doc benway

Again- the point I am making is that I choose not to insult. I challenge others to consider doing the same. I am very forgiving with respect to insults. I forgive you entirely for the insulting things you've said about me in this discussion. I have no problem with the moderators using their judgement. As I've said, I've never logged a single complaint about anyone save one. I'm talking about making a choice with the heart. I support whatever level of moderation our mod team deems appropriate. Strict, not strict, I really don't care. I care about my own choices and raise the opportunity for all. And I really do appreciate the fact that you value my opinion. I disagree - insults are nearly always distortions. An insult is a personal attack. In general, it is more accurate to attack a statement, idea, or behavior. On a forum, as was posted earlier, we can only address words on the screen. We don't know the people well enough to address their person. So most insults are either generalizations or are based on assumptions that may or may not be accurate. Using insults in your online communication is more likely to cause you to offer distortions than avoiding them. Again we must agree to disagree. Being polite is a characteristic of maturity. Yielding to impulse is a characteristic of immaturity. Both are valid choices. The polite, mature interaction is more likely to lead to collaboration and compromise - the hallmarks of civil interaction. Impulsive behavior is more likely to lead to conflict in adults. We are not children and do not behave like children in our adult interactions (well, most of us anyway). I agree completely that open and honest communication, even to the point of being blunt and frank, is best and it is my preferred approach. It is more likely to be successful and well received when offered without personal insult. I think you want to be able to freely express yourself as you see fit. I think that you are not concerned enough with considering the feelings of others. Perhaps you equate that with intellectual honesty and integrity. I think that you currently feel intellectual honesty is more important than compassion and love. I understand that position all too well. I also honor and value intellectual honesty and integrity. There was a very long time in my life when I was consumed with the intellectual and analytical side of me and totally lost touch with the emotional side. This resulted in an imbalance that has had a negative impact on my relationships with my family members (parents, wife, kids...). I've worked diligently over the past few years to rediscover my emotional being and I've come to value and honor love, compassion, and the heart as much as intellect and analysis. I intend to implement both in my life and at this point in time I feel like the heart is taking a slight priority over the mind. That's my choice right here and right now and the background behind my comments regarding insult. This approach has helped to resore balance in my own life and has helped me to deal much better with my professional life as well. Thanks for listening.

Very nice to watch you move Otis! Bravo!

Spending time with little children if the opportunity presents itself...

Interesting stuff. Those interested in magic may also enjoy "The Mindscape of Alan Moore" and some of Alejandro Jodorowsky's work on healing with Tarot. Great stuff.

Thanks - I've yet to read Campbell. I'll check it out. Is that a good place to start in his oeuvre?

How about politicians? Sad, isn't it?

Very true, but also dull! This is why the Hindus came up with the allegory of the great actor, the great dancer. The universe loves music and vibration. Everything is a wave and what is a wave if not music? So we are all supposed to be dancing. This is our dance. And when our chance has passed, others get a turn. I'm not sure it's set up so our feeble intellects can find a satisfying reason for all of it. Why isn't it enough to just have this dance? Birds, dogs, and whales know what they are and it is enough. It is the human condition to not be satisfied, to desire, to need to become something other than we already are, no matter what that is. That is the nature of suffering according to the Buddhists. So they tell us to let go of desire - recognize that permanence is an illusion so there is nothing to cling to, no advantage to desire. And the Daoist approach is to revere the simple man, the peasant, the fool. And the Hindus reveres the forest hermit who wanders off naked into the woods. They are all telling us the same thing. Wake up to what you are. You're already that. It is enough. And maybe not...

Beautiful - thank you for sharing that. I feel the same way about my experience of Qi. It's a process, not a quantity.

Great research. I've been fascinated with this line of inquiry since first hearing about it on NPR a few years ago. This new paper adds an interesting spin. I also agree with Manitou's perspective and it feels like our conscious apparatus is more about monitoring and recording what is going on. And using those recordings (memory) to make last minute modifications (that window of free will per se) based on previous experiences being projected toward possible outcomes.

