S:C

Great example, thank you! It provides understanding to the difference in perception aspect!

Probably I lack the subjective experience of objective reality. To me objective reality is not available for a subject and through his sense doors, but your concepts and mine might be lost in translation, but thank you for explaining your understanding!

Would you mind telling which one it is you speak about?

What is what? Sense data interpreted by mind - subjective. Objectively it is not hot, only a sign of the body, that there is inflammation and trying to defeat outside or pathological bacterial or viral influences? What is it about TCM heat? Where does that come from? What of that is objective? Why does this seem obvious to anyone but me?! Oh well… there’s @kakapo, at least someone.

How is that interpreting possible? What do you mean with „in real terms“? Funny, why is it cool for many and hot for others? Electric or fluid? What influences minds interpretation?

Interesting, @Maddie I do remember a different practice suggested to women than men, by Mrs. Edmund/Mr. Mitchell. Heart center for women (emotions), lower belly (base desires) for men. And women have a better tendency for sound practice, I remember…

As I said, he seemed to do well with emotions . (I might be wrong) So does the dan tien practice have anything to do with dealing with emotions better? On a tangent: which system has a practice that teaches this and doesn’t rely on classic meditation?

I see. He was hard to talk to and I never got any straight and true answer from him. I wasn’t even looking for something spiritual. Just dealing with emotions, he seemed to know better than I. and now I am lost doesn’t help to whine, don’t think the practices advocated here would be doing my case any good.

I cannot be sure. I once asked someone to teach me, without asking for qualifications. He didn’t ask what, just smiled and gave me homework. Which met the topic I had been thinking of while asking: how to better deal with one’s emotions (nothing spiritual). I have never known which system if any he works in. At some point, things just got weird. Have never known, now… So no need for this practice, then, I guess? Thought about taking a leave of absence anyways. I ain’t getting anywhere here these days.

How does one know which system one belongs to? (Serious question!)

my interpretations and judgements are quite possibly unsubstantiated. so… don’t mind me. (no pun intended.)

intriguing

I lately found ginger very helpful. I am looking for good recipes.

I would consider it a matter of probability (and paradox, maybe, but you want to exclude ‘absolute truths’).

¿Are they really? [rhethorical question]

I understand your preference and frustration with relativists, @wandelaar. To your question and the interesting article (thanks), - a follow up question: who in your opinion is supposed to have the interpretational souvereignty or prerogative about matters of truth or expertise? — But westerners DO judge if people (also other westerners) judge for themselves now, don’t they? This is probably unfortunately much too generalized now to contain significance.

Please, - do carry on! And thanks for the reminder on my too simplest understanding of Epicureanism @wandelaar.

Agreed. What I meant was rather ‚hedonism‘ or ‚the water way‘ or ‚eudaimonia’ or ‚living on the edge’ or ‚ to the fullest’. Oh no, I am mixing concepts again, damn postmodernism, it gets me so confused.

Classic example of going against nature? (but maybe it‘s her ‚true will‘ or ‚khvarenah‘….so she follows ‚her (perceived) nature‘ modern times are so confusing...)

One way for certain. Does it mean to follow one’s emotion to the extent that they arise (epicureanism) or try to find a (humming) center of equilibrium / disattachment for emotional disturbances, as that might be the ‚individualIty‘ that goes against world-nature? How is it even possible that separate consciousnesses do exist - without relying on parables? (Been carrying that question for the past 24 years.)

I start to like you. Thanks for the explanation! I probably do conflate object nature with world nature, it however feels a bit like a mistake.

What about xing 性? Does Mr. Pregadio translate it wrongly, in your opinion? and can there be a „wrong translation“ in a postmodernist world? This started with Wittgenstein? Or even before? It really depends on the dictionary, you are using, doesn’t it? Ethics might mean a broader concept of categorization, while morality is always an evaluation/opinion, in my point of view. Virtue however seems lost, as individual preference rules now. (There was a great quote about that around here, might post it later.)

We suffer more in imagination than in reality. And there is no easy way from earth to the stars. Seneca did his homework. Apparently I did not.