Stosh

Things like taxes and communities are illusions made real only by common consent, but that being said, they still exist as real. Pay your taxes and stay on the soft side of the law. Join a group and enjoy the social benefits of it. And most importantly if thoughts or behavior you ( or I ) have aint coming through for us in a positive manner , they need to be discarded in favor of ones that Do. Only the insane repeat the same circumstances of failure over and over again expecting different results.

I think I understand all the things you are getting at , judo having thought much the same thoughts myself I can really only toss out suspicions of the solutions And in saying them one might only find solace in shared company. You don't owe a debt to society that is not the imagination of Indviduals , debt is an illusion Illusions are things we think we know, but are not anchored in objective truth Shangri-la is also illusion, the are no communities , ideal as one would want , to join really , there is but the sentiment of community, sangha is an outward Projection , a synonym of an internal sentiment, it is still just a grouping of individuals. Why are things like this? There is no discernable reason why. That is vexing. And so gods are invented. Why are we vexed? Because we can imagine things which don't fit the real world And we can conceptualize that they could fit. Could a person be unhappy with themselves, for no good reason? Sure. Could a person want the world to fit a reasonable plan? Sure. Could a person conclude that rebellion in spirit, was creditable, that it could work some solution to fix the cock-eyed world? Sure.

Great ! then fight back ten times harder ! You win either way Have a nice weekend too.

Whatever you ever have done, or are now, is partly the result of that which you had nothing to do with and partly what you chose to do. The repercussions of those choices will inevitably roll down till the ends of time Looked at objectively , without bias about goodness or badness the result is ...what was your 'effect' , nothing more nothing less big or small effect ,again, is objectively irrelevant The only intrinsic 'worth' , that is objective, is that you played your part Whatever part it was. Just like sparrows and dandelions, you, me, they, it all, has intrinsic worth. Or both intrinsic and extrinsic value-worth is all illusion too. Feeling one has value , helps to answer the fundemental question of our existance, What do I do now? Because one is then positively motivated to fulfill their worth , to live. You have intrinsic worth Humanity has intrinsic worth whether or not ,others find you to have extrinsic value- to them.

Is that going to be page one of the computer 'Element game' you are designing? It could still use some feedback from the R+D department.

In short the alchemists were studying aether using chemical processes and finding it in minerals and plants to start with. please do tell me something about the aether they reportedly found . Yes but if you were interested in finding god you would either belong to the church, follow it's ways or risk being tortured or executed. Believing in a god but having doubts isnt uncommon , and looking to find evidence either way wouldnt have been an odd thing to do for a man with his talents. Depends on how you define the philosopher's stone. The philosopher's stone (Latin: lapis philosophorum) is a legendary alchemical substance said to be capable of turning base metals (lead, for example) into gold (chrysopoeia) or silver. It was also sometimes believed to be an elixir of life, Aside from reductionism and particles ,there is the fundamental fact proven over and over a million times a day that the laws of the universe arent whimsical on the scale that we experience it.,, The rules hold true for everyone everywhere always and never ever vary , though we may learn new rules-laws as we delver further into subatomics. So even if one could prove a god exists, which you cant 'prove' absolutely conclusively either .. he-she-it would be irrelevant since he-she-it isnt playing any active role. ( which 'would be' rather nice of him, because interfering would render the universe both unknowable ,and chaotic) Actually you can routinely make gold and change metals these days and it's done in universities physics and radiochemistry labs. But ofcourse it isn't cost effective as of yet and the expensive equipment is probably not available to the public. Yes I am aware of that , but its not done by waving another rock over it and chanting , so while true .. its not really what we are discussing here - philosopher stone lore. Respectfully Stosh

To reveal it is to give the power to someone else, so no I probably wouldnt because I dont trust you to exercise the same restraint as I .

Newton did a lot of things , as for alchemy vs chemistry , chemistry wasnt really described until 1787 by Lavoisier I think newton had already died by 1727 A chemist is someone who studies chemicals. They are descended, philosophically from the mediaeval Alchemists who studied chemicals also however they were studying all things, not just chemicals in an attempt to discover the philosopher's stone. The alchemists were also very interested in the philosphical nature of things generally, as well as more esoteric knowlege about God and the Soul. Simply put the Alchemist studied chemicals and performed experiments to understand himself and God, wheras the Chemist studies Chemicals in order to produce new compounds and understand nature. That newton was interested in a god isnt surprising , Most everybody was at the time and I see it as edifying ,that chemistry went on to benefit our lives in so many ways while alchemy ,, hasnt grown . The alchemists didnt find a philosophers stone , didnt come up with anything new about god or souls and didnt come up with a way to change base into valuable metals. In fact one can easily make the case that modern science chemistry is addressing those goals! And they-it says that there is no god or souls as described , the philosophers stone is a hoax and that metals are what they are because of immutable rules of the universe which cannot be defied successfully.

