Stosh

Ok , pick what passage you want to delve into , Ive been trying to tag different bases from this same arbitrary starting point , but if you want to cut to a particular fav subject thats fine with me,, though itll need to wait for mon. unless someone else wants to jump in and direct attention at something.

But we need remember that Chuang Tzu gave Chih a pre-mature death because of his negative traits. That might be true , I dont know the rest of Chih thats mentioned . So Ill leave that as is,, but its been my opinion that Cz cant feel that any traits are in fact 'negative' per se , ,,, irrational,, perhaps ,, and perhaps contrary to ones core values,, but actions and attitudes in them-selves aren't actually positive or negative. The Great Dao doesnt recognize ,doesnt support , doesnt distinguish anything as good or bad , or even being unrelated to anything else. Goodness badness positivity or negativity ,,, are human illusions-creations of mind. Tao is as indifferent to a volcano as it is to a puppy. And so, if a sage follows the way, then he must also at least understand this neutrality of values that the cosmos has, and consequentially, that the ideas and preferences of men are illusions. If Cz isnt aware of this, the philosophy is baseless. The existance and neutrality of the universe , is the glue which establishes a basis for wisdom. Many of his stories include his wondering on this but I can't recall him ever stating that there is any kind of life after death although he does mention a return to Oneness (Dao). From Dust to dust , and if Tao allows for sentience to exist , then it can be seen as reasonable that the end of life is to rejoin the greater Dao ,, but , Im told Buddha didnt get into the afterlife issue specifically either.

Chuang Tzu took great effort to make clear any points he wanted to make. But then he also left a lot of room for the individual reader's understanding of a particular concept. I agree with this strongly, good wording. Reading some of this stuff , I get impatient and Im thinking , Fine! I get it , make some other point! already. I sure as hell dont know if he was a mystic, what would that even mean? With Chuang Tzu we sometimes have to say: "Wait a minute.", go back and read that whatever again and view it from different perspectives. Quite true on this as well. I get on a track , find out it doesnt work all the way to the end of the line , and this tells me I was inserting to much of my own opinion. The reader , me , is supposed to be figuring out what HE was getting at. On Confucious vs Cz , Ill leave it to someone else, But .. I read the Chih story , as I mentioned , as placing Confu. diametric to Chih , and so Cz's opinions on the subject are being somewhere in the inbetween,, OR outside that comparison altogether. If I was wording that idea , I would say Confu. felt society should just decide on what morality would be , Chih decided , individuals could arbitrarily decide ( in their own favor- somewhat like Neitzche IMO) and Cz felt that the morals never needed codification because the spirit of the morality was already at the heart of the individual -as a social being. Stylistically you may be entirely correct though , I suspect the same , that Cz ploughed his own ideas tight into his own writing... sophisticated ! writing.

I expected that ., but was hoping youd actually explain . It is indeed possible to be vague in an attempt to explain something, as in poetry. The reason I think this is worthy of attention, is that many people think the subject matter is supposed to be mystical , unknowable or dubious as a Rorschach blot. I dont consider that to be the case. Aside from being old language, there are probably references to familiar characters who's stories have basically been lost, but at one time were popularly understood... there is also, the reason that people do not wish for input which contests that which they already hold to. Its normal , as you have said, and Im no different in that regard. So I am saying I believe that folks who find the translations difficult , mysterious etc,, basically are trying to see the facts as they already do. Or is reluctant to engage enough ,to get what is being said. For someone going to great lengths to explain ,in multiple ways, new ideas, its kind of pointless if the audience is fighting the point even if the idea is to benefit them!

I dont know how you can say that , if you think he never gave a direct answer to anything.

I dont understand why Cz would be countering this view of dao . As stated I dont see much conflict between any of our views on the 'greater' Dao . (You, I ,Chih, CZ ,Confucious or Lao.) though we have some differences regarding the roles of law ,society and individuals and on morality. ( the Dao of men) The differences revolve around what the best model is for human behavior , both on the larger social scale and for the individual. IMO,,, Cz is cutting a rather fine line with Robber Chih.

We may see morals a little differently , Im thinking as I always have , that Taoism is an amoral system. Something akin to anarchy as a system of governance. Bravery ,righteousness,benevolence , wisdom,, these are Chih's 'morals' . Some authors propose that we consider the origins of goodness, to be within the basic needs and realities of humankind itself. That goodness is thought of AS 'good' because it confers what we call ' benefit' . Others think goodness is a decision rendered by a God. And yet others consider goodness to be a social sanction. There is a continual strain, between the socially sanctioned good vs an individuals personal good. Chih , is most concerned with the good of the individual , mainly in material gain. His 'morality' does not extend to the larger social sphere, The social sphere , for its part , ALSO and similarly , mostly ignores the individual good. The public agrees , you need to look out for yourself and your own, (or Chih would have no cause to steal anything). Sophie HAS been fixed, she's a shelter rescue. She loves attention, at certain times she still plays the flirt, even though the hormones aren't there anymore. I'm thinking Cz is using Chih, to suggest that neither the Dao of Confucious, nor the Dao of Chih, is spiritually what he espouses.,,( Thats to say, neither social sanctioned , nor , individually materialistic) , moral " good". What's the "ever-existent Dao"?

