Pietro

Am I just wrong because freeform excercise didn't work for me? Ok, so I tried it: Desire A. I want lots of women. If I have A how would I be feeling? Whoa! Keeping the same feeling what do I desire now? Desire B. I want a family! I want a wife and kids! If I had desire B how would I be feeling? Yesss! Keeping the same feeling what do I desire now? Desire C. I want lots of women... So I suppose I have litterally a twisted heart, a shortcircuited spirituality, and a looping desire. Can I still be saved? And don't forget the women and the kids, too. psst: today I bought the Secret. I am so ashamed!.

I am a mathemathician myself. Look something that can be measured absolutely cannot be a privative. By definition of privative. The fact that there is dark matter, which just amount to things we can measure using gravity, but that we cannot observe does not make it the 'opposite' of light. And if it was the opposite then neither would be the privative of the other, since both can be measured. So then they would form a polarity (if they really are polarities) of which none is a privative. Much like blue and red. This is the whole point: there are tow kind of polarities, in one case the two opposities share the same privative, in the other one of the two IS the privative. But a privative cannot be measured absolutely. P.S. what does it mean wikipedia blows?

Maybe, I am not sure. You see there are concepts that only make sense at some scales, and not at others. Take temperature, for example. Below a certain size you don't have temperature, but the speed of the molecules. And the molecules themselves only make sense at some scales and not at others. Below you have packets of waves. Similarly the concept of colour only make sense if you are in the uk, and the concept of color only makes sense if you are looking at things at a scale bigger than the wave length of the colored light. So as we change the scale of our investigation we discover different objects and different properties. In science we call them 'emerging properties' and 'emerging objects'. The investigation of how the properties of one level interact, predict, and are predictable depending on the properties of another level is IMO one of the most fascinating areas of modern science. It is actually there that I am spending most of my working life, trying to study the passage between the 'chemical' level, and the 'biological' level. There is a number of barriers in this investigation. One of them is that objects of one level although can theorethically fully describe the situation at any bigger scale, cannot practically be used because the equations becomes intractable way before we can even think of tackling them. So shadow, like light appears at a scale in which you have a bigger space, photons inside, and you can make an average number of photons. Below that scale I have some doubts you can use the same terms/words/objects/way-to-define-reality.

Com'on, let's be pragmatic on this: Light can be masured in Lumens The shadow 'substance' is light. And we perceive it as 'shadowy' because we are in an environment with more 'light' than the light of the shadow. If you want to measure how much a shadow is dark you would have to subtract one from the other. Which would give you a negative number. But this number only refers to the current environment we are in. The absolute value of it is not negative and it is its light. So shadow is a relative term, while light is not.

Hmm, this is getting beyond my level of knowledge, but I cannot avoid to notice that wikipedia carries no trace of antiphoton page, because: "The photon is its own antiparticle" (from here)

Modern Physics says that there are photons. They exist and you can measure them. You can measure a situation where you have more respect to a situation where you have less. But you can also measure them respect to the hypothethical situation where you have none at all. I say hypotethical because I suspect that photons might be produced in small quantities everywhere due to quantum fluctuations, but I am not sure about it. Now both the situation where you have many photons and where you have less photons are situations where you DO have photons. As such they are both part of the + positive side. Then there is zero and there is nothing ont he other side. Of course as we perceive things we do it one respect to the other, but the fact remains that also a shadow has light inside. So the shadow only exists in respect to the light, while if you look at it in respect to the absolute zero (full darkness) is not a shadow anymore, while the light exists both in respect to the light, and in respect to the absolute darkness. It is still light in both cases. So a shadow is a privative, but the light is not. Let me repeat, the light DOES exists by itself, because you can measure it respect to the absolute darkness and it remains 'light'. You can't do that with a shadow. Now you'll grab your copy of the TTC and shout, "but also the light has shadow inside. Because it is not the theorethical perfect light". But you can't measure things in this way, you see. more pragmatically: infinite divided by 2 is still infinite.

The shadow is a privative, what exists is light. While you can only define a shadow in comparison to somewhere where there is no shadow. But the complete shadow would require no light at all. Not one photon. That's actually quite hard to reach, like the 0 degrees kelvin temperature

you are right, sorry. The point remains that Taoism was already estabilished when the tao te ching was written.

wrong again. Laozi was a taoist because taoism was already a tradition firmly estabilished when he appeared. Jesus was not a christian because there was no christianity at the time.

Interesting reply. Let me be more precise. What exists is temperature. Now, you can measure temperature starting from 0 degrees kelvin. Molecular movement exists. And when I say hot exist is because I refer to heat as molecular movement. How would you suggest to measure movement starting from infinity?