bear with me a moment till I get to your point ( I hope) Well back then they had to explain how people made babies without understanding reproduction as we do now , for instance. And they had to explain why things dropped and people got tired etc They came up with what they thought were intuitive solutions and many find them still satisfying today. But Scientific inquiry slowly marched on , building one mans findings on top the last mans ( always fact checking for verification by the material world) And two or three thousand years later we know about reproduction and cellular biology. we know ( as clearly as we know anything ) that there is no special component to living things , the difference between living and inanimate is assemby. Assembly is just re-arrangement of materials that already ARE. So life itself is a potential that exists throughout the universe but assembly is required. Is a baby made of wood? Technically , they are. but their is another tier of existance that babies have, and wood probably, does not have. Are old people made out of metal? In part ,but it doesnt mean they have bigger lungs. Cherrypicking the traits of elements to fit arbitrary situations like old people getting smaller- is intuitive , and may be satisfying ,, but we know that there is iron in red blood cells and we can call iron a metal because of its traits and we know more about the reliable appropriate applicability of elemental traits, having built one mans findings upon the last, for thousands of years. No the ancients were not idiots , they were brilliant in fact, but that doesnt mean that everyone after them was either. We just do see farther, standing on the shoulders of giants.

Im not saying one has or should have a negative impression of life I was saying that one must follow a vector of desires or biases to navigate in reality and now that it comes up,, I also figure reality not to have any particular desire or role planned out for you , thats a thing you generate , or find in that which has been pre-generated for you by our evil society.

My Hummer can crush your Prius.

Well they had no clue about "atoms" either and still the atomic philosophy of the ancient greeks inspired the birth of modern chemistry. I think that's the idea scientists inspired by the quinta essentia have. yeah that seems like a rational perspective on the roots of western science, and that is also where I see validity in the eastern alchemical traditions , as a seed for the future growth of eastern learning essentially eastern science, ( and since science is not subjective there are but two scientific traditions,, which is only one body of understanding now shared.

Well, Horus has those nice comparative diagrams And Judo has a personally satisfying game structure And V doesn't really believe in five or four element structures That's cool But I think one must see what the plans actually indicate What they are trying to parse into simpler mode , rather than just say "Everything everywhere always is and does everything" or something similarly so inclusive that its meaningless. Like if Lao wrote everything is virtue depending on perspective and circumstance. One is left with zero guidance. My own system described is as inclusive as the rest , but it doesn't set the rest in direct contradiction.

Im not sure either , but I was tossing back to you the summation I could make of what I am being told , are beliefs you hold. So you can , on your own , see what a hash it appears to add up to. and maybe do clarification , if that was your wont.

I didnt say you had to be following the author , the author and you could be in innate agreement. Or you could be entirely your own author without any outside interference It just doesnt appear to have anything in common with Taoism , seems more like buddhism.( and yet it seems to miss the dispassion thingie too) "if you arent full of righteous indignation, then you arent paying attention. 'nuff said." If he isnt full of righteous indignation its a credit to his practice , because I thought you had just said he didnt have any compassion- because he was old jaded deluded or too weak to give a crap.

So the gods breathe- metal , earth, water , fire , and,, non-electromagnetism mind chi spirit empty space and ether !which is both a subcomponent and all of it combined . Whats non -electromagnetism .....I guess its not electromagnetism thats for sure! and chi which fills void which is pure emptiness .... so pure emptiness is full of chi so it isnt empty, but it is. I think Im getting this now.

Ok well then ,, ether is not air its a greek equivalent to air that gods breathe which would be what ? and if air is the representative element of the phase rising in tao then ether isnt in the grouping of tao elements.. but you have some sort of sense of believing in it? So you dont go for the Tao elements-phase theory strictly speaking? I doubt the classical authors had any clue about higgs bosun particles , dont you?

So he should 'let things bother him' more ? or he would be more in tune with the reality of things more if he were still bothered? Just wondering where it suggests that in all of Taoist canon because Ive never read anything in any of it that was more in exact opposition to that. But I might've missed it . You have right to your opinion but -Can you point me at a chapter or author with the opinion you just promoted?

