OldDog

Now there's an interesting statement. Aside from the subjective sense of justice, which we are all biased with to one degree or another, how else might it be understood. One might ask: Is there an objective standard ... or at least consensus ... that can be pointed to for a just world? The link you provided (Thanks!) to help set context suggests a preeminent authority to which appeals for justice ... at least in deciding whether something is just ... can be made. Where does Dao fit in such a case? We often speak of the Dao with a sense of preeminence in the world's workings. Does the Dao set the standard? Or, as you suggest in the case of the ultimate man, is the Dao to be considered above justness. If the world, through Dao, is all encompassing and is the way it is supposed to be ... self-so ... is there a sense of justness there? In Laotse, we are led to think that if the people were left to their natural ways then all would be ordered as it should be. Indeed, it is said that this would be the way the ssge would govern. Sounds a lot like a description of a just world. Can a sage then rise to the level of an ultimate man if outgrowing a belief in a just world is requisite? For me, considering these questions, brings me not to belief or disbelief in a just world, but to seeing the notion of justness as an invention of the human mind that should be dealt with there in a manner similar to other conceptualizations. Worth pondering.

@Marblehead I've been meaning to ask ... In your posts from Mair, is there any significance to the use of double braces ... {{ and }} ... that delimit some of the text? When I compare to Watson's translation, the parts Mair sets off with double braces are not given special treatment. Just wondering

First part of the OP ... the story of Craftsman Ch'ui ... seems to be speaking to the point our friend Wandelaar made in the post on 19:9. What is also important is the fact that worries and consequent nervousness as regards the reception of one's own work seriously interfere with the execution of the job. - Wandelaar Craftsman Ch'ui, because he had evolved with his craft and no longer needs to rely on his mind to perform his work, is not influenced by worries regarding the reception of his work. Thus, he makes no mistakes. Even so, there may are other considerations that account for Ch'ui's ability. Perhaps it is that he understands that beyond what the result of his work may be, he cannot influence how it will be received by others and is thus unencumbered by concerns of whether the product will be appreciated or not. Similarly, perhaps Ch'ui realizes that his skill is beyond the understanding of those who do not share his trade. So, there is no concern regarding how his skill is perceived. Asked to provide a draft, he simply does it. Either way, Ch'ui knows ... from some unconscious place ... what the result wants to look like ( recall the bellstand?) and simply provides that. Such is the deep understanding he has of draftsmanship. Is this not like the ulitmate man that Master Pien describes in the second part of the OP?

Thanks, freeform. Your description of meditation is about the best I have found. It is very clearly making distinction between breathing and meditation ... and, again between observing and listening. In my meditation the process of releasing has been key. Without paying too much attention to breathing I find that I settle into a very shallow abdominal breathing. Nothing contrived ... no attempt at reverse abdominal breathing or any other "method". My breathing rate slows to probably 2 to 3 breaths a minute. This can only be attained ( but not a goal in and of itself ... probably arrived at is a better description) by being in a stable comfortable posture, releasing as much physical and mental tension as possible. Session quality varies depending on how well the releasing goes. The part about listening is something that you almost never hear anything about. Buddhist meditative practices focus on observing ... at least initially ... but seem to stop there. I first heard the term "listening" in my martial arts training ... from two separate teachers from two separate styles. The usual context is in sensing movement and intent in an opponent ... but both teachers carried the term over to meditative practice. I wonder if you would be willing to talk a little more about "listening".

No tour of country music would be complete without an offering from Ray Price. He rises to almost deity status down here. He set the standard.

Love guitar music ... any genre. Here is an offering from a very gifted guitarist Yang Xuefei

Before going down the trail using the Relativity as the straw dog, I would offer comment on the definition of psuedoscience offered. Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual, but are incompatible with the scientific method. First of all, the definition sets up a line of argument that is bounded by the scientific method. Thus, arguments based on other methods are precluded. Second, any other method of inquiry is only psuedoscience when it claims to be science and attempts to use the scientific method to justify its conclusions. Care must be taken here because an method which comes under the heading "scientific method" may also be valid under another approach. Finally, it would be well to remember that scientific methods can be used to investigate a subject that is inherently or deliberately flawed or biased to begin with. And thus science can fail even if the method is seen as scientifically rigorous. Probably the greatest mistake is to place the scientific method on an unassailable pedestal where it cannot be questioned. History is full of examples where the state of science was such that it supported a position that only later ... in light of improved science ... was proved to be otherwise. Let the games begin.

