Taomeow

In my childhood this game was called simply "broken telephone," and in different countries of the Old World it goes under different names -- "Russian scandal" and "Arabic telephone" and a host of other names. I was not surprised to learn that "Chinese whispers" is what it's called by native English speakers. From the Wiki article on the subject: "Historians trace Westerners' use of the word Chinese to denote "confusion" and "incomprehensibility" to the earliest contacts between Europeans and Chinese people in the 17th century, and attribute it to Europeans' inability to understand China's culture and worldview.[5] Using the phrase "Chinese whispers" suggested a belief that the Chinese language itself is not understandable.[6] Additionally, Chinese people have historically been stereotyped by Westerners as secretive or inscrutable.[7] The more fundamental metonymic use of the name of a foreign language to represent a broader class of situations involving foreign languages or difficulty of understanding a language is also captured in older idioms, such as "It's all Greek to me". I agree it's all Greek to most. Takes a combo of a spark of interest, curiosity, considerable personal effort in satisfying it, luck, and possibly predestined relationships to discern what those Chinese whispers are about. Most people who overhear them proceed to demand that they cut it out and speak plain English. Or even assert that they do! (I don't mean the purely linguistic aspects of course. One can be fluent in Chinese and the telephone will still spew garbage to them.) It's been whispering for seven thousand years, give or take, so frustration with the message or its total loss is guaranteed to most who overhear a snippet of it. No argument there.

In original taoism not molested invaded influenced by other modalities there's no such connotations. There's a comprehensive picture of attributes which processes and phenomena exhibit, and each of them is understood as either "predominantly" or "more" yin or "predominantly" or "more" yang when they are compared to each other. So "active-inert" can be an alternating process within the same phenomenon. Besides, there's better and worse translations. )) "Active" is sometimes translated as "creative" and "passive" as "receptive," but it's not to say that the receptive yin is not creative (in its characteristic yin way that allows, e.g., for the creation of life in a slow, steady, hidden process of pregnancy of which only the superficial visible part, the growing and sticking-out belly, is yang, while the invisible inner part, the creation of a new human being from scratch to completion, in watery darkness and silence, is yin.) Nor that the active yang can't mean destructive (destruction is a form of creation -- of chaos out of order.) There's myriad yin-yang interactions within every phenomenon, and a solid taoist education allows a follower to discern them without making mistakes or jumping to conclusions, while in the absence of such, this unique and magnificent system of cognition can easily get mistaken for some "same old" or other one is already familiar with from elsewhere.

Ah, yes, thank you. A good word indeed, also somewhat revealing, like all things language if one looks closely enough. The first thought that occurs to me is that, from the taoist perspective, the archaic meaning of "quick" reflects the patriarchal civilization's habit of equating yang with alive and yin with dead. ("Ladies don't move.") This is a world skewed toward yang excess, among other things, so it mostly sees things that make it tick, animate it, as alive, and things that are invisibly foundational for its very existence as dead. But things interact with other things to reveal their nature, nothing is "alive" or "dead" by itself. Scientists have long argued about viruses regarding their status as either "alive" or "dead," I don't think there's consensus. Viruses are so explicitly dead-alive-flipping depending on the environment that they are worthy of a "philosophical" analysis. Which, when undertaken, leads me to believe that it's neither the inertness of yin nor the activity of yang that make things alive -- it's the ability to engage both or either by choice, the choice being intertwined with circumstances, with the environment. The environment that suggests one or the other, the inert state or the active state, solicits a response from whatever interacts with it, and it is this response, whenever forthcoming, that animates both, the "thing" or "person" and the environment. The ability to give that response is aliveness. I see some intimate connections between this ability and free will. Aliveness is closely tied with personal choice. The less of that one has, the less alive one gets. Which is why epidemics of loss of personal choice take away so much aliveness from the world.

