aridus

If you put a bunch of rocks in a bag, are they separate, or are they together? Edit: and no, I've never considered that, for even being able to think of a rock connects me to that rock. Nothing is by itself since everything interacts. Even if I don't interfere with the rock that is still an interaction - leaving the rock in place to provide shelter for a slug for example would be a different course than picking it up but it always leads to a dependent interaction with something else.

There is only conceptual splitting. Our conscious mind wants to divide everything into discrete parts when everything is made of the same stuff one way or another. Why do we pick up a rock and say 'this is one rock'? Is a rock not simply a bundle of matter? Is a planet not simply a very large bundle of matter? Is the universe not simply a whole lot of matter? What difference does it make if we conceptually subdivide everything into smaller and more specified components? This is what I see - The One is All and the many are the subdivisions of the one. Is the rock not a part of the planet? Is the planet not a part of the solar system? Is the solar system not a part of the galaxy? Being able to individuate something does not make that thing separate.

Non existence is necessarily part of existence as well. The not existing wood in between the teeth of a wooden comb lets you comb hair. The not existing flesh and bone between your fingers allows you to move them independently. You can move to places where obstacles don't exist. You can breathe because obstruction to your airway does not exist. Thirty spokes join in one hub In its emptiness, there is the function of a vehicle Mix clay to create a container In its emptiness, there is the function of a container Cut open doors and windows to create a room In its emptiness, there is the function of a room Therefore, that which exists is used to create benefit That which is empty is used to create functionality

It appears that you have misunderstood my analogy. I am speaking of stratified concepts, not when or how anything was made.

I say all existence has always existed. I interpret Tao in this context as 'everything' - i.e. all the substance and interactions which there are. To me it is like saying that there was a publication, and the publication is a newspaper, and the newspaper has pages, and the pages have words, and the words have letters - yet the publication is all one existence.

Hmm. Interesting. What is morality? Who am I to tell the universe how it should work? Aren't we all part of everything? Who am I, to tell you that you should have more lofty manners than a lion, for example?

I feel an energy that is like an infinite number of happy bees buzzing around an infinite number of lovely flowers on an infinite number of revolving planets orbiting an infinite number of life giving suns spinning around in an infinite number of galaxies floating around in an infinite number of universes... And then there is the outside of that.

Since I have not been here in months, have not seen the topic in question, don't know what is going on, and do not care, I am obviously the most qualified judge on this matter. And my judgment is: I judge that I will continue to drink my tea, pretend I was never here, and let you figure it out.

Through a break in the clouds, flip flop Strange letter arrived Small pretty envelope Address in true red and pressed flower Inside was a blank letter, space, line break, that's about it Words, not any written but I can understand the content It was written to come "here" When I noticed I got to "here", invisible man was waiting The voice I couldn't hear told me to look for "that" So I started to look for "that" Without wavering, without a reason I'll continue on looking Maybe tomorrow "that" will be found I searched a lot of places. It wasn't in a valley of buildings. I dug a sand pool but it wasn't there It wasn't there beyond the wall I'm still looking for "that" now Today again I will look for "that" Through a break in the clouds, flip flop Flip flop

They all have being and not being. They all have empty parts. They all have lines or strokes around the empty parts. The accordance of the way the empty is empty and the way a stroke is not empty, both working in harmony, is how we distinguish them. "Thirty spokes share the wheel's hub; It is the center hole that makes it useful. Shape clay into a vessel; It is the space within that makes it useful. Cut doors and windows for a room; It is the holes which make it useful. Therefore profit comes from what is there; Usefulness from what is not there."

Yeah. I think one problem is that we elect from people who 'throw their hat in the ring'. You'd think that we should already intuit that anyone who is motivated to step up already had some ideas and agendas in store, and therefore 'doing nothing' is probably the furthest thing from what they have in mind already. We are rigged to put meddlers in office from the very start, which is why it keeps happening.

I don't see it as saying that leadership shouldn't be "turned over". I see it as "excessive meddling creates problems." Or knowing when to just leave things alone. And yes, it does clash heavily.

Who would kill, if they are ignorant of enemies? Who would steal, if they are ignorant of material value? Who would hate, if everyone was cherished? Who would need governance, if not for the interests of meddlesome people?

Yeah totally. I just avoided the self referential nature for simplicity. I used to ask people this: "Can you use a broken tool to repair itself?" and they go "whut?" so I kind of gave up on the self referential bit.

Thanks. Glad you like it.