Aaron

For those interested, I've made a new post to my blog. In it I ask the question of whether Westerners can ever really understand Taoism from an Eastern perspective as well as what the essential belief of Taoism is. Rather than repost it, you can a take a look here and tell me what you think, I certainly think it's worth a discussion. Aaron

Well I might ask you the same question. Aaron

Sigh... I've been suspended to many times under flimsy circumstances, so I'm afraid I'm bowing out of this conversation. I really do wish I could continue it, but I see it as being to volatile to risk undertaking. In essence I can't afford to question people or make comments that are not completely passive. If you are wondering why, just look at the moderator logs. I've been banned more times than any other current member on this forum. Aaron

I think some people would argue about the Russell quote being pure Taoism. In fact one of the greatest Taoist texts (the I-Ching) is actually called "The Book of Changes" and not in the sense that change is an illusion (thought I'm not arguing that point itself) but rather that changes can be foreseen if one looks at what is happening with wisdom and forethought. As for the Lao Tzu saying, "Recognize that everything you see is a falsehood..." Well I addressed that point as well, Lao Tzu encourages us to question things, to not just accept the rote answer. The fact of the matter is that our perception of the world isn't necessarily the reality of the world, it's just how we've been taught to perceive. Anyways, enjoyed your points and I'm actually on your side regarding the whole perception of time thing, although I don't think Lao Tzu was necessarily talking about it. Aaron

I'm assuming that anyone reading the blog already has a good foundation of Taoist understanding, so rather than waste time explaining terms I believe they already have an understanding of, I explain my point. I'm sorry you felt it was lacking, but maybe my blog isn't meant for someone as advanced as you. Also, since you missed it, the points were 1) the overall message of Taoism can transcend any kind of cultural divide, 2) That Taoism is ultimately about freedom of self. and 3) That freedom of self can only really be achieved through social harmony and introspection. I thought I was quite clear on these points, but perhaps not. I also don't understand how you can attach much of what you said to Taoism. In my opinion it is more new age than Taoist. First Taoism, in particular Lao Tzu, is as different as one can get from Socrates. While Socrates talks about the need for ethics, Lao Tzu explains how ethics are the mere husk of formality and have no place in harmonious society. Socrates supports reason, Lao Tzu supports paying attention to your intuition. Socrates advocates educating the people, Lao Tzu advocates keeping them ignorant. Socrates says virtue is knowledge, Lao Tzu says that virtue is an action that arises from Tao. The list goes on and on, but rather than continue I'll just reiterate, Night and day. But of course this is my opinion and your opinion. There is no need to be right or wrong, unless you make it so. I don't agree with your assessment of my blog, but I don't need to, because in the real world harmony is not just derived from observing the world, but from observing yourself as well, and from that observation understanding that the needs of others are just as important as your own. Aaron

It's funny, because I do address some of what you've mentioned in my blog, but I also understand that your concept of Taoism and mine are very different, so you will probably find much of what I said to either meet your definition of "ignorance" or feel that most of it is gibberish. I think this is in part because I feel Taoism is as much a sociological philosophy as it is a mystical philosophy. In that sense I think it's primary purpose is to encourage social harmony first and mystical enlightenment second. That's also my own goal when I talk about the Tao Te Ching, simply because it is much easier to teach the latter when there is the former. Also I have a different opinion in regards to self, in particular I believe that there is nothing wrong with understanding the self, so long as you also understand the nature or self, in particular, the impermanence of self, and the lack of self in regards to the knowledge of self. Aaron edit- and yes there is no past or future, only the present actually exists. Of course I understand what you say when you mention that we are never really in the present, because we are always examining what just happened. I guess I just feel that it's impossible to examine something that hasn't happened yet, which is perhaps even greater proof of what you're talking about in the first place.

Thank you ZT. Maybe you could explain Jung's views on the topic. I think that would really help to foster the discussion. Aaron

Because I like to assume the worst in people, that way you're never surprised when they fail you. Plus I am trying to be a moral pillar for the followers of the "Apocalyptic prophesy of Twinner" group. Though shalt not eat your fellow man! Smite downeth the cannibal Lord! Aaron

No one should take these comments regarding pay as the guiding line when it comes to the law. Each state is different. Some states require employers to pay overtime to managers and supervisors, while others don't. Some states require you to pay a salaried employee overtime for anything over 40 hours, since the salary is based on 40 hours. Again, if you're having an issue with your employer, check your local laws. Aaron

No problem. You'd be surprised some of the weird people we get here. Stick around awhile and you'll see why it was easy for me to take what you said literally. Aaron Edit- I like your nick by the way.

