Stosh

I wasnt really addressing the first lines , just the emboldened ones. The last line I am told is the preeminent one in the lingo and it was paired up with the logicians argument which runs counter to Laos discussion of self fulfilling , The first three lines go together nice and easy fourth line takes the argument on a wider track The line disbelieving that one can be born before their older brother then makes a link to 'going to yue' today. Lao seems to be saying it is what it is -and it does what it does, ( self fulfilled), so If you are going to define it you are drawing up arbitrary delimitations that end in paradox . Contrasting .. The logicians argument seems like it is pointing towards things having definitons- or determined perfect forms ( similar to greek forms) -names , and that the forms fulfill the actuality .( generating the 'perfect' form -from which they deviate -making the perfect form become synonymous with the actual form .) (which you are possibly calling Tao and Te) Going to yue today and coming yesterday , is Hui Shi's argument , and Lao is linking the two as arguments together because both rely on some fixed point of perspective and end in paradox Not because he is teaching the paradox in the chapter , very much the reverse , he is appealing to your own understanding of the world to dispel the confused argument you may have read elsewhere. . My very much simplified point , You dont make the sun come up by saying it will. The universe has rules that just ARE. You logicians - have twisted the cause and effect relationship much as Hui Shi confuses things. Not you personally IMO

Yeah it sure is a possibility and happens all the time when folks , when instead of coming to reasonable conclusions to reasonable questions they arrive at the idea that they can turn invisible or shoot waves of energy from their buttcrack out the top of their head ! At least I am aware my ideas arent the norm , they say the real crazies arent aware of their 'quirks'. The title of the thread is 'help me understand' and one does that by elaborating perhaps more than usual. He said doesnt care for the poetic answers. (too simplistic)

RE: I go to Yue today and come yesterday. Coming and going, like many things is basically a matter of perspective. Much of what Lao and Chuang were talking about was non-perspective based understanding. So ,I think that sentence was designed to mock what he would have considered a nonsensical argument. Correct character? who or what, is to do the determination of correct? then also the whole 'correctness' argument is sub par , jumbled and confused temporally. essentially 'B.S.' as far as Lao was concerned. So if the two bits are joined in some way , Lao's joking seems evident. but I think the saying goes back to hui shi Hui Shih focuses on such distinctions as large/small, thick/thin, high/low, south/north, and today/yesterday. Their common feature is that from different points of view we can assign either member of the term-pair to the same object. His typical paradox makes sense as a comment about how we might redescribe familiar paradigms from a distant perspective. Heaven is as low as the earth; Mountains are level with marshes. The sun from one perspective is in the middle from another declining. Natural kinds are from one perspective living and from one dying. I go to Yue today and arrive yesterday. The most important result for theory of language strikes at the Achilles heel of Mohist realism--the construction of similarity classes. The ten-thousand thing-kinds are ultimately alike and ultimately different. This is called the great similarity-difference.As the Chuang Tzu develops this insight, it amounts to the claim that we can find a difference between any two things no matter how alike they are and we can find a similarity between any two things no matter how different. So even if there are objective similarities and differences, they do not justify any particular way of distinguishing between thing kinds. For every category and name we use, we could have had conventions that as consistently and with equal 'world-guidedness' divide stuff up differently.

You and gravity are coequal , gravity limits your movement possibilities , and you have a will to move , which gravity doesnt. Like little demi-god you can both experience, create, do , forever changing the character of what happens. Gravity part of the tao , can be your buddy Never heard of a god of gravity before , very creative , seems like there should be one

On knows their thoughts come and go they include those things that one experiences. My memory of the pasta I ate last night is gone as gone can be Invented from seeming nothingness and dissappearing back to it , our experience of feelings and sentiments leaves no track They are called unreal ,descriptively, they are imaginary constructs Time is something one cannot truly apprehend ,, we remember some of yesterday and we expect some of tomorrow We explain the difference between the effect of hitting water from a great height versus the effects of hitting water from a low one with a constuct about time. If time was our own false imaginary construct WITH NO BASIS of fact,,, then smacking the water wouldnt happen! one would always ease into it . Though we cant define the basis for theings to be as they are , we can describe how things really appear to be , calling it fact. One can turn the rules of the game upside down , calling spirit real and matter false but the same subjective experience that undermines FACT is the thing one would be using to prove spirit as REAL. So the stance of having anything be real , embodies both spirit and fact. They both stake claim to reality. Its just that science tries to anchor real in an objectively corroborative manner wheras spirit one just holds as self evident.

