Sloppy Zhang

I prefer to ask: why does life have to have a purpose? Why do we feel the need to attach purpose to something? What do we get by having a purpose? What do we lose by not having a purpose? What do we get by not having a purpose? What do we lose by having a purpose? Where is all that coming from?

I prefer to ask: why does life need to have a purpose?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnjHQEjvNKc&feature=related

If a thread doesn't appeal to you, don't go in it. If we can have four or five or six masturbation threads on the front page (has been that way at times), it won't kill us to have one or two politics threads in the first three. I don't see that there is anything extraneous, irrelevant, or external in something that is supposedly ell encompassing, eternal, ever pervasive, and UNIFIED. All is one.... except for politics, religion, economics, and anything else that isn't breathing or the sunrise??? Sorry, that just doesn't make sense (to me, anyway). Again, if a thread doesn't appeal to you, don't go in it! Thetaobums has always been a pretty catch all forum, and there's nothing wrong with that (in my opinion).

I've heard it said that high level spiritual cultivators can keep their consciousness during the reincarnation process, and at the very least, can control their next incarnation, or at the very least arrange it so that in their next lives they can easily find "the path" again so they can resume where they left off. As they get better at this (assuming they don't achieve enlightenment in the next life), they can control their incarnation so their next incarnation easily recovers memories, then incarnate so there is no loss at all, and then hopefully enlightenment, so the work can continue across lifetimes.

I am not political in the sense that I don't follow fads, get caught up in partisan campaigns, put any stock in any smear campaign people run, and put even less stock in people who are all "goody two shoes, the real American golden guy/gal". However, I DO care about the mechanisms for how my country is run, and how those mechanisms impact my life, the lives of those I know, the country as a whole, and the international scene. I try to keep up with how politics ACTUALLY happens, not with how people SAY that politics happens. Find out who makes the decisions, how people get elected, what people and what positions are appointed, who is doing the appointing, who is funding projects, who owns what, who is connected with whom (in general, "follow the money"), things like that. I do not think that information should be released that could jeopardize peoples' lives. But as it was pointed out to me, even that is not really a clear cut and defined goal. It's quite easily for someone to go on a mass killing spree just with the information you can find easily on facebook. Does that mean facebook should be removed (censored by some governing body) because it puts peoples lives in jeopardy? I understand that some level of "secrecy" is had when negotiating, be it in politics, business, or even personal relationships. If person A, B, and C are trying to get something done, but person B doesn't like person C, person A might tell something only to person B to get everyone to go along with something, then turn around and tell person C something opposite. There are various levels of lying and deceit that are rather harmless but which occur all the time even in a day-to-day basis. But those two above reasons (protecting lives and "it's an everyday thing") should NOT be used to cover up REAL crimes, REAL deceit, and REAL deliberately manipulative and exploitative actions. And in a government when (in theory) the check to the government is the PEOPLE, well, the PEOPLE need to know, and hold their government accountable. I may not be "political", but I do like to examine my government and hold them accountable.

Well in one sense creating hype let's people know who you are, and let's them know that something is happening. If Julian Assange suddenly died, it would be a big deal. If every wikileaks site suddenly shut down, it'd be a big deal. People would ask questions and investigate. There is a certain safety in living in the public eye. It limits the number of things people can do to you, and it limits the number of people who can do them to you.

I am going to say the same thing I said when asked about whether sages of the past were martial artists- the tao, way of nature, universal energy, unending consciousness, WHATEVER way you want to put it, can be embodied in everything. Talking about philosophy is nice. But philosophy is, in and of itself, rather abstract. "Empty your cup", "the tree that bends will not break", "go with the flow", "all is one". Those are nice philosophical statements. Though you could say they are pretty sterile. They are separated from the hubbub that is life. It's easy to stand a thousand miles away from the problem, and quote some philosophy. The test is, when you're knee deep in a pile of shit, having your face beaten in by someone who wants to kill you, while the rest of the crowd laughs and insults you, can you say, "empty your cup", "the tree that bends will not break, "all is one," and "go with the flow"? How (if at all) does your philosophy hold up in day-to-day situations? Street crowds is a good example. But why stop there? Why not talk about ALL aspects of life that can embody the tao? In order to realistically and practically discuss the tao, I think that philosophy (theory) and living life (application) are important topics to discuss. Politics, as an area of life, is important. Can the tao manifest in politics? How does it do that? Are we at a point where it does? If not, how do we get to that point? And as always, if you don't like a thread, you don't have to even open it.