There is absolutely no hope for the human race. At some point in the future we will all die, just like the dinosaurs and so many other critters before us. The best we can hope for is that we don't kill ourselves quicker rather than later. If you want to be rich, feel free, but keep in mind that you literally can't take it with you. If you want to be spiritual, that's fine too, but keep in mind that there is absolutely no proof doing so is going to help you achieve immortality after death, although one could be certain to a degree that your suffering will be over. If you want to become a moral pillar of the community, lead your own cult, or become a guru, well that's fine and dandy too, but keep in mind that people aren't as easy to control as you might think, and that in most circumstances you're not controlling them, so much as they're letting you tell them what to do. Unless you want to lock them in a room, then that's a game changer and will almost certainly allow you some control over their life, although with that control will come a great deal of animosity. In other words don't leave the door unlocked or turn your back on them while sharp objects are lying around. This has been my public service announcement. This post is in no way meant to disrespect or insult anyone that wants to be a guru, moral pillar, or cult leader, rather it is meant to point out some of the issues they might run into if they choose to become one. Also if you do decide to become a moral pillar, make sure that they can't trace your prostitutes back to you, and pay off any kids you might molest ahead of time, otherwise they might end up spilling the beans and that might tarnish your reputation. Remember being a moral pillar isn't about actually being a moral person, you just need to appear to be a moral person. Aaron

Ahem... the * is an asterisk. Aaron

Well now that's just hurtful. Where was I being an asterisks, asterisks, asterisks? Aaron

I would clarify that, because sheeple is a phrase used by many people (including VMarco on numerous occasions) for those human beings who haven't become enlightened... see how the context changes? I might make an edit that you weren't seriously considering eating people, it was just a play on words. Aaron

I'm actually on a vegetarian diet, have been for about two months now, since the place I'm staying doesn't allow meat products. They were going to disallow eggs on moral grounds, but they support abortion, so I convinced them that if they believed killing a fetus before it grew to term wasn't immoral, then how could they believe my eating an egg was? Still I wont bring eggs into the house, I just eat the rare product with eggs already inside. Anyways, lots of people tend to equate vegetarianism with purity, but there really is no evidence to prove this to be true. I am not a vegetarian because I believe it is evil to eat meat, I never have. I will most likely remain in the mostly vegetarian diet once I move on from here, but it's not because of any real moral conviction about eating meat, but more so the way meat industry treats its animals and the fact that we waste so much grain doing so. I never felt it was a persons place to dictate how someone else should live their life, unless they themselves are absolved of blame. I have yet to meet anyone who meets that criteria, If someone has lived a blameless life, then by all means carry on. By the way, if you wear leather or wool, then you really have no place to talk about the animal cruelty or karma angle. Aaron

I reported this post. It is in violation of the ToS. It also isn't very funny. I'm not certain, but I believe that it may be in the best interest of the forum to report this post, since the poster is threatening to "hunt" human beings and eat them. Aaron

Yes... no viable evidence to support any of this happened. Send this to the pit, or not. I mean it will probably get a lot of hits and help with advertising.

I think that vs. threads are counter productive. In my experience Taoism and Buddhism both intend to do the same thing, ease one's suffering in this life. Taoism advocates an end to suffering through living in harmony with others, Buddhism does the same. The methods are infinitely different however. So one could say that it's not so much Taoism vs. Buddhism, so much as it is Taoism or Buddhism, or if it's your cup of tea, Taoism and Buddhism. I personally shy away from religious ideology and practices, because I feel they are needless distractions. Lao Tzu made several comments regarding this in the Tao Te Ching and Hua Hu Ching. If one was going to note the greatest difference, that would be it. However one must also understand that this stems from my own very marginalized and unrelativistic approach to both. I think that having grown up in the West, it is very difficult for me to understand the cultural context that Buddhism and Taoism hold to the Chinese, let alone assimilate it. In order for me to truly understand these phenomena on a deep level, I have to also understand the cultural context from which they came. This doesn't mean that I can't come to an understanding of what's being said within my own cultural context, only that my understanding will ultimately be tied to my own rationalizations and introspection, which in turn is based on my own cultural bias. Even the word compassion can have a very different meaning for me than it does for someone from China or India for instance, just as my understanding of enlightenment can. When we look at teachers like Allan Watts or D. T. Suzuki, we find that the first thing they try to do is bring these ideas into context, because without being able to do this, we will invariably miss the actual teachings. We will learn something, but it wont be the same thing that is learned by the Eastern practitioner. I liken it to learning to read with phonics. Yes it's a quick way to learn to read, but it's a horrendous way to learn to spell, since many words aren't actually spelled the way they sound. So one who starts to write utilizing phonics may be able to impart some of the message, but they will undoubtedly make mistakes along the way, without even knowing it. For the child learning to spell with phonics, they have no idea that fonix doznt aktualy werk tu exspress an ideuh, unless one also learns the rules for grammar, punctuation etc. So yes, we may grasp the basics, even begin to recognize some core concepts and extrapolate on them, but we can't actually express the practice with any kind of authenticity, because our cultural understanding is impeding us. My recommendation for anyone that really wants to learn what Taoism and Buddhism were originally about is to spend time with practitioners from the East or if they can't do that, at the very least be satisfied that perhaps the most important messages will be understood, and use those as a foundation for your practice. Aaron edit- This response was inspired by Wu Ming Jen's response. Also, this post was not intended to disparage or insult people whu lerned to rede uzing huked on fonix. I waz won of thoze peple and if it wasn't for spell checker, I'd probably sound pretty dumb half the time.

