Stosh

oops

It seems they are discussing feasible - advantageous paradigms from various perspectives to me and just as Marblehead said, it seems to be an umbrella concept they can all fit under despite their differences. Please continue I apologize for butting that in. Stosh

Excellent idea Very appropriate! Stosh

"The biggest differences between the TTC and The Chuang Tzu are regarding government and metaphysics. The root philosophy remains constant between the two books. " Just to be explicit could you say what that root is in your opinion? Stosh

“When we Do assert either action or nonaction, this or that, being or nonbeing, we are bound to the consequences of either.” Stosh

The question of appropriateness is best answered by asking the question if the pets like having the Taoist. Stosh

Oh I misunderstood , I get it now. Stosh

Sorry , I dont get your meaning in that post. Its just that darn word nature which is so ambiguous Its like this big ol "catch all" But If thats your fav phrasing ... Ill just walk away not knowing what the meaning was to you. Stosh

Make good decisions. Stosh

I am just wondering how that statement would read if the word 'nature' and its variations were dropped from the english lexicon. Any Ideas? Stosh

Ok , Stosh

I thought the nose was a reference for oneself such as when points a finger at ones chest. Stosh

:lol: Theres nothing you should know that you don't. Stosh

I think the tzujan that marblehead referrs to is another 'romanization' pinyin term you may have seen as 'ziran'. Folks put an inordinate amount of attention to the terms meanings because they dont translate directly well to english. No, I dont think its always critical to agree on a certain term to be in agreement about the basic gist of a conversation ,( even folks using the same term can mean it differently they just dont see the conflict of opinion as easy) but using different terms can indicate actual significant differences in connotation. Yes, I think the paradigms we are raised with predispose us to needing common terminology to indicate agreement. Sure, folks who are on the same page dont need to discuss some things but I hesitate to make the blanket assumption that easterners are on the same page as one another, or that they are more likely to not be on the same page as one of us westerners, regular life just has too many similarities between cultures. When I was in Thailand I was surprised at just how similar folks were on the other side of the globe once you get past superficialities. But I was struck by the relatively loud vigor of american habits (denoting my people) on my return. Lots of folks here in the states have beliefs about ghosts and angels and gods and bigfoots ,auras and psychic abilites, thats no different here from there. The way I see it faces and languages differ, but under the skin and in the mind not much difference is there at all. "Would socialization have to be blunted on one side too then?" Well , as I see it , there are social messages which we incorporate into a superego (which can be both positive or negative in influence) This aspect of ourselves should be revisited and investigated as we mature into adults, rather than accept the skewed perceptions we got as kids as being valid beyond suspicion. Updated rather than fought. I dont know what naturalistically backwards means, but there are trade-offs society has made , makes and will make , and sometimes they arent always wise in the long run. I dont want anyone messing around with my dreams or in my head , I like that divide , there are far too many folks who would be disadvantageous to have traipsing around in there. Stosh

Good and bad are subjective opinions foods offer you things you need ,or things you dont need. for your question, coffee is very high in antioxidents one of the highest levels in any food regularly consumed it is said to be good for the liver, so I am confirming the rumor ( but I havent done any testing at all to see if its actually true) Stosh

I think you are in complete accord with the Classical ones.My personal opinion of socialization is that its a "double edged sword"that should best be blunted on one side and sharpened on the other because we cant really live on instinct alone , and although the exact messages of socialization are arbitrary to a large extent, it is also innate that there be socialization of us of some type (and that there are normal-expectable messages destined to be socialized regarding , such as not to go on murderous rampages) Stosh

Great. Now we just need a publicist !Stosh

Gatito When I gave my answers about the smallest particle You said No That means your opinion was that I was not correct. Thats participating in the dialog of the subject and indicates a degree of interest, at least for telling me I'm wrong. Ive said what I want to about the rest of it I guess you have too. Your brief responses indicate I am expending too much effort at communication here. Stosh

<p> Doing things that are self destructive and make our lives more unhappy or difficult,, seems like a definition of 'unnatural' that could apply to anyone , all circumstances ,and cultures , for both groups and individuals, in a city or in the woods. Even for folks who value moderation. Stosh

You put your finger on the precise issue that much of the discussion revolves around, just " what is a better word?"The only way to really get at that problem is to see what words fit best in describing reasonable scenarios , words that have the ring of wisdom in ANY culture ,to ground them. Like in Jurassic Park where the scientists use frog DNA to splice fragments of Dino DNA together. :)Acting without imposing personal ambition , could fit , taking the path of least conflict could fit. But whatever you choose there will always be those who prefer to stick to nonsensical and uninformative terminology just because they feel it is technically more accurate, (misunderstanding that the subjective understanding of the terms negates the possibility of rendering a true "correct" interp.)Knowlege of no words , hmmm, direct-experience based understanding sans the distortions of socialization?Stosh

Gatito Did you not start with the Question of what the smallest particle in the universe was? (by reference to the article) In order to answer that question the frame of reference is required regarding the span of 'reality'. The very clear question I already posed was what your opinion was regarding what reality was. It is seeming that it is not a question which you are interested in answering. Since you are not interested in answering the neccesary query , the question is rendered impossible to answer.. therefore it is a trick question without doubt. As far as the 'I think therefore I am' scenario, which is fundamental to western philosopy It incorporates the conclusion that since something is thinking, it must be ME that is thinking it. This is debatable, since one can see there is another possibility, the Tao is the thing that can be doing 'experiencing' and it is a subset of the Tao that erroneously has the illusion of an individual 'I' that is thinking...(that would be me or you or marblehead ). So if meditating - wu wei etc is going to get one in touch with the Tao, the process would be removing the illusion of the individual self , and resolve one back to the primordial experiencing of the uncluttered tao. If a person sticks to the 'I think therefore I am' scenario, then one could only conclude that when they stopped thinking there would be nothing of themselves left not even awareness, it would then be self destructive rather than fulfilling to meditate and act wu wei or Zazen etc. No you dont have to pick a frame of reference It just didnt seem like a subject one would be uncomfortable about Thats all. Stosh

Im not saying you are trying to convert me, I see nothing at all of the type in your posts there. I am saying ,you need to pick what frame of reference you believe is true. So that you may be understood. Stosh

Well whos definition of real are you going by? That I believe my mind exists is only verifiable conclusively to me. The same goes for you. Things one can prove to others are objectively real things known really only to ourselves is subjectively real We went over that and we have opposite takes on it. I see both situations as real but different realms You said that the observable material world couldnt be proven as being real ( not only you but many folks agree to that) Unless I misunderstood your point about personal observation and verification ... which is possible. Just pick one and we will see how it falls out,, 1) the material world is real 2) the subjective world in your head is real 3)they are both of equal validity 4)neither are of validity ,equally Stosh

If the axioms are subjective as in philo-spiritual subjects they cannot be truly declared false. And yes you did too say that the material objective world wasnt real! Stosh