Stosh

Stosh You said it yourself,"That is why people say that: "if there is Yin, then there is Yang and vice versa." Nothing can make them apart." You slipped in the snow ! I cant wait to see how you wiggle out of that! Stosh

Id say that was a rational way to look at it but I havent been told yet how this exceeds or is superior to the scientific view , the scientific view encompasses all that you have said there. Folks have told me a few times that I am not being flexible I see it that it is not me being inflexible I see it that while my view already embraces the views held by y'all and is yet broader encompassing I dont know how to say this more gently so Ill just say it as is,, It is y'all who are being less flexible than I. REALLY! Stosh

Ohhh you are getting slick The water drops penetrate the rock because it is corrosive it will even etch glass sitting still. The water thing is mostly metaphor for human endeavor isnt it? Folks live and die and may never accomplish what they started. According to the texts, What is it in the nature of rocks for them to do? I figured it was to remain , be heavy , and hard., so if the rock gets to continue to follow its nature all it has to do is remain. My body intervenes between the light and the shadow, they never meet where they are created and darkness is where there is no light and light is where there is no darkness. They never get together. Stosh

Three Taoists went into a bears cave The first one said "I dont exist" The Bear ate him The second said "we are one in all things" The bear ate him Third one said " I am like water" And ran out.

You said this originally,, "This topic is a good one and it was mixed up with a Roman Catholic thread." So I was participating and was giving all the opportunity I could think of for you for you to augment your assertions with some kind of example underlining it for consideration. Yes I do already have opinions but that doesnt mean that they couldnt be swayed. They just arent swayed with zero rationale , I am giving my rationale for all the points I am holding to. But no, You dont have to persist in trying to benefit me with your views, (thats your attempted gift to me)its up to you. Stosh

ChiDragon The point Laot Tze wanted to make was that: 5. The weak vanquishes the strong. 6. The softness vanquishes the hardness. Stosh If the weak vanquishes the strong what sense at all does it make to call something strong? if a person smashes a rock with a harder rock how, in this situation , did the soft rock overcome the hard rock? Did he make his point....??? I think he did. Even you'd said so yourself. "Yes water can wear down a stone but when the water runs out the stone remains" How is what I said an example illustating your point? Is it not clear that I am literally saying that the other side of the coin has plenty enough validty as well? One may outlast the other,thats not biased, its that simple Your visualization of the constant river , replenished by rain , is only a segment of the entirety of rock and water interactions. And so it is only a cherrypicked example. When the earths core solidifies and the magnetic field goes away and the planet is left at the mercy of the solar wind , what is going to remain is a dried out barren ball of rock in space like the moon. PS... The Yi Jing had never called Yin-Yang are forces. By observation, Yang is the sunlight on the south side of the hill; and Yin is the shadow on the north side of the hill. Therefore, the shadow always stays with the light which cannot be separated from each other. That is why people say that: "if there is Yin, then there is Yang and vice versa." Nothing can make them apart. It is as equally reasonable or unreasonable to say that the two are never together , as it is to say they are never apart When an analogy was made, just be sure that both Yin-Yang are present in the analogy. Otherwise, it will not hold water....!!! Ok , but I dont see where I diverged from that,( if you mean it half serious.) Stosh

Ohh, I get your humor now But I think it is rather common that folks would take it as a true thing for instance Everybody dies ... therefore there is cessation of activity Yin "won" or thermodynamics-wise, events follow an energy gradient to the situation of greatest entropy (This is the thingie I was pushing folks to think of.) But .. Living forces tap the flow of energy toward entropy and use it to multipy themselves there is an inherent energy loss of about 25 percent) EX ( you eat food , waste some energy converting to ATP bonds , but you go on and make kids or do things) Life defies conventional entropy Whereas a watch (unliving) just winds down with the gradient. Big Tao not biased ? ??? How could it be biased if your yin could be my Yang? I see them as diametric polarities connected by a continuum too. IChing may call them forces ,but terminology is difficult on its own ,how would you describe gravity effects before gravitational theory was concocted ?? I dont know HOW I would explain why things go "down". But I might say there was a FORCE doing it. Science now understands gravity to be an effect of the warpage of space time Is that still a force ?? I wouldnt call it such except its a lot easier just to continue to use the terminology which has proven functional for several hundred years. Quantum physics is very young and can see scepticism about it as very reasonable .. At the same time ,,its the world of the super small so small its irrelevant,,,, until they make semiconductor chips which bring the effects up to the scale of our world.. I see as a subject for the experts in it to work with. Thats their shtick. Stosh

