CityHermit!

Doesn't Zhuangzi mention Zuowang? Seems like some earlier mentioned quotes might relate to that? I don't recall other passages offhand but maybe I should look. I love that text, I should read it again in the near future. It was my impression that some passages in the Laozi describe elements of the same thing, such as references to stillness and darkness, etc.

I'd like to visit the Pacific Northwest myself.

aha!

Feel free to comment on anything else I've said already, as it has a lot more important implications.

I did not know that, thank you for sharing. It's nice to learn new things.

No, glp is an acronym to a website and they call themselves glpers. There's even a thread somewhere around here that mentions it. I believe the full title is godlikeproductions. As with joeblast, you can interpret things how you will but it's not my problem either way. I will state also I am apolitical. I don't care about left or right because I don't even believe in the state. I'm not sure how that is a bias. You know how little kids run around and do physical activity when they are playing imaginary games even though the premise is in their own minds? I see politics as the same thing, child minded people running around doing things in real life based on ideas in their head.

I don't watch tv, I'm outdoors a lot and in general out and about all the time. If I'm home I usually training or studying or have guests rather than laze about. It's too bad you had to interpret what I say in a manner to be offended by it, it's not my problem either way. In any case it is a site with right leaning views, so you would feel at home there. However, it also has a legacy as a conspiracy theory site and their disclaimer is to not be believe a word on the site or something to that effect, so you would have to watch out for many dishonest people. I've studied the general conspiracy theory realm going on a couple of decades, I know what's in it and can say with accuracy it's full of dishonesty.

Just for the sake of discussion rather than endorsing a view, I noticed in the Nina Kulagina video it's said she describes something that sounds like the Du channel at work. I would not be under the impression that the Soviets themselves had given that much thought if any. But also ironic is that the video says she does all that concentration for hours and then is all tired and sick afterward. So much energy going into something compared to a simple limb movement.

Do you mean that? You'd feel at home there. But in any case, I've never encountered an honest conspiracy theorist.

Maybe. But being direct is easy too. You a glper?

I should have forgone analogies and let facts speak for themselves. In any case I know how hard it is for some to accept them.

Oh and before I forget, what of Hegel's views on Daoism and the I Ching? Ironic! Hilarious!

So in summary, one can see how a centrist and independent force can dominate both left and right. So why bother with wings? Can't fly with just one.

Anyway, I don't mean to steer off topic towards personal experiences but there are some things I'd like to point out. For one, the left-right dichotomy in the US tends to obscure the role of the center. I don't know the current statistics exactly but I recall that something like a 1/3 or less of the (voting?) populace is steadfastly one party or the other. That leaves another 1/3 or more that are more or less independent. I think some other countries are more oblivious to that than Americans, but that's sort of another matter best delved into elsewhere. The point is that trying to divide the US, or foment civil conflict, on the basis of left-right dichotomy is a faulty strategy. Its faulty for a number of reasons, including that more than enough people don't care enough to gravitate towards left or right. Another is geography, there's not as clearly defined territory as one might think and the borders are so blurry in the event a civil conflict would occur. Secondly, the idea of the dialectic was not meant to be applied just domestically but also in international affairs as well. There is a rich history of US sponsored regimes and regime changes in the 20th century. Many of these can be in some way linked to same figures mentioned above. Example being the role of the Bush family, Sr. and Jr. being Bonesmen, in the CIA who was the spearhead of many of these developments. I won't go into all those details right now, there are many countries this happened to and it was often in the context of the Cold War so that the dialectic between Capitalism and Communism can be observed here. There's more to that I'll get to in a moment. Part of more recent examples though, as far as the regime building and changing goes and it's role in the dialectic, would be that of Iraq and Iran. The rise of the Baath in Iraq was one case of said regime change, the Shah of Iran was another. After the Shah was gone and when Iraq and Iran were at odds in the 80s, both sides were aided in some way by the US. More specifically aided by elements within the US that have a history of doing these things. There's a lot more details but I want to get to something else. Many of the regime building and changing examples of the Cold War belie how further back the dialectic goes. Antony C. Sutton in his Wall Street series describes how this took place for both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, that these regimes were essentially built by US and European entities for their role in the dialectic. There were many elements to this, networking, financing, etc. but very key is the role of dual use technology transfers. Dual use refers to the capacity of a good or technology to be applied for both civilian and military purposes. Sutton devoted a lot more research on this to the Soviet Union especially, and got his academic career killed for it. Before the Wall Street series, he wrote the series Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development. This series breaks down chronological periods and the dual use technology transfers and other sorts of "investments" being made during them. He later summarized this work in a later book The Best Enemy Money Can Buy. The Wall Street series, Best Enemy Money Can Buy, and another book America's Secret Establishment, can all be found and read freely online. The Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development series I don't believe is freely available like that although I haven't checked in a while. I do own hardcopies of all these books. Now, America's Secret Establishment was a later work. It may have been the last one, I forget, and it was a culmination of analysis of the networks behind the dual use technology transfers, the regime building of Nazi Germany and Soviet Union, etc. and adds further insights of some other elements such as education and psychology which is especially interesting in the context of other topics I will get to another time. The thing about America's Secret Establishment is that it also was an expose on the Skull and Bones, the premier one as far as I am aware. There is a passage in that book I'd like to share to discuss. Here is a link to the text that can be searched through with greater ease: https://archive.org/stream/AmericasSecretEstablishmentAntonyC.Sutton/America's secret establishment - Antony C. Sutton_djvu.txt Please examine Memorandum Number Five, The New Dialectic - Angola and China. It begins by essentially and more elaborately repeating parts what I wrote above. Notice also what is said about debt and keep that in mind in reference to US-China relations today. The parts about Angola were contextual to the events when the book was written and at the time everything else about China may not have been so apparent. The section on China is brief but significant. Here there is also a reference to Bush Sr., again Bonesman, as U.S. Ambassador the United Nations, expanding ties beyond that of the CIA although his directorship with that was a little later. Note the mentioning of Taiwan too. Please note this passage as well: "This is not the place to tell the whole story of American involvement in China. It began with Wall Street intervention into the Sun Yat Sen revolution of 1911 - a story not yet publicly recorded." Now, since this book was written and especially since Antony C. Sutton's death in 2002, China rose in a manner that is consistent with Sutton's analysis and forecasting. Of course, this rise was made possible through dual use technology transfers. One, although possibly indirect, example I would suggest would be Qian Xuesen. I'm sure some here know who that is, whom he was connected with, etc., and regarding such I'll leave it at that for the moment. Now, as I said, dual use technology transfers and, as Sutton described, debt. Think about the roles of these two things and how that has played out in reality over the past many decades. As for current events, the whole trade war thing with China that Trump has been getting into, has anyone else noticed reports and articles describing issues involving intellectual property? Less mentioned is that of dual use technology transfers, but there have been articles talking about it. One more thing. Who recently led the delegation to China to address these trade issues?