Well I guess my question would be, if the message was edited and no one else was making comments that were gravitating towards the necessity for moderation intervention, what was the need to post the warning? I think the more we govern with a heavy hand, the less freedom we allow the people. That's Taoism by the way, I can point out the passages that speak of it, but essentially the ideal kingdom is one where the people don't feel the hand of the emperor or king. In my opinion dealing with this in private first, then if nothing can be done, making a public statement, would've been more conducive to expressing freedom in the community, than making a blanket statement that caused others to wonder if they were doing something to necessitate moderation. That's just my opinion and it was not intended to be insulting or demeaning, but rather as an example of how to use Taoism to moderate the Tao Bums. Aaron

Could you point out which comments were considered insulting? I reread the last several pages and found nothing that I would construe as a direct insult, derogatory, or inflammatory. It just amazes me that I start to post again and immediately there are Mod warnings about insults and such. In order to assuage my paranoia, could you please point out what comments were actually disrespectful or insulting. Aaron edit- I'm wondering if calling into question another person's knowledge or the validity of a topic in accordance with accepted anthropological and archaeological evidence is considered insulting? Should we instead say, "Well of course it's absolutely possible that Minney Mouse ruled over the ancient Peloponnesians, and I for one would never dissuade someone from believing such a thing, however, and this isn't meant to be insulting or anything, everyone I've ever talked to about this topic would disagree, hence it might not be true." Doh! I guess even that's insulting, I mean we are telling the person that Minney Mouse never ruled Peloponnesia. I am really at a loss here.

From what I've studied, most anthropologists have dismissed the feminine/matriarchy to masculine/patriarchy paradigm because there's no concrete evidence to support it. Robert Graves was one of the historians that helped start the mess, with his whole Diana cults, women sacrificing men, etc. After much examination, several decades later we realize that a few statues of women and the practices of a small minority of aboriginal people is not enough evidence to support these claims. For instance, you would think if all this was true, that it would've had some legacy that would've been remembered by later generations and eventually have been recorded for posterity, if for no other other reason than as warning to the men who didn't want to be sacrificed, but what we find is nothing to support that anything like this ever existed on a large scale. Of course it's nice to have theories, but that's all they are, theories. There's a reason the vast majority of the cultures on the face of the earth were patriarchal, and that's simply because men were expected to protect and provide for the women. In practice men are out in the fields as often as women in nearly every culture. In practice men managed the majority of the heavy field work and women managed the home and children, because the women were expected to feed the children and care for them. Of course we can decide that this is wrong, that women shouldn't care for the children, you know, send them off at age two to preschool, then kindergarten, then to grade school and high school, essentially allow the government to raise the children, rather than the parent, because in the end a child educated by the government will be more likely to do what the government tells them to. Again, if you think all of this is altruistic, you're way off base. I'm absolutely positive this has nothing to do with Taoism or Buddhism, but it is an interesting topic. I just wish people really understood what they're talking about. Aaron

Actually it doesn't in my opinion. Westerners have a history of trying to impose their own views on other cultures and it started in the middle ages with the crusades. Much of it has nothing to do with humanitarian sentiment, but rather as a way for us to grab a piece of the pie. We send people in to westernize a country and then set it up so that these countries are essentially supplying the west with goods at a fraction of their actual value. It's mostly about money, sometimes religion, and very rarely humanitarian. Alwayson, I would say India is becoming more westernized, but it's not quite there yet. I would say they're a few decades away from the problems endemic in the states. Aaron

I've always thought it was quite interesting how the "enlightened" west makes decisions regarding other cultures. We try to change the way they live and behave, because our society is supposedly superior, yet how can we justify this? Are american's really happy people? Are they any happier than Indians or Malays or even Hondurans? The irony is that in recent times a large portion of the illegal immigrants that come to America to take advantage of the American Dream, end up leaving after just a short time, seeing through much of it for what it is, a lifestyle of consumption and misery, compounded by a culture and economy that strives to consume, but not really create anything worthwhile. I'm wondering whether anyone ever bothered asking the women of these other countries whether they feel like they're taken advantage of, or have we decided that they are and hence we need to step in and convert them to a superior culture such as ours? I think its time that we stop trying to interfere in other cultures and start working on our own, because I think we can all agree we have a long way to go before we really offer happiness. There are far too many incidences to quote here, but suffice it to say, Iraq, Afghanistan, Central America, South America, and Vietnam come to mind. Anyways this is vastly off-topic. Neither Buddhist or Taoists would advocate interference in other customs, I guess only Westernized intellectuals feel the need. Aaron

I've noticed a peculiar thing. I have a conversation with someone via the messenger on Taobums and suddenly the advertisement that's popping up has to do with that conversation. For instance I mentioned creative writing in one personal message and suddenly I have ads for degrees in creative writing popping up on the site. It seems like the site is tracking my conversation as well as other sites I visit. If so I think it would be nice for Taobums to make us aware of this. I'm not trying to make waves, it's just that in the modern age of internet privacy, this seems like something a site should make you aware of, if it's occurring. Aaron

There is no right or wrong that exists outside the human mind. Aaron