Stosh

Sounds good, I think Ill have me one of those too!

Im sorry , Where exactly is my misapplication ? I didnt think I got my point from any indoctrination ,, I thought it was my own conclusion. If I read all that correctly you are saying that there is legitamacy to some Taoist conclusions .. Ok fine I absolutely agree with that too! with an exception ... I dont agree that a person should dismiss the laws of physics or nature as BS , 2500 years ago they didnt have chemistry or physics or thermodynamics or quantum physics or techtonics or evolution or even the gravitational constant (and a thousand other things!) They tried to explain rusting- WITHOUT CHEMISTRY They tried to explain biology - without knowing what oxygen was! I credit their efforts the saying goes that 'we only see so far because we stand on the shoulders of giants' But we still see farther! give credit where credit is due.

Im aware there is subjective reality and think I agree completely wholeheartedly and refreshingly that they interact .both real, both somewhat illusory ,, parts of a whole view. Im not taking the polar position of this old debate , the position I hold is inclusive, so the inverse opinion is the exclusive one or muddles the two (.. the one where a person rejects half the truth or confuses the limitations of either.)

If you dont know what is going on , all your 'logical' choices are a crap-shoot If you go with a gut reaction , your choices are really based on past or imagined 'experiences' , (not present facts) , in an emotional context that doesnt necessarily have legs. Ancient chinese saying ,, wait by the river long enough and the bodies of all your enemies will float by. or you could ignore MY advice and run out with no facts in the heat of a moment and- at least-potentially destroy the remainder of your life because your brother was crying and refuses to level with you. (that IS what your are hinting at isnt it ? and you havent just posed a hypothetical , but now that you have made public statement .... Well lets just say you ' havent kept your intents as dark as the night')

I got a catchy label assigned already- Stoshism , I like it You could have Blissdom , I dont think its taken it can be yours for the low low price of 19.99$ But only if you order right now!

Sir ,I said you WERE earnest in trying to find out what was sincere that others dont always care if its sincere , they just want the stroke. I do think you are intentionally taking things backward to display assertiveness because you are uncomfortable in the new situation presented. Clearly you chose not to accept my considerations in the other post Thats your right , but if you consider your behavior ordinarily a point of difficulty for you , (you called it awkwardness -and felt that way before you posted here so it has nothing to do with any invention of mine) Ive offered you a gift regarding that too. You dont want them so we just move on If you change your mind about that you can post me , but Ill tell you,,, Im just not playing that ball game , If you want to play sincere instead and want sincerity back thats cool , If you want me to stroke your ego to get you to take the chip off your shoulder , Im not in the mood. Im not representative of many of the folks here, judge them for themselves.

Theres no law in the universe though that guarantees that benefits go to those who are good, learned, right ,or well intending ,,, the spoils may just as often go to those who are wrong mean confused or misled. (otherwise we all would pass for angels) The wellbeing of individuals very often stands against the good of the whole or it may in fact promote the welbeing of the whole ( or vice versa) So keeping your mouth shut , isnt required in the other case either IMHO. For me- I would say it is often the most expedient thing , though it runs against the grain. This subject is the very sort of thing that I find 'enlightened' about the TTC versus , say, the ten commandments .. its not dictatorial , it points at the rational 'truth' of the situation, lets one decide what path to take , and yet still it mollifies our rough edges if we let it.

It seems the general response to the question is that Lao-Tao advocates the innate 'moral' tendencies of individuals , in the belief that there is common ground there. Moral relativism seems to ignore this commonality and puts an unrequired behavioral requisite on the person considering the morals of another. In the end , You can judge - or not judge , but do understand that there is no objective point of superior validity ( you do still have your subjective point of view though) This stance places responsibility right back on the person doing judging , removing the shield of self righteousness, yet allows one to do what is expedient.

Yes it has, you just dont accept how pervasive it is . The thing which ' amuses you' , you find it condescending too, and thats a shame , since I tried to phrase it acceptingly of the old ideas. You dont see the confusion which surronds the 5 elements plan? that folks have it backwards or spiralling in circles? If you come to look at those older ideas with todays view, you might call wood organic materials , fire kinetic energy , water fluid dynamics and yin yang as thermodynamics,,, or suchlike. But the general trend I see by many is rather a defiance or escapism "SCIENCE IS BAD FALSE blah blah blah" and they ignore that they type the stuff on a computer which is a product of the scientific age. All science ever was , was a system to determine that which is objectively true, and if science is bad then one considers an understanding belief in the objective truth to be bad as well... but to say that the most primitive state of knowlege is as developed as the most progressed ...isnt sound. You may find it more intuitive , the old stuff , and maybe it has some angles on the state of the real world that western science community didnt pursue , BUT like I said, science itself is just an applied methodology. But Ive been over all this once before , and said my two pence about it.

