Taomeow

Cuts without humoUr from American spell check leave humor behind

Being a king is an occupational hazard that shortened many lives -- chiefly due to assassinations though.

I believe your opponents couldn't win against you because they failed to figure out the real argument that could help them. I'll do it for them then if you don't mind. The real distinction here is not between old, middle-aged and young civilizations but between civilizations with total, partial, or just marginal memory loss. An old one can have superb memory despite its old age. A young one can be totally amnesiac -- an exuberant senile teenager of a civilization. The point your Chinese opponents should have made in defense of their position would then be, "you can't enlighten us as efficiently as you assume you can because you don't remember who you are and where you come from, and therefore there's no guarantee you're not lost." I bet you can read any Chinese text from exactly the same period this English text comes from -- try reading it: Hƿæt! ƿē Gār-Dena in ġeār-dagum, þēod-cyninga, þrym ġefrūnon, of thede, hū ðā æþelingas ellen fremedon. Oft Scyld Scēfing sceaþena þrēatum, 5monegum mǣġþum, meodosetla oftēah, egsode eorlas. I bet you know, and can expertly use, quite a lot of Chinese medicine from 2600 B.C.. I wonder what a graduate of an American medical school knows about American medicine of 100 years ago. I've often told a Taiwanese friend with whom I usually have these debates that the Chinese government ought to hire me for some PR position. I always wind up defending China -- and not only am I not enamored with modern China, I'm not that crazy about even the Shang dynasty. What I'm crazy about is the fact that they still remember and use things from before even then. From prehistory... from where we've all been but don't remember. And China, whose civilized history is every bit as horrendous as everybody else's, somehow still does, although for how much longer, it's hard to tell at this point. And I think that's what they themselves, perhaps largely unconsciously (that's why they fail to formulate a strong conscious argument), feel about it too, even though they might not be able to put a finger on exactly the spot where the real reason for pride and dignity can still be felt.

Yes, I remember a bit, though not much, of her story. What I remember is, she was first a traditional wife and chiefly always on the brink of death from all kinds of ailments, including cancer. Mao, to humor her, gave her a token involvement in the political process. She promptly went for more than a token. Discovered a taste for intrigue, conspiracy and power consolidation. All her illnesses disappeared. Cancer disappeared. For the rest of her life she was full of energy and never sick. I don't think it's because power itself cures the body, I think it's more the opposite scenario -- powerlessness undermines health (scientific fact.) Apply power to the wound and it works as an antidote. Quite in accord with Chinese medicine's tradition of treating -- but only when all else fails -- "extreme poisons with extreme poisons."

I haven't thought of that. I guess it's hard to tell. There's no misogynistic ideology specifically attached to socialism or communism (unlike in many other social class-based theoretical and empirical arrangements), although empirical applications are usually still uniformly patriarchal, like in any other civilized management project. Except for a new twist -- some patriarchal overlords can be female, this is acceptable under both socialism and capitalism (and even under classical feudalism) -- anatomically female provided politically they are as patriarchal as ever. Marx himself, in an interview I recall dedicated to personal matters, answered these questions: "What do you value the most in a man?" -- "Strength." -- "And what do you value the most in a woman?" -- "Weakness." Though I don't think he offered any specific ideological justifications for keeping women weak. As for Mao, perhaps he understood (he was nothing if not an expert on human strengths and weaknesses) that it doesn't matter if it is a man or a woman in the position of power as long as the structure of the power itself is fully patriarchal. We don't care if it's a black cat or a white cat as long as it catches mice.