Long story... I believe in civilization we are dealing with an ages-long parasitic illness, very contagious, very difficult to overcome because it induces hallucinations in everybody who contracted it. It is a psychotic state -- a very real and easily diagnosable departure from the normal state, except the afflicted are not equipped to diagnose it in themselves or others because this state is the only one they've ever known, so they mistake it for the ordinary, regular state of reality. If they don't like it, if it doesn't work out all that well for them, they blame the "illusory" nature of reality instead of the psychotic state they themselves are in. If they like it, if it seems to be working well for them, they will do everything to perpetuate and expand it. Psychosis is as real as normalcy -- real doesn't equal healthy, normal, or a guaranteed (or "karmically deserved" if you behave) reboot to some default setting. The person (or the world) engulfed in illness-induced hallucinations is not absent from any actual reality, but even if he understands that he's hallucinating, this is not going to cure him, anymore than understanding that a parasite causes an illness cures the illness or rids one of parasites. So we keep tweaking with hallucinations, by hallucinating the best solutions for the hallucinated problems -- including the purported problem of "duality" or "separation" or what have you. No such problem in reality, it's a feature, not a bug. The bug is the bug. The parasitic infestation. (Illustrations: The first image depicts an Etruscan "Tree-Headed Demon," 5th century BCE. The second is the image I grew up with -- it was everywhere.)

"Would you say this implies working on your ability to respond to change? Becoming more flexible, open and somehow 'quicker' in the old sense of that word?" -- As a taijiquanista, I'd say more sung -- more "flexible steel needle wrapped in soft cotton." Yes, responsive and able to adjust to the changes quickly, but also "quick" only when the rapidly changing situation warrants a fast response -- yet also doggedly "slow" or unmoving, unmovable, if the world (or the situation or the opponent) are doggedly fundamentally the same despite superficial changes. (Mike Tyson with a cold is still Mike Tyson. A cannibal with a craving for a cookie is still a cannibal.) You have to "dig deeper" -- for the root -- and not beyond, not so deep that it becomes meaningless, the root of the tree is deep but you don't want to dig for it to the core of the earth, to some "we're all one anyway" molten lava underneath it all. (Yes, you must become one with the opponent in push-hands but it's a fleeting state, you don't go eat and shit together when all is said and done... you come together as one, but you must also fall apart as two in the real world. You don't overcome "other" with loving yourself. And asserting that every "other" is an aspect of yourself, ergo of the ultimate oneness, ergo perfect, is very narcissistic IMO, and not very practical in my experience.) So, one also needs to resist the temptation to knee-jerk-react to every superficial change which may be a decoy, a distraction, a maneuver to redirect your awareness from where the root is really positioned. I believe all of those skills are transferable to most situations, but a high level skill is always a work in progress. So... competence, openness to learning, and humility, knowing what to do, knowing when you don't know, being able to tell the difference. And not falling for any omnipotence traps of belief (either in one's own omniscience, invincibility, or the special powers conferred by a special brand of faith), which are usually just that -- traps. "I do suspect it's the demons' testing ground, not ours" (TM) "Can you elaborate a little more? What about co-creation - don't we participate in whatever is happening continuously? Are we participating in the work of demons? A worrying thought." Yes. They wouldn't be able to subjugate us without our cooperation. They would only be able to exterminate us -- which is not what serves their purpose. Their purpose is to exterminate our resistance, plus of course as many of us as they deem either of no utility to them or more trouble than our worth -- but not all of us. Were we united as one -- with us, not with them -- they wouldn't have a chance in hell. But we seldom put up that kind of fight, among other things because we have been trained to identify with them. That deceitful "we." As in, "We went to war in Iraq." Fuck no I didn't. (Or did I? Did my tax money go to war in Iraq? If you dig deeper, you start seeing the incalculable ways "us" becomes part of "them" on the demonic playground. A make-believe play unity, where the price of playing is cancellation of everything but this game.) That's one reason we seldom realize that we must resist. If it's open assault, we sometimes resist. If it's tiptoeing erosion of all things human, however, which is the demonic way, we turn into those proverbial slow-boiling frogs who just sit there in the pot till they're boiled alive because the fuel to the demonic fires underneath is being added at a pace that doesn't allow us to realize where we are and what's going on in time to jump out. And by the time we notice, there's no strength left to jump out. So, yes, it's a co-creation, a collaboration between us and them.

