Stosh

I agree again (in part ), wei wu wei -is a vague useless precis for the TTC. insufficient

Thats pretty good , Then again , then reverse might also be true. and then- who is who?

Not having proof that a thing exists doesnt mean the thing itself doesnt exist it means that one doesnt believe it exists if its a thing they require proof to believe the existance of. or it means that they arent concerned whether it exists or not. The confusion about a persons- believing in material things and forces- being required for them to actually exist, is more up Gatito's alley. I know I could trip over an object I was unaware of and that boogeymen don't magically appear when the lights go out. And if folks want to equate god with Tao for the christmas season so they dont feel like hypocrites I understand it even though it isnt the same concept at all.

If that happened I would say you would be better off with a new model instead Heidi Klum?

Wouldnt that make the coffee cup useless?

Im not really clear on the direction you are going so Ill add a form to the response which you can go with or reject as you see fit. The activities of science are just the investigations of people trying to suss out the connections between things. If one does an experiment like -look outside to see if ones car is still in the lot - one has essentially done science. (The implied hypothesis was that if my car was still out there, light would bounce off of it and I could see it , because the behavior of light is predictable as it has been decribed) The scientific 'community' only accepts conclusions if others can also replicate results -such as , you look out your window and see my car. which means it is really only a process of figuring out that which is objectively true ( it doesnt matter who it is replicating the experiment) Your experiences are personal and subjective , I dont really know how you feel looking at a flower ,or a birthday cake ,or a water buffalo. I can look at your face to make deductions ,, but I cant replicate the experience and know it as you do. That is forever yours your own and private. There are things in science that havent been solved and there are things that have been solved well enough to no longer be held with a high degree of doubt , You know about what gravity is doing , you know that it is quantifiably predictable and you know that ultimately at the most precise explantation of the universe that its not really clear what gravity is or if dark energy is its reverse complement. Scientifically derived knowlege admits to uncertainty but makes a distinction that for a given range of perspectives one can dismiss it.

No, its just an idea that popped out of the ether , that might be novel. and it shares with your idea the prospect of not being marked by genius simply for its novelty . Does your original idea bless you in some way with an improved life , I think not... and neither does mine -me.

The idea of a missing link is a false idea in a way , all individuals that have been in the evolutionary lineage have linked one generation to the next ,,, so existing now proves linkage and a specific link need not be found. Since any in the line are a link , all the links ever found were the missing ones. The only rule that one need consider valid to accept it is that offspring come from their parents going back to some pre-organic precursor. Not everyone believes this is the case... but its proven well enough for me to be convinced. My vehicle outside is hypothesis and theoretical too , as are the computer screens we all look at, the clothes we wear,. Abandon the acceptance of some degree of uncertainty and what you end up with is an incapability to function effectively or come to rational conclusions about what will be the outcome of events , or what to do regarding things. Certainty is a sentiment , it doesnt guarantee that ones idea was correct, but what it does lend is akin to a milestone one can move on from , freeing up ones attention to the next event or subject rather than wallow in an endless pit of doubt. It helps one proceed from the past though the present and into tomorrow cleanly.

I agree about that variability , everyone has thier own take on belief systems ,, which is precisely why I think you should ask the question of someone who considers themselves to be in the group rather than someone who is not and expecting them to give the perspective a fair shake that is Unless I am to be surprised and Cd is considering himself a philosophical taoist,, I consider him to be a 'Laoist' but thats just my take on it and I figure he can answer for himself,,, My description of philosophical taoism- is that one approaches some of the same source material, but with emphasis on the considered rational basis for the ideas more so than some mystical un-understandable approach which relies heavily on subjective experience or metaphysical ... stuff. One is not committed nor is it even implied that one has to accept the interps of lineages , the existence of Supernatural beings , the infallibility of Lao tzu or Chuang tzu ,or even the whole kit and caboodle of assertions they made. You can agree generally with the philosophy plato or jesus or neitzche or fred flintstone without trying to embody all of what they had to say. Religious taoists have lineages and special garb etc its like a club. Laoists tend to think Lao was the begin all and end all, and philosophical taoists tend to look to materialism or humanism as much as anything else. There is plenty of overlap underneath the labels. ( I figure each of us thinks the others just dont get IT)

Wouldnt it make more sense to ask a philosophical Taoist than Cd ?

Maybe Im the first to suggest that CHristianity would make better sense if we were supposed to forgive god for creating us to live like animals in a zoo and die regardless of what we chose to do , but that doesnt make it genius.

So do I , then my belief would be objectively untrue , and I would be subjectively unhappy.

My car is outside in the parking lot , thats objectively true ,and I believe it , its useful to know where my car is ,so I can drive it, and my expectation that it will be there for me will be upheld when I go home. When I go home the original objective truth will no longer be held to be true. If all beliefs are untrue , then believing that is believing a falsity. I also would have no reason to look for my car in the parking lot so I would be stranded. Not wise advice but Its nice to see your'e posting again ( because other stuff has been better founded.)

