Daniel

@galen_burnett, Maybe the compliment of intellectual is intuitional? Generally speaking, mind compared to heart ( metaphorically ). I vote that utilizing both is ideal. Both have several gates for interacting with ourselves and others. Naturally each person is going to have their own affinties and aversions to each of these gates. "Knowing" is an intellectual gate which is lifted up as the ideal in systems of logic. It's great in many ways, but also has its limits. Its asset and its liability is rigidity. Classical logic depends on consistency and rigorous definitions. If the definitions are changed, as you noted, the consistency is sacrificed. But the same occurs if the defintion is vague. Precise defintions should be encouraged when using logic not discouraged. Lacking consistency, the logical construct is no longer true in all cases, which makes it weak. It's possible that it will be true and consistent as a happy-accident, but likely not. The most common construct in classical logic is the "material conditional" which is mis-identified in common parlance "implication". The material conditional is a fickle beast, as such, most logical proofs employ the contra-positive, what I think you're observing as "contrarian", in order to interact with a logical proposal. This is natural, and in my opinion should not be discouraged. This is because "logic", in spite of its formal, axiomatic ( religious ), presentation in philosophy is a natural and intuitive method for interacting and predicting relationships... when it is working. If it is over intellectualized all sorts of nonsense can be produced as logical "truths". Here's a link to the wiki-monster for a little more detail: LINK. One valid counter-example defeats any proposal in any logical system, which is why the contra-positive is employed so often. The important distinction, in my mind, should be, what is this "defeat"? What does it mean? In classical logic, if the contrapositive is true, then the original assertion MUST be false, per the law of non-contradiction. I think this is a gross mistake, which exaggerates the effect of the contra-postive into hostility. Instead, I vote that when any proposal is defeated, then the the assertion ( both the positives and the negatives ) should return to a state of agnosticm per connexive logic ( from falsehood... nothing ) as opposed to trivialism ( from falsehood... anything ). This produces an open friendly flexible logic because the contra-positive does not discredit another's intuition and personal experiences. It merely tethers grandiose universal propsals to the "real" world. For example, classical logic has no hierarchy, and cannot process relevance in any way. It is religiously bound to the law of non-contradiction and assumes phenomena exist in perfectly closed systems. And this is its downfall. The mantra "slow is smooth, smooth is fast" is well known to be true, has been taught for at least hundreds of years with great and repeated success, but classical logic cannot tolerate "slow is fast". From this, and other examples, the law of non-contradiction is defeated with the one valid counter-example. But when I say defeat, I only mean that it is not true in this case, but might be true in others depending on the connections and relevance between the phenomena. The law of non-contradction is proven to be non-universal, it is not true and consistent in any possible world ( modal logic ), but is still true and useful... sometimes. The question is when and is it rare? Further, almost any internal process cannot be modeled using classical logic because it is better modeled as quantum phenomena. Particles in a quantum domain are known to occupy two distinct "places" at the same time violating the law of non-contradiction. External phenomena can be accurately modeled both with classical physics and quantum mechanics because the wave function collapses when observed permitting its behavior to be approximated by classical physics. Internal processes are not observed, at least not with light waves ( electro-magentic radiation ) bouncing and reflecting and absorbing and emanating here-there-and-every-where. In this way, internal processes are, somewhat, isolated systems. Certainly more isolated than external processes. Because of this, I think it's good to retain a bit of caution applying rigid external logic systems to internal human dynamics like happiness and suffering.

OK, thank you.

This is so cool. I never thought of it this way. Just the most immature thoughts on this, but I would appreciate your feedback? Double-negation is affirmation? Which is true? Which is a gain? a benefit? Double-affirmation is.... exaggeration? inflamation? Which is inherently false? The actual is being amplified falsely and harshly? It's a bad feedback-loop?

