Stosh

Well I like your restaurant metaphor analogy. Though we both live in different worlds subjectively, we both enjoy the cozy chat..even though we are imperfectly certain of that which we divulge or hear. At least its better than staring at our plates in chilled silence , feeling both alone and in need of escape. For a moment we extend our envelope , consider things we didn't directly experience and share what we have dreamed.

Well we disagree on just about everything there. Surprise surprise Carry on.

Oh, we are on slightly different pages. I was looking at it along the idea that platonic forms exist in some fashion which are independent of the items which actually embody the form. Similar to the cave thing, - an actual horse is a shadow of the perfect form. I believe he backed away from the idea eventually.. an opponent said , I have been to Plato's house, and have seen his cup and table, but did not see his cupness and tableness. Meaning that the object was self defining ..though we conceptualize and group stuff , those concepts and groups have no existance aside from that. For instance the worlds people can be grouped by color race nationality language food preference birthday with mammals with plants with etc etc The grouping that you do is up to you and you can litterally pick any boundaries that suit your sense of appropriateness, it is totally arbitrary..(not random ) The commonality of the human experience allows us to understamd each other occasionally So knowing yourself leads to insight about me, and anyone else. Besides that, we both trip over the chair in a dark room and we both don't like it.Though we both can't see what the heck it was we tripped over, we both tripped over something. In doing so we mutually confirm that there really is an obstacle even though the experience was subjective. I have no idea how many people are enlightened, it could be everyone who is sentient is enlightened to their own subjective experience, or we all are enlightened to inferred abstractions, Its one of those arbitrary ( not random) groupings.

How so?

Ill argue against it. Its bogus to say those different things are all the same. And its additionally bogus to say everyone worships ... And it is additionally bogus to attribute-anthropomorphosize benificence to that which constitutes order in the universe..especially considering her particular afflictions. Oh I know the message is charming, to some , that despite it all, she has a faith to say such.. But the charm of hearing what one wants to hear doesn't lend it credibility..in fact it adds a shadow of suspicion that it is considered valid -when it is not- for the same exact reason. When one concludes-believes something which they would rather not have be such as it is..one surely has tested it most rigorously, and finds it to be unavoidable.

I haven't read any plato that would correspond to the idea of chi in any of its incarnations , but would find it interesting if it was there.

I don't know what that means.

There is a truth that can be known only if one can ignore their preferences and be unbiased for one conclusion or the other. Which would imply that one need know oneself first ,to know the truth -for truth. One may may think they know truth , though they know-not themselves. So how does one know if they DO know the truth, or just think they do ? By cross-checking with others, to find out what , their own bias is, and instead accepting that standing alone one is adrift in a sea of unconfirmed possibilities. One is never decieved by the actual truth, but can be misled about parts of it. One can never know the total truth directly , but may infer. There are Zen gardens in Ryoan-ji... which should be considered.

Not even backwards. There is no serving , there is no need. Not all believe that originally all was empty void , the other position is that there is such stuff that has always existed ( therefore having no beginning or end- as in the Christian -God without begining or end ) The Greeks also postulated that something always existed. Im not here saying which angle is TRUE as a fact IMO,( if stuff always has been or if it arose from nothingness. ) Im just saying that the idea of a thing serving purpose without source , or source without origin ,has no correlation in our experience , and indeed makes no sense.(to me , but you dont have to accept it) Even if you think things came from nothing , what is your origin of nothing? if not always having existed until its end which was the beginning or something.)

Youre probably right about that, my bad.

So you could call anger vice even if you don't believe in vice or sin. You might , but some anger can be "justified" or it can be turned to advantage .. there is an evolutionary advantage to having and expressing anger , as in Don't tread on me! or Hey YOU SOB thats my wife youre talking about! Does it usually include an element of stress? , Sure! , but there is also stress in getting sand kicked in ones face. Anger arises out of a concern for onesself and a sense of need for aggressive action ,,, sometimes expedient. So anger is wrongly called a vice even if you define vice as something harmful to you ( since it is not exclusively or conclusively so) Something inexpedient or stupid or self destructive etc ,, should get called by those names ,,,,using the word vice instead --is an error. I use virtue to mean return to natural state. Doesn't mean I preach virtue or something Your natural state includes a propensity for anger. I think you mean something akin to 'te' rather than virtue ( english usage) If not distinguishing -you are again devolving back to good and evil, right wrong morality judgements. But if you are preserving the distinction , we are on the same page. IMO

