wandelaar

Time to see a doctor? Check it out: https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/grumpy-old-man-syndrome-a-medical-condition/news-story/e6978fd2c147597d528b41b852794e60

The comparison was not meant to refer to the content of their doctrines but to their method of proselytising. Confucius went out into the world to preach his doctrine, while Lao tzu and Chuang tzu kept a low profile, wrote some texts, said what they had to say, and hoped for the best. As we can see - both methods bore fruit. So Lao tzu/Chuang tzu and Confucius were both partially wrong in their criticism of each others way of spreading the message.

When you buy it take note that there are two versions of the book, and if I remember well only the large version has the Chinese characters in it. One of the writers is also a member of this forum.

They have taken this as their starting point.

http://www.hermetica.info/ https://www.amazon.com/Dao-Jing-Clear-English-Translation/dp/173206380X/ https://www.gutenberg.org/files/49965/49965-h/49965-h.htm

The Lorentz contraction might be relevant here, but that depends on the placement of the seats in the car...

Let these be the two situation that we have to compare. Here on earth we don't have an exact inertial frame, but the tiny deviation can be ignored in most cases. So we suppose A and B to both carry their own inertial frame with them. This won't be a burden because coordinate system are weightless. We now apply: Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity Now this means that the same time delays in their conversations will be measured by A and B in situations I and II because relative to the frames of reference of A and B their cell phones will be at rest with a distance d between them in both situations I and II. (When a frame of reference U moves with a constant velocity relative to an inertial frame of reference V, than U must also be an inertial frame of reference.)

I have read part of the preview on Amazon and my impression is that the author imagines to know the one and only correct interpretation of the Tao Te Ching on the basis of the oral teachings supposedly transmitted in his lineage for 2500 years (!). Other interpretation are simply branded as not the real thing. Maybe further on in the book some actual arguments are given, but I doubt it. If this is the real Taoism than I could just as well have continued believing that the Bible is the word of God.

@ Taoist Texts There is no way to deal with those who criticise things that they don't understand. When you explain why they are wrong they will not understand it either, they will just come up with more bull shit (of which there is plenty on the internet). It's a complete waste of time. I studied both the Theory of Relativity, and the diverse criticisms of the theory, and alternatives such as Lorentz Ether Theory. The Theory of Relativity is no religion to me, and I wouldn't even be surprised when one day the Theory of Relativity will turn out to be wrong. So no cognitive dissonance here, and Taoist Texts is wrong again. But this is a silly discussion: it's like playing chess with somebody who doesn't know the rules of the game and makes up his own rules as we go so as to continue playing when he has already lost. Better not start at all.

No.

The situation has to be precisely defined before I can say anything about that. - Are there two persons A and B involved? - Is there a situation I where A and B talk to each other by cell phone and are standing still with a distance d between them? - Is there a situation II where A and B talk to each other by cell phone while walking with the same velocity v and with the same value for the constant distance d as in situation I (but now as measured in the frame of A or B!) between them?

@ Taoist Texts You would do well to stop criticising scientific theories of which you obviously don't even know the bare essentials and which you don't understand at all. You're only making a fool of yourself, which is a pity because there are other fields of study in which you often have something useful to say.

Some advice from that other classic: http://www.wussu.com/laotzu/laotzu22.html http://www.wussu.com/laotzu/laotzu24.html But as the Old Man said: http://www.wussu.com/laotzu/laotzu70.html

The speed of light in vacuum depends on the observer, it's only c when viewed from an inertial frame. (That's what makes the special theory of relativity special, it only accounts for observers in inertial reference frames. For the case of observers in any type of reference frame we have the general theory of relativity.) For non-inertial observers the speed of light in vacuum may vary. A free falling "elevator cabin" in space can be considered as approximately constituting an inertial frame. The effect of a slowed down speed of light is that electromagnetic interactions are also slowed down, which means that the processes of life (and thus our experience of time) also slows down.

What's the problem?

Not to me! I would like to know whether it was written before, after or concurrently to the Tao Te Ching. If it was written before or even concurrently to the Tao Te Ching then the idea that Lao tzu (or those who wrote in his name) meant the ostensibly political parts of the Tao Te Ching as actually referring to internal alchemical processes becomes just a little bit less unlikely.

Interesting! Do you happen to know when chapter 8 was first written?

I think it is interesting to know how the Tao Te Ching is interpreted in alchemical circles (and that's why I have ordered the book by Yang, Jwing-Ming about this), but as internal alchemy is largely a later development and the TaoTe Ching makes perfect sense as a combined spiritual and political contribution to Warring States thinking it looks like the alchemical interpretation is a later invention meant to increase the perceived credibility of internal alchemy by tracing it back to the Old Master.

