Stosh

I don't know anyone who has "realized the Tao" with anything like that effectiveness , so even if it was possible its certainly not what happens for 99.9999% of folks. and Im always tempted to ask of someone who claimed such elevation, if it then would be OK to 'bang your wife and take your stuff',, since after all, there's no one to bang and nothing to take , Whether they were of eastern or western culture, I think selflessness would end up taking a backseat to dignity and respect and property rights - illusions though they are.

Yessir , ..Well measured ,,Well said ,, I can't add to that

Well , Ill agree that there are beliefs that persist over time,, in a way, but , should you stub a toe , that original sin idea immediately goes out the window. Which isnt really much of a forceful existance. Im talking about on a real moment to moment personal experience level. A friend says a harsh word , and all of a sudden.. punching them in the face seems logically justifiable...ones attitude though- may enable one to shrug it off. Folks get up on a lofty plane- the clouds -and its easy with the great big brains we have ,being able to jump about and even invent stuff..like the original sin thing, umm I was raised Catholic and IMO , the idea never made sense to me EVER, and I never thought about it , nor do I now other than being familiar with what is a rather stupid idea. So If someone was to generalize that I had this idea as a thing I hold close , or is somehow ingrained in my psyche, they would be incorrect. And since I and others HAVE examined this already , it should be clear that the world has not stopped considering the issue. But IF such an idea played a part in my general attitude, then it may play a part in my life... Should Brian lay open the bones of the universe for all to peruse, it would make not one whit of difference if it isn't incorporated into the flow of what we DO. Marblehead may set an example of civilized behavior while I am on here, but should I get into some other situation , thats Gone as gone could be, because it was just my response to the situation at hand, and the new situation may not look anything like this one here. CT might explain how one can trancend reincarnation , but then person X gets a flat tire and then gets bent out of shape over having to change it. The cerebral ideas we entertain are diaphanous.

See? ideas dissipate as soon as they arrive.

Exactly! Change your mind , hear something new , ,, big deal , easy peasy , makes no effective change whatsoever. But go about things with a fresh intended attitude , and the situation will flow differently if it can. Ideas alone are ethereal , a man can think pretty much anything , but will that change what his life is like? They bubble up from the subconscious and can be entertained or dismissed , wispy tendrils which dissipate even as they arrive.... attitude , is a more solid thing ,, Now yes , Ideas do comprise attitude, but on the level of effectiveness, the plan has to be sustained, the better avenues must be sought ,, and so, attitude is where the fat hits the fire. One can have a thousand ideas an hour-changing nothing , deleted the next moment by some shiny bauble , attitude extends , and makes broader associations taking on life its own.. screw ideas change attitudes that you hold and things WILL change. So the idea that holds you back is the idea that it is an idea which is what holds you back

I think Its not so much the beliefs , as the emotional association with the beliefs which most often lacks punch. In other words, its one attitude that is critical.

No comment

The roots of good and evil- which are concepts only- are the individual needs of people vs the collective need of the group which are sometimes counterpoised. And no, that's not saying- that the needs of individuals are one thing and the needs of the group are another, because the needs of the individual may be answered best by being in line with that of the group. One needs to consider critically what one thinks evil or good IS first. Clearly its not an object, or physical property and clearly its subject to opinion or perspective.

It could be the case , yes, that he is happier limiting himself to no rice. A person may take pride in their self control, or things like that. And yes that would pretty much just be replacing rice with constraint. I guess doing that, one would get to the end of things they could deprive themselves of and consider themselves successful!. ... But I think there's a lower limit of stimulation ,which going beyond , one is depressing himself. Somewhere here I think one starts to need to ask what the point of their life is. Yes?

Stosh's catbox paradox tries to determine who is in charge, when the box is being used.

Before object permanence - early on we conclude that there are things which are independent of us. We do not control the baby bottle , or breast , we want them- but these things do not appear at our own whim, we don't generate them- they are unresponsive . They aren't part of the tactile map we formulate about our bodies. They are something else, rather than ourself. Object permanence is a habitual assumption that these other things persist. This is the basis for the conceptual basis of an "objective reality". At some point we conclude that others who are like ourselves and at least seem somewhat responsive, are also 'apart' from the baby bottle, the pillow , the ceiling. These others in their actions confirm that they too know about the " other objects' proving the existence of the bottle which is later considered real. I think thats the basis for objective reality as existing conceptually. I admit though , Thats all just my opinion ,or supposition , mind you Does that get you any closer ?

Object permanence isn't really a great dividing line between objective reality and subjective sentiment. IMO Yes its considered a lesson in developmental psychology , but that doesn't mean that its a valid point even though you have that "apparent" in there as a qualifier. Are sounds permanent? where is heat ? the ebb and flow of seasons? Everything one can point to as material will change, and does change, you change with every breath. One has emotions and thinks they exist as individuals , this never changes does it? or is it supposed to be that ones emotion or self - may be changeable like waves on the sea ,isnt it ones perception of himself that he has been existing over time? Even if one says it seems for a moment the chair is unchanging , it may likewise seem that ones sorrow has not changed at the loss of a loved one -for perhaps a lifetime. A thing immaterial such as the idea of a number , does that ever change? No not really , but then , is a number,, or theoretical conceptry the total fabric of objectivity ?? I just cant see how object permanence is in any way a determiner of objective reality .. but you can see it how you like.