Yes it's completely obvious and everybody misses it! We are always already what we are. We always want to be something else - enlightened, awakened, saved, whatever. And all of the sages are telling us that we are already there! We are already that! The Daoists tell us this, the Buddhists, the non-dualists, the Hindus, Jesus, Judaism... So we are already in Rome and all of the roads lead AWAY! All of the methods, practices, paths, cultivations, and prostrations lead AWAY from our natural state, from what we already are. They take us farther away, way way out in different directions until we drive ourselves crazy. And as long as we insist on finding the right path we're continually going away from Rome in all different directions. That is the purpose of Chan and Zen - the purpose of the koan and the endless neigong exercises. They take us way out to the limits of our understanding and tolerance until we finally WAKE UP! And we are in Rome. And we realize there is no where else to go. There is no need to try and find our way out. We are already here.

I guess you missed my sarcasm just like you've missed the point of my posts. I continue to disagree with you fundamentally, I'm just not interested in prolonged debate. I never said anything about zero tolerance. Those are your words. I used words like "never healthy", "never necessary", and "never appropriate" - I stand by that regarding personal insult. And as always, it is only the opinion of one person. It is something I aspire to myself. I am not forcing this on anyone. As you should be able to tell from this conversation, I am very tolerant of insult, I simply choose to avoid it myself. What I am talking about is trying to cultivate the mindset of choosing not to offer personal insults. Making a choice to communicate in more skillful and mature ways, not mandating or legislating it. That's a personal decision for each of us to make. It is a challenge, not an admonition or demand. This is an invitation. This is an opportunity for cultivation. This is trying to integrate the heart with the intellect. Tempering argument with compassion. It's not for everyone and that's fine. As I said earlier - you are welcome to communicate as you see fit. I invite all to consider my perspective and you are all free to agree or disagree, it doesn't really matter to me. I'm not concerned with your reassurance, agreement, or approval. PS Keep your day job, you're armchair psychoanalysis is way off the mark

This is great.

It works both ways. A single specimen is a single piece of data that may support or not support a theory. The theory is much more valuable and powerful than any single fact (ie piece of evidence).

I've had an epiphany! I'm an intolerant, extremist, egoist, coward who has the audacity to advocate verbal non-violence on a forum devoted to spiritual investigation. I feel much better now. Thanks Gold. Good times buddy.

You ought to read about where the Abrahamic religions got there "One God" from. Fascinating stuff. Karen Armstrong touches on it briely in her book, A History of God. It was basically an arbitrary selection based on the presumed most powerful of the existing worshipped deities at the time. The lesser gods became what are now referred to as the various demons (Baal, Beelzebub, and so on...). Not sure I agree with your point here however. In Judaism, the one God principle is all encompassing. In Christianity, other more specific manifestations arise which negate the pure mono-Theistic principle of Judaism. I won't belabor this point as I have no interest in a drawn out theological debate but I think there is a meaningful difference.

Gold - After reading the rest of your rebuttal and conisdering how I might respond, I'm happy to let you have the last words. I have nothing more to add other than to summarize my original points: I have advocated that we aspire to communicate without personal insult. I believe it is possible to achieve this and I do not think it would compromise the quality of communication or intellectual intercourse. I believe that resorting to intentional personal insult reflects immaturity and lack of skill in communication. I really don't care to spend any more time on this topic. You're making gratuitous assumptions and assertions about my personality, character, and inent that are erroneous. Your attempts at insult are noted and declined. Clearly, you practice what you preach and I intend to do the same. I think the community has a clear view of our perspectives and can reach their own conclusions.

It may take me a while to address the whole post. Here is a brief start. Please show me where you referred to insults in your post. Perhaps you meant to equate insult with disrespect? That would be as inaccurate and misleading as equating insults with criticism because, like criticism, disrespect may be directed at the opinion, not the person. It is an attack on the person ie insult, that I am addressing.

1. I do not believe when you say you are not a creationist. I believe you are being disingenuous here. What is the difference between spiritual perspective and creationist perspective? Do you believe man and the earth were created by a Creator or do you not? 2. Yes, this is peer reviewed research and I value it and applaud it being published in a legitimate journal. It is documentation of the examination of a SINGLE specimen. From that you jump to the conclusion that it is completely conclusive and that there is no connection between Australopithecus and man. This is erroneous. That is not science. A single specimen is a single piece of evidence, not conclusive proof. Even if every specimen were similar there are alternative explanations to the fact that the mandibular anatomy of A-pithecus is closer to a gorilla than a chimp. Those alternative explanations also are not conclusive. It is an unresolved issue but there is certainly enough similarity for any reasonable investigator to consider the possibility of a relationship. If you want to quote peer-reviewed research, please play by the rules of such research. Do not denigrate the work of these scientists by misusing their data.