OK then... you asked for it. Being in the world but not worldly -- how about a quote from, of all people, Lenin: "It is impossible to live in society and be free from society." He would know. People who overestimate their power in this respect are either being defensive or have been extraordinarily fortunate to not have experienced the real state of the world personally -- which doesn't guarantee they never will. I say, stay alert to the world even if it causes you to avoid it. Being not worldly is still a reaction to the world, to the state of it one can't accept or share without twisting one's soul in the worldly way -- and consequently preferring to reduce it. The real way to be is in harmony with the world. If such harmony is impossible due to the nature of the world, it doesn't matter how we choose to react, we are still in the reactive mode. So I say stay in the reactive mode that works for you right here, right now, and change your reactions as the world changes. You control 33% of your destiny (the taoist fortune teller in me interjects), use them wisely and avoid pretending that you control more, or less. You control a lot less of the destiny of the world -- 33% divided by 33% X 7.8,000,000,000 -- unless you're one of its gods or demons, creators or destroyers. Which I don't think any of the present parties is. Personally, I would only want to destroy the last fraction of a second of its existence on the cosmic scale, but I don't have the power even for that. And it will self-destruct anyway. So, what's left to do is just that -- control the 33% of your destiny you can, while you can. Do we see the world as a kind of testing ground -- I don't know. Gods and demons do. I don't care for the opinions of those who fool themselves and others that they know without being either. I do suspect it's the demons' testing ground, not ours, nor gods'. But "suspect" and "know" are not the same, so there's a bit of hope there that my suspicions are merely based on incomplete information. Is it just illusion anyway -- the illusion is that it's possible to separate the two. It's like those packaged foods with "all-natural ingredients" which are not encountered in nature in the shape and form they are encountered in those packages. It's like pandemics, which are impossible in the real natural world and are happening in the only world we know as real and natural which is neither this nor not this, neither that nor not that. We've been in a pandemic for at least ten thousand years, maybe more. The pandemic of civilization is real. To perceive it as such is to get a glimpse of reality that is absolutely illusory and yet the only reality we have access to. To perceive some "higher" or "inner" or "ultimate" reality that ignores the reality of the illusion calling all the shots is an illusion. The pandemic of civilization is our ultimate reality for all purposes, and there's no getting anywhere else until/unless we get well.

My vision is more along the lines of Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia. Aside from some disputed Muslim territories and central Africa, it's all either spoken for or is in the process. The differences between the US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Great Britain are merely stylistic, and have to do with the pace of the process rather than its nature, which is quite uniform. In fact, the differences between all three 1984 superstates as well as the disputed territories are also shrinking -- the Lockstep vision is fleshing out more and more every day and it's global. On this road 'Murica is as vulnerable as everybody else even though it may seem that it's pushing everybody else in that direction. No. It's being pushed just like everybody else. Squabbles between two heads of the same bird merely ensure that both are fed our lifeblood in equal measure. It gets fatter and greedier no matter which head's turn it is to feed. Such is the nature of any empire, but a global empire is beyond anyone's worst nightmares who might try to retain a shred of humanity inside its chomping maw. And yet any step away from that maw is a step toward the abyss, now that we are less than a week away from the possibility of either the decisive push or the decisive chomp. I never voted and I hardly ever prayed. Not after Laozi's nonchalant admission anyway: the sage doesn't give a flying through a rolling about the straw dogs. Time to practice.

"The United States has Socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for the poor." -- Martin Luther King Jr To illustrate: Gilead is charging $3,000 for Remdesivir, a drug they developed with $70,000,000 of taxpayer money that costs them $10 to produce.

I agree with this understanding of evolution and like the way you put it. But that's not how the word is used in the Indo-European tradition, whether religious or scientific. It is routinely (and in most cases exclusively) used to mean some sequence from "lower" to "higher," to mean "betterment," "improvement," "progress" -- which is not what adaptation really is at all. Adaptation can imply a loss of something wonderful and a gain of something atrocious. But we commonly use the idea of "evolution toward a higher state" to mean that all such adaptive modifications are wonderful. The taoist view is quite the opposite -- many such adaptive modifications are disastrous, and we may well wind up on the road to terminal degradation rather than to a better "higher" state if we keep adapting in a hurry to an environment, both outer and inner, that we ourselves keep making unlivable for the previous-state-adapted, forcing new adaptations at a dizzying unnatural pace which no natural adaptation can hope to match. There's another problem with this belief that "evolution" means "progress," a progression from something primitive, feckless, disposable toward something sophisticated, more significant and worthy of sacrificing the "primitive" to in the grand scheme of things. This is the royal road to discrimination and abuse -- of the land, of animals, tribes, peoples, children, women, other races, the less-educated (in our understanding of "education"), and of course sky's the limit on that road -- the poor, the sick, the "dumb" (low IQ, in our understanding of "intelligence"), the old, the not-fitting-in (let's bully them for not "evolving" rapidly enough), nature itself that actually avoids evolution for as long as it possibly can if it can help it, for reasons too numerous to include in a forum post. Evolution is, incidentally, also understood as "survival of the fittest" by 99% of the concept's proponents -- by whose fucking definition "fittest" and "fittest for what" they don't bother asking -- so it's de facto murderous, as ideas to base actions on go...