We have to understand cats through their eyes. The only external show of "condition of contentment" from a cat is while in a playful mood or "fight or flight". You need to watch a bit closer , or broaden your idea of what play is , Cz mentioned the darting of fish as play , but cats do other things as well , like ..like .. staring.. nah just kidding , she flirts , tries to entice me into throwing her toys , starts trying to wake me up to be fed way before she really expects me to feed her , tries to predict where I'm about to go etc. I dont think Im anthropomorphosisizing , she does things that have no immediate 'reason' to do them. I consider all of that to be play as well, (like the twittering of birds in the trees), seemingly without ulterior goal. Science tends to look at this stuff in terms of purpose , that these things are biologically advantageous for procreation , and they may be ,, but ,, to the animal itself the perspective is ,, to my view ,, play. We already may understand that purpose must be self defined if it exists , therefore the 'purpose' of scientists can be said to be either illusion ,or correct , depending on viewpoint. Ill look up robber Chih .... This guy? When Robber Chih heard this (Confucious trying to charm his way into his presence), he flew into a great rage. His eyes blazed like shining stars and his hair stood on end and bristled beneath his cap. "This must be none other than that crafty hypocrite Kung Ch'iu from the state of Lu! Well, tell him this for me. You make up your stories, invent your phrases, babbling absurd eulogies of kings Wen and Wu. Topped with a cap like a branching tree, wearing a girdle made from the ribs of a dead cow, you pour out your flood of words, your fallacious theories. You eat without ever plowing, clothe yourself without ever weaving. Wagging your lips, clacking your tongue, you invent any kind of "right" or "wrong" that suits you, leading astray the rulers of the world, keeping the scholars of the world from returning to the Source, capriciously setting up ideals of `filial piety' and 'brotherliness,' all the time hoping to worm your way into favor with the lords of the fiefs or the rich and eminent! Your crimes are huge, your offenses grave. You had better run home as fast as you can, because if you don't, I will take your liver and add it to this afternoon's menu!" Or this guy,, One of Robber Chih's followers once asked Chih, "Does the thief too have a Way?" Chih replied, "How could he get anywhere if he didn't have a Way? Making shrewd guesses as to how much booty is stashed away in the room is sageliness; being the first one in is bravery; being the last one out is righteousness; knowing whether the job can be pulled off or not is wisdom; dividing up the loot fairly is benevolence. No one in the world ever succeeded in becoming a great thief if he didn't have all five!" From this we can see that the good man must acquire the Way of the sage before he can distinguish himself, and Robber Chih must acquire the Way of the sage before he can practice his profession. But good men in the world are few and bad men many, so in fact the sage brings little benefit to the world, but much harm. It seems to me , that master Chih has a very different idea about the way of a sage , its more like my own once was. But now I think his view , while not exactly wrong , falls far short of where the philosophy can go , and even past where I'm with it now. Chih, takes the soul of the point , without having earned it, through his own skills , and it never becomes truly his. Thats why he is Robber Chih.

Yep I've done close to that , fish without a hook. In my case I go when I want to go, rather than when the fish are biting , and gotten disgruntled when the action was too much. Someone once said to me that he liked dogs better than cats , because cats only have ONE facial expression. I had a good time with that , its fairly true. My one cat, lives in the house, I didnt get a second in part because I think they really need the peace , the normalcy , of not having another cat around., but I have wondered if she got bored , dunno that ,, but she does like company and tasks to do etc,, I dont think he was really against work, but he was against putting your life in harm's way for the sake of work Ive seen this said before, what is it that suggests itself to you? that harm of life and limb ,is the reason to avoid work - (if thats what you are saying. ) I don't recall what passage that might come from, since I never read 'it' quite like that. His fishing with a hook isn't really a life and death situation right? so I am unsure as to your meaning ,( if its much broader than health, and maybe spreads to all personal welfare.in general)