There's a thread on it here. I'll re-post the segment from Frantzis' book, for those that don't have it and want to take a look, it's from "The Great Stillness" (also keep in mind. B.K. Frantzis is speaking from his specific lineage of Taoism, so it may differ even from other taoist views you may find):

Yeah, pretty lame. It says this: I don't know what "substantial grounds" he had, as Julian Assange gave all his contact information and location to the British police as soon as he entered the country. He and his legal team have never backed away from legitimate investigations. Media circus? Yes, that is what they have been avoiding. The case that the warrant was issued for was already thrown out, but was only reopened significantly later. It's all highly suspicious.

It seems you conveniently added that in long after my initial comment (you first edited in two lines that started with "the place", which I had seen when I wrote my post, and then when you made this new post apparently had simultaneously added in the bit about education- that's how I saw it on my end, anyway). At the very least you could hold me accountable for stuff that I would have realistically seen at the time of my writing of the post! What exactly is "my kind"?

Because, you know, China hasn't done anything to, say Tibet recently. This is a game that EVERYONE plays. Not just America. America is certainly one of the bigger (biggest?) players. Same old story. Different times. Different players. Same game. Not to mention that, depending on your working definition, there are terrorists even in countries that aren't invading. How is it you are defining terrorist? "Terrorism" as a type of tactic can take many forms. Street gangs can be terrorists. Street gangs, and other relatively low level forms of organized crime are all over the world.

I'm saying that one has to be very, VERY careful when treading such a path. However, I think that such a path which encourages introspection and really rigorous observance of self can help prevent you being just another slave that thinks you're free. What are your motivations for doing the things you do? Where did it come from? How are your actions impacting others/society as a whole? Questions along this line are things you should be frequently asking. It's kind of like, take a person who's arrogant, and always saying, "haha, I'm better than you, I'm stronger than you, I'm faster than you, haha!" and he learns, "oh, I need to be more humble!" then he goes around saying, "I'm more humble than you! I can go soooo long without bragging. Yeah, I got the humility thing down. You should practice more, because I'm beating you." Is that person REALLY being more humble? It's so easy to THINK you've escaped, but still be trapped in an potentially more ensnaring trap, because you think you are not trapped... Now one person might REALLY be more humble than another person. And if you are making such an appraisal about yourself or someone else, well, really try to understand the motivations and reasons and other checks that you go through before saying/thinking that. Be critical with yourself- is your appraisal really HONEST?

I'm hesitant to say it's any one thing. Because really, society is large and complex. Plenty of people grow up in Church culture, and actually wind up swinging wildly the OTHER way. So how do you control that? By telling people they are free and can do what they want..... but you've already accounted for that. The best slaves are the ones that don't realize they're slaves. Kinda an extreme view, but interesting I think.

My outlook on Americans being "too smart" is not very optimistic. Because of how deeply ingrained the thoughts are in the culture and society itself. Because it's not JUST media conglomerates controlling the news that are the problem. It's the organization of various institutions which instruct people from the time they are born that society is a certain way, that there are certain standards. It's the very gradual way that people WILLINGLY hand over their power and their rights. I'll hand over a little bit, I still have a lot left. I'll hand over a little bit, I still have a lot left. I'll hand over a little bit, I still have a lot left. I'll hand over a little bit, I still have a- oh fuck. Except even then, it doesn't occur that way! It's more like: I've always had so much, I'll hand over a little bit, I still have a lot left. I've always had so much, I'll hand over a little bit, I still have a lot left. I've always had so much, I'll hand over a little bit, I still have a lot left. I've always had so much.................. Nobody recognizes how much they've given over, because they've never known otherwise.