When one concieves virtue One also coceives vice And vice versa One man begets his own envy The other , his arrogance How much ? That one would rather not have chosen to be.. Was caused by a judgement of virtue. How many conflicts have arisen Hardships endured Injustices done? And yet the trend is still to try to pursue it Ironically the idea that one is not good enough in some way Is self motivating and self defeating at the same time. Does a reasonable person find reason in wishing this situation on himself? Would this be likely or unlikely to bring a person into harmony with those around himself , embodiment of wise unattatched perspective? Or is it a run of the mill illusion trapping the unwary in samsaric cycles of selfdestruction?

Sorry I'm not trying to be insulting , its just that I Am trying to draw attention to some really simple intellectual leaps . To connect the dots of my reasoning , Which , have often been dismissed in pursuit of a faithful adherence to a 2000 yr old perspective...since the modern mindset is in contradiction to some aspects of it. Ill rephrase to a better worded presentation. The world can be categorized as 1 whole, 2 yin yang 3 yin yang plus the whole 4 elements 5 elements And so forth to infinity . The thing significant is that the folks are trying to do this division along the lines of properties rather than attribute events to jack frost or the olympians. I'm seeing this as overriding the particulars of any favorite system. We both know and depend on modern understandings, either directly or indirectly. But even beyond that, vice is just an opinion, a transitory perspective which depends on our own bias to even delineate. Some in the thread are willing to make associations of vice to various things , but this requires that vice has some kind of non opinion based existance. So.... those persons would still be operating from a misled perspective.

He said 'elements' and listed them. Fire - Heart/Small Intestine Earth - Spleen/Stomach-Pacreas Metal - Lung/Large Intestine Water - Kidney/Bladder Wood - Liver/Gall Bladder to the body part correlations , you add kingdoms and soaring crane adds 'Wandlungsphasen' Thelerner subtracts to get air fire water and earth ..... and Carl Sagan distinguished matter from energies I think we can agree , that folks are doing a lot of lumping of stuff into categories , and the categories arent all the same groupings. I said " they have everything to do with the greek elements ( 150-200 years older), because its the same concept structure .." which it is, its just that the divisions arent being made in the same places . Did some folks build that into huge fictional edifices that have no real correlation , Yes ! But its all just in folks heads, because there is no element ,or phase, or building block ,or kingdom ,bestowing "vice." or "virtue" . Get me a glass of virtue ! ,and make it snappy! Not modern style chemistry no , we know a great deal more nowadays about chemical and ionic bonds etc ( you do agree that - chemicals - exist ,right ?) , but it was a form chemistry they had back then,, before IPads . Weve added to the idea corrected the confusions , and attribute the behaviors of materials to physical attributes. If there is a spiritual benefit of looking at things divided into groups of four or five , Well,,, go ahead with that. Im not going to join you but you can go on with it if you want. RE: "As in-- The composition of a thing is due the relative aliquots of the elements, and directly leads to the alchemical idea that one can turn lead into gold." ??? Ummm ...you are aware that the relative proportions of real elements and molecules, does !actually determine the properties of a substance . They just didnt know the complexities of modern chemistry. But the Greeks did consider it-- that transitory phenomena , like a tree , was possible , because of components which were not transitory, (which were recycled , and didn't appear out of nowhere.) If things exist then they either have an origin , or always existed if a thing originated, its origin had to have an origin,, etc ,etc ,ad infinitum So things that exist, have always existed ,and always will. Since they always exist then they cant change because they changed they would cease to exist as what they were. How do the things that seem to change , then do so? The transitory pattern of what they seem to be is the nature of what the thing is. for instance , a tree is composed of inorganic materials , the 'tree-form' is said to live and die , but it is just a pattern of sorts ,, there is no 'tree' molecule there is no real distinction between inorganic and organic . just as there is no real distinction between virtue and vice. Salt - sodium chloride,, , tell me ,, is it a 'vice' or is it a 'virtue'? Autumn , is it a vice or a virtue If Cat is correct and "hatred relates to hearts " or something such , what is the supposed connection ?? what the heck is that supposed to mean? If a person has a heart then hatred comes from it ? Hearts pump blood , minds in brains can entertain hatred , and if you already know that ,, I dont see why it should behoove you to pretend these other connections make sense nowadays. Once upon a time it was the best folks could come up with. Shall I compare thee to a summers day? I could , but it makes no sense.