Years ago, I read this book, unique in that it was written by someone who arguably knew Mao better than anyone else -- his personal physician of nearly 30 years. A Western educated dude. Who hated his only patient with a passion yet was trusted by the latter probably more than Mao ever trusted anyone, and was in on many behind-the-scenes dynamics. I have to warn whoever may get interested in reading it that it's 736 pages (even I have become wary by now of committing to most written material of this voluminosity -- a woeful side effect of gradually ingrained online habits -- but I used to read "everything" on paper on any subject of interest to me and still retain some bigger-picture cognitive habits). It may be in this book (although I read many more on the subject, aside from having some friends who lived through "it all") that I came across this interesting thought: Mao's success in "winning over the masses" was rooted in one peculiar innovation no Chinese emperor before him (not even Emperor Wu Hou who was a woman) ever offered his constituents: equal rights for women, and not only in the form of lip service but in the form of a whole lot of empowering venues this opened for them -- in education, science, economy, medicine, politics, overall social status where being a "daughter" didn't seal one's family, marital, reproductive and lifestyle fate anymore -- and a rather comprehensive dismantling of a social order that trampled upon them for thousands of years. It was Chinese women who landslided him into power and were willing to take the good with the bad with the ugly as long as this one innovation -- a monumental one -- was part of it.

Honey... Oh, sugar, sugar...

Ah, folk etymology. How often you make those of my professors of comparative linguistics who are still living come close to dying of laughter, and those who are already deceased to roll in their graves. Ever wondered why they are even called "elections?" Well, both "elites" and "elections" originate from the same Latin word eligere -- to choose. Oops... I guess electricity that powers your computer was also produced by the Jewish god. No wait, the electric god was Zeus... That Z though... an undeniable code for Zionism, so this so called Greek god was really just another one of those!..

Of determined carps much has been said by humans -- not a word by carps.

Thank you. That was very helpful. What's the purpose of using metaphorical names? I could think of two -- one would be benign, the other, not. Which one do you think applies here? 1. "Language twisting" is a very traditional (and ancient and apparently universal) method for approaching things indirectly -- as one shaman from the Amazon put it, "if you name things directly, straightforwardly, you run into them like into a wall, collide with them. You need to circle around and around instead to get to them." Or 2. This is done in order to equate, in one's subconscious, actual live people with abstractions, insubstantial ideas and opinions, so that the word "mother" does not evoke the image of a live feeling human being who matters but, instead, is now associated with the concept of "craving" which is not something good and should be discarded, or even killed, quite nonchalantly. Ditto "father" and the rest. If live people are turned into abstract concepts and not seen as human beings anymore, human connections gets weakened. People whose connections are weakened are disempowered, and consequently more open to manipulation.

Especially considering it was not Mao's but Chiang Kai-shek's son, future President Chiang Ching-kuo, who met his wife in Russia and gave Taiwan a Russian first lady. She became Jiǎng Fāngliáng but her original name was Фаина Ипатьевна Вахрева (Faina Ipat'evna Vakhreva). She turned into a traditional Chinese wife and stayed out of the spotlight.

Went to the link provided to see what "social enterprise" is. The first paragraph (titled "the widest definition") states: "Social enterprises are revenue-generating businesses with a twist. Whether operated by a non-profit organization or by a for-profit company, a social enterprise has two goals: to achieve social, cultural, community economic and/or environmental outcomes; and, to earn revenue." And immediately ran into this roadblock. What if "to achieve social, cultural, community economic and/or environmental outcomes" should fail to "earn revenue?.." Or what if "to earn revenue" should only be found possible if "social, cultural, community, environmental outcomes" are thrown to the wind?.. Which one wins?.. Historically, it has always been the revenue bit. That's what I would expect from any growth-oriented, revenue-oriented economy. How would renaming and reinterpreting a still-expansive, growth-oriented activity rid it of this perennial conundrum? I don't mean to keep striking down all noble social initiative models with my pessimistic projections as to how they might practically pan out if implemented, but neither do I want to see another round of misapplied noble passion and effort leading nowhere good, as it did so many times before throughout history. What we haven't tried yet is to re-evaluate the whole concept of "more is better," "faster is better," "progress is the shit." We haven't tried yet to turn around and rewind backward -- remember those "analog" watches, with hands indicating the flow of time -- clockwise, i.e. left to right? The drift to the right is what's inevitable if we just go where time flows while also busting our bellybuttons to speed it up and force it to flow faster and faster. And there's evidence in physics, biology and cognitive neuroscience that time indeed flows left to right in reality -- e.g. our neural excitation spreads left to right in the brain if we think of the future, and right to left if we think of the past. Looks like I'm the ultimate leftist. I want to move the hands of that clock counterclockwise. Right to left. The farther back, the better. Mostly because I anticipate those who see the solution in moving them faster and faster forward, turning them into a spinning propeller always chasing a "better future" that is envisioned as "more of everything" (whether "more for everybody" or "more for a special group" doesn't seem to matter -- it always ends up being a special group with "more") to be ultimately swept away by its out-of-control spinning and fly off the face of the watch.