Interesting, so what are the elements supposed to be , if they arent our periodic table elements nor material phases,the 'phases' you describe are more trends than phase, wouldnt you agree? phase (fz) n. 1. A distinct stage of development: "The American occupation of Japan fell into three successive phases" (Edwin O. Reischauer). 2. A temporary manner, attitude, or pattern of behavior: just a passing phase. 3. An aspect; a part: every phase of the operation. 4. Astronomy One of the cyclically recurring apparent forms of the moon or a planet. 5. Physics a. A particular stage in a periodic process or phenomenon. b. The fraction of a complete cycle elapsed as measured from a specified reference point and often expressed as an angle. 6. Chemistry a. Any of the forms or states, solid, liquid, gas, or plasma, in which matter can exist, depending on temperature and pressure. b. A discrete homogeneous part of a material system that is mechanically separable from the rest, as is ice from water. 7. Biology A characteristic form, appearance, or stage of development that occurs in a cycle or that distinguishes some individuals of a group: the white color phase of a weasel; the swarming phase of locusts. It makes sense to me to call them 'groupings of materials by kind' in some way , since wood , and soil are groups of materials not identical materials , and fire representing energies ( because what else did they have ?) and water being so unique and intergral to life is special. ( and for promoters of ether - what even might represent it? but OK) The distinction you are making between phases and elements representing them is already understood generally to the point of being rather synonymous- in the west just as it is in China. If the elements are imported Buddhist symbols so be it , its interesting though. Makes me wonder what religious Taoism looked like before the adoption. How might you choose to describe the trend of contracting if not symbolizing it with something that contracts? are you saying that rising is an element bereft of its symbol? because that would be also a very interesting view, ( both pointing to rather poor choices in the words 'phase' and 'element' but its too late now)

I Dont see how that spectrum vocabulary program answers the question ,but it may,, all I was getting at ,was that if one considers subjects and groupings as related vectors there is no end to the number of dimensions that can be integrated,, and that the dichotomies of speech in particular are related to spectrums of complementary pairings- groupings the lingo isnt imposing that structure on the world , the world experience suggests it.

IMPO It doesnt seem like any of these views really fits with an extension of the philosophy of Tao It doesnt have to, but If you dont really exist , your Identity-ego is suspect , the same is true for beasties If there is no legitimate right or wrong dichotomy then there is nothing right wrong with killing per se' ( but you still have the consequences to deal with so there is only expedience from the perspective on which you orient.) and there is no 'bad' karma to endure for eating them If the animals -and people are confabulations of the elements just what is it that can die? If you are the same as a beast then I can treat you like a beast however that is ,and be justified in your eyes ( although justification is also illusion) If all things are interconnected and there are no distinctions no divisions between me and thee ,,again , there is no death- of the food there is no food in fact. IMO Isnt anyone going to make any argument in line with Tao of Lao rather than buddhism? I dont think so , dont expect so, its really difficult to give up the illusions you love ... like that there is compassion in actuality that you can be good in actuality that there is a moral correct to obey and that you can reap rewards on how well you conform to aforementioned conceptry. Please point me , if you know him or her at the person who agrees with- lives from the perspective of what I just said I want to hear from them.

energy gasses liquids solids ,,organics

Bathwater and Qi are complementary? Ah ha ha ha ha

I think you need better analogy than the lines one to describe what three dimensional words could be like . I am thinking the two dimensional descriptives light versus dark describes a real spectrum. When many things are possible in mutual exclusion from one another we just describe the relevant grouping such as passerine birds. That has multiple areas of similarity and progressive difference between various ones. For simplicity we can drop back into dichotomies , but that doesn't indicate any linguistic deficiency IMO

I have nothing at all to do with this here thread but I am wondering what inspired the cautionary. just a boo boo misread ? And though it isnt posted to me personally , Yes it is counterproductive to make folks constantly suspect that what they do isnt right , even when it is just fine... ( to the level of a third party saying something. unless that third party would enjoy being treated as a suspect but not actually be charged which in this country is thought to be unfair to the accused , who knows what it is elsewhere, but here its innocent unless proven guilty , and our laws are meant to be applied evenhandedly and with restraint it is that last part about even handedly and with restraint that gains any respect our system deserves because it allows for personal liberty , prevents the system from becoming onerous and yet allows a lid to be kept on things) . Im not pointing any fingers at anyone here , Im just trying to point at common ground , because in the end, we really come here to joust in good fun. Maybe we could all agree on a 'safe word' on second thought ,, agree!! AH ha ha ha