Well, he's got the elements listed and correlating to organs and wanted to associate "vices" to them. If youre saying wood fire air earth and metal are phases,, then they should be renamed the five phases with names like liquid solid gas crystal and amorphous solid.... If someone wants to say something about phases then , by all means do so. Otherwise,, they have everything to do with the greek elements ( 150-200 years older), because its the same concept structure .. As in-- The composition of a thing is due the relative aliquots of the elements, and directly leads to the alchemical idea that one can turn lead into gold. But thats not really my thrust , Im just saying that the term 'vice' itself has no meaning outside human conceptual confabulation, so how could it associate with inorganic elements or body parts? What would it even mean to associate the things ? that eating potatoes would make you stubborn?

Yeah I got that , I was on another angle though , "vice" is a bogus term , is what I was getting at. Circumstance or opinion determines what will be an expedient trait. So one could not correctly collectively group 'vices'. The elements idea comes from the idea that things cant change (or pop in and out of the universe), yet one can see that there are situations that do change. As in procreation ,fires , oxidation , freezing etc The solution was to conclude that the various things we see are assembled from parts that dont change (like lego bricks) An Idea we still employ today, its just that we have since categorized down to more elements , forces , principles. Its just my opinion mind-you , but I cant see carbon or water as being associated with either vice or virtue, and traits arent elemental aspects of the universe. ( being opinion or-and circumstantially defined). But I can see that you have broken the world down into categories of good and bad already , so it may be difficult or undesirable for you to make the leap to see that good and bad are illusory concepts which the eternal Tao doesnt share in. IMO There simply is no chunk of "goodness" included in any particular thing.

From wikipedia...just give it the consideration you feel it deserves.. "However, in Apology, Plato relates that:[3] […] οὖτος μὲν οἴεταί τι εἰδέναι οὐκ εἰδώς, ἐγὼ δέ, ὥσπερ οὖν οὐκ οἶδα, οὐδὲ οἴμαι – This man, on one hand, believes that he knows something, while not knowing [anything]. On the other hand, I – equally ignorant – do not believe [that I know anything]. The impreciseness of the paraphrase of this as I know that I know nothing stems from the fact that the author is not saying that he does not know anything but means instead that one cannot know anything with absolute certainty but can feel confident about certain things.[4] Plato's theory of Forms or theory of Ideas[1][2][3] asserts that non-material abstract (but substantial) forms (or ideas), and not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality.[4] When used in this sense, the word form or idea is often capitalized.[5] Plato speaks of these entities only through the characters (primarily Socrates) of his dialogues who sometimes suggest that these Forms are the only true objects of study that can provide us with genuine knowledge; thus even apart from the very controversial status of the theory, Plato's own views are much in doubt.[6] Plato spoke of Forms in formulating a possible solution to the problem of universals. "

You suggested Darwin was responsible or wrong about evolution and should 'smoke' embryological development theory in his pipe , essentially eat his words. Its not In Darwins words , Ive read his book and it aint in there. Haeckel is reputed to have given that idea legs . (If you highlight a chunk of a quoted sentence from the web and put it back into the search box , you will find that it takes you immediately back to the source used , (most of the time).) embryonic development proved the theory of evolution, yeah I was told that in HS too , and there is an aspect of it that does support the idea that evolution happens since old encoding is over written because it may not be expressed in developed creatures , but becomes evident during development. the thing is ,that the development doesnt mirror evolution in some linear unfolding. Science does modify over time, Yep , no doubt about it , and that may scare some folks ,but thats how it unfoldsand it doesnt rewrite everything since not everything is incorrect. the small modifications over time are self correcting unlike primitive belief systems which lack such flexibility. "I believe in co-creation, unfolding, and intervention... in other words, I'm a taoist." Thats your Tao? thats a very different view from mine , and seems more in line with monotheism to me , but to each their own. But if you are going to mock science with science, at least get it straight that 1) it wasnt Darwins conclusion, 2) Science has already adjusted to accommodate the facts better . Just as I am sure you do when a recipe flops ,or turns out mediocre, and you adapt to improve and become enriched ,, you accept the verdict ,or continue to fail.

