Stosh

I see four dudes ( or the same dude four times) looking in various directions the sky, the water,at a book ,and at himself-(or me)

It strikes me as more a reflection of attitude rather than beliefs.

The story of the Gordian Knot comes to mind.

What-Who , is not a potential teacher ? What -who is Not a student ?

Describing the now as 'just long enough for a person to see it' seems a nice compromise between the factions of opinion on the subject. My habit has often been to ruminate far too long on what is already a done deal , and that which I try to imagine repercussions to be from the present. Its a nice habit to try to mitigate those mental habits which are rooted in a lot of erroneous-inexpedient thinking.

There are distinctions , as many as folks care to list finding common thread can also be elusive From my family I learn , sometimes I chuckle , sometimes I wish I could bestow sometimes I think to myself Thats just what I would expect him to say , go get em' though I wouldnt be saying it myself or I think that what my brother said -is just the ticket! which I didnt have. circumstance says if we're fit of body ,soul , or even wit and so my solutions arent always exactly right for all situations Have a nice weekend , carry the torch high

Take all the gods and demons away , remove all chaotic events which defy cause and effect and look both outward and inward to see the flesh of what is What is it that one finds -believes to be the world ( the 'self' included) ? I find that which I cannot deny, yet do understand and so me and my tao go together. Thats 'why' - for me.

There is nothing that is false unless one employs expectations which arent fulfilled so there is no pseudo Taoism unless one defines taoism to be some particular category or behavior pattern , it is simply a judgement- empty of superior validity, on the other hand as Mencius described , words do have meanings that are communally arrived at , conjointly used and so for the purposes of discussion one can use a term like Taoist describing that which fits the agreed upon definition from that which does not. Generally speaking ,most folks are going to define themselves as being part of groups they do wish to be in and describe others of differing opinions as being "not included". It would be nice if all could just accept the rest as being part of a family of beliefs so one can enjoy the interests of all the divergent opinions without having to exclude each other or find lack of merit in each diversion from ones own outlook. If all could find pleasure in that one is not the same person as ones brother ,, that would be expedient , it would be looking for a harmony rather than homogenaity. Without the abstraction there is no exclusion or inclusion .. there are just all the individuals.

Buddhism may too often 'speak' or 'be spoken of' in abstract terms, but is still involved-addresses the human condition and experience , so ,,It is or would be a generous thing to attempt to bring the ideas down to earth by phrasing them differently. But in the end one lives ones faith if one has it , and so it isnt any more removed from reality than christianity which includes angels and demons and witches and patron saints and happy places in the sky. But Id agree Daoism is altogether different (depending on what strain of thought-faith one approaches it from - either shamanistic or philosophical)

That which is true.. is already ..perfectly.. whatever it is There is no pursuit of it everything is already true only with imagination and expectation are things untrue So I feel this question has a faulty premise. Removing , if one can, expectations and valuations allows one to see that which IS really the case and what really is the case, or situation is not stagnant because time passes We get older , trends play themselves out , new considerations arise on thier own.. Aiming for a dynamic equilibrium, a homeostasis, is also not stagnation. This is my opinion , and it may not fit with the idea you may have that a particular perfected state exists apart from everthing else , and it can be tapped or met or experienced , if one does 'certain' things... and in that case 'nevermind' But Im just saying that a shirt with ,or without, a mustard stain is already perfect the question to address is whether one accepts the mustard as well as the homogenaity of the washed shirt as being perfect. Stosh

?

Hand recognition software on all guns would address many misuses and theft of guns , let alone just the prospect of protecting ones children from shooting themselves. Its a minor inconvenience with large ramifications. Think about it.

Yep , and this place is more of a flea market , old and new ideas from abraham to zoroaster, but Im also implying that hesitation to jump in Or just hang around isnt needed.

Monestary ?! Where? Must be in the boulder already.

One doesnt really need to know everything ,as I see it theres a point where one is overshooting that which gives practical answers to the ultimate question of, What do I do now?

This derrida ? To his critics, Mr. Derrida appeared to be a pernicious nihilist who threatened the very foundation of Western society and culture. By insisting that truth and absolute value cannot be known with certainty, his detractors argue, he undercut the very possibility of moral judgment. To follow Mr. Derrida, they maintain, is to start down the slippery slope of skepticism and relativism that inevitably leaves us powerless to act responsibly. This is an important criticism that requires a careful response. Like Kant, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, Mr. Derrida does argue that transparent truth and absolute values elude our grasp. This does not mean, however, that we must forsake the cognitive categories and moral principles without which we cannot live: equality and justice, generosity and friendship. Rather, it is necessary to recognize the unavoidable limitations and inherent contradictions in the ideas and norms that guide our actions, and do so in a way that keeps them open to constant questioning and continual revision. There can be no ethical action without critical reflection. Seems like it would be a potentially friendly meeting to many TTBs

Ok , I think I agree but whats the problem?

Its called irony

Thanks bubbles , I dont see anything in that there post to have issue with so Ill wish you and Mh a nice weekend and leave it till something pops up.

