Stosh

What start? I thought we were done with this.

Very, nice choices, The beginning part of 13 suits me best . I, having caught the rabbit long ago, dont often read the various interps ,, which still contain the eloquence of now-dead men. I dont agree sentimentwise with the wheelwright. His position, that the reading was dregs, could spin nicely to my own view, that it may as well be cherry picking.The distillled wit one may drink 2500 years later. He is well suited to his job, and should be left to it. The duke should recognize his own comparative delicacy though, which mirrors the weakness of booklearnin' in the face of pragmatism. Pien was no sage either, since it was he who started the trouble, and shouldve left the duke to his own pursuit.

While Im skeptical about certain suggested therapies, my own position on retroactive restructuring ,, suggests .. they may indeed have this process as a basis. New emotional connections with old issues. But generally, accentuate the positive,,negative,,,, means blow it up to greater proportions. Which may actually just be a catchy title and not a suggested therapy. Are not all the curatives being suggested ,,based on the mind today, rewriting connections of yesterday? Even electroshock just severs the connections between now and then, so that the actions today arent based on yesterday. If we can all agree on this ,,and all agree on the normal spectrum of human experience including fear and sadness.. ..... what is it we arent on the same page about? details?

I am confused, the writing style, with the moral at the end ,does look like Lao, but Im thinking that this is a Cz translation by Merton, ch 26 . I cant find this in my Lao translations in this form . More than that, Im thinking Mertons work is selections of stuff he read , and translated himself, ,, What is, If there is a cohesive complete Cz, the name or title to google. It looks like Lin, translated Lao, did he do a full Cz, as well? ... At terebess, Lin says himself that he has no doubt That Cz has been added to, contaminated. So frankly I dont know as basic fact, which portions should be considered to exemplify the whole philosophy ,,AND neither does he ! Whether I disagree with Lin or not, it cant fairly be said that He knew as fact what belonged to Cz, It still boils down to opinion. So Im still prepared to say those last two lines dont look like they belong. To set up an analogy, or lesson thats supposed to be explanatory, and follow it with the moral one thinks should be assigned, indicates an author doesnt have faith that the analogy speaks for itself. ,,, Not knowing otherwise,, I can easily suspect that all those addendums, are not original.

So does that mean that the last two lines belong with the rest? OR are they just the inappropriate , basically a wrong and misleading interjection by Lin Yutang ? who hadnt understodd what this passage said. OR were they notes to himself about the passage. ( which IMO would be reasonable to consider) If I were introducing or explaining this passage , the very same thoughts would , and in fact did, come to me in the shower. Also , it came to me, what my old English professor Chet ,had said , about processing complex passages, ,,that one should consider 8 things .. who what where when how why structure and emotional content of it. Regardless of the ramifications and possibilities that a text might suggest, holding to the basics is really the soundest way to interpret the passage without invalidating other inuendo, etc.

We ARE talking about different things , youve described you ,creating a mental disassociation in your customers mind. What a person considers rational, and the emotional associations one has with a particular instance, ARE two different things. But I still contend that over time, the new OK associations about making money will filter back,,if the new associations relate to the original reason for having guilt about what they were doing. Your description of damage is where we differ. Sometimes a person is considered perfect,or "healthy' if they dont experience any sadness or guilt or fear. But those are indeed normal human emotional states. Conscience , in and of itself , is not a malfunction. What you did was NOT therapy , my friend , at their behest , you fucked with their properly functioning minds so that they got a particular behavior pattern to emerge. ( You bought-in , to the idea , that if they had guilt about exploitation it was a 'flaw' to be corrected. When, what it really was , was an undesirable application of a normal moral paradigm in real time , and going forward, which positive feedback couldve fixed anyway. )

I don't think I was speaking metaphysically , I'm just saying that our rationale, our emotional basis for behaviors , is rebuilt as we proceed through new experiences retroactively ,changing the mind structure which predicates our upcoming behaviors. You don't have to regress to your childhood and root out 'negative attitudes" you need to go forward and have healthy experiences which over-write problematic issues. I dont think reliving-remembering that event is ever going to fix your fear , it tends to grind it deeper, UNLESS you replace the emotions with new ones. Lets say you're adverse to dogs after getting bitten,, Being scared about being bitten more , is actually a rather rational response , considering that your personal evidence , (which you truly and actually have ,, rather than theorize about ), suggests that dog bites hurt. Theres no actual 'epistemological error' the past here , to 'correct'. You were bitten , it did hurt, you wish to avoid more of that. If theres a problematic aspect, its in the improper application of this learning, in the present , or near future. I seen advertisement telling folks they can lose weight by eating,, or learn french while you sleep..etc, I admit ! it certainly would be desirable not to ever have to apply discipline , not to address hard truths ,, and pretend one can sleep away their problems. But that there, IMO, is merely a tactic in procrastination which depends on magical events to perpetuate. Having a healthy attitude towards taking concrete steps in recovery , or towards ones ambitions , is of proven value. And it certainly doesnt do any good to say the world is bad , or ones mind is broken.

Disagreed, recent studies suggest The retained recent experience, filters back and rewrites over the older connections , over time. Like the regeneration of bone.

