dawei

They need to strip all of the members of congress, the house, the WH administration and cabinet of their health insurance and tell them to go get their own for a year and then they will understand maybe 10% of what the rest of the country understands about health insurance. I can't imagine anyone, ever getting it right due to all the layers. Unless every layer is identified and agrees to reduces costs, it will never be a working solution for everyone.

Sure... but I think the issue of children is more the concern then work environments that are not open to public anyways.

So I'll discuss it further Spicy (yes, my wife saw the SNL skit on him and just loves it and asks why they are not doing more)... can't really grasp the average american's situation. I think goverment employees will never really understand the health care problem in the way an average american does. Here is our story: Humana canceled my wife's insurance without notice . Her work said, several months ago that they would provide insurance... Yet, her fellow workers found they were getting medical bills over the last several months to suggest they were not covered. The government does not fully understand the problem.

The bottom line issue is cost... unless they drive costs down, there is nothing worth discussing.

Dao help me

I'm not really following your exact point but feel we agreed at some point. Maybe you want to say that population is the issue/cause of our throwing darts? I've thought of this in regard to climate change.... I'm going to regret this line of thought but here goes... At the most base level: A growing population MUST affect the climate. And by population I mean the ten thousand things. We cannot compare 100,000 neanderthals walking the plains and building some fires here or there ... vs today... With population comes industry and technology and complete disregard of the environment. MY POINT IS: Nothing will stop its forward march.

In fact, I have no thought on the sage of the horse compared to the Greater Tao... No memory of those passages... and maybe that is what you're asking for... more distinct discussion on such ideas ?

bolded part is simply subjective... our experience... we'll likely never please all the people's thoughts and opinions and reactions. That is the challenge we face; that is the challenge we are willing to face in discussion. It is up to folks to decide their reactionary side in regards to what they accept or not, challenge or not. We want that kind of reaction, interaction, and challenge but in the end, each of us must find how we move on

I'm almost sorry I asked... gives great pause... and Southern Comfort in a glass... no ice needed

I think your point is exactly my thinking, or at least seeing the future to its extreme. I don't really hold any side to it, just comment on what I see/hear/think... If the end-game is self-annihilation and self-exploitation and self-suicide... can we really just delay it if it will happen at some point? I don't know the answer but I have this question

I've never heard of this and so just jumping in with my thoughts. I think I get the stated problem but it seems to me that land resources can only allow occupation so far. Meaning, if we have a growing population, there is a need for land. If we take this out to the furthest end, there are only people and no forests at the extreme point. So, I ask this with any issue: What is the problem ? If mankind's population will at some point run over all of natural growth, how do we not chop them down?

I'll email you the HFZ commentary on LZ... nothing ground breaking but just a good reference.

Most of this sounds like a chinese lady's explanation Hanfeizi wrote the earliest commentary on LZ.... A legalist perspective, but worth reading.

Purely from interest... please don't think I agree with any side Can you explain more why it was unconstitutional but you seem to say the states were in no better position to deal with the environment.

Brilliant ! This is akin to the line by line analysis that Stoch is asking in ZZ threads... it seems to work here

But nobody argued this point but you. A honest discussion will provide examples. And a honest evaluation will look at context. My [chinese] wife agrees with TT... but let's forget about someone chinese explaining chinese texts. As an example... when I ask my wife to explain some phrase, I know it will take 1 hour... why? She demand the entire text from beginning to end. She demands to grasp the entire nuisance of meaning and then will only give some opinion. In the end, it is still just her opinion. She is not a practitioner of methods, she just follows the natural way of things. So I will accept that practitioners want to impose their opinion as the true way for a tradition or teaching... but it is within the confides of that tradition and teaching and not necessarily viewed from the perspective of the natural way of things.

This is the crux of it... the eyes we are looking through has a heart and mind that has some historical basis for our understanding, reaction, and opinion. I think we are always going to find such diversity or disparity in looking at anything. Me, personally, I put myself in the shoes of the 'other' and see through their eyes... in this case, I see it the same through my eyes... but others will not see it that way. There is the famous Zen story of: Mountains; no mountains; Mountains. In Daoist terms, this is like: Laozi; Zhuangzi; Laozi That is why Laozi is much more accessible... he talks mystery and manifest with equal ease. ZZ talks detached and forgetting to forget. Your bolded part is actually a very astute observation and quite right. We sometimes skip that and simply claim it as inherent in our explanation of passages or chapters. Maybe the circular problem is: We can't explain their mindset without appealing to their writings.

Trick question As from his POV (which would be heaven's POV and Thus), it is really neither (and then ZZ might say therefore, both). But I think it could be viewed beneficial in regards to nurturing the ten thousand to go their own Way... but could be seen as problematic to the everyday man who feels there is some insensitivity to be so 'hands off'.

That's my gut too... in this way, we 'test' the newer approach going forward... although there is something to be said for going back so the entire study is the same but folks may be less inclined to comment as it was already covered.

My memory fails but I think that someone put forth the suggestion to do Mairs and enough agreed and MB simply volunteered to help in doing the chapters. re: Line by Line negotiations. I think it would be much easier to do that for LZ simply due to length of the text... and one challenge is that one has to read a line within a larger context of the section, and preceding sections at times. Lin is incomplete so we would have to use another and Lin could be supplemented. Having said this, I'm open to trying a line by line. It could take quite a long time to get through it but why not. My gut feeling is, if we did line by line, we start over with a new translator (or two). Added: But we still may not get agreement on line by line and might be arguing more too

And as you follow heaven's lead, which is following Dao's lead... you get to the point of Flowing Hands (being at one with Dao) and Derek Lin (by having humility, one can connect with Dao)

You feel Eno and Burton suck ? But then suggest doing [burton] Watson ? For the record... I'm open to changing gears. 1. Go back to the first posting and simply add Burton and Lin to the first post and let folks comment again ? 2. Stop this one and restart with a new set ? 3. Your thought on what to do ?

please... 1. They hacked the DNC before Trump formally announced running 2. They would favor anyone over Hillary

I've come to not appreciate Mair's take Maybe we should of done as we did with DDJ and put a few side by side... not sure now But here is Eno's notes to this section: This description of the “True Man” – a term that appears only in Chapter 6 of the Inner Chapters, is not easy to make full sense of, but the main message is clear. The chapter sets up a duality between Heaven (what is natural and spontaneous) and man (what is social and premeditated), and while celebrating Heaven, its depiction of the True Man as an embodiment of a string of seeming contradictions creates as a model the person who is able to exemplify a second-level unity of the two realms, unifying both unity and disunity themselves. The strategy of seeking a higher level perspective that will unite contradictions in a way that words cannot recalls the method of Chapter 2. Found this line interesting.. Mair: Being "one," he was a follower of heaven. Being "not one," he was a follower of man. Eno: In his unity he was a follower of Heaven, in his disunity he was a follower of man. Burton: In being one, he was acting as a companion of Heaven. In not being one, he was acting as a companion of man.

Interesting.... just saw an interview with Clapper about when he briefed Trump on the 'dossier' of Russian ties. In the interview, Clapper said the only think they could substantiate in the entire dossier was Putin's strong dislike of Hillary...