Agreeing with K here , folks do seem to carry baggage into the spiritual realm too , as long as they are still attmempting to 'attain' thats the case , and I guess, to the point of self mutilation.Trying to attain,, one is still not accepting that which is , its aspiring to that which is not , some folks read suffering and sacrifice to be the means to attainment ,,acceptance on the other hand, is the message of Tao ,( as I see it ) addressing just this issue exactly ( among others) From the little I have read , Buddha also tried that long path and in the end concluded that the best path lay along a middle way of restraint-- but not self demolition- to accumulate the lessons of experience as to what is illusion and what is truth, letting go of baggage as enlightenment came back to one.

I like metaphors and stories too , but when wrong inferences are drawn , my enthusiasm for a particular metaphor wanes. staight speech first -or after the metaphor -seems a good idea to clarify the limits of the comparison,, presumably one is speaking for their meaning to be understood. For instance how childish is appropriate , how ignorant is suggested. I read the ignorance -goodly to be found -just relates to internalized custom contrary to ones mental health. That the nature of a person being discused is the healthy basic normative state. The artiface to be discarded is not instructions on how to drive , it is the nature of neurotic relationships that bring folks to suffer , or the unrealistic rules which bring sickness to the group. The origin of what gets called good is whether a thing brings wellbeing to the group or individual there is an eternal conflict between that which is the individual good an the larger social decision on goodness. Which good are we thinking of refers to the 'nature' of men. I wasnt really seeing those delimitations addressed , and think that it is important to clarify ,since it often seems like their is confusion regarding those things. I dont know what you mean by my 'raising'. Please clarify so I can explain or plead my case.

A clearly stated position , but something I havent heard is just what is someone to make of other persons being limited by the same conditions that limit us -like gravity. Doubly said , If a person has a child, that kid will be just as affected by whatever the heck gravity is. So though the 'knowability' of of gravity can be debated ( whether one can be sure of it personally- I doubt it - certainty is a sentiment ) the fact of it is corroborated at least ( uncertain as that may be). Dismissing what cannot be personally proven as false, is a false exercise logically because it is not a conclusion one cannot refute nor can it be supported conclusively I cant fairly dispute your experience of gnowing and you cant fairly dispute the existence of gravity. They are both things outside of our ken but the argument that you cant fly, is strong. Like I said earlier , my belief is that the end of philosophy is where a person finds themselves satisfied with the answers they have. Ive tried to come up with a thread subject to start , but I cant honestly say that there is anything philosophically speaking , that I dont feel informed about to a point of dissatisfaction. Though I was considering a play on Family Feud game show , for the interest of comparing other folks views , and whether there was a common basis to Taoism which would show itself. Some other day perhaps. Have a nice evening

It doesnt sound inherently bad unless its all wrong which traditionals can be as well I know folks who have cars that all look alike they dress alike , they think alike their homes are alike their divorces are alike and their psychiatrists are alike is the bus alike ?? it brings to mind buses of another era. The rebellion of the hippie era did show its behind when it failed to find a wholesome basis for social behavior ( like family and work ) that could compete with standard views ,, but that doesnt really negate all the dreams of a better way ,, and a similar point might be made for the dream behind communism which could be viable someday , but fails in its attempt now because the power is so corrosive, and no one really aspires to the crappiest jobs. OOps , too serious, oh well

Maybe that is overanalysis, but it lets me refresh a message I want heard a few times Im in 'pre'-agreement with Cd about mental health , and although we may have some difference in perspectives as to whether this subject is the main topic of TTC or not ,, It could still be a sub-subject , if you know what I mean. I dont think your racist Cd , I just think you have learned some lessons better off unlearned. ( no blood -no foul)

I thought iguanas were vegetarian! said the caterpillar to the iguana . I respect the right of an iguana to try to become a dragon , if its his nature, and he lives in accord with it then he can be said to have fullfilled his role of living. If he is self destructive , and eats allhis food , and destroys that which sustains him well ,, his end comes that much earlier. The forests regrow from the scorched land etc etc in the lovely pagent we play in

Interesting , but the infant must learn stuff or perish , she-he just doesnt have enough instinct to carry him through. Language has innate aspects , but it still must be learnt , , its not 'so-called' helplessness, she-he is helpless. It is just the innate condition of infancy. That folks learn inexpedient confused messages is true enough , they become part of the inner voice, events become linked with emotions, emotions with thoughts ,and thoughts with events. What then is a dude to do ? Reality check , self correct , use language skills to get fresh fodder and, yes ,remember more of what they forgot -yet keep what they best keep.

