Stosh

If the physics DID allow you to go back in time , then I would presume that there would be no paradox. You cant break the laws of the universe, so you would always have been back there in the past and nothing would be altered other than your awareness of events now ending , and awareness of events then, beginning. Theres nothing physically paradoxical about your old age situation existing before your youth.

Objection! ,, No evidence that Confucious WAS a Sage has been provided. Since The conclusion of the questioning was that the witness was NOT to be established as a reliable expert in the eyes of the jury, nothing he said may be used as evidence to that assertion. This instead has been a malicious attack to discredit Zz. Case dismissed.

Dunno what you mean, my cat looks after herself , isnt interfering with the events in my life. If you at one time used Daoist teachings to avoid things that you needed to deal with, that would be your own error, and you should accept that you were reaping your own crop. Theres a fundamental philosophic issue here. It is whether you think interfering is inherently problematic, 'bad' ..... or 'good'. An Ex: TM would bring instruments of torture, as an object lesson ,I guess,, but it could just as easily increase the horrors folks endured for thousands of years.

The only thing wrong with earth and my life on it ,is my own devise.

It can indeed be hard to let go of the security labels can bestow.

Bringing anything, is interfering, even , penicillin. Its the geneneral presumption that technologies improve lives , that one situation is better than another, which prompts interference. IMO, dao suggests that we actively try to be of no influence beyond looking after our own business ,OR, that in being wise daoists we consequently believe we do the least harm by avoiding embroilment.

Confirmation or accord between science and empirical findings , should be considered a good thing, endorsing respect for contributions both old and new.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Compare that to, 'Oh, I see what you mean, that makes a lot of sense" thanks!

Digging our heels in ,isnt progress. :-) Ill play the devils advocate ,and speak the often unspoken short version. " You are wrong, and must change your mind, I am not going to change mine because I am the one who is right. I am not even going to give your idea a benefit of a doubt ,since it would only be a self destructive opportunity ,,to do so. At some point I will give up trying to get through to you and just leave you to wallow in the mish mash ideas you are entertaining presently. "

.

Concensus isnt a false situation, it literally means we Would be in general agreement. If I understand that you are wrong... What good is it to you, or me, that we convey our opinion ,if all it amounts to is a rejection? If you really learned some new reasoning then your opinion would not remain entrenched exactly as it was. What is the desired end state ? to have successfully arrived at concensus ,,you or I would have shown the better light that another man can see IT for himself and benefit thereby.

Actually Im coming to the conclusion that argument or verbal contention is a totally bullshit venue for arriving at concensus. First of all not one person in a hundred exhibits the intellectual honesty required to push them into an admittal of being wrong. Unlike a court, where you can force someone to admit things, here you cant. Thirdly most folks just dodge issues they think , dont feed into the conclusions they already have. If youre going to understand someone elses rationale, you need to give it a run yourself, and frankly, we prefer the ideas we have for reasons we have already amassed. What is here for public discussion is rarely anything anyone truly has question about, tidbits do turn up, but really you arent looking to make major concessions.

.