How could that be so when all personal interpretations (as if you were the only person on earth) would be OK? Further in case you would indeed be the only person on earth than there would be no need for discussing politics or social issues generally, and thus a large part of the Tao Te Ching would become irrelevant. But maybe the teacher followed an esoteric interpretation where the political chapters are reinterpreted as referring to internal alchemical processes?

All the rest simply follows from disliking death and protecting oneself against unnecessary harm. That's why I doubt that the real Confucius would have simply answered "yes". He must have been aware of the heavy risks he took in promoting his moral ideals the way he did. And we cannot say that Confucius's approach was ineffective because he had a huge influence after his death. On the other hand Lao tzu en Chuang tzu (or those who wrote in their name) didn't like to risk their lives, but equally had a huge influence after their death. So who was right here?

There are indeed lots of people who combine Confucianism and Taoism by applying them to the spheres of social and spiritual matters respectively. I don't like the extreme ritualism of Confucianism, but apart from that I think there is a lot of common sense wisdom in the Analects. I don't think that as a (philosophical) Taoist one should have any reservations in accepting common sense wisdom from whatever source. As for measurability there is the basic restriction of the time available. I don't believe in immortals and so I consider (even enlightened) people as finite in the amount of time they have to spend in their lifetime. Now one could of course care for all of humanity in a rather abstract sense, and that would take perhaps a few minutes. But that in itself would be no more than an empty gesture. To get personally involved with someone takes a lot more. And so there are certainly limits to the number of people one can get personally involved with (and personally care for) within the space of one lifetime. That doesn't mean that one considers other people as being less worthy in any objective sense, it just means that you simply don't have the time to treat everybody you meet on an equal footing.

https://books.google.nl/books?id=U8ghCwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false How does the Laotian idea of avoiding ideal extremes relate to the promotion of imperfectionism in the above book?

I don't like that statement either, but to be honest I have to admit that in actual fact that is how we as human beings behave. And I don't see how as finite beings we could do otherwise without losing our humanity. Confucius was more realistic and down to earth about the concern for relatives without becoming immoral. Indeed we only have so much care, compassion or love to give. We better face it.

Thank you - still I think there is a problem with regarding and/or treating others as oneself. It's natural to care for oneself and one wouldn't survive for long if one didn't. But there are way too much people walking around on planet earth to personally care for each of them. We don't even have the time to meet more than a minutely tiny fraction of all the people now alive even if we did nothing else for all of our lives. If I remember correctly there even is a criticism in the Chuang tzu of the idea of universal love as being completely impractical. But suppose some well-meaning idealist would do his best to approach the ideal nevertheless, that would mean that he would have to care precisely as much for his close friends and partner as for somebody he only had some small talk with several years ago. To be true to his conviction he should keep himself informed about the well being of many thousands of people he hardly even knows each day. And in that case there would hardly remain any time and energy left for his close friends and partner. I'm sure his close friends and partner would very soon consider him as not being a friend at all! This is forcing reality in a mould that simply doesn't fit, and the result would be disaster. The natural thing is to care more for those people you know than about those you hardly know or don't know at all. And forcing yourself to give each and everyone the same amount of attention would only result in nobody getting any real attention at all. So this again leads to the conclusion that one should be content with restricting one's involvement to a relatively tiny fraction of the world because there simply is no other workable alternative. And if one achieves something good by that, than the positive influences will spread out from there.

Last night my thinking about imperfectionism continued in my sleep and so I dreamed about it. I was searching for some kind of solution or answer. And as no rational answer was forthcoming, I took a look at Chinese mythology. There I found a deity or something that had to do with imperfectionism and the way to deal with it, but I don't remember its name. Anyhow, in my dream I put in endless time to look up books about Chinese mythology, but still no answer was forthcoming. Waking up I thought about the Zwarte Piet-discussion in this country (I live in the Netherlands) that is slowly escalating year by year. And then I suddenly realised that our own effects on the world at large (whatever one's position) are negligible. (At this point some people might resort to violence to get their way, but that often doesn't work either and brings huge cost in terms of human suffering.) So we are stuck with essentially two possible choices: (1) You either accept the world at large as it is (including the minute effect of your own dealings with it); or (2) You go down a cynical road of pessimist rumination and ruin your own remaining pleasure in simply being alive. So paradoxically the answer I was searching for resides in accepting that there is no answer. We just have to accept the world (at large) as it is, and make the best of it within our own minute space of possibilities.