Hello, I would like to read about your understanding of the concept of wu-wei? Intellectually, what is it? Emotionally, how does it make you feel? When you observe it in the world, what does it look like? Please share examples, practical or theoretical? Thank you,

"However lately" indicates that your practice was previously beneficial? In the past when it was beneficial, the duration was less? Much less? "snap me back" indicates that that the meditation is ending harshly and abruptly? It doesn't sound like there is any "wrong" or "fault" with what you are doing. But, I think you should listen to yourself. If there is something "not-right" which is increasing, that is a signal that maybe a change is warranted. However, I wonder if a small subtle change would be appropriate as a first step/triage? Maybe fine tuning the duration of the meditation? The trick will be to find a way to gently return to consciousness? I know you've said that loud noises don't work, but perhaps a long gentle soothing alarm on your phone which gradually increases in volume would work? My phone will do something like this for me with its built-in "clock" app. But I am guessing that there are many many alarm apps out there designed for gently rousing the user if your phone doesn't have something built-in that is working for you. I would be aiming for gentle, soft, and increasing in volume gradually. Also, maybe, apply this gentle, soft, and increasing attitude to the duration limit? If you are naturally meditating for an hour with some adverse reaction, maybe start out trying to limit it slightly to 55 minutes, and see how that feels. Then maybe reduce it a little more the next day to 50 minutes. Each day try to determine if the adverse reaction is diminishing, once it is diminished, continue experimenting to see if the benefit increases with further reductions in duration. Little changes, changing just one thing at a time, will maybe fine tune the practice to acheive maximum benefit tailored to your own body, mind, and circumstances. "wrinkling my nose" indicates a bit of reluctance which I don't think should be ignored? On the one hand, reluctance can be a signal of a weak point which should be shored up, but on the other hand it can be a signal of a practice which is not sympathetic to your own personal goals and dispostion making it less likely to be a sustainable addition. Further, I read something interesting recently about horse stance. Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit answers various questions about the horse stance. Among the answers... Zhan zhuang is therefore a very powerful form of chi kung exercise. Paradoxically, because it looks simple — and is simple — it is easy to make mistakes when one trains without proper supervision. Because there is only one form, if you make just one mistake, you are 100% out. Making mistakes in powerful chi kung training can lead to serious side-effects. On the other hand, Ba Duan Jin or “Eight Pieces of Brocade” is a gentle form of chi kung. There are eight exercises and each exercise consists of a few movements. Hence, even if you make a few mistaken movements, you are only a few percent out, and the gentle nature of the exercises further minimizes their harmful effects. The way you asked the question, suggests that you practice chi kung without a master's supervision. At 57 it is best for you to leave powerful exercise like zhan zhuang aside. Ba Duan Jin is an excellent set of exercise for you. You can have marvellous results if you practice Ba Duan Jin as chi kung, which is energy exercise; but even if you practice the set as gentle physical exercise, you still can have many benefits, such as loosening your joints and muscles, giving you balance and elegance, making you relaxed and improving your blood circulation. https://shaolin.org/general-2/horse-stance.html Also, horse-stance in a kung-fu context is going to be very different from zhan zhuang from a taiji-quan perspective. But either way, if it doesn't appeal to you, maybe there is good reason for that. If you have something that has been working for you in the past, perhaps a small change to this practice will return the benefits without the negative outcomes. Then after that, maybe, adding something gentle to feed and nurture the body's movement would be good if it is appealing to you.

... I talk to myself, and it's quite surprising ...

My view is complex. Immanent+Transcendent+Monist are all happening simultaneously but do not nullify each other. They are united and interdependent. Understanding my point of view requires temporarily breaking it down into a process, a sequence of events, then at the end reapplying the simultaneity. The dichotomy is energetic, "valence", for lack of a better word, but not "substance", for lack of a better word.

I would love that. And thank you for considering it. please know that when I use the word 'primitive' it is not pejorative.

is there an online source for this in english? ( lacking commentary, ideally )

My natural reaction was a chuckle, because, something like this for Year 1 Semester 2 course work would naturally be attractive to certain sorts of personalities. However, I'm reserving judgement because my creative mind can imagine many non-literal meanings for what this coursework could possibly entail.