Thank you for your echoing (gangying!) thoughts, @silent thunder Yes, that's exactly the right context for the concept of de to be translated as "virtue" -- as in, "heng (constancy, reliability, long-term endurance) is one of the virtues of tao." Virtue as an intrinsic natural property, as inherent nature independent of conjuncture. As opposed to the kind Laozi was frowning upon in Chapter 38: born not of the constant, heng mind of tao but of the fickle, corrupted human mind that reinterprets what virtue is in accordance with how it is understood and prescribed by the latest edicts of the dominant baboon: When the Tao is lost, there is goodness. When goodness is lost, there is morality. When morality is lost, there is ritual.

No, "evolved" is a different word, it is indeed "real man" (or rather "real person," not gender specific) that taoist classics talk about, and we don't believe in "evolution," we believe in "unfolding" -- the way a seed unfolds into a tree, or "folding in" the way a tree folds into a seed, from which a tree unfolds whose seeds are folded trees... and so on. Neither is "evolved." Evolution is adaptation to the imperative to be something else, to abandon what one is, i.e. to lose one's de -- wholeness, integrity (which the translators have taken the habit of substituting with the concept of "virtue" that doesn't mean even remotely the same thing.) Taoist ideal is for each of the "ten thousand things," man including, to be itself. Fully itself -- born of star dust, unfolding into a star, a force of nature, "roaming the root of heaven and earth" -- or folding back into dust, into the humblest of the humble, into nothing. And unfolding again! Eternally. So "real person" is a profound idea -- a man or a woman who can unfold their full being (or fold it -- a baby is no less evolved than an old person). De is the ticket, oneness with oneself (aka being whole, genuine, not more than that and not less than that) is oneness with tao.

I'm sure there's real humans in every tradition. (A "real human" is the taoist idea of a state that can be very low or very high -- or beyond any distinctions or constraints of space, time, form, substance, consciousness, even reality itself -- whether of being or of nonbeing -- by choice, and reversibly at will or on a whim. It's hard to compete with our ideals -- we cover all bases. )

I didn't misunderstand, I just didn't feel like instantly abandoning the wistful (even somewhat somber) mood in which I approached that discussion to a jocular one. You are not a mansplainer, right? They usually don't let a woman keep the mood she's in, among other things -- they expect her to switch on cue to a different one as soon as they indicate that she's expected to abandon hers and change it to the one they propose. But you're not one of them, right? Well, I could, anytime, any size, when I was younger -- but a woman can't even though she can. See what I mean?

Sounds good. I claim no Prana/Shakti expertise. I've met people who talk about them though who did strike me as somewhat (or considerably) malicious, but indeed, no great Sages among them. Or if there were, I couldn't tell. I did go for a shaktipat from a world-touring celebrated and famous higher being at one point, even though it had nothing to do with my tradition and normally I don't mix and match, but I decided to be very open to the experience because the celebrity higher being came highly recommended by people I thought of as fellow seekers, and also because I needed something good, some pure higher good... those were tough times. First the attending folks sat and waited and were instructed by assistants oozing a mix of piousness and spiritual superiority what to do when the higher being appears and starts giving shaktipat. At first I thought I misheard the instructions. We were told to line up in the isle and crawl toward the stage on our knees, approaching the being one by one. Me and my companion were seated at the back, and even though the isle was carpeted, I thought the organizers should have mentioned this detail in advance. My companion had a disability that made it absolutely impossible for him to do that, but no one explained what the solution might be. Trying to attract the assistants' attention to ask that question caused both them and the attending devout shaktipat seekers to shush us, rather irately. They were all being pious, meditating or silently chanting mantras or prayers while waiting, see, and didn't want to be distracted. You know, all of a sudden I don't feel like finishing the story. I did meet some great sages in my life, but that wasn't it.

I know this hypothesis. But I believe both malicious and benign beings might be encountered on all frequencies, and as ideas go, "higher" (or to be semantically more precise "faster") vibrations as a manifestation of pure "good" is anathema to a taoist traditionalist. It merely means, translated into "taoese," a belief that "yang is good and more yang is better, yin is bad and more yin is worse." Which flies in the face of my whole cosmology, theology, ideology and cosmetology... oops, no, the last one is out of place, just couldn't think of another -ology to add. Proctology? No... Oh, of course. Ponerology. It flies in the face of all I know about good and evil.

