julianlaboy

hey, please do not misinterpret me... I was not making fun of you for the MarbleHead thing. I appreciate all of your comments, really! It was just that I saw the first comment from a positive perspective. As it says in your signature, peace I can and sometimes will be that kind of marbleheaded as you mentioned. Anyway, I will eat now.

thanks! I am enjoying this site a lot...

What is novelty? Taoist teachings support shared ideas, values and words. At least, that is what I interpreted from my reading of different texts, which also contained other people's interpretations. And a friendly question: Do you care about this topic? I assume that at least unconsciously you do, since you keep reading it. Sorry, I am replying to the one called "MarbleHead" that likes short skirts and bikinis...

http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/21320-jung-personality-test/ This forum has an example of what I was referring to. Percentages of what you are?

Yes, weeeeird And ok, I do believe in "dominant behaviors" and I do some things consistently. However, I believe in that after I realize that those are very relative co-ordinations of "doings". To me, we are what we are depending on our circumstances. For example, in the 1960's, a kid that we may call "extrovert" is probably seen as a kid with ADHD (DSM absurdities, as you very well said); and, on the other hand, a kid in the 1940's who we may call "introvert" is now a kid that probably needs some kind of autistic test. What I am saying is that what a "personality" is changes depending on various factors. One thing is that I know that I have consistent behaviors (psychological awareness as you called it, with which I have little to no trouble at all)and another thing is to make a map distinguishing the "type of people" that does behavior A vs the "type of people" that does behavior B. This is where I see problems because people tend to think of this as something "natural" and "unchanging". And with that kind of thinking comes conflicts between people who believe that behavior A is better than behavior B. Of course, I am not saying that anyone who believes in that automatically is a racist, or an ethnocentric person of some type. I am saying that concepts as that of personality or "self" do not tend to accept intra-personal differences and that people also tend to use this for arguments in favor of simplistic kinds of thinking that believe in conflicts rather than cooperation. Very interesting conversation!

http://www.randomhouse.com/book/3170/dao-de-jing-by-roger-ames-and-david-hall Dao De Jing: Making this life significant, By Ames and Hall (2003)

Indeed, Jung said that. He certainly read Eastern texts. However, I believe that one has to be careful with what Jung said because he also stated the arguments in favor of Analytic Psychology, which states that we can know or define ourselves and that there are certain types of sort-of personalities. This type of Psychology creates some lists that tend to do more harm than good by classifying what are "normal" behaviors, and of course, their opposite. However, he certainly deviates from a simplistic type of Psychology by making a more complex understanding of our minds. Plus, I enjoy reading him. The authors that I used were Humberto Maturana (from Biology), Francisco Varela (from Neurosciences), Antonio Damasio (from Neurosciences also), Kenneth Gergen and Thomas Ibañez (from Social Psychology), among others. But there are also traditional psychologists like the philosopher John Dewey and Albert Ellis, who made reference to Eastern thinking. (I said all those names just because there may be someone who would want to read about this topic). Plus, I am currently writing a book about it And of course, nice to know you! And thanks for the reply. Now I know that this forum is alive!

A "humming bird" is a finished product, a definition possible because of language and because of what we are. At a macro level, where you see what we call a humming bird, we do in fact see a humming bird. But that is because we have made that observation carry that definition. However, at the microscopic level, how can you differentiate between what we, in the macro level, call a humming bird and what we may call a human? So, we can be everything by being nothing- we are everything (remember how we cannot differentiate at some named observational levels) until we begin naming things (giving definitions)... Indeed, you are nothing and everything at the same time.