I dont really need to reconcile them , I already recognize that the difference is a spiritual one. As you may have already noticed I am not of a traditional opinion regarding Lao TTC or wu wei , Im ok with a persons personal imperative , and that they can and should live to fulfill that. BUT for the purpose of discussion here I need to look at this from a more standard perspective , and from there it is quite obvious to me that Ting the butcher is hardly the Uberman ideal of Neitzsche as described so far. And neither is Jesus a practioner of wei wu wei. The general message as I see it coming out of the east is that folks tend to drive themselves nuts, that we start from a stubborn confused perspective trying to maintain an ego-identity and because of it we apply force against what we might go around more easily having little flexibility. That we jump from temporary satisfactions to dissatisfaction and then back again , never finding a lasting sense of peace. So the messages of the TTC attempt to rectify those things. Neitzsches Uberman ideal sounds completely contrary to the peace that the TTC appears to offer, it is the Yang- to the Yin of Lao. That no one ( I guess) ever meets this ideal isnt a big surprise since its an unending 'reach' rather than a count of ones blessings. The ideal as I personally see it is more in line with what you mentioned to me a long time ago , to do just enough- no more. Not to retreat into ones mind fearing to be of influence nor to drive for the impossible, the goal - An achievable dynamic balanced harmony between the aspirations we have and the possibilities presented to us. PS your word choice 'dynamic' in the other post-thread would have improved upon my definition very nicely

Ill agree to similarities and common points between them , but there is also difference In the Neitzsche excerpt the subject is conscious effort versus non-conscious behavior as it is in the Cook-Ting excerpt but the traditional view( so I have been told) of that Cook Ting story is that Ting has been enlightened to the way which guides his actions for him, his knife follows the bone and has no thickness, he is carried along by the circumstance and this is how he exemplifies the ideal , (his ego is not center stage) The Neitzsche portion doesnt appear to hold this volitionless habit as an ideal, it is merely a reflection that a great deal of our behavior doesnt require much consideration. He does say that he allows the forces to happen spontaneously but he doesnt say here what the forces are- they can be his own innate drives as much as the environment. . and its got be considered most likely that his is what he meant if the 'Uber trend' is to expand and exert. ( mind you I am just trying to operate within the context provided and am avoiding some personal conclusions,,,more later , lunchtime is ending)

Its the formless unchanging setting -scene- sequence of what may be manifest ,, rather than the ephemeral manifest itself.

I am not sure, the sage ideal can fit the superman ideal. The sage seems to me be too lukewarm to fit the superman figure. This point closest adresses the OP so , Ill proceed from here. Would I be correct in saying that this difference in self expression is at sharp contradiction with considering Neitzsche to be a Taoist? (The Sage of Lao reins himself in , in order to come to a harmony with the natural forces and living things around himself,even to the extent of negating his own ego-identity, whereas the Uberman endlessly extends himself to ,and exerts himself on, that which is around him ,,drawing vitality thereby. Though they both do not look to gods for either spiritual guidance or succour .)

Interesting , I thought he said somewhere his own point was dissolution which sounds like a spoiling act to me. The saving grace of compassion is discretion.

Thanks for all that explanation , It is well said. I need to consider it in the light of what I am reading of Freds ( which was really bumming me out on his opinion) I dont agree with Fred on several counts, but at least it looks less like a handbook for sociopaths. In one place he says outright that his goal is not always to be understood , in essence ,self- jealous that "his" ideas should be scooped up by others who didnt generate them etc He almost seems to go out of his own way to throw negative light on his own propositions ( if your gentler interp is correct). The big thing I am still not getting is what his purpose is supposed to be towards his readership, essentially what is the superman? is it supposed to be an ideal , a role model? is it a hopeful description of what the German people were destined for ? Is it another Sage? I consider Laos 'sage' a literary device to convey point - is 'superman' similar? contentious part follows Nihilism (pron.: /ˈnaɪ.ɨlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.ɨlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is the philosophical doctrine suggesting the negation of one or more putatively meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1]Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism can also take epistemological or metaphysical/ontological forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or that reality does not actually exist. Going by this definition it appears Neitzsche IS a nihilist himself he is against objective meaning to life he contends morality is a man made construct and that knowlege of external realities cannot be known so how can he be against societies nihilism? (and instead promotes the superman worldview) Maybe his opinions were mis-used by his relatives ,maybe but we have a saying that if the shoe fits, wear it. That shoe sure does look like a good fit as a philosophical underpinning for Nazi propaganda. Simply saying he wasnt anti semitic doesnt remove all the comments about the stereotype 'differences' between the northern and southern peoples. etc I can easily chalk up the reasonably nice assessment of Jesus as placating Christian readership (because he does say Jesus failed- in the end -on the cross.) That cross symbol was long used as derogatory symbology for christians with the meaning being that -jesus failed and died -( till they negated that use by adopting the symbol as representing sacrifice) BUT Ill have to check exactly which ideas were presented in the will to power book