Stosh

I have read that the standard philosophical position is that the subjective is self-proving ( I think... therefore I am) I agree with that , believe it to be self evident and undeniably "just as real" as physical manifestation ( how else could my ideas help my car navigate a road ? or an I phone function? ) On the other hand , the physical is proven to be just as real as the mental , because independent of opinion, we are forced to yield where the road ends. But the two do not mesh , in the sense that dreaming of unicorns, makes them objectively physical. That's why I defined real such as I do. It works out well to look at it this way.

Though I dropped out of college senior yr -(big error) , I was a biology major and have been entirely employed in medicine engineering and laboratory work my whole life , I never science bash. We are just examining the foundations upon which all knowledge is based, whereabouts things get a little ambiguous. Feel free to explain whats wrong with the apple example though.

I on the other hand ,Do have complete confidence that there is objective truth.

That's precisely what I think we are attending , We hold these truths to be self evident , unless one attempts to distinguish the apples.

Basically I get your two points, and agree they have validity. But, so as not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, I will defend my original position despite recognizing the validity of your proposal, thusly...the idea of equating is indeed imperfect in that it constricts attention to parameters we arbitrarily define. True, two 'real' apples are not identical , and true again that the apple is not a 'stand alone object' independent of the universe in which it is observed. However , with the logical context where apples are definable there are absolutes -abstracts , (which according to my definition are unreal things ) and our logical framework we use these false absolutes to model subdivisions of the Great Unbounded Manifest. We do it for practical reasons , within which, the rules may be held inviolable. The tautology lifts itself up by it's own bootstraps and hovers in mid-space. To avoid the whole truth ,,which is ,,-Everything sometimes somethings always, but nothing never anythings ever..... Bah! you know what I mean

I agree with this , and support it with an addition, that it is an investigation of what is objectively real. I think there have been degree-d and respected philosophers who spent far more time trying to parse out the meaning of the words like 'real' , than is useful, since at its basis , its just a noise or symbol to which we attach a significance. The 'real' question is -what do people mean when they use ,or hear, the word real? , and that varies. One just needs to get everyone on board as to what the definition best is, to have the definition. ( tautologically true) I propose , that one should consider all things that all statements which are tautologically true - are true , and are above suspicion. From there , we have now 'fact' (,,a ,, reality within the cognitive sphere,, a starting point on which to build a cognitive framework of rational thought.) Proceeding more ,,, the physical world which we believe to exist, is the one that we would say the word 'exists' is indicating , is 'objectively real' ,so long as we objectively agree,, (because we do not require ourselves, to manifest them,, they are phenomena independent of sentiment). The world of things subjectively existing also can be said to be 'real' so long as we DO subjectively manifest them. What does 'not exist' is unreal ,because it is not provable objectively , nor is it an accurate manifestation of the subjective situation. Basically its an error , an untruth. From all that difficult wording , one might digest , that all the things that actually are manifest , do exist , and are 'real', and those which are not accurately manifest are 'unreal'. And so long as we can all get behind this definition , philosophers may get down to important things,, like , " What should I do now?" IMO

Beautiful rendition .

Ok, but I don't think I need to post a link to my choice since every adult in the English speaking world knows of this great work which drew crowds in the Big Town for many years.

like quality ?

Best song.. should have understandable lyrics.

What can I say? I'm more of a romantic ,, besides ,, WHats a Gadda da vida anyway?

Sorry, best song goes to .... Don't cry for me Argentina ,(as done by Madonna)

For those of us who look at Daoism from a philosophical view , that is the whole point of it all, just as you said. Others do look on it -..otherwise though, as you already know.

Airy-Fairy? No. You must think that someone else is to be your judge , pat you on the back , endorse the label of graduation, give you a piece of paper. Maybe you get a hat or a badge ? That the decider guy , has to be someone else. OR, that -that is the way it is in the "real world". But I don't doubt that there are posers , who , have a piece of paper , or credit themselves too much without it and so... can agree thus far.

There is only so much to learn from the examples of others , what is written in the classics , or even from a living teacher. Right? So , at some point , when one feels that they have the basic plan under their belt , they then need to apply it in the complex real-time world. One can try to master the entire world , to know the perfect response for every situation , and so forth... (but because none of us see the future completely and in detail ,, the right thing to do is often a thing we must guess at). That's why Tao is called or described as an ally , its not the be-all end all answer to- Life , the Universe and everything. It doesn't make one infallible or perfect - but the understanding of it should enlighten one to the fact that there is no perfection other than to say things are already what they are and are not deficient or imperfect, since that is a subjective judgement ( that implies expectations of what, rightfully, things should be ,,and are not) . So there is no 'whole system' which includes all the applications , but there IS a 'whole system' in that all the hints given ,can add up , to all the hints garnered. IMO

balony. Thanks.

Dunno

I dont know why I am higher than a starfish... but I know it when I see it

Dark and unethical.. you should be a writer

The human body only has programming to cover 70-115 yrs.

Fair enough. I think, that when does not consider a scenario to be a real thing, and they watch it from a standpoint of suspended disbelief, they still tend to ascribe no expectation that it abide by real pysical or consequential laws. Its an incomplete suspension. Which is why I put it that way. Personally, I ignore anything which requires me to suspend my expectation that it make sense.

Think on it a while, if one cannot do a procedure, then my instructions don't get you there. But anyhow, How Do you , you personally, consider Neidan to be useful to you , personally?

Its a set of practices right ? and if you cant do the practice , then its just symbols on paper. No gods , therefore there is no practice creating gods.

If one negates the possibility to becoming a god, then that goal is not one motivating the study. It doesn't need a link. We have here a classical example of cognitive dissonance, on the one hand the person is clearly gone , and yet the practitioner wants to imagine they somehow remain intact , and now have an invisible corporeality. They can maintain this , because the fear of death is so great that it overrides the obstacles. Neither you nor I , know any immortals , nor would it be reasonable to presume anyone else does either., so what would make Anyone think that somehow out of the millions of others , you personally will become a God.

Key word being -Emerged. That means the faiths no longer match those of the generative culture. It is a huge mistake to forget this in a headlong effort to lump cultures and faiths. One must NOT read into the emergent faiths, the paradigms of the older parent culture. They must be considered on their own , and if similarities exist , that is fine. Moreover , one must understand that these emergent faiths are formulated in a backdrop still dominated by the earlier, which at a later date may re-absorb its offspring under the weight of numeric superiority. (The same thing can be seen in genetic mutations, where the prevalent population generates a mutation only to have merged back into the parent population despite its advantages. ) ( and yes -thinking like us is the only sensible thing ,since they weren't idiots either - they had a modern brain , lived with modern motivations , health concerns and so forth - so they should not be considered alien to reason as its known now) In fact , if their thinking was alien , then it would be entirely useless to study their worldviews .. they just wouldn't apply to us! all practitioners would be fooling themselves and discovering false conclusions in the light of canon they could not comprehend,and all translators would be engaged in a wild goose chase yielding books on unusable data. The only Rosetta stone one can Hope to find regarding the texts is the one based on our commonality within human experience, just as it is the only way people can understand the ideas and motivations of other individuals in our personal lives.