and then some. Agreed. Sounds like "death is inescapable" to me. It didn't take us long to accept it as some natural given, and it says something heartbreaking about the current state of the human soul. Why should it be inescapable? Why should we accept it as our only option out of a total of one? Do the same thing, more and more of the same thing, but hope for a different outcome? I used to play tennis, many moons ago, and my coach always told me, "if the strategy you're using is working, whatever it is, don't change it. If the strategy you're using is not working, change it completely."

Actually, I don't think so. I think equating "intelligent" and "civilized" is where the sleight-of-hand happens. In fact, we seem to have been exceedingly intelligent until we became technological. Not in a skewed unbalanced left-brain fashion but just overall intelligent -- emotionally, physically, and I think intellectually too. I think we used to be interesting inside in ways that only appear "primitive" to a civilized observer. Who was usually struck by terminal envy when faced with who we really are. There's, e.g., accounts to that effect given to the Queen of Spain by the first Europeans stepping on the American soil. "Never seen people so beautiful, so healthy, so happy and so devoted to each other anywhere."

The difference being that dinosaurs were disaster free for the prior 200 million years. Whereas civilized, i.e. city-dwelling and practicing sedentary agriculture, human activities (or our hypothetical puppeteer's if neither "creation" nor "evolution" but intervention is our real progenitor/boss) have brought all life on the planet, ours included, to the brink of disappearing in a meager several thousand years. I say it's a very unusual way to go -- by first fouling up and then blowing up one's nest. Yes, there's been all kinds of disasters on earth, but this is a first, unless of course there were other civilizations before that went out in a similar manner, as some accounts of Mu and Atlantis and suchlike seem to hint. But even if they did, and ours is not the first one whose ultimate outcome is self-destruction within a laughably short period in terms of an average successful species' lifespan on earth, that would be just another argument in favor of my position: civilization is not sustainable. Species that fail, fail. Perhaps we're failing in an unusual manner, is all. Species that don't fail stay put for a long, long time. Ask the shark. 425 million years and counting. Though humans are capable of putting an end to them in thirty seconds if they so desire or blunder -- whereas nothing that happened on earth in the prior 425 million ever could. No natural disaster was disastrous enough. That's the main difference between a natural and an artificial disaster. Natural disasters are rare (in terms of geological periods) and far between. When they come, they do destroy. Artificial ones are fast and furious, and when they come, they self-destruct.

Run a fool's errand -- sit by the river and watch foes' corpses float by

Yes, that too. Also, as a practitioner of taoist sciences, I've been having problems with things "invented" or "first introduced" by the Sumerians" for I don't know how long. And consequently trying to chase down a common source, or else a transmission not from Sumer but to Sumer -- or else become one of them coincidence theorists whom I generally hold in low esteem for all purposes. A number of official sources I've seen assert, e.g., that Sumerians were the first to develop astronomical observations and identify something like 12 constellations. I looked at the same period in Chinese history -- they had been working with 60 constellations by then and since no one knows when at the time, and the 12 that became our "zodiac" (literally "circle of animals") weren't even placed in heaven, they were earthly "animals" (metaphors for particular types of earthly qi) -- then Sumerians somehow transported them to up above our heads, shuffled the animals a bit, added some human non-animals -- and all subsequent Western astrology (and its physical body disemboweled of its metaphysical soul that became astronomy) proceeded to work with those. (Which is one reason I've never looked all that closely at Western astrology... hey, what about Earth?... Does our planet have a say at all in what concerns itself with human destiny?..)