The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or embryological parallelism— often expressed in Ernst Haeckel's phrase as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"—is a largely discredited biological hypothesis that in developing from embryo to adult, animals go through stages resembling or representing successive stages in the evolution of their remote ancestors. "Embryos do reflect the course of evolution, but that course is far more intricate and quirky than Haeckel claimed. Different parts of the same embryo can even evolve in different directions. As a result, the Biogenetic Law was abandoned, and its fall freed scientists to appreciate the full range of embryonic changes that evolution can produce—an appreciation that has yielded spectacular results in recent years as scientists have discovered some of the specific genes that control development."[25] Ernst Haeckel attempted to synthesize the ideas of Lamarckism and Goethe's Naturphilosophie with Charles Darwin's concepts So Darwin has nothing to do with the thing you are talking about .

Putting labels on oneself ,or others, predisposes one to a particular set of behaviors, and so is inherently less flexible than not doing so. One may feel an overall label fits though , like MPG indicated , but --just by the fact that he responded to the post at all, makes it an extroverted act , and so, such a label is really circumstantially defined, for any of us.

Yeah , that was what I found interesting too,, that the reforms were away from the religio-faith based angle and towards a introspective personal experience based one. Though I dont think the socialist-communist reform model actually works as things are , in the real world ,, I can still understand the lofty Utopian desire for a more united compassionate way.. It drew many adherents , and still does. ( its just too subject to corruption and is more intrusively controlling ) Our capitalism isnt pure though either , its a looser socialism ,and does treat aquisitiveness as a driving motivating virtue, but works out to be a Give-to-get system which rewards merit overall. My subjective valuation was coloring my asssessment, but is-was a paradigm shift which can fit with the concept of "rebirth of reason based society" Quite right , much of the stuff relates directly to living well , and what that exactly means for you. Each person , yes , is a unique individual, heck, just two blood factors I have, puts me in a select grouping of six individuals in the united states! and that has nothing to do even with my experiences or anything else about me. But at the same time , if one believes there is a basic 'humanity' a common thread which loosely we share in common, then you are not completely out of touch with anyone else. Otherwise we all really would require an artificial morality imposed upon us if we were to live harmoniously. You kind of have to agree with this idea in order to have faith in Lao when it comes to the innate 'goodness' you would have ideally to revert. Folks like Marblehead Shanlung Zerostao etc are operating more from an intuitive stance which relies on it. The Stoic idea of virtue is closely tied to it. Others like me, dont have as much faith in my intuition , so I need to formulate reasons to do A B or C. But neither is really pure . See if the book does or does not point you in directions regarding life, and notice that it doesnt demand you concur , notice it explains for you but then when that is said and done , it is up to you what decisions you make and whether you are getting it right.

After a nights sleep maybe I am understanding you correctly that you might include Lenin and Mao on the list of modern reformers. Wow interesting! I thought you were procrastinating. You've been given an awful lot to consider but haven't yet given thorough indication one way or another on any of it.Sarcasm about a temporarily derailment in a thread you aren't engaged in mentally seems unnecessary.You asked the short question got an answer, got more than that! I don't see what your beef should be . Each place I put a question mark , was an invitation. Each suggested reading an opportunity for a fresh direction.

Good point about the effect of communism in the east. I wasn't dividing the east from west -intentionally. Because I'm seeing similarities amongst the teachings of Gautama Lao Chuang Confucius the Stoics of that time.. And then again in folks like Galileo Neitzche Kant etc. Was? there a renaissance thing in China ? I thought they went straight from Feudalism to Socialism , Having committed to a plan of isolationism. BUT, yes, I am mixing apples with oranges, so you might not consider it valid.

Absolutely Sir! His mom didn't raise no fool. I've been tossing an idea around..around four hundred bc and over a few centuries, it seems like the was a flowering in the rational investigation of the human experience in eurasia. After which, there was a return to the old way of thinkingamong the common people - which lasted another twelve centuries..till the renaissance.Any comment? Refutation ?

To me it seems that he is trying to explain some things which are counterintuitive. If he just blurts it out without the finery. then the reader will quickly dismiss the points validity . It amounts to a careful presentation, which I wouldn't have the patience to copy. Imo . I just explain it straight as I see it and its not up to me to make it sweeter. He is a polished speaker.