Stosh

Bubbles seems to indicate that a persons will to power is a paradigm of self discovered fulfillment versus and exteriorly generated paradigm of the church. One can say there is a difference there , but Fred is re writing the gospels from his own view ,, thats fine but , then one has a new set of gospels , the 'gospels according to Fred' . If he had just said that the other guys stuff was all BS and that one had to work out a personally generated paradigm in order to best fit ones mind to ones world I wouldnt see any irony in it. However he isnt here giving anything more than opinion and assertion- to the bad effect that the religious institutions have, versus the individually generated mindsets he says are-would be, so 'wonderful' ,, If the world isnt covered-populated with his supermen , his paradigm doesnt work very often. If it does work well..Who would these supermen be, ? so enlightened by praxis. The third reich? It makes fine sense to me to say that within human endeavor is a drive to harmonize the world around us to the world within us , a self-fulfilling praxis. But the idea that there are no external-objective items is philosophical babble, and his livingroom chairs werent a figment of his "will to power."

Interesting , Ill need to read it again and consider it thoroughly , but Im not sure about your own stance here Are you in agreement with Fred on these views or are you speaking impartially?

I do, go ahead and clarify further if you wish ( but I think my input will still fit reasonably well, even if your sentiment was gentler than taken ). Theres just a lot of variety under the headings Taoism, source etc. For instance I think life is short confused and of significance only to the experiencer then one goes back to the source anyway. Im in no rush to experience death, but if there is something good to naval gazing, to have even now,- living ...great.

Oh , and merry christmas to all and have a good night!

Ok that tides me over for a bit , you say he isnt expecting this to 'common practice' that only a few would get close? Hmmm Still seems like Captain Bligh to me , and not one I would want to follow , there is just so much in the text here that can be taken in some real ugly light. like On the contrary, to submit even to the Evil One—to love him.... but Ill wait and see what ameliorating factors come up.

I gathered that he has a problem with the church of the time, in particular. He sets his own view up as a rival to it. "Nietzsche condemned Christianity- the church- and all the ideological instruments of mass control it used. These instruments were made up by transforming the Gospels message ( which is about how to live so that life who be freed) into morality and life contempt." The passages tend to disparage the structures and rewrite the mindsets of what the shebang is about ,, Im challenging that he hasnt made much of a case for the social implications of his idealized people here. To have a situation where folks get along of their own free will is great tao , to whip and claw a recalcitrant headstrong population also can work establishing an order of sorts , Captain Bligh style. 1) I just dont see how a population of these supermen is supposed to get along by Freds method more fulfilling-better than the churches of any ilk. 2) Is not the superman a lion or wolf making decisions independent ,and reigned in only by defeats (and probably rather alone in that as well) ?

If you are so sure of the direction the source is , and you know how to get to it ,and thats all you want , then your description of other things -being of no importance to you , is undeniable. On the other hand not everyone- is so sure of those things , or is really out for finding 'the source', and so for those folks , your own dismissal of everyone elses means and goals- seems "not so kind" in itself. If one has to experience the way , to grasp it , and to find the way, one must learn something of it, text seems viable as a step.

Im thinking Fred looked down on the idea of herd mentality , but have heard that he lived a conventional life . Does anyone think people should act like a pack of wolves? Is not a placid herd a reasonable paradigm for a society? Why should sheeple be derogatory from a Taoist perspective ? Or is it the ideal that everyone runs around in some chaotic scrum ignoring the collective migration beneficial to the group and the individuals which participate in it? Moreover about the Neitzche chapters above , I dont see how it makes sense to villify the collective opions of the church and then suggest that there is a one true reading on the meanings of the gospels and outlining the single psychological effect it would have. It reminds me of Vmarco , he suggests that no belief system is valid and yet continues on with perfect view that should be had by all. What am I missing that corrects the apparent contradictions of either?

The deer evades That is its main weapon This too can be cruel I know hunters that have tried for years and come up empty handed

Im not promoting what I or you consider cruelty as a thing to promote , all Im saying is that such sentiment is in the minds of men you me etc It doesnt mean that you cant be nice to calves anyway It doesnt mean you cant eat meat It doesnt mean that you cant judge others as cruel it doesnt mean that you cant judge yourself as cruel It just means, that to my view ,there is no cosmic beneficiary to bestow validation on any particular point of view. The Tao could be considered as the perspective of all perpectives and therefore -with no partiality to having any one thing happen or be -over another... it is impartial. You and I have a single point perspective , we have 'druthers' and we are therefore partial, being partial, we supply the beneficiary required ,for there to be a point -in having things be a certain way. Some look at Laos work and see it as discussing 'virtue' in a traditional sense which assumes that there is a standpoint to say what is good and bad with some validating perspective. And so one digs and digs and all that one can find is that the view is self serving OR one ends up with a God that has opinions and desires like we do. For example one "should" let nature take a course of its own. You can if you want to but there is no spanking to expect ,(other than the ramifications which follow the action). Seriously , lets say you spend your life doing all the lousiest things you can imagine. The sun won't stop shining on you , gravity won't let go ,( but your neigbors may either hang you or make you King) I believe you have seen hypocricy in the way some folks approach tao that to avoid such I would either embrace that I 'should' shrive myself of values or embrace the values that are traditionally considered to be 'good' ones. I see that too sometimes in some views, but the virtues in the TTC ( I believe) work despite not being the same as say Christian ones. I can save the drowning child because I want to bring about that occurrance , I dont have to do it to satisfy some heavenly dictate so I can reap a reward later. I'd do it because I have empathy and sympathy to extend , Id do it because its basic human contract. And a Christian may actually do it for the same reasons as me ,, ironically Christians can consider such an unrewarded behavior as the highest of spiritual actions as well. Different philosophy, yes , similar motivations and behaviors though.