That's exactly what evolution means, change over time. Change in DNA leading to change in the associated physical manifestations coded for by genomes. Darwin was a brilliant scientist who began to connect the dots in the nineteenth century before any of the benefits of modern chemistry and biology. Mendel's work furthered our understanding of inheritance and how genes are passed on. Modern science has expanded on this knowledge using incontrovertible methods. Current evolutionary theory is extremely powerful and extremely comprehensive. Evolutionary theory has not connected every dot or answered every possible question. Similarly, there is still no comprehensive, unified theory in physics. Do you contend that physics is therefore completely incorrect as a whole? What you refuse to see is that scientific theory is a tool and a very powerful tool. It is a description of reality using the most objective and discriminating methods currently available. Is it all completely correct? Of course not - only until a stronger alternative comes along. Creation theory (sic Intelligent Design) has no valid scientific theory to supply as a substitute, only a creation myth and a gratuitous assertion of the presence of a creator being necessary because physiologic systems are so complex. This is an assertion, not a theory. ID proponents have tried to redefine the words "scientific theory" to make an assertion into a theory with the unwanted side effect that it would then be necessary to recognize Astrology as a valid scientific theory. Please learn the difference if you want to converse in the scientific community. It is only the desperate argument of someone who fervently believes in the Judeo-Christian creation myth that tries so hard to disprove these beautiful and elegant insights and discoveries using junk science.

The irony is that the rest of your posts regarding the falsehood of evolution are equally amusing.

Excellent point - I think we are considering similar ironies regarding cultivation. I also think your point: "This could be true even of the murderer ... if he/she studies the art of murdering to the nth degree, to fully comprehend the nature of the art and its consequences then I wonder how many people they would actually murder. " is extremely insightful. Perhaps it is exactly because we are unable to see the full impact of our decisions that we make mistakes and hurt others. This is why the sage, Buddha, Jesus, are said to have been able to do no wrong - because they were/are fully awake, fully aware of their action and its potential consequences. This is why it is only when we wake up to the fundamental sameness and connection of all living things that we truly experience love and true compassion.

Continued I respect you as well. I've been honest throughout this conversation. I did agree with most of what you said as far as criticism goes but not insult. You choose to merge the two. I insist on making a distinction. That is the fundamental difference. You used the word criticism but equate it with insult - that is inaccurate. Any attempt to equate the two is disingenuous and nothing but a desperate attempt to win the debate. No, this was not my attempt at being nice, nor was it an attempt at being not nice. It was simply a plea for civility to the entire forum. I disagree with your position that small insults are OK and I will stand my ground and not be intimidated. I have not been dishonest in the least. If I can help you see the difference between an insult and a criticism then I will feel that I've done you a service. If not, then at least I've tried. If you are not interested in seeing the difference, I can live with that. I am being completely straight with you. You are free to believe me or not, that is your privilege. There is no artificial sweetness here. I am equally disappointed with you because I do value many of your opinions and contributions, but that's OK, I do not expect you to conform to my values or expectations and I do not expect you to be concerned with my approval. You do not deal well with a challenges to your opinions. We've been there before in discussions on this forum. One of the most difficult things to do in life is learn how to recognize and accept when you are wrong, even harder to admit it publicly. On the other hand, all is a matter of personal perspective. You are entitled to your opinion and me to mine. If you disagree regarding the distinction between insult and criticism, we will have to agree to disagree. Be well