I don't know them, but apparently this is a frequently asked question. #10 on the FAQ:

If the will is surrended to a "will-to-surrender"?

The ideal is the law is executed as an expression of the divine will which is actualized by the individual. Prior to executing the commandment there is an invocation, a "bracha" spoken which declares this. If it isn't truthfully spoken that would be a rather serious transgression because the name of God is being invoked in vain. In fact, if the wrong bracha is verbalized, there is a counter-bracha uttered (Baruch sheim k'vod, malchuso, l'olam va'ed), then the proper bracha is invoked.

If God's will is for submission, than even if willful submission acheived, it is still completely empty of individual will.

it's not my law, so it's not exercising my will. It is submission. "Thy will be done" is following the law which is different than "My will be done" which is a happy coincidence that the law and my own motives are in alignment.

So wandering into a foreign territory and harvesting their crop is fine? How does a traveler, a stranger, know what's free for the taking? Or is it just a free for all? I invest time and energy plowing and working the soil, then someone wanders through and helps themself? That's OK? Maybe in primitive times when there was very much open spaces, but, what about a deity? How does a person know that tree is permitted to a human? Answer: It's so abundant and there's so much fruit it's falling to the ground and rotting. In that case, it's probably OK to take some fruit, especially if it's on the ground.

yup. Nope. No picking from the tree. Yup, that's the signal that the owner didn't want it and it was just going to spoil and make a mess if it wasn't eaten. Fruit that's fallen is free for the taking. That specific fruit, while it is still attached to the tree is not hefker (ownerless). Once it has fallen, then God has disowned it. https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/hefker "And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not make clean riddance up to the corners of your field when you reap, nor shall you gather any gleaning of your harvest; you shall leave them to the poor, and to the stranger; I am the Lord your God." It's philosophy of law. There's the spirit of the law, and the letter of the law. By the letter of the law, it's perfectly fine to eat the fruit that is unwanted and discarded as ownerless. The question is, did God **actually** want them to eat the fruit or not. I can see it both ways. Can you?

I think you can do what ever you choose to do. Whatever you choose to share, I will appreciate.

Or, please, write a book for us?

I sincerely support you in your dream. When you get there, don't forget about us mortals, OK?

Seeking omnibenevolence as a finite mortal?

This was the last phase of creation. We were never intended to live in the garden. There's many stories in this one story. Although, the reason I can say that is because I have eaten the fruit. Multiple trees, all with the same source.

Exercising my will according to the law is a contradiction. I enjoy many things and nothing. Although I find avoiding personal responsibility repugnant. Not like the garden at all, to me. As long as you're healthy, happy, and aren't abusing the innocent and defenseless, then I'm very happy for you and wish you only good things.

DaoBums, I found this recently and it seems to be an excellent resource for the beginner to introduce this practice into their life. However, I would never know if it is leading me astray. Feedback would be greatly appreciated. There is a video at the bottom of the link demonstrating the form. Thank you, Sincerely, https://scottjeffrey.com/zhan-zhuang/ The author appears to be a syncretist, who holds seminars targetted to a corporate audience. The seminars appear to be selling out in a few of the categories. The author has written a book intended to boost creativity.

Sure. Each and every "thing" has borders and boundaries which define them and distinguish them from each and every other thing. These borders and boundaries, definition and distinction are the "form" of that thing. The significance of the form is its contrast in relation to another form. The signficance, the contrast, is inversely proportional to the number of differing borders and boundaries which are being compared simultaneously. If only 2 objects, concepts, actions, etc are being compared, then, their differences are highly significant. As more and more are included, the contrast between them is reduced. As the number of included objects, concepts, actions, etc approaches infinity, the significance of the form becomes infinitesimal. If infinity is achieved, a sublime unity is produced where each and everything, objects, concepts, actions, etc are realized as one sublime unity without division. The forms and divisions still exist but have become eclisped and insignificant in the process of the unification.