In Su Ch'e most of the response to your post , you already have Id be surprised if Su Ch'e could align words well enough to somehow 'explain into impartiality' the answer you might be trying to render. because The expectation of a 'point' is yours the idea that there is 'cruelty' is yours and though you are entitled to have them they arent the province of the great Tao In my opinion , Its more a Buddhist or Christian perspective You and I can see cruelty thats part of our nature- understanding -perspective and various personages can lend a view as to where people stand regarding stuff like that , because we can have empathy or sympathy , and cruelty can feed back into our selves in what may be a negative manner ( as we may see it ) But the existance of the sentiments is in the tao of men , not the stars. To ask what the point of cruelty and suffering is , one should consider what is the meaning of having a point ?

In black narcissus , the people of the village are being described, I paraphrase from memory here, 'The men are simple mountain folk ,but no better, no worse than such men anywhere else. The women and children are like women and children anywhere.' Im just positing that even 2500 years ago one could see the differences between those raised in a small community off the beaten path and that of a large complex social community... and even today as our society becomes yet more remote from simpler ways of days gone by, the same trend seems true. Normal values get subverted to 'fit ' with the greater complexities that folks are subject to, but the people at heart arent really different.

Just wondering , all virtue aside ,, Why is he banging on the wall? It sounds very sad.(and maddening) Are you thinking its just drug abuse straight up?

I do , Im just a bit tired , I have some issues to deal with, and some things I need to answer to myself. Others can do just as well or better anyway for most if not all of it.

K made a point there about whether the stuff folks intend to be "helpful" actually is and I think more often than not , it is not. It was my reading in the TTC prior to TTB's input that butting out was the most compassionate action in a large number of situations. That the Judgement required to say that the situation would be improved by my participation was 'empty' of a vindication. My personal view still looks much like that, though my behavior often enough belies it. ( because it reflects how I was raised more than what I believe to be wise) It seems that buddhist influenced neo-daoist opinions about virtue are the major player here and around town. Folks want to see themselves as good or virtuous , they want to delineate themselves by virtue of the posts they post, They want to reinforce that which they feel is virtuous because in doing so they feel that they reinforce their own clarity regarding virtue and the level that they have of it. But keeping ones opinions to oneself is probably close to ideal if one can pull it off.

Forgetting allows folks to move on as a general rule, Remembering tends to stick folks to a mindset they already had. I dont know that there is a final cure for human failings. But not even one lifetime after WWII the emnity we had for germany and japan is largely forgotten ( as is the gratitude of France by the younger generation)

I dont know what Tao has to say about these topics but I think pride is very significant , and being part of something-companionship too , that pride can be shown in begging is ironically interesting and the idea that folks dont want things to just be handed to them also seems to be true. I dont know what the beginning means. So maybe it means that the authour thinks the lives of men would be benefitted if they could drop pride and ambition they prize?

I credit that attempt a lot manitou . to explain a really really difficult thing. (I believe I get that point well but Im just tired , my attitude is at a low point and I need a break ... so its nice seeing someone else tackling it )

This thread should probably get directed back to its OP

His statement ,his 'invitation' She isnt really the subject- point (but I figure you get that already) its that ,many enough folks have come to preposterous conclusions that only work for la la land scenarios., They would immediately drop the pretense if they had to apply it real world. They put their pants on same as you do but suggest they use astral projection or that the substance of the pants is all an 'ILLUSION' and never try sincerely to bring the wisdom of the ancients down to the real world, real people, living real lives, and needing real relief (compared to escape fantasy) Sometimes I figure the tradition they are familiar with was already screwey a thousand years ago and it never got 'fixed' because one is discouraged for throwing doubt on the traditions they are supposed to support. Im rambling,, Back to the show.

Jed McKenna is clearly wrong We all use mirrors and other distorted sources of information all the time to come to conclusions which impact our well being and safety ( such as rear view mirrors ) Whereas the opinion of Mr. McKenna in this regard is just speculative and useless noise which sheds no useful light. It isnt surprising that he might have made that claim though considering it comes from a viewpoint that 'all is one and the same' regardless of how preposterous it appears to be... which invites me to take his money and do his spouse.. since were all one big thing anyway so he shouldn't mind.

It reads just fine. No rush , no requirements

In my opinion social inequity and disconnectedness are the traditional failings that increase violence ( that- and craziness ) Most populations are at greatest threat from thier own governments rather than from outside and individuals from their own closest relatives rather than strangers

I think it was 36 or 61 but I dont have the book chapters memorized. Maybe you should review that statement and decide if it really needed to be said. The book also suggests quite clearly that drawing problems to yourself is contraindicated but I didnt follow that advice either by bothering to post in response to your self contradiction of discussing a tome that you felt so inadequate. Im sure there are others willing to discuss with you methods of breathing out your rear. Like I said outright , my view is mundane.

I think its really very difficult to see things the way others do , or to step outside ones own situation. But perspective is a helpful thing to cultivate. One thing I like to do is tone down the internal dialogue that one tends to run as a constant subroutine during the day. It helps me see what is really going on at the time. It isnt dropping all thinking and sitting blank , its just removing the words. I find it "grounding" and I still end up doing the stuff I need to get done. I hope you are making headway here deciding whos worldview aligns well enough with your own to glean ideas from (but not to get too many words floating around in your mind that you cant tone them down.)