I don't know if a higher frequency is the solution though. In my martial practice, taijiquan, a higher frequency energy discharge means a more lethal blow. We call it short jin, but you could call it "embodied high frequency shortwave weapons." Or as the technological counterpart developed by the military is known, Active Denial Systems (ADL) or directed-energy weapons. So if people evolve to a higher frequency, chances are they will become even scarier than they are today. Maybe that's how they will overcome the demons in the end -- by becoming scarier than the demons.

Do you know what "corporation," "incorporated" (Inc.) means? Demons may appear in a corporeal (incorporated) form. If you build a vehicle (corporation) for them to inhabit (incorporate, possess), they will come.

See, there's the problem with patriarchy right there. Life is not about efficiency in matriarchy. (I am part cat, I know how important it is to be idle and to exist for pleasure and enjoyment, not for utility, as much of the time as possible.) Yes, women can do everything men can do. Yes, one good stud per group would suffice if it was all about efficiency. We could all be amazons and throw male offspring off the cliff. Amazons (if they ever existed) were not a matriarchal society though. They were an efficient war machine modeled on the patriarchal ways. (Role playing, acting as honorary males -- just like our modern female politicians who are not really women in any sense other than anatomical, they are, for all social purposes, patriarchal overlords.) Your dream of harems is a patriarchal dream. In matriarchy on which, e.g., the Miao tribe's ancient ways were still modeled until very recently (now rapidly going extinct through the combined effort of the CCP and Western tourism), men don't get to run harems -- women get to choose their pleasure. Extra men who are not "necessary" for procreation don't get discarded -- why discard a willing and able source of pleasure? Not just sexual pleasure, mind you -- the pleasure of manhood in all of its manifestations. Men who don't have their heads full of what don Juan called "violent dreams" are delightful creatures. Naturally delightful, they don't have to prove it via accomplishments, they justify their existence by existing. (Of course so do women, in the real world we lost.)

My view is, it wasn't until we were poisoned that we decided to ride horses. I mean sedentary grain agriculture of course. We lured and enslaved the horse with cereal grains after someone did same to us. (Yes, I know you hold to the view that we did it to ourselves. I don't.) Easy glucose and all that. Endogenous aldehyde too, get a horse high on sugar and drunk on internal fermentation and he will learn to welcome the hand that giveth, like any alcoholic/drug addict. Like agrarian man. A friend of mine and compatriot of yours with similar interests/lifestyle to yours but leading to different conclusions had a different theory from mine or yours. He believed our downfall was the concept of paternity. He asserted that native Australians didn't make a connection between sex and pregnancy and credited the elements rather than an individual male with fertilizing the female. Without the concept of paternity a lot of reasons to hoard anything, to claim anything as property, as "mine and not yours," are not formed. I can see the validity of this hypothesis and the long term (millions of years) fruitfulness of ignoring paternity -- a moot point in a closely knit tribe where everyone relies on personal cooperation with everyone. Fertilizing toward owning is not something the elements do. How could the wind, the sunlight, the ocean "own" a child and give "inheritance" -- to this child but not that?.. Likewise the tribe acting as "the element," the medium that engenders a child and secures his or her survival. It's for a good reason that nature never created a mechanism whereby paternity could be as explicitly manifest in pregnancy as maternity is. Need-to-know basis -- and there was no need to know who's your daddy when every man was.

A fine example of how our educational/ideological paradigms are created. The Invisible Killer Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death. Dihydrogen monoxide: is also known as hydroxyl acid, and is the major component of acid rain. contributes to the "greenhouse effect." may cause severe burns. contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape. accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals. may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes. has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients. Contamination Is Reaching Epidemic Proportions! Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the midwest, and recently California. Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used: as an industrial solvent and coolant. in nuclear power plants. in the production of styrofoam. as a fire retardant. in many forms of cruel animal research. in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical. as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products. Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer! The Horror Must Be Stopped! The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its "importance to the economic health of this nation." In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use. It's Not Too Late! Act NOW to prevent further contamination. Find out more about this dangerouschemical. What you don't know can hurt you and others throughout the world. Send email to [email protected], or a SASE to: Coalition to Ban DHMO 211 Pearl St. Santa Cruz CA, 95060

Makes me wonder how he felt about your grandmother.