Not all our concepts are privatives. Temperature is not a privative, and yet it is one of our concepts. Privative is NOT a new word, although its use has been lost from some time. We need to use it to distinguish better among the 10.000 things. By distinguishing better we can separate polarities among a privative and a non privative (pnp) versus polarities among non privatives (npnp). By being able to clarify the distinction among the two types of polarities we can avoid to require one type of polarity to act like the other. For example the difference among the two genders are differences between two categories, neither of which is a privative. When we say: if you are not a man, you are a woman AND if you are not a woman you are a man we are EFFECTIVELY applying the privative/nonprivative classification to something that is instead a non-privative/non-privative situation. This is why, for example, toilets are generally male/woman. This is why some human beings who do not fit are suffering a lot in our society. This is why on your passport your sex is indicated in a discreete way (M/F) and not, for example, with two numbers (97 M, 25 F).

Laozi was a taoist Jesus was not a christian

Since it is a buddhist concept I shall stick with the canonical definition which I gather (not being a buddhist myself) is (complete?) cessation of sensations and perceptions. And being an absence of something how could it be not a privative? my first answer: to describe reality. But I would suspend the answer until I have studied more (if I ever will). The question "for what purpose are these distinctions made" to be adressed fully have to be adressed in its historical context, and I am just to ignorant of Aristotele to be able to answer it.

Well, not exactly. A catholic is a christian first of all. And to be a christian you must believe that jesus was the christ. Nothing more, nothing less. You believe it? Fine you are a Christian. You don't believe it? Fine you are not. And please don't have too many doubts, for they mess the statistics. If you are a Catholic you are not just a christian, but you also believe a bunch of other things, and catholics repeat this list every sunday (or whenever they go to mass, which at times can be more or drammatically less). Not going to mass does not stop them from being a catholic, but not believeing those things does. And is a very clear list, where each point has been defined by decades if not centuries of history. (refer to the history of dogmas on this). So, no. In the case of catholicism you cannot make up the definition as you see fit. There is a very precise definition. For taoist such a definition is not present or not widespread. I actually asked to Bruce what does it mean to be a taoist. I shall post all that in a post soon (read: when I have the time).

They are not symmetric. For example there is a limit on how cold something can be, but not on how hot it can be. I have no time to write more right now, let me know if it is still not clear.

But loving their wives/female partners does not mean to become their slave. Nor to be bound by an "only you, forever" that no ones really needs. matter of fact most men are dominant, either in their actions or in their fantasies. matter of fact most women are submissive, either in their actions or in their fantasies. Obviously the men shouldn't abuse of this power, because it is power. But ignoring it, and pretending we are equal is not the way to go, for it would leave both of us unsatisfied in our depth. And if you want to claim that the only dominant men is an immature men, well, "lot's of luck" as they say. We accepted this lie before, and somehow we ain't going to take that anymore. We are dominant, we have a dominant personality, and generally as we mature we just stop feeling guilty for it, which makes us, if anything, even more dominant. But in a different way, which you like more.

War follows a power law. This in every society where it has been measured. Which is quite an indication that it is not going away. There are differences in the steepness of it, but basically it is a power law, it has always been a power law, and everything indicates that it will always be a power law. The fact that is a power law means that there is a continuity between small-one-death violence and massive wars. Massive wars are just more rare, the bigger, the rarer. There is no such thing as assassination opposed to war. With the hope that we might one day have a war with no war. Since there is no discontinuity, this would imply a society with no individual violence whatsoever. Now by dealing with power laws we (as human race) have also discovered something in those years. They tend to appear where there is a continuous energy that gets stored in a continuous way, and then released in burps. The explosive facts, the burps, follow a power law. In forest fire the explosive facts are the fires. In earthquakes, are earthquakes which release the pressure built by the movement of the continents. And in wars? In all those cases trying to stop the explosion by killing all the small fires is counterproductive, as it tends to build up the fuel for the next, bigger explosion. Let me explain, you can't really predict when one of those explosions are going to happen, but the longer you wait the bigger is going to be. If you stop all the small fires in a forest you are merely filling the oven with nice and dry wood that will cook you better. Now let's move to war. Something gets released during war? What is it? A form of stress, I suppose. That stress is responsible for the killings that a random student who couldn't stand it made. That person was killing around, but was also releasing part of the stress that we have built in this society. And boy is this society full of it. Now can you see a society coming, or being where that kind of stress is not there? Because that stress is responsible for individual killings, but also for huge war. The data are clear, it is one continuous process. Do you claim that economic power is releasing that stress? I don't see it happening. In fact I see the economic power merely moving that stress from northern countries to southern countries, where it gets then released through war. So, Yoda, sorry, I think you are deluding yourself, war is here to stay.