Agreed. I would never claim that insights are a substitute for additional effort. As I stated ... another tool in the tool box. It can often be the guide as to where one will apply effort to achieve a result.

Sadly, no ... else I would be a Master ... which I am clearly not. But it was a fun discussion, anyway.

OK, here's another Louis ... and a little fun

Train for it? Maybe " train for it" overstates the case. Not sure I can explain it in a way that will make sense but will give it a shot. What I am about to describe is quite personal ... and may not be verifiable in a scientific sense. As I have stated elsewhere, I have long relied on my intuitive sense to help guide me. Once I noticed it was occurring, I took note of the feeling that accompanies the intuition, epiphany, spark of genius ... whatever you choose to call it ... and began to look for it elsewhere. You will ask ... what does it feel like? Near as I can describe it is part astonishment, amazement, wonder and bit of excitement. If you have ever had such an unexpected moment that produced a reliable workable solution to a problem, then you probably know the feeling. Now, the feeling is not the intuition or insight itself. I've learned that it just accompanies it like its a physical/emotional reaction. Over time ... comparing random occurences ... I found it was more common than I was always conscious of. Like I was dismissing the feeling as though it were irrelevant ... and I quit doing that and started taking a moment look at it ... how it arises ... what was I doing (or not doing) at the time. So, the training part. Well, once having learned to recognize the feeling, I began looking for it in trivial activities. Games, puzzles, etc. Anything where the solution depended on working the problem ... gathering information ... until the solution appeared. I figured that if I could learn to recognize the feeling more reliably and if intuition was indeed more common, then the product of the intuitive event might be more accessible and I would not be dismissing the product along with the feeling. Thowing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. Aside from the practice with puzzles and such I found there were other things that helped with the process ... remaining calm, controlling conflicting mental processes, eliminating distractions ... all trainable things. The only thing that remains is to carry the process over into less trivial situations ... more significant situations. Can such a process be called on on-demand? Not in the sense of a super-hero with super-powers ... like Shazam. Does it always produce an intuitive event ... no. But the process is productive enough to be b useful. More like having another tool in the toolbox. Does it get better with practice? I believe it does. After all how did people like Einstein Heisenberg or Hawking manage to come up with series of such amazing discoveries? So, now at the end of this long discussion you might say that what I describe is nothing special ... and you would probably be right. I believe everyone has this capacity. The key is learning to recognize what is going on at a detailed level and put it into a workable context ... and, of course, train for it. Does any of this mske sense?

The Louvin Bros put this tune in my head.

Yes, I get what you are saying. The facts have to be put away, as it were ... to make room in the working mind for other processes. You know, my experience has been, that when working on a problem or an issue, the way to solution is to contine to gather information about the problem and eventually the solution intuitively appears. It comes, as you say, from an unconscious place. But they do come quite naturally ... and you can train for it. This is reminding me of the discussion on DDJ chapter 48.

Good morning. Finally some cool weather ... makes me want to get out and about.

True enough ... you can't specialize in everything. (Kinda brings to mind the Pointed Man from Nilsson's The Point, who had so many points that he really had so point at all ... specializing in everything is really having no specialty at all. Don't know why that came to mind. ) But I do take a bit of exception to knowing a great number of facts by heart. First of all, even in a specialized discipline, thare are likely way more facts than can possibly be committed to memory ... and the commitment of facts to memory does not guarantee mastery, in and of itself. Seems to me that the really great masters have somehow transcended the mere facts of the discipline. They see through the facts to essense of the relationships between facts. At that point, they have elevated their understanding and, more importantly, their ability to an artform. If this were not true, then anybody that learned the facts of mathematics and physics, for example, would be the equal of Einstein, Heisenberg or Hawking. Clearly, that is not a frequent occurrence. But the key is in what you said ... by heart. What does it mean to learn the facts by heart? It must be more than being able to recognize and recall the facts. Is learning the facts by heart approaching the gateway to transcendence and mastery? What more is needed to pass through the gateway?