Reminded me of a true story from history. Peter the Great was inspecting the implementation of his rulings by touring various cities and getting into every detail personally. It was, among other things, ordered that his arrival must always be officially announced and greeted by firing the city's cannons. So, he comes to this one city (forget which) and he's greeted in a due ceremony but the cannons are silent. Furious, he summons the governor. "Why didn't the cannons fire, you insubordinate rascal?" "Your majesty, there's exactly 16 reasons why." "Oh yeah? And what are they?" "Number one: we have no gunpowder..." Peter interrupted the governor and waved a dismissive hand. "There's no need to go into the other 15. I'm satisfied in my inquiry."

Glad to have been useful with my humble contribution to your success. I remember your chart! It was very challenging (one of those I've rarely encountered that are more challenging than my own..) Kudos for getting on top of a very demanding destiny. This makes sense. I'm wondering if you ever thought of trying to expose your son to taiji. I've no idea if it might help with autism, but it sure helps with a lot of body-mind coordination difficulties in many cases, including difficulties in people who never even suspected they had them until they tried.

(BTW, I corrected my typo "1961" for Italy to "1861." I wonder how much of our understanding of history of the ancient times is the outcome of typos -- or should I say scribos or carvos.) Yes, much (but not all) can be gleaned from circumstantial evidence coming from multiple sources -- but one has to integrate it -- and the bigger the picture, the less important it becomes to see the individual trees, the more important to see the forest (or its absence.) The tendencies and traits that persevere. I have learned to never draw any conclusions from any one source of information that's not first hand, nor from any multiple sources that are just repeating the repeaters of this or that consecrated, sanctimonious, institutionalized (and often either unknown or hiding behind a facade meant to be known so as to obscure what's behind it) source, all saying the same thing over and over again until the issue seems like yet another cozy case of "multiple sources agree." Whereas they may well all be traceable to each other like a set of mirrors placed to face each other, and the reality which is not one of those mirrors may be just one hand that installed them all. Finding that hand usually answers many questions, but it's a hidden hand. And the mirrors all proclaim in unison it's not there.

The "airborne contraceptive" is already here -- and waterborne and foodborne and electromagneticborne too. Birth rates in the industrialized world are declining for various reasons, but the main one and the fastest growing one may be an epidemic of infertility in both men and women that seems to deepen with each passing year. I think some Handmaid's Tale type scenario is a whole lot more likely than overpopulation caused by excessive breeding. If current tendencies in our reproductive health hold up -- or speed up -- a welcome to Gilead in our future seems entirely plausible.

@Earl Grey What I do agree on is that models do have anorexic bodies reminiscent of the traditional depictions of personified death. And, to a taiji conditioned eye, postural misalignments that may speed it up. Other than that, I'm more with Laozi on this subject. I'm not one of those people who shoot from the hip with a Laozi quote at the slightest provocation, but in this particular case, chapter 50 resonates with my take quite closely. Three out of ten follow life. Three out of ten follow death. People who rush from birth to death Are also three out of ten. Why is that so? Because they want to make too much of life. I have heard that the one who knows how to live Can wander through the land Without encountering the rhinoceros or the tiger. He passes the battlefield Without being struck by weapons. In him, the rhinoceros finds no opening for its horn. The tiger finds no opening for its claws. The soldiers find no opening for their blades. Why is that so? Death has no place in him. According to Laozi's math, there's one out of ten who is not interested in death. How many of those who are not interested in death practice taoist immortalist arts, I don't know. But I guess ten out of ten who do are the ones who are not interested in death. How many of them successfully remain uninterested, I don't know. But there's something about not ordering the dessert if you're after an eternal dinner.