This will be a short post, mostly for time costraints. As I said here and there I am coming to new york. I shall arrive friday around 1ish pm. I am coming to partecipate at a one week of research from the mind and life institute. Institute that was founded by the Dalai Lama and some scientists with the aim of studying with good, real, grounded science the effect of contemplative meditation on the brain. This week (in which the Dalai Lama will not be there -before you all send me the laundry list of questions you want me to ask him) was organized inviting meditators and scientists (doctors in particulars). I applied as a double class (as we would have said in good old AD&D terminology), while thinking I was not going to be accepted. Half because I am not a doctor (I work in bio informatics) and half because I am not a buddhist. And although they say they were looking for contemplative meditators all the results that were promoted were done on vipassana meditation and similar. But they accepted me. Their form with which I was supposed to describe what do I practice did not even consider taoism as a possibility. The week starts on sunday at midday, and ends on saturday morning. I fly back on sunday evening. This means that I shall be around NY for the whole day of saturday (but not the evening because of jet lag), and during most of sunday. I will be staying at Max house, whose house I could actually find this morning on the new google street service . Whoever wants to bum around on saturday afternoon is welcome. If the weather is nice we might go to a park and do some tai ji, and share stories. Still, I suppose I shall pass the saturday morning studying, as I have been given some hundreds of pages of previous results to read (or at least abstract-read). I can't give you my phone number as I am not sure if the european phone will work in NY, but just PM me, and we shall try to organize on friday evening. I shall also ask if I am allowed to give away the list (which should be ok, since the results are official results in medical journals), and then post is somwhere, maybe in the article section. Hope to see many of you. Pietro

what an interesting exchange. I find the concept of developmental history very interesting. I actually never heard it from Bruce. And in fact when you practice inner dissolving you often release tensions, blockages, problems, traumas you were not even aware of having and much less could you track the cause of them. The phrase Bruce would say (over and over and over and over and...): Sometimes during the release process you might get a glimpse, an intuition on what caused it. But often you would just get the feelings and sensations. Feelings and sensations that, as Ian pointed out, will be as strong as the real experience if you are really going to clear the thing out of your system. So no denial on the sensation point of view, but also no way to know what has happened. In light of what I say, can you explain better developmental history? For I seem to have problems in fitting together with this teaching, and since every taoist believes in it I assume it should fit together in a coherent whole. Thanks, Pietro

Funny how when someone criticize Mantak Chia those who appreciates him just stays quiet, and when someone appreciates him, then everybody who is critic is instead quiet. Makes a nice polarity, much better if we all were speaking all the time.

So I went to the dentist, after about 10 years, and 3 different diets. I went after having lost some of my fillings about 4 years ago by drinking remineralizing tea. I have a devitalized tooth which I wanted to take off as I understand can be the placeholder for many anaerobic bacteria. And many fillings of amalgam from my pre-meditation time. But the actual reason why I decided to go back to see a dentist was another. 3 months ago I have started to eat back some white bread, mainly out of stress. After some time my open tooth (the one which had no filling anymore) started to be VERY painful. In the middle of the night I treated it with butter and honey. Made my remineralizing tea, and the pain went away. But it kept me hostage. Every time I would eat something bad I would feel pain. I had to become 100%v raw foodist, and start a serious regime of oil pulling. Things seemed to have been solved until a month ago. AT that point I bought a water pik and started to use it to clean my teeth. In particular I wanted to take off the placque that was now big and dirty. I don't brush teeth. I stopped a decade ago when I realised it was not helping at all (in fact it was hindering). So the water pik suceeded in taking away the plaque and make my teeth shine. But it went so strong on the open tooth that it started harming again. SO I started doing oil pulling immediatly after. To cut a long story short, at some point I realised that also the teeth near the one with an open filling had a big cavity. This one is new. Realising that the reason was mainly in the acitidty of the mouth I started taking a bit of sodium bicarbonate. Especially after my raw meat. So I went to the dentist and I let her look at my teeth, and I did an X ray. I will not spend too much to describe her expression when I explained her why was I not brushing, and all the things -sodium bicarbonate, tea, sunflower oil, butter and honey, cod liver oil, water pic- I was doing for my teeth. It was quite funny! The good news is that the upper part is all good. She was amazed. The lower part is instead falling to pieces. The tooth which hold the bridge has a big cavity, hidden. And I suspect there is worse in the bridge itself. Another filling has a big cavity inside, but the worse are the two teath where the filling went off. One of them is dead, and the other is dying. This brings us to discover that teeth can die even without big pain. BTW, did I told you about the phone call: -Hello can I speak with the dentist? -I am a doctor too. -I have a tooth that is probably dying, so I would like to come and have an x-ray. -ok, do you have much pain. -it's ok, I treat it? -so you have only little pain? -No, when it arrives is intense, but I use sunflower oil as a washing to stop the pain. silence SO here are the questions. According to this dentist it is not possible to grow enemel when there have been a cavity. That is if there is a hole in the tooth, then inside you cannot coat it back with enamel, so either you put a filling or the tooth will eventually fall off. I have more trust in human possibilities. 1)Have anyone found any method to get enamel inside a clean cavity? 2) I would like not to have the second tooth die, if it's still alive. I don't think she can do much for it. What would you do? What I am thinking of doing is to add a juice of cabbage to my morning juices, to fight infections. But that's probably not enough. 3) One of the tooth is really into pieces. The infection is on the other side of the nerve (i.e. under), which she sais is an indication that the nerve is dead. Anyone into ressurection those days? 4) What about all those talking about regrowing the nerves. Anyone tried it? Does it work? Also for teeth? And of course the truly cool thing would be to convince the body to regrow a new set of tooth from below the gums and just get the old one out. But this sounds a bit tricky. Many thanks, Pietro