I think I've struck a nerve. Absolutely not. With respect to criticism, I agree with you. With respect to insults, I disagree. My post referred to insults. Nearly your entire post referred to criticism, therefore I was completely honest in saying I agreed with your post. I believe the difference is meaningful. The intention of an insult is to attack the person. The intention of a criticism is to challenge an idea, opinion, or behavior. Surprising or not, they are unnecessary and unhelpful. Then your experience is limited or you are being disingenuous. Nearly every insult on the web or in person leads to reprisal followed by escalation. Most violence begins with words. You are welcome to deny that but such denial is empty. I agree that fighting can often lead to friendship but I don't think insults are a healthy or predictable way of making friends and you certainly don't mean to say that you insult people to make friends, do you? Is roughness always negative? Perhaps not. Are personal insults appropriate and acceptable on this forum? No. Not only is that the rule of the forum, it is a basic principle of civil discourse. You are welcome to disagree with me, perhaps you are right and I'm wrong. I will refrain from insulting people and you may do as you see fit. Again, I agree. All communication is an unbroken spectrum of expression. Insults and criticism are closer to one another on that spectrum than to praise. If you feel drawn to personal insult, that is your prerogative. I maintain that it is an immature and unskillful method of communication. Criticism can be skillful or unskillful, depending on the presentation. Criticism is valid and welcome on this forum. Crossing the line at personal insult is not permitted, nor should it be in my opinion. Again, you are free to disagree. Again you are being disingenuous here. My point is well made and incontrovertible, IMO (but of course, it is just my opinion). It is certainly possible to insult someone on occasion without insulting them with every comment. It happens on this forum all the time. Insults, by definition, are personal: Merriam-Webster - insult: to treat with insolence, indignity, or contempt : affront; also : to affect offensively or damagingly. Not every insult is associated with a personal vendetta. Certainly that does occur rarely, as you suggest. Occasional insults are much more frequent but are insults nonetheless. Just because an insult is offered in association with a belief does not mean it is not hurtful and not an insult. Case in point - A: I belief Laozi is an immortal B: I disagree, Laozi just means old man, you are wrong and you are gullible and I can prove it (criticism) B: I disagree, Laozi just means old man and you are a moron and an asshole because you're stupid enough to believe that (insult) I agree with all of the above except the assertion that the judicious use of insults is acceptable. It is not acceptable to forum rules and not acceptable to my values. Even though insults and criticism are on the same end of the communication spectrum, in most cases it is quite clear what is personally insulting and what is aggressively critical. The moderators are charged with making this distinction and do a very good job for the most part. It certainly is. Nor I. No need to be patronizing. My original post was not an attack on you personally, it was my intention to share a personal view that could potentially benefit others. If you feel that the difference between elimination and moderation is sufficiently complex or subtle to require elucidation, please expound. Fascinating, why would you think that? I've never complained to any moderator about any post since I joined the TaoBums with one exception. I complained to Sean about procurator - a self-proclaimed Nazi who was verbally attacking a Jewish member through personal mail on the forum. I'm not insulted at all. Your paranoia is yours, not mine. I've not backstabbed you nor have I made any particular effort to be nice and smiles to your face. Thank you for your honesty. To be continued - I've exceeded the allowed number of blocks of text.

If it was truly accidental, I don't think it means anything. Methinks there was some intention in your actions and that is full of meaning. Exactly what that meaning is - I have no idea. Quite a story about the mule... yikes! I never knew Rumi was so freaky.

There are many cases of "Qigong Psychosis." It is a well-established clinical syndrome with relatively clear and predictable characteristics. Is Qigong causing the problem or is it the person's susceptibility that is the problem? Yes In a susceptible individual, the type of experiences that can be produced by excessive and compulsive practice and obsessive thought can lead to a psychotic state. The type of personality traits or mental states that can lead to problems are a tendency toward obsessive and compulsive thought patterns and behaviors combined with alterations in reality testing. When someone of this type focuses their (pathologically intense) attention on a practice like Qigong, a negative feedback loop can develop. The experiences that result from the activity and the thought patterns that are associated are continually reinforced and in the absence as adequate reality testing, a psychotic state can result. I don't think the particular flavor of the exercises are as important as the state of mind of the practitioner but both contribute to the rare occurrence of this condition. I think that there can be a fine line between calling someone psychotic and acknowledging that people can have experiences outside of the norms of society and culture. Nevertheless, there are some cases where a latent schizophrenia or something along those lines becomes manifest in a way that seems to link it to Qigong practice.