Yes, well that credibility is all part of social reproduction. People with a degree are more credible than people who don't have degrees. You get degrees by working inside a structure in one way or another. Even after you get your degree, you can have it removed. Obviously the methods in order to get the degree will teach you the "right ways". Anything outside that "right way" is the "wrong way". People accept that, and work with it. Now obviously there's some wiggle room. Things evolve. Mostly as society changes. At one point, if a scientist contradicted Aristotle, or the Church, or their king/dictator/benefactor, they were removed. Until we became "enlightened" and we started doing science for the sake of unbiased knowledge. Right? We still do that... right? Reporters learn how to report so they can tell us things accurately, right? But much has been written and said about the limitations of journalism. Reliance on "official" sources means you're only going to get the response that the source wants you to get. You can investigate, and find alternate views, but only if those alternatives are also "credible". If you don't have a degree or a significant amount of experience on the field, then you aren't even fit to comment on the situation. Even if someone takes a dump on hundreds of people, well, they obviously knew more than us, who are we to criticize them? Rather sickeningly twisted if you ask me.

"America will never become like that, the people are too smart, and will stop it long before it gets there." - Actual words from somebody in a class I took when we discussed this very subject

How can we not? But it's interesting- there's a lot of anger directed towards wikileaks, even amongst citizens, because they claim that the government has a right to hide some things, that there are some things that the public just doesn't need to see, etc etc. It seems that a lot of people are thinking, "as long as I don't have to see or know about it, I don't care." Which in my opinion, is a very, VERY dangerous position for people to take, especially in a country where it's the people who are supposed to (in theory) be the check to the government! It only has as much power (in theory) as the people let it have, and people are WILLINGLY letting the government have it! Groups like wikileaks come out, and there are people who are calling for him to be tried for treason (even though people don't seem to understand that he's not from the US, so you can't try him for treason.....) Now I don't support releasing information that puts lives in danger. And I don't think that wikileaks releases that stuff (in fact, apparently Assange has kept those files encrypted, only to be released in the event that someone makes an attempt on his life). From what I've perused myself, it's mostly stuff for internal usage. But on top of that, people don't even look into things like media ownership. As soon as you start talking about this, the word "conspiracy" inevitably gets thrown out into the mix. And when people hear that, they think of UFO's. When they think of those, they think of nutjobs in the middle of nowhere. And when they think of that, you automatically lose credibility. Because obviously you are a nutjob in the middle of nowhere because you believe in corporate conspiracies which means that you believe in aliens and everyone knows that's all made up. The way society on its own reproduces itself needs very little prodding from the government. And of course, we turn to the people who are in power and they just stay in power. The people push it along on their own. The snowball is already well on its way down the hill.

This is something that I read about, talk about, and write about pretty frequently, especially in the post 9/11 era- there is no real definition of "suspicious" that you hear anybody give. You hear them SAY suspicious.... but what is suspicious? With no clear definition, people are left to judge suspicious using whatever prejudices and preconceptions they have at their ready disposal. This doesn't help stop crime/terror/whatever, it just gives a loophole for people to report those of different faiths/appearances to the police. On that note, how do you guys feel about the wikileaks business?

Did not or could not? Have you tried? If you don't mind my asking, how did you do it? What did you experiment with? I'm not trying to offend or pry, if you don't want to answer that's fine, I'm just trying to be thorough for my own purposes of finding something that works.

That's my point- I know how it could have seemed, but that's not how I intended it (as the saying goes, "the path to hell is paved with good intentions!) yet I don't really have any other ways of conveying what it is I meant to say other than the words I said, yet those very same words can come across as condescending! And so we are caught in the vicious cycle of language and the internet.

Don't take this too seriously You shared your opinion on the topic, and I thought I'd share mine, which would hopefully explain my line of questioning. I'd like to find a method that works reliably and repeatably. It's fine if it works for you when you need it to. But that's not going to help me much in my research and development of something like remote viewing in the way I like to go about things. It's not a slam against you. It's just... what can I say other than "that's nice". Unfortunately "that's nice" doesn't really carry over too nicely, because it tends to carry some condescending tone or something, which isn't what I mean at all.

I like to practice and develop stuff. You know, so I know I have it in case I need it. Even if I never do. Chance favors the prepared mind? Maybe I don't trust the universe enough. "God helps those who help themselves", and all that jazz.