This where I diverge from the traditional view but only because it is one sided and there is a missing half Yes water can wear down a stone but when the water runs out the stone remains Circumstance decides whether it is better to be big or small to be fast or slow to be yielding or unyeilding , light or dark etc My evidence, ?,, Look at any species of animal, the group conforms to a basic format There are optimal sizes and characters depending on the situation. Be too big and you cant keep yourself fed Be to small and you cant keep yourself fed. Im not challenging what the words you looked at say I am challenging the idea that the bias is the Taos Human beings may function more cooperatively-effectively as a placid herd, rather than solo hunters , but The big Tao doesnt bias for that. Stosh

I think I get what you mean. When I was initially looking into the subject I read some of the TTC it was a confusing translation, and since I have a dislike of even the remotest scent of magical connotation ( having serious resentment left over from catholocism and the folks purveying it) I got to reading what other folks had to say about it from philosophical and historical point of view, and then went back and read more, ( and other stuff like the Art of war..) What I came away with was ,a respect for what all these dudes were trying to DO, ( set up a civilized code of conduct that satisfied the needs of the folks who would be following it , in light of what was really just plain true!) The different daos of Confucious, Shen, Lao,Chuang, Tsun, etc. Have aspects in common and also very significant differences. Shen was a bit depressing , but I didnt read much on it Lao and Chuang , personal, but vague and confusing Confucious , political and too tradition based Tsun tsu ,conflit based and impersonal( but beautifully constructed writing) So anyway , maybe Twinner is right in calling my beliefs "Stoshism" But I still FEEL like part of the family. Have a nice weekend guys Stosh

Yeah, I see the difficulty with using my inexpert opinion do decide whether the expert is right-good. The same problem pops up all the time actually in all sorts of scenarios is this a good car mechanic, product , service , etc. Who should one believe? We all know folks have their own agendas. We all know other folks can be wronger than ourselves! I once went to home depot to get some fertilizer for the lawn I asked the dude there what would be a good one he sold me a high nitrogen fertilizer. I put it on the lawn and in a week the grass was a foot and a half high! and golden yellow ! , it looked like the high plains ! I was expecting bison to roam through at any moment. I was ticked off , not really at the dude, I was ticked off at myself for being lazy I had tried to shift the responsibility onto someone who didnt give a hoot. There is another issue in regards to believing that folks know things because they are following a tradition When folks walk in one anothers footsteps to be included with the "IN" crowd.... When the first dude steps in a pile of crap by accident everyone else does too And they all keep their mouth shut about it! Stosh

If it was in outer space there would be no up and no down either My challenge was that you could demonstrate whatever it was that yin and yang theory had over modern science If you want to include air resistance and friction with the ground go right ahead I figure the quantification value of coefficients is more in the realm of science But you can draw up your own scenario for me to puzzle over Im willing to go along with an alternate plan but If you are just going to say you are stumped and that there is no way that you can demonstrate even in theory! regarding the advantage you attest to for yin yang and the elements I dont consider it fair play to continue to not concede the point thoroughly but .. Sunshine was doing pretty good there (I still think science has him-her stumped with quantitative assessments.. but) dont give up so easy ! there's all the element theory and all that stuff that Chidragon posted FIND SOMETHING Stosh

He might have , but since winning and losing are subjective illusions and below the consideration of a sage ... It wouldnt be the best quote to coin Besides that I was under the impression yin or yang never gets to hold sway indefinitely Non 'Laoists' like me might say The sun shines equally on the wicked and the just it has no bias, so you are in error about the dominance of