A caterpillar can hope or not hope , he has choice and can also see how things are. If he thinks morphing into a butterfly is a step closer to death.. or is satisfied with his state or doesnt have a choice in the matter he may not rush into making a chrysalis Lots of stuff in TTC about not taking things to an end I dont buy lotto tickets often , just occasionally to participate and I dont get bummed out when my number doesnt come up

He also suggests to weaken the ambitions and strengthen the bones If you can reconcile these two attitudes ,, Then you've got a 'good' thing going

This caterpillar doesnt know what the upset at quotes things is referring to , maybe it refers to 'butterfly only' understanding. Its not a big deal to this caterpillar if he does or doesnt know thusly grounded to the good earth -he can accept the situation either way balanced at the center betwixt metamorphoses. Neither grasping at his birth nor grasping for the skies

Its tough to explain , folks find out what they think as they speak. The reformed are always the most vehement promoters of stuff they abandoned. It takes some convincing to believe a new thing. As for why you in particular ? It could be that it is important to her that you in particular see her improvement, or it may be that you presented the first opportunity. Lucky you Now I will go back to my usual habit of dropping this stuff for an evening of peace..I wanted to just establish communication via texting. Nighty night.

Maybe to show to herself that she learned a lesson about it.

He was told " It simply means eat the right foods and breathe the air which provided by Nature and be natural going about with things" I guess he should be satisfied with that . breathing and eating ,, easy to do ! Going about with things in a natural way ,, Hmmm what does one consider a natural way ?? Ahhh !! the way that is not unnatural !! 'but since Taoist cannot run away from Nature whether one likes it or not..." Its anything at all ! So long as one eats and breathes and does anything at all .. well they be Taoist! and not otherwise! Absolutely right CD you really explained that in a way only a Chinese Taoist would understand. But since by that definition everybody is a Taoist , then it really just depends on whether one is Chinese or not! Its realistic too ! The ball is red, because it redly has redness, so its certainly not green !! Now we can all march off and do the gerund of wu wei which is naturing I suppose. Well, I would if I was Chinese anyhow. Thats much better than poems. and we should all thank our lucky stars for that elightening view.

Cd , imo , using the word again as in " natural going about things ", and Wu Wei , which you define rather closely with the self same 'N' word Isnt really explaining what the "N' word means in Chinese or English I wouldnt at all be surprised if you didnt find my own opinions on the subject less alien , if you made a hearty attempt at the definition. Which is why I commented as I did. and it would potentially further the thread. But If you are satisfied with your contribution on it already I guess it can be left standing as it is.

I guess Ill find out eventually about that new age thing , its just a term that gets thrown around. The way you weigh things out , is up to you , but I would share this personal take .. If I expected everyone to agree with me on everything , or took everything to be a deal breaker ...well , I wouldnt be showing much tolerance. Folks can be fun for the same reason that they are annoying -sometimes - in that they don't have the opinions that we do. But disrespect in that arena - is hard to overlook for long. So yep , wait out the cooling down period and reassess.

Thanks for reminding all that Tao is understandable as a concept of thought. As opposed to gnowledge which reads as essentially epiphany with something about vibrations and reads to be subjective experience. ( as described by the one google link I found for the 'word'.)

Science is a methodology , it doesnt try to touch you at all. But Its true that there is data - presumably objective and then there are conclusions -which are presumably subjective Wisdom and Science are both geared for helping to answer the ultimate question 'What do I do now?'

I wish I knew what "new age" means Have you considered leaving them to wallow in their ignorance The search for new philosophy ends really only when one becomes satisfied with the understanding they have. I suppose you know Its likely that they wont accept a rightened view regardless of the best argument you can make. But I encourage you to kick their arses with cool and style. (figuratively of course) As I have mentioned a long time ago , as someone told me, (and I find it to be true) it takes a full three days to get over being good and ticked off.( metabolic byproducts I guess)

Im thinking I 'get' the rant, frustration at not being able to get a staight- honest seeming answers would do it for me. But you didnt lose your mind over it , and so you were already exercising some control over your emotions..letting a little out and holding a little back. That your doings dont fall into the nice category all the time says you match the rest of humanity. I like emotional honesty , but some folks prefer not to be made aware of strong emotions ( probably because they are too wrapped up squashing in their own) So theres an example of the subjective nature of niceness. Internal divisions of the mind are unpleasant , and feeling unified , feeling one is wholly involved is not. again you are not alone in thinking so. As for taking lifetimes ,, well , each lifetime will just have to make the progress it can, who is keeping track ? In this thread it looks like you are getting a consistent reply , but if it aint exactly what you are wanting to know .. you might specify even further and-or divide into multiple threads ( your attendance to this thread helps keep it on line --so its a good one)

Yeah that definition of 'nature is a slippery one which , I wish someone would put to bed.