Stosh

Hmmmm I wonder what that will bring....Hmmmmm

That I believe

A simplistic example, , Tony wants pepperoni and Sam and Samantha want ham with the baloney. How does that lunch order become unanimous?

Yeah that sunshine law is a good thing in some areas , but how would it apply to the govt spying on foriegn issues of concern? As in the recent news. There is need for privacy in govt affairs as well. the problem is where oversight is not present even retrospectively. Most people want to be led ! , it may sound off-beat but thats the case , ask if they want thier leaders to pander to their voters or whether they want thier leaders to "take a stand" , most often they say they want the dudes to stand by 'principles'. Which is retarded ! I want that politician I vote for kissing my ass, and the collective ass of all the voters who put him in power. NOT deciding things for himself AND everyone else. They also want their leaders to have money and elite education. Some poor schmo that didnt go to harvard , doesnt have his hair coiffed and perfumed and isnt a slick BS artist who panders behind closed doors to Top party politicians or his own egotistical whims ..Has a slim to zero chance of getting into power . So what you end up with rather often, is sleezebags , liars , elitists , womanizers etc . The fault is that of the voters, if they want to imagine that this is a representative democracy, representative of them, because they only react to hot button issues , dont really care about folks outside thier limited group, and arent willing to hold their 'own guys' feet to the fire and have more concern about the latest tune on the radio than the wars we are involved in. That all being said ,,,since I dont think I can make a significant change to all that , the reasonable thing to do is tolerate the onerous parts ( which can affect us all). Move on , make the best of things as they are in my little sphere. But thing I consider important to recognize is that govt of some type is inevitable , because people are not all the same like ants, they have personal interests unlike ants, The social struggle I consider eternal , is between the needs and desires of individuals , and the needs and desires of the collective sum of individuals (of which, Govt is only one arm).

Well that all I can see , I was thinking anarchy was denial of the legitimacy of authority and behavioral defiance of it. Yeah , acknowlegement of the consequence of ones actions in the situation one finds oneself in ,, and making the best of it is really the wisest path. No one really wants their own freedoms limited but the idea is that one wants the behaviors of others limited to what they themselves find acceptable. Back in the days of Aristotle , the world was a much bigger place, there was more room for freedom (if you weren't literally a slave) . He Plato and Socrates defied the mindset of the power brokers , so I would take it that they then were not anarchists , and the argument made to the contrary wouldnt hold much water.

Ohhh , y'all are talking about being OBEDIENT , now I get it.

That's a nice balanced post 9th. Zero , the path around it defines the mountain. Goodnight.

You said you felt I was fortunate not to have the feelings you were expressing. Did you not ? You said you wished you lived in my universe sometimes.

You're right if you are identifying our attitudes as defining what our experience is in large part despite what situation it is we find ourself in. How is it that one man laughs off misfortune while the other wallows in it, drags all the worlds burdens onto his merely human shoulders? What is one supposed to do about it? You put your finger directly on the essential message of both tao and buddhism. Imo

I assume my 'universe' means you think I am wrong ? Look I answered yours so here's one for you. Name a successful anarchistic society. (There is at least one that could be considerd close ) in this universe.

No nothing familiar ,did Aristotle say something like it? No , wait! It is familiar ! It sounds like the short sighted rant from woodstock.

Aristotle is said to have loathed democracy for its failure to function in some wars and the verdict of death for socrates, he felt anarchy was the degenerate form of democracy.. that being said he considered monarchy aristocracy and democracy the three elements of a lasting govt if combined. One might describe our american govt to represent such a fusion of elements embodied in the three branches.

Individual anarchy? I don't know what that would be..I'm operating under the assumption tht the anarchist defies the need for external authority control. I read that the Stoic voluntarism was a situation where everyone was so enlightened to the needs of the group that they willingly set aside their own desires for the intellectually defined good. We may all agree here, that the feasibility depends on two things , the attitudes and numbers of those involved. Which could be said for litterally any social situation or individual behavior. To wear the do not tread on me shirt one has decided to internalize their defense force and the reins of leadership which is the job of the superego anyway...either way I see no direction pointed to which isn't already tested and has been found inferior to some level of externally mediated authority to promote the welfare of the group first, and the individual second by extension. BTW I notice the burning men also have rules and I would bet that they would have some means of enforcement.

I'm not familiar with the guy, so I am going by what you mentioned.. even if he did not support communism , is it not the case that several of these ideas were embraced by the marxist leninists ..and given an opportunity to be tested in the field. With hindsight it appears that the needs of individuals , as they see them, are of more importance than the needs of the abstraction of the group. Society might benefit from an undertaker , but I sure as heck need external motivation to take the job. I am not dismissing the compassion or the egalitarian ethics that could lead to this Utopia. But I think it innate that folks have more concern for themselves and their subgroups, than for even more remote groupings. If the river has salmon , and there is a free for all, the salmon are doomed. If someone suggest that eberyone controls themselves it is inevitable that some will take more than others.. a sense of justice and trust will be found breeched.. and the lofty principles will crumble from that very same sense of trust and desire for justice.