If one day you met the most wise person of all time , who knew the answers to everything ever asked, A person might ask them if there was a God , or where the universe came from, or if there was 'gold in them thar hills'... Presumably you get an answer ....from that point there is an implied question sequential to the first ,,,or the question was useless really - That second question is " OK, now what do I do ? (about it , knowing what I do now )" The answer- response to the second question determines the path you would take. and so before asking 'What do I do now ?' all the question-answer pairs just supply data. The conclusion to 'What do I do now?' once arrived at, allows a person to proceed and so that is the ultimate question that any person has to answer ,if they are going to control their destiny with intent. SO I dont think anybody needs new models for living , because the question they need to answer hasnt changed. There are paths enough already to assist in answering it, they have worked for millions before us. It changes nothing really to consider the world to be virtual ,or a clockwork, or a dream, or the result of previous universes bumping into one another ... if It doesnt affect What you will do... and you are just as locked into the common human experience ( in all its variety ) as everyone else is. Yes its interesting to speculate , and yes you may gain different perspective but Oildrops is on the money, saying that, living in the moment is really where the attention should be at.

Technically ,the glass is never -full or empty- it is just a glass , 'full' and 'empty' are expectations about the propensity for the glass to encompass fluids, ,, so yes- whether it is to be concluded to be full or empty is subjective. ('full of emptiness' is really just a semantic twist)

Thats ! where your best direction is going to come from. You can try any advice from anywhere that seems good and give it a go but ,doesnt it seem wise -to just pay very close attention to what the results actually are ? does the approach seem to lead you to being better off ? if not then you may want to consider the reverse. In my opinion the TTC was written as a sort of manual in reverse of what is ordinarily the norm thus the intent was to give solid reason to consider that the paradigms which folks go by, may not be a good reliable path of action. This advice may not sound revolutionary - to follow the paradigms that bring you into a peaceful happy accord with the world , and it may seem like a no-brainer that everyone already tries to follow,,, and I would agree. But I think most folks fail quite a lot at it ,because they have preconceptions which they dont ever challenge They try to preserve the self image , the self-stereotype , that they ingrained unconsciously as kids and arbitrarily reinforced as adults. Im not pointing at any radical metamorphosis where beams of light drop out of the sky music play and the wholle world shimmers into a new reality for you. Just a slow progression towrd fulfilling yourself and finding wellbeing.

The mirror causes not whats right ,and left being confused , but that which prods the heart moves the soul to defense of walls unbested and rightly that. So each in our own way ,we stand our ground , to posture to our contents measure. Even that which ,I would choose not be , Id defend ,were it deemed truth by faith or fact. Perhaps secure midst self righteous folly ,the contest is decided ,or not.

s Quite right I read something like 5800 accidents with trains happen each year in the US ! Its not like they are really a surprise they show up where they do. Accidents are unfortunate , those with trains seem rather avoidable. Ciao amigo

It used to tick my boss off to no end when I would say that there was no life on other planets. It seemed to me that without any proof at all , one might as well make a stand, deny it and get on with the life here on earth where we do live. He said I was arrogant ! he he he ( Im not sure he's over that yet) Have a nice weekend

Just my opinion here but I see a disbelief ( mental refutation of a thing ) not really a equivalent to a belief (mental positive affirmation of a thing) other than perhaps semantically. Because it seems that having some sort of particular proof about its existence is a stronger argument than saying one has no proof. For instance a bigfoot hair should be discovered to be inconsistent with other hairs whereas not having a hair ... one cant say that the- nonexistent hair- is that of a pig rat or a bigfoot. Yes , One can say 'aliens dont come to earth to probe folks' and so I disbelieve they exist. (or- I affirmatively believe that they clearly do not exist.) and yes , one can say that there is no proof that they dont come here to probe folks , so they may. I choose to say they dont and its illogical to say they do, unless one has some verifiable proof.

I should probably try that option again.

Yeah , the idea of one sided control can be offputting and a broader stage alleviates that Im just not much in a habit of broadcasting to crowds , nor do I care for back room discussions I like the idea of several individuals having a focused discourse with a peanut gallery chiming in to keep things rolling.

HE, I get your meaning. Its the kind of thing to try and see how it goes.

Im not sure I feel this argument supports the idea of personally moderated threads ,, but I dont see any problem with trying it. I appreciate the light hand the mods have exercised ,I figure its a difficult and thankless task I do get the idea that individuals want to have lots of control , however , I do think there are subtle ways to influence the flow of a thread which arent often employed , number one being simply to monitor it closely rather than create one and then walk away from it. ( but thats just my opinion , so knock yourself out , give it a shot , if you want , Im curious what 'dignified' looks like and if its any different from 'pompous'.) It seems to me that there is a level of remoteness to the PPD's , one has to jump around and search for them , many seem to be 'talking to oneself'. They are 'off the beaten path' isolated , and simply to have them listed differently might encourage the use of that resource. The general forums get most of the action and one basically is speaking to the general TB membership rather than addressing a particular individual to get their input ,,, if you know what I mean., which invites more randomness inherently, dont you think so?

To each- their own space to grace