There's an overlap in the discussion between objective-reality , and objective-opinion. Either revolves around whether there actually exists a reality of "material fact" which differs from ones sentiment or personal perspective. ( which is why I was including the test of provability from one person to another as helping to make the distinction.. Dictionary definitions can help to gain a common footing about what a word is intended to describe, but those definitions are really just attempts to standardize and communicate ideas which are independent of the validation provided by editors of the dictionary. ) personification - is a decision made as to whether a thing embodies the character which one is already holding in mind, thats not the issue at hand.

Yeah that may be exactly how they "measure" , but if CT can be happy with Soya on his rice, or he may be happy with just the rice, maybe he could be happy without rice at all ( apart from being sustenance) , and if its so , then he has no measure of his happiness, he is never short of it , nor could he have more.

Success is just a fungible concept , so it too is an illusion, and therefore a person could make themselves miserable chasing it, or they could just choose the definition to suit. If a thing is just a matter of opinion then its not a fixed fact. What 'real-ness' would it have? The question could be put , Is a persons happiness an illusion? IS it fungible? IS it fact? Would my definitions of success really make a difference to anyone? seriously.

Well Its my opinion that a person comes to understand his circumstances based on some speculations which cannot be "proven" , like there existing a reality , and persons , and so forth. The Matrix movie revolves around that idea. Beyond these fundamental assumptions , the principles are self confirming. These second level assumptions get described as objective or subjective in character. So yes there is a level at which the entire world is illusory speculative and theoretical. And there is also the practical rational framework which allows us to make reasoned decisions for action. One can prove where their keys are, that pain exists , that they have learned math etc, because we share a common physical environment. But we cant prove,beyond appealing to anothers personal perspective , things like sentiments and morality judgements. ( because we do not share a common mental environment).

Even if lines one and true are true line three isn't necessarily "thus" true. Data is mostly objective , but that conclusion in line three, is subjective or speculative. ( A tail may indeed wag a dog,.. ex: a govt -relatively small- may move a people, or my brain may direct my relatively larger body.) Though I don't know if he makes a larger argument than posted however.

I know I know ,Its not popular to say ,, but banging ones head against a brick wall actually is a thing one should readily give up. And giving up is quite popular for that reason. There are times when one values a thing greatly , and when they have better than a snowballs chance in hell of getting there..it makes sense to encourage perseverance beyond the momentary perspective. That being said , a person should reasonably back away from efforts which get nowhere. It has been called the zenith of insanity to repeat the same things and expect different results. There is a chance that one has set lofty goals which just aren't realistic , and this dooms oneself to failure , if they never recognize the new data coming in. Urging folks not to consider 'giving up' as a viable alternative without knowing the particulars, IMO, is skewed. If someone did tell me all the particulars ,well I then would taking it upon myself to make the decision which someone else has to live with. Would one of us not want the ability to choose for ourselves what we will have to live with? One should choose wisely between 1) abandoning a waste of time and effort ,, and 2) getting over a hump because the goal is important, and not look to conform with some oversimplified dictate.

Does anyone appreciate disloyalty? and say to themselves, wow , I'm so grateful for having been abandoned! And who would trust or align with the disloyal? Yes a person may choose to stand alone, or they might be unburdened at the prospect of no need for loyalty.. I don't really need my cat to be loyal , she is, after all ,just a cat.. and one can certainly live with a situation like that just fine. But as far as SOCIAL graces go -disloyalty betrayal aloofness disregard aren't considered meritorious. If there's one thing we look to see in another ,apart from material gain , its probably compassion. Sensing compassion from and for someone else , there is little that cant be excused forgiven or given. I see the issue of loyalty and compassion revolving around whether one wants to stand with -or apart from- others. To give a crap , or to not give a crap, THAT is the question...

Intellectual property rights dont seem important to the younger generation who grew up in the internet era. IMO Society has been choosing to undermine the defense of those rights for a few decades. I dont know what that will bring , but to me , it undermines the potential financial reward of producing quality art news and software. I consider broadcast news to be an indicator of things to come. So I dont see it as a good thing. Reposting a segment from an article , or a a bit of song doesnt obviate the initial source. Posting up whole books and programs seems to. Why should I spend money on upgrades in software if I can just download it somewhere? Conscience? On the other hand , companies use planned obsolescence to force consumers to re-buy marginally 'improved' product rather than actually produce at maximum quality, and every few years the idea is that youre supposed to expect to throw away all that "old stuff that doesnt work anymore" . Frankly , I dont see any improvements in windows 7 versus Windows 98 from the end user seat , though Im sure that there are lots of "changes". But I think one should buy the book if one wants the book, it isnt going to kill you , and its honest.