Great ! , how far did looking at it get you? You said this... To me it's not about dwelling on the negative things, but noticing the negative emotions/states that hijack me, and making them conscious, which allows them to be removed. Things like fear, shame, anger, ego etc, I am strongly of the opinion that these hijackers cannot be removed by 'imagining figures of light', but have to be addressed directly. The alternative, imagining figures of light, will only bury the hijackers deeper, more hidden from the world and self perhaps (for a while), but ultimately more in control. Frankly I dont see why you'd object to the idea when I say it. To me it appears that you have some conflicting ideas about whether examination of problems makes them disappear. I agree,, Imagining figures of light - the good opposing the bad , just preserves the polemic, magnifies guilt , enlarges the emotional obstacles. The hijacker , IMO is the idea that things have a right way to be, and that one rebels at having to fix things. That there is some justice that hasnt been meted out, and stubbornly we dig our heels in because we want to force the world to do the justice we figured was appropriate. The world doesnt care , it laughs at us and our petty concerns, while we fume and fret ,and have little ol temper tantrums about the things we imagine. Right ,wrong, justice , broken -all dissolve when it comes the the serene impassivity of the universe. We preserve these things which we imagine , because we love them , whether or not ! they cause us just as much misery. ( I can explain that if it seems ironic but I figure it should stand on its own as true , with a bit of introspection)

That's a Bear of a passage right there.

IMO To consider something damaged , -one has to entertain an imagination that things could be some other way , and in fact , they should be some other way than they are now. My cat wouldnt know if the TV was on the blink , right? The thing would just be making noises ,or not. Since damage is in ones imagination , the condition that you find things to be in, presents opportunities of its own. Physically , I agree the hammer with the broken handle , doesn't function as it did, and bad things do happen .. as we see it from our human position. But .........the imperfection or wrongness of things is a state you imagine, you set yourself up for. Recognizing this can alleviate ones upset and frustration etc. which stands in the way of optimizing ones efforts. So the hammer is broken , don't bemoan it,,, fix it , walk away from it , or use it the way it is. Things are OK.

I guess thats the wood thing , can we call it done?

Wow, thats a good response !

I dont know if it matters, that one 'leave it all on the table' or not. Tao says youre spent whenever that is. But say, in a concrete way , is it suggested to conserve or spend?

Ok , maybe so, but ,, what would one want to become if they were already in the preferred position of greatest potential , and that was a position to want most? The advantage of that potential would have to be in that it would be relinquished, otherwise it would be like unspent cash. I'm thinking one should not desire to be like un-carved wood. Ive never seen this problem attended to here, what do you think of it?

Maybe , dunno , it could just mean ( as you said) they are rough brutal animals for any reason whatsoever, and there is no 'plan' or social order to it. OR They literally stress each other out, or nurture, to the extent that particular lives get shortened or lengthened. One does not really want to be at the bottom of a baboon pecking order , because of the abuse, nor does it really serve to be the alpha male who will burn himself out and be deposed brutally, in time, only to find himself on the shit list of the new leader. The remaining 'middle ground' is where most of us find ourselves .. basically , surrounded by baboons.

Yeah , the Bonobos At a zoo I once saw one baboon dragging another around by his Johnson.

These are them

I cant tell if you could tell I was joking around. Gorillas in fact get along better than Humans or Chimps , which are comparatively violent , and Orangs really are pretty laid back though basically solitary. Of all creatures , monkies and apes really are pretty aggressive crafty high stress level animals. I went to Paynes Prairie last weekend , they have a large marshy wetland field fenced in with a small herd of Bison and some wild horses , You can walk the trails in their footsteps , need to wait if they are on the road , but they were only a few yards away ,, and its not like they went berserk ,,, they have a rationale, and social structure, and even etiquette. The Stallion even waved me to walk past with his ears , after I had patiently waited a moment for them to settle down, literally I was within kicking range. He couldve smashed my hip with a casual fling of the leg ,,, but being satisfied I wasnt a problem , just let me walk right through the herd. ..... He he he ,,,,, the folks that came up the road next , got turned back and never did get past him. but they probably werent watching the body language... which was quite clear.

As I've voiced , I consider the divisions of species etc to be imaginary confabulations. Taxonomy is a subject where the philosophic aspect really comes to the fore front. If one envisions that a species comprises a gene pool of related individuals, then if two species cross, then the pools are not very different ( either before or after the act) . Ducks or gulls for instance, cross fairly often. So whatever gene pool is , then many duck species should really be considered races. Same goes for Neanderthalensis. Sapiens ,Denisova , Florensis ,, and the 'races' really should just be considered regional quirks. Such divisions really are human inventions.

When Im feeling philosophical , contemporary things come to mind first , In the Bugs Bunny skit, he calms a gorilla with a violin, and I suppose I paired that with your avatar , since you have mentioned your passion for contemporary music. Famous anthropologist Loius Leaky once speculated that certain hominid species may have been able to get along in a non hostile manner when food and water were locally abundant.

Three of those do abide in Fla.

Look at this ! actual PHILOSOPHY at TAO bums , of all places! ... "Music hath charms to soothe the savage beast ",, Bugs Bunny..

Melville.. There is all of the difference in the world between paying and being paid. “Well, then, however the old sea-captains may order me about--however they may thump and punch me about, I have the satisfaction of knowing that it is all right; that everybody else is one way or other served in much the same way--either in a physical or metaphysical point of view, that is; and so the universal thump is passed round, and all hands should rub each other's shoulder-blades, and be content.” Ah.... the tai chi,, makes brothers of Chih and Confu.tzu

If Lao says you cant become unsplit, that is to say , once youve learned stuff, become socialized, or compromised your integrity.. then one cant go back, , he says ,,its too late for anyone to go back and be young innocent and all unrealized in potential. So either he is wrong , ( and no one can become the sage EVER , including himself ) or,, he didnt say that. Line 11 And when your constant virtue is complete, Line 12 You'll return to the state of un-carved wood. Here it is indicated that indeed one can potentially go back. If a person acting for his own benefit is to be considered 'not a tool' , and Conf. is acting really for his own benefit , then the use of his tutelage is as the cow standing in the shade of a tree. The difference only being that the 'non-tool' is acting only out of a concern for self,, Chih on these grounds also escapes the label of 'tool'. And were back at a situation of enlightened self interest , not christian morality.