There are predictable trends which support that theory the neanderthals genome was partly incorporated into caucasian and asian peoples prehistorically. 1- 4 percent is normal statistically, but it still appears that they were outcompeted in some way. Human culture , that is to say , tools habits , social rules etc play a very large part affecting which groups persevere and which do not. Culture which fits the times is of temporary benefit , but may be all it takes to dominate. Cro-magnon may have gotten along better with dogs, had a shoulder joint better for throwing, an inherited antibody for some disease ,,or , my favorite, just may have been more susceptible to insanity- having the dubious beneficial side effect of enhanced variability.

I dont want to get ugly Sayonara

You know the answer to that you ol' linguist you.. The OP was consideration of the statements , and I gave mine. but no , for the most part I know your sentiments on such stuff I just popped in to toss a few darts to give an option regarding what I think aint quite right and we dont have to perpetuate a clash over it. (Though I obviously agree with Dawei)

'there is no "good and bad will", that is not arbitrary opinion' Yes, I would say thats true too. Confucius believes the rén person is a good judge of character and recognizes 'good will' and 'bad will'. I dont claim to agree with Confucious in this matter , he is wrong and very confused. I have also done decades of thought and study which leads me to think that it is not correct. So that puts you in good company , but still wrong. Im closing in on two and a half decades thought and study myself. Lemme know when you have time, and are of temperment , for me to clarify it all for you, since the short version wasnt sufficient.

Well for one thing that symbol for tao is certainly being presented with different strokes. Rene's version had a little dude on top of the shelves as well as to the left of it. Howm I ever supposed to learn chinese if y'all keep switching it up? Thats three different spellings in four posts ! Tao isnt really spontaneous , its absolutely consistent and unchanging. What changes are the presentations of its manifestation. Im not sure Tao qualifies as a proper noun in english either proper noun n.A noun belonging to the class of words used as names for unique individuals, events, or places. Also called proper name. Tao has to be manifested to reveal her existence, at first, in order for her to be invisible. Thus that is why we have to grok its quale when Tao is not visible. You really should decide whether you want to call Tao a 'she' or an 'it' we do that sometimes in english for boats, but it really is a grammatical error. Only Tao can be visible or invisible "Tao has to be manifested to reveal her existence, at first, in order for her to be invisible." I dont know how in classical chinese grammer that stacks up but in english it isnt valid.

RE: Above post , I was either being spontaneous, or making a directed point, or spontaneously making a directed point, or making a direct point in spontaneity.. And I’m either staying on point for the OP or I’m not depending on my subjective opinion. Any of which just depends on how one looks at it, so it’s basically demonstrating a subjective stance, on an objective truth, regarding paths and spontaneity. ‘Paths’ and spontaneity don’t exist outside subjective opinion... thats the objective truth.

Is a path spontaneous? I think not really , its sort of an oxymoron. Is Tao visible ? Ummm ...one can infer , but thats really not visible. and grokking the quale of that which is beyond our ken isnt feasible. If Billy Martin and George Steinbrenner disagreed about trading Lou Pinella , I wouldn't have to be Yogi Berra to be aligned with one of them

Just wondering what is meant by harmony as you mean it, is that sword meeting sword or sword meeting neck? ( there is no "worthy", that is not arbitrary opinion)

Yin begets Yang

Great! then the thread is resolved amicably. I knew it could happen once in a while!

Electromag waves still exhibit potentials , whether transistor circuits amplify them. The one time existance of a sound suggests that there could be sound which is not present now, sound and silence without an ear exist as vibrations and stillness , again mutually arising. For anything , even the universe as a total , requires the reverse of it , to exist simultaneously, or the universe would be as a drop of water in an endless sea. The path around the mountain does not negate the mountain..it indicates the mountain exists, whether one encounters the mountain or not. In this here universe this principle is the rule. In alternative universes it might not be..that situation ,would be alien to our understanding. So being rational about the subject of origin requires us to stick to the basic principles that apply here in ours. This pushes us to a conclusion that the stuff which actually exists has always existed as long as this existance has existed in some existing form or other. There is no first existance which does not defy that which we can logically arrive at. There is some evidence to suggest that empty space in this universe actually has a density determining the rate of propagation of light and energies.. so this universe may clearly BE a drop of empty space in a sea of empty space. That all might have significant implications for subatomic physics.. but in sooth , its just outside my ken , so I don't worry about it. Change what you will, accept what you cannot change, ignore that which does not address the ultimate question.