What western medicine was really succesful was to cut the infant death. If you look at stats of people in preindustiral time the average lifespan is increbily law. Sometime as short as 30 years. But if you take off from the stats the kids that were dead before age 5 the average lifespan becomes much longer, something comparable to modern life. I think medicine is strongly biased not to see slow forms of pollution and behaviours that kill you 30 years later. How they are totally ignoring the effect of cooking on enzymes even though they know (out of physics) how enzymes get turned off by warmth just beats me. It is like having a two pieces of a puzzle in front of you, knowing that they fit, and just never putting them together.

Paul, why don't you throw in the cauldron a request for whoever knows anything about how to heal it to step forward. Maybe adding something like: what would you do in my condition You know taoist don't help if they are not invited to.

What does this say about patriarchy? Yours is an analysis of one statement of one of the patriarchal society. Infact your analysis is unconsistent in itself. If most of societies that exist or have existed in recorded history are patriarchal. (we agreed on this based on anthropological records before) If one of them is dominating the others, while the others would if not live in balance with nature. If we agree that this dominating society is sick, then obviously the sickness cannot be in patriarchy, or the others would be sick too. But there are plenty of societies that live in balance with nature. The problem is a deeper problem. The problem is not that this society is sick and the others are healthy, the problem is that this society is so succesful in keeping us alive that nature cannot cope. Actually I see many men being enslaved by entering into a marriage and then being divorced and having to keep on feeding their ex wife. I see men who are not allowed to see their kids. I see women who divorce, get the kids (always better with the mother), get from the government the house(a mother with kids), get from the husband a monthly allowence. While the husband lose the possibilityt ot see the kids (oh, except every other weekend), get to pay, and find a different house. And if the husband had a house the judge can declare that it goes to the kids... and the mother. And you think this is fair, or even bad against women? What are you speaking about? I see woman who have the choise to work or stay at home, and I see that statistically the ones who chose to stay at home answer that they are more happy. It does not seem to be a picture of great malais for the women in THIS society. I see the percentage of suicide of men being double the one of women (how is that as a temperature for malais). I see suicide being the number one cause of death in men between 16 and 60. I see men being raped more than women (if you count rape in jail, yep that is rape too), and although I am not totally sure about this last I think there is even a higher probability for men to be killed in a dark alley than for a women to be raped. I see a society that is slowly reaching the point where jokes against men are ok, while the same joke against a women is sexist and unacceptable. I see no respect or honor for male sexuality, and an unacceptable awe around female sexuality. Where are you from Darebak? Maybe you are from a very different society than mine.

May I add that the size of conflicts follow a power law, that is there are few big clonflicts, and more smaller conflicts. But there is no division at all between war and homicide, for example. They are just part of the same continuous curve. For the technicians around here I will add that the steepness of the power law changes slightly from society to society. Big societies tend to have more big events (clash of armies) and less smaller ones, while small societies (tribes) tend to have the opposite. And if you plot the steepness of the curve respect to time, in a country in war the steepness tend to a particular value. This value represent how war is in the 'natural' society. The one where social norm has broken down and all you have is the power of the stronger and bands of brigants and war lords (think Afganistan, right now). Unfortunately war is not only here to stay, but it can be studied as you would study a physical phenomena, and in the long run it is statistically as predictable.