Forgot to click the notify of replies. There should be some videos on youtube.

Is anyone familiar with Nina Kulagina?

I don't worry about them either, and yes they are apt at networking. That in itself I don't think is bad, but eventually it comes down to at whose expense. I almost went that direction in life and am thankful I did not. True story, a few years ago I worked with a guy and we traded stories back and forth sometimes about family and he would tell me about an uncle of his. I guess this guy was a major player in law in D.C., worked for the Bush administration. One time he was reading through my Sutton book and as he was looking at the S&B membership lists he suddenly said, holy shit that's my uncle. I thought, small world. I've had a complicated legal issue that has been ongoing for more than a couple years. I had already consulted and hired other firms but they didn't really get good results in my view. I thought why not try my coworker's uncle, couldn't hurt to try. It turns out he was affiliated with that Kasowitz law firm, and I didn't know their relation to Trump at the time. I sent an email but didn't receive a response. Maybe it was defunct for all I knew. In any case, one week later there was that media fiasco with Kasowitz himself. Does anyone remember that? I had a good laugh.

I've read people discuss the mixed qualities of people Trump has picked for various positions, spanning across the spectrum. However, it seems that his interest isn't the political ideology of whoever he wants to work with, but more that he wants others to work for him without questioning or steering him. Many people do think and live according to left/right paradigm, but the consequences of that are the sociopolitical circumstances we still currently live with. I'm less interested in such individuals than the people who are genuinely at an advantage through their control of the dialectic. One example of the latter would be the Skull and Bones fraternity. It's a detailed history, I won't go into all that immediately. Take the 2004 election though, Bush and Kerry both Bonesmen. Secretary of the Treasury Mnuchin is also a Bonesman. I believe he is at the tail end of the membership lists that were leaked to Antony C. Sutton, so unless more leaks happen people may not be aware who is one when they are in such positions. I've read a lot of people saying Trump will do this and that to change the status quo of entrenchment in politics. So why is Mnuchin Secretary of the Treasury? Skull and Bones go back to the 1830s, potentially older if giving consideration to European groups they claim lineage to, but Freemasonry goes back further and was very involved in the founding of the US. Their use of the Jachin and Boaz pillars to illustrate the polarity of mercy and severity resembles a lot of the qualities embodied in the political dialect of the US. It's pretty systematic, everyday people have long been pawns to it. I want to say more but I have some prior engagements to attend to for an hour or more so I have to cut this short unfortunately.

No rush. I'm a bit busy at the moment to speak more elaborately myself. Simplifying it is suitable anyway.

It's not even about the government, but private entities that use governance for their own private interests.

Left and Right are illusory, it's all just Hegelian Dialectics. Individuals and groups with political influence use Hegelian Dialectics to keep everyone else in line. That's it in a nutshell.

I have these Foreign Language Press editions that come in 4 volume sets and I like them. Moss Roberts translated Three Kingdoms and Sidney Shapiro translated Outlaws of the Marsh.

I don't find contingent belief inherently deterministic myself.

Hi. I'm a Daoist too. I can be shy. I live in the US. My background is kind of complicated. My username is part pun, part real. I've known about DaoBums for a long time but I mostly had stayed away from the internet. Now I thought I'd give it a try. I like to learn, I hope to learn a lot. Again, I can be shy and secluded. I guess I can share more gradually. I hope this is an ok introduction. Thank you.

I'm curious if anyone has more information on the historical context of some of the topics brought up in Zhuangzi, or of the period when it was written. When I have gone back to reread it or other texts I get a different understanding after I have learned more background about some of the events or people that are referred to. I think I still have more to study though.