality itself becomes a wild tale made up by "fearmongers" to scare the impressionable. They've never seen, visited, or escaped what to them is a land of make-believe, a land where most of the rest of humanity dwells from time to time, on and off, with clockwork regularity -- a land of homes razed to the ground and concentration camps and internment camps and refugee camps and torture and hunger and poverty and fear and being trapped in impossible circumstances with no way out. I hope with all my heart they never will. But to make fun of those who have a wider perspective instead of trying to understand where they're coming from might lower their chances to weather the storm when it's their turn to weather the storm. I've read many stories about, and by, people who survived impossible circumstances. They all have this to report -- those who had been shocked out of their comfort zone of optimistic beliefs into the inhumane reality perished first.

.

Politics appear. Mighty eagles don't hunt flies. Hail, Aldebaran!

.

.

It's the same as you learn about people, only in a different language. Experience, observation, awareness, integration. How do you know the mood of a family member, even when they say nothing? Empathy, memory, other instances when it was like that and what they proved to mean, what transpired, how these instances compare to different ones you've witnessed. Every phenomenon can be an awareness practice, and even the most inscrutable cat is no different. Also, people who haven't had many interactions with a number of cats in their life will of course understand less than those who have. It's a matter of gradually gaining proficiency, competence, if you are interested and are paying attention, it starts falling into place. The first cat I had a chance to observe, my grandmother's, was older than me by five years (she lived to be around twenty and got hit by a car in her old age), and I was studying her the way a child studies how the world in general works. She was a great subject to study too, a university of a cat. She spent most of her life outdoors, it was an adventurous life of a huntress, mother, lover, explorer, fighter, insane energy, powerful presence, she was the closest thing to untamed nature you could encounter in a small semi-rural town where my grandmother lived, or anywhere else unless you were born into untamed nature. So, e.g., I knew she had an enemy. The neighbors' cat, also female. They carefully separated their territories and did not seek each other to pick a fight, but there was an invisible border, somewhere among the tall weeds overgrowing a patch of uncultivated land nearby, and once either cat stepped onto that border, if the other cat spotted her, they fought. So, say, I'm sitting outside, cat on my lap, all relaxed and soft and content, and I'm studying, trying to become aware of what the cat is aware of. All of a sudden her pupils that were round all this time abruptly contract into slits. She didn't change her pose, but I can feel that all the softness under my hand has turned into a steel spring. Next thing I know, she jumps off and runs toward that invisible border, and then you hear the blood-curdling sounds of a cat fight. So she spotted her enemy and her body language told me that she did, even though I didn't perceive that other cat.

My cat knows this position, only instead of the lamb, I call it the sphinx. This is how he expresses one of these: not happy about the last meal -- he wanted something different; disappointed about something, didn't like something, is a bit resentful; meditating, turning his awareness within; feeling cold -- physically or emotionally or both; has some thinking to do; wondering if his stomach might be upset.