Since no one else responded to your introductory post I thought I would do you the respect of a response rather than have you hanging out there on a limb . From time to time I go through and post quick responses to the intro posts which have been looked at and ignored for some reason or other. I was joking with you , and yes it could be taken as rude if thats your propensity , you could have also chosen to not take it so. I figure the experiment was a success , you found out that people respond to the vibes you put out, and same for me. Theres an additional few tidbits to glean though...You weighted the response negatively although you KNEW it could be taken as a joke, AND I put a smiley face AND I put a Namaste AND I responded to you although everyone else ignored you. AND you started out with a TEST for us-me no I dont always be sweet , thats true , but then being sweet is a treacherous thing it leaves one wondering whether its sincere or not and some may not care whether its sincere , they solace themselves with the appearance of being earnest rather than try to find out if it is earnest You wanted to know. What do you think now? Is my sincerity refreshing , or is not what you wanted ? And there you have many lessons already to pass-on or consider. Have a nice weekend either way Stosh

Now you can ,and should

Stay at the mercy of your own interpretations and there will be no one to blame How do you think THEY came to conclusions

Two rabbits go into the woods six years later how many rabbits come out of the woods ? Theres no way to know, because ALL the pertinant parameters need to be described for math to work out an answer. A bright person can make assumptions, and then do the math.. but its a castle of cards. There are those who wont admit it, because they consider themselves the best at what they do , and so theres no one to challenge them ( that is in the group because the group shares a common interest in promoting that they are the best at what they do.) Ex. Its just fact that you cant draw a graph of probability from a single data point Do folks still predict the liklihood of life on other planets ? sure they do. The brightest scientist I know , restricts his speculations , and just says that which he knows to the best of his knowlege is factually true. Sometimes the subject is simple and his answer is simple. But he is willing to say he has no data and so no opinion to venture ,if he has no data. Back in the old days mathematicians knew that they were modelling the math equations to fit the reality they could observe, and this would allow them to quantify relationships to make predictions about similar situations. But it seems now that the fetters are loose and they can fly off in a flight of imagination so long as they have some ultracomplicated equation to base conclusions on. When they can show how universes bump into one another and create new ones or that they spring from nothingness expanding ,,without an equation well then ,I would say they might be onto something extraordinary.

Only the first noble glimmerings of rational folks trying to understand ,categorize the material world ....proto science , and the only blameable flaw is ignoring 2500 years of progress since then.

I dont think all of our motivations and associations are present in our 'aware perspective' That huge databank operates on its own , tosses us out final products , like a calculator which does its thing ,and spits out a result. The hotness value of the lady gets calculated but when you assess coldly and apart from automatic processing the assigned meaning isnt there. Maybe she really isnt all that hot to you , but ,you can still assess whether others would think so. Id agree , it can seem rather odd that when looking coldly at proportions etc ... all of a sudden you dont really know WHAT THE HECK SHE LOOKS LIKE! I think we are primed to answer what I call the 'ultimate question', which is , "What do I do now?" That processing factory we dont really know well , sends us directives , to that end. Its just as much part of us as the part of us that observes subjectively , and in normal perspective the two minds blend ,,but its possible to partition them. The question is whether thats an expedient thing to do or not. Ifg a person was tortured by the dictates of their unconscious mind , it may behoove them to try to pry the two minds apart , whereas in a person at peace , thee two minds may have been working together nicely and long enough , that there is no reason to divide them.

A dude once said to me, tongue in cheek... 'Boy, am I glad I thought that about THAT guy!'

Unsubstantiated

Interesting subject matter, characters,and style , all laid out at a good pace. I liked your writing quite a lot.. its really well done. I guess the moniker fits you well. Stosh

If CT is a 'beginner' then I am several lifetimes back But I would still kibbitz the idea that meditating is going to change your attitude make you behave gentler ,, I have reservations on that The eightfold PATH (right speech right intention and so forth) does seem like a thing which would force a person to deal with their unhelpful paradigms (as regards daily life ,) whilst a meditation program might provide a lift underneath . The reason why I say this is that in meditation as folks have described to me , they tend to allow the regular and ideas pass on , just show up and wander off back from whence they came but then when not in meditation , these kinds of ideas , like where are my keys? and I which Romney would just .....! are the ones one has to deal with. They are now front and center.. whilst the underlying aspect of ones existance is on the backburner. Stosh

Ok , the test is as objective as one can hope for ,but its determining that which is expedient for the individual or maybe even a group but that just refers the problem up one level What is the thing to judge that the welfare of an individual has importance or value ? For Theists there is a God at the top of the ladder to say what is "GOOD" to have be. Im not a theist and so there is no objective-final determinator of what is justified or good there is only me the individual deciding that my life should be long or pleasant or do something long run.( which is subjective again) Give it a moment to just consider it from my perspective , and youll get why I feel the way I do on the subject , once that is over just go back to your own perspective -which is different. Im going home in a few minutes , have a nice weekend. Stosh

Be merry!

Half of love is luck ,( to want it to be and to have it happen) and the other half is work ( that yall want it to be and are willing to make it be). JMO Stosh

I could try again to do better and would be happy to If you wanted that but really its not an important thing to know unless you paint or do photography etc. (which I do) Stosh

Im not disagreeing with that basically speaking but I want to say that the word 'selfish' itself implies a judgement as to the appropriateness of ones behavior I did read the redirect but I still feel it is a wordplay the judgement implied can be spun as being Good Bad or Normal or Natural to endorse a behavior pattern one way or the other...and as such , I dont see why it is informative. The short view to me is that there is no objective position to either villify or justify behaviors. Stosh

(all life is suffering and then you die ,over and over and over till you just want it to end) ;0