I think what you are experiencing is understandable ... and perhaps natural. I have always believed that the universe will present you with circumstances and opportunities that are timely for where you are on your path. Perhaps this is what is happening with you now. Certainly things change and nothing remains the same. Could you be too yang? Sure, its possible. Perhaps it is time for you to change your practice. When I was younger, I loved getting out there and mixing it up on the mats. I was strong and seeming had boundless energy ... two and three hour vigorous workouts were frequent ... all very yang external style martial arts. My teacher used to tell me that I needed to relax more in my practice. Later, as I grew older I could still mix it up but noticed that my martial art had matured. I began to see a difference in how the 18 year olds approached their practice and where I was at. Then I lost my teacher when he relocated. I continued much as you have with solo practice for a few years. Eventually I was introduced to a taiji instructor and my training resumed ... but along a different course. I finally began to learn what my teacher had meant by relaxing ... more yin. Progress was there ... and certainly there was potential for accolades. But somehow the accolades seemed less important. My growth in martial arts was going in a new direction ... one that seemed appropriate for the time and complemented my other interests. Now once again, I am without my teachers, both having passed much too early. But I am content with solo practice. It is in keeping with where I am along the way. Consider where you are along your path. Look for the opportunities among your present circumstances. The universe appears to have brought you back to working with children. That is probably not by accident. It is likely what you need right now. Continue your solo practice and be watchful for further opportunities. Good luck.

If I had to say ... I would csll myself independent.

In Chuangtse it is said ... Human life is limited, but knowledge is limitless. To drive the limited in pursuit of the limitless is fatal; and to presume that one really knows is fatal indeed. Accumulating knowledge ... facts, information, details ... does seem to be driving the limited in pursuit of the limitless. How much is enough? As a young person in school, I hated having to commit facts to memory ... feeling that if I knew where or how to find the facts, then when I actually had need of them I could find them and that would be enough. Maybe it's better to look upon knowledge as a process.

I am not sure what to make of this chapter. Only the first line makes much sense ... seems to stand alone from the rest of the text. All of the discussion about ghosts vs spirits and their affect on the wworld of man does not seem to have much meaning ... at lest to this western mind. I've always been of the mind that ghosts and spirits, if they exist at all, dwell in their own realm and have little cause to interact with the world we know. Only occasionally do they appear to interact. But then I've always said I am not sensitive to such things.

Once again Flowing Hands has captured a chapter most poetically and interestingly. I have been thinking a lot lately about the nature of knowledge and how it is acquired. This chapter seems most appropriate to that inquiry. Most commonly we consider knowledge to be that which is acquired by the senses and organized in the mind by means of discernment, reason and other cognitive processes. This type of knowledge tends to dominate our attention and being. What about other forms of knowledge? Its not too far a leap to recognize phyical knowledge. Muscle memory, for example, is a type of physical knowledge. Certainly the body can learn to perform various actions autonomically. Perhaps this is a large part of what traditional taiji training does. Anyone that has trained in taiji has been, on occasion, surprised at how the body was able to respond seemingly without conscious direction. But what about spiritual knowledge. Is it possible to know things outside of mental or physical processes? How would such knowledge be acquired? And perhaps a more interesting question is; Can spiritual knowledge be emplyed consciously? I wonder. It would seem, at least to me, that such knowledge is suggested in Flowing Hands translation. In silence and peace one can become enlightened. No one can teach someone else how to become enlightened, For it stems from within the heart. Be at one with Heaven and Earth and then you can become enlightened. Certainly has a spiritual ring to it. The second line cited says it cannot be taught ... but I wonder if that is really the case. Does not neidan practice, at least in part, teach how to quieten the heart-mind. If this is not teaching enlightenment then what is it? If nothing else, it sets up a state of receptiveness. Perhaps this chapter is pointing to such practice.

The timing of these passages is remarkable. The chapters of Laozi dealing most directly with governing are presented just as we approach the midterms. It certainly would not hurt to reflect on our government as we read these passages. Is it providence or dawei that brings us to this.

I think there are two complementary ways of reading this. First ... Is it human nature to have greater expectations when viewing something excellent than the thing being viewed can provide? In the chapter 9 of the TTC, which Lin Yutang titles The Danger of Overweening Success, it says: Stretch (a bow) to the very full, And you will wish you had stopped in time. Temper a (sword-edge) to its very sharpest, And the edge will not last long. Yet the master of chariots drove his horses to exhaution at the Dukes bidding. Second ... Would the horses have exhausted themselves if left to their natural instincts. The nature of horses is not to pull chariots ... let alone being driven to perform unnaturally. Recall the earlier story in ZZ (Horses Hoofs) about the "master" at handling horses ... where the horses being handled at odds with thier nature eventually died. Going against nature invites misfortune.

When you know a thing, to hold that you know it, and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it - this is knowledge. Confucius

Or, old school ...

Or, perhaps ...