I'd agree, he sees the life of fish , whatever it is , to be maybe,, peaceful ?, in the flow with the universe , instinctual rather than neurotic full of formalities fear illusions etc.Maybe Wu wei even? They merely reflect the circumstance they are in , they are the "still pond reflecting". When folks go up the ladder of wealth and power,( or even not) they may get pushed by their own ambitions , and end up viewing life as 'work" because of ulterior motives etc ,, They often might say " Oh , I wish I could just slow down and take it easy like you peasants do ,,( they are wishing for the type of happiness Cz imagines for fish). Or In this way Cz could be saying , the fish are at play rather than work, being without these attitudes and ideas. So he presumes them happy. As he would be if he personally was knowing the 'happiness of fishes' . Depending on viewpoint Cz does ,or does not know , the happiness of fishes. If he makes an error understanding how the question is being put to him, it merely reflects that even men misunderstand one another because of individuality. Not that he doesn't know peace or happiness or .. the suspect the actual emotions of a fish. IMO When one looks really close at things like these fish, perceptions, astrophysics, etc the world can look both extremely mystic and extremely mundane at the same time. Wish Rene would stop by again. Shes a ray of sunshine. ( I'd figure you'd pull the hair out)

“The minnows swim about so freely, following the openings wherever they take them. Such is the happiness of fish.” I think this is about as direct as an honest answer can get , if one is being careful not to mislead. What do you think ,would his direct-er answer look like? But yes, I see a bit what you mean , one must take the logical leap for ones self that he sees the fish , from the bridge , rather than first person knowledge. As for myself ,, I cant say what the fun-ness of knowing the absolute would be , since I am 'below the bridge, in the water.' And Ill even grant you that I do close the door on alternatives , recapitulating the relationship of form and formless ,OR - to be , defined vs obscure , knowing vs naive. .. and so forth.

Ive got no reason to doubt he did, I had fish tanks for many years myself , and done my fair share of fishing, ,thing is though that if I hadnt observed the fish , I wouldnt have developed any opinion on their happiness whatsoever. ( since I have never actually BEEN a fish myself ). What I THINK I 'know', is really just conjecture or inference , and the same can be said about what I know of the sentiments of other people... Im not them , I dont have first hand experience of being them. If Cz was asked what knowledge he has of the happiness that fish have , he can answer in different ways, first of all he could say that he actually WAS a fish in some other life ( which would be the simplest most persuasive argument he could present) ,, but he doesnt say that ,, You contend he observed them from above the Hao NOT being IN the water,, so he too knows this is second hand conjecture or inference. There can be a lot more to be garnered from this story - Its wonderfully crafted.. Heres a translation , there are other ways that the discussion could be presented - of course- but this is what I think is accurate The Happiness of Fish by Scott Bradley Zhuangzi and Huizi were strolling along the bridge over the Hao River. Zhuangzi said, “The minnows swim about so freely, following the openings wherever they take them. Such is the happiness of fish.” Huizi said, “You are not a fish, so whence do you know the happiness of fish?” Zhuangzi said, “You are not I, so whence do you know I don’t know the happiness of fish?” Huizi said, “I am not you, to be sure, so I don’t know what it is to be you. But by the same token, since you are certainly not a fish, my point about your inability to know the happiness of fish stands intact.” Zhuangzi said, “Let’s go back to the starting point. You said, ‘Whence do you know the happiness of fish?’ Since your question was premised on your knowing that I know it, I must have known it from here, up above the Hao River.” ~ from Zhuangzi: The Essential Writings With Selections from Traditional Commentaries by Brook Ziporyn ~

" Deep subject." I dont doubt it , Im just saying one infers that which they think the fish feels. It seems though youre trying to defend Cz , saying he was right or correct or knew what he was talking about.,, If you "defend" him, you just cant be looking impartially at the stuff , You realize that right? Its just impossible to be impartial , a fair judge, and be defending the suspect,, at the same time.

Maybe theyve already lynched or run everyone dissenting , out of town.

The response that I was thinking would come to mind was .. What do you know of the happiness of fishes?.. (similar to knowing quantum stuff) ,the response to which one might say that we or they , infer what they we cant really know first hand, and so- was a segue rather than an abrupt and mysterious change of subject. I suppose this is where the idea shows up, that if one did know everything external based on inference , then all that could be known would be already at hand in ones own experience. So a sage could know everything , without leaving his house.. so to speak... all of which IS rather deep philosophically, so I agree.

I cant see any threads or my own profile

Clearing cache worked for me too, thanks

Clearing the cache worked , seems OK now.

testing

OOps , still getting it when I look at my personal profile page, and posts on the last page after yesterday noon.

seems rectified now, I was getting a pink screen saying there was an issue with the database, it let me start the thread , just not see mail or waht anyone else had written. Thanks ,,whoever.

I cant see any threads or my own profile

I cant see any threads or my own profile

Ahh,, I wont choose to mention it then , but, frankly I don't think any of the mathematical brains really comprehend the subject either ,since there really isn't anything to compare to which we/I do/can see and feel etc. But I dont have to ! I'll Let them do their finagle-ing work out all the issues , and then get back to me with a tangible product. Thats in keeping with the Tao thing , Ill keep my babylike innocence about it, and they can do all the work It reminds me of ' the happiness of fishes'

True, which leads to Stoshes basic principle number 156 , which states " A person is least likely to like the advice they most need to heed.