The sentiment I suppose is that those charged, try to keep the place civil , kindly etc and so some may feel they may need to take actions at this point in time because the thing has gotten bigger. The flip side of such , is that it could inhibit the posting to milquetoast PC platitudes, very boring etc. So the thing one needs to decide is whether harder moderation is good or bad, because whatever applies to the guy you disagree with- also applies to oneself. Some folks play a more hardball game , some want others to be forced to be nice to them... and the first person to whine isnt always the one who has the better point. So by choosing the word pacify , I want to point out that its possible that the area could become more moderate , but that is , and always will be, at the expense of some freedom to express. This isnt an easy call to make , and I think Dawei would be, or is , wise- correct, to get some input as to how the community feels about the changes already made or proposed, since ultimately participation is based on benefit to the participators -even if there is a "government' benefitting as well.

"The title is actually a topic (actually spanning many threads) which has been discussed at length for more than a year among the staff. The staff has discussed over a year such issues as: Is TTB a safe place to post? Members complain they can’t post without fear of attacks by very specific people or hijacking of the thread or off-topic de-railing or trolling or mis-information or elitist telling them they are inferior, etc. Members who persist in the above actions. “The no-insult policy is not enough at the scale ttb has grown.” – founding admin The need for moderating “beyond the rules”. – past admin A “moderator prerogative” to act alone and then discuss as a group any further action or reversal of action. An “admin prerogative”. As stated in the Three Foundations: “The admin also has broad discretion to protect the civility and resources of any aspect within TTBs e-community. The real subject that is being pointed to IMO is whether TTB's is tolerant welcoming and civil , not so much whether it is 'safe'. An infraction against safety would primarily be disclosure of personal information. Calling 'tolerance' issues, 'safety' , misdirects. Defining the limits of admin, and mods, and posters, as either -appropriate tolerance- or appropriate intolerance, would still be a difficult thing to define. Im figuring that the founding principles are supposed to be a continuing guiding light and are not properly ignored under the heading of 'broad discretion'. Compared to other forums , most of TTB's seems well moderated, and the growth that has occurred really doest seem to warrant a squelching of its vigor. In fact Its growth contradicts that very thing, and so the issue more important is that of having the staff diverge from the founding principles out of a desire to pacify.

Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy 4. Dao and Names: The Laozi or Daode Jing We will discuss, here, mainly the contributions the Laozi makes to this Daoist dialectic. For a more complete and detailed treatment of the philosophy of the text, see the entry under Laozi. The Zhuangzi history lists Laozi (along with Guan Yin) between Shen Dao and Zhuangzi. Whatever its actual date and manner of composition, the Laozi is assigned a role in the development of Zhuangzi's thought that best fits in that slot. The most famous line of Daoist meta-theory of dao opens the Daode Jing. “Dao that can be dao-ed is not constant dao.” Though the text betrays no hint of exposure to the School of Names, this famous slogan is duplicated with mingname replacing dao. It thus shifts the focus of meta-discourse about dao from grounding its authority in nature to issues of language and the role of mingwords in dao-ing. Since words are not constant, no dao that can be conveyed using words can be. What is being denied in saying such dao are not constant? The text does not elaborate on the concept, however the issue in ancient Chinese thought emerges as the crux of the dispute between Mohists and Confucians. Mohists attempted to regiment the debate by insisting on fastandards for interpreting guiding language. They argued tiannature:sky's standard lies in the distinction between benefit and harm—which was by association a constant standard. The writers of the Confucian Analects inclined toward a notion of an administrator “rectifying names.” A name is rectified when an instruction containing it (a ritual or a law) correctly guides peoples action. “If names are not rectified … people will not know how to move hand or foot” (Analects 13:3). The typical Confucian way of rectifying a name is to set an example—either of correct use of the term or correct action in following a dao that contains the term So not being definable ( namable ) , Tao doesnt give direction for actions. You however ,are namable and have preferences which guide actions. And this would apply for either school Confucian or Mohist. Looking at the phrase in light of the intellectual schools of thought roundabout that age, makes more sense to me than looking at it from my own eras zeitgeist.

Re; Personal Liberation vows are basically of two kinds: those that prohibit actions such as killing and lying, which are considered unwholesome for anyone who commits them; and those that prohibit actions such as eating in the evening, which are improper only for monks and nuns. The first kind involves a concept of 'natural evil', or 'absolute morality', which is probably influenced by the realist philosophical view held by the Analysts, to whom the tradition of personal liberation is undoubtedly connected. That also explains, to some extent, why the personal liberation vows are compared to a clay pot -- once broken, it cannot be repaired. Is the idea here that the first kind of broken vow is a break indicating that one really isnt embracing of the wholesome spirt of the vow ( and engages in say cruelty or evil ) knowing full well that such is unfit,, and the other kind of broken vow is basically a technicality which is done for good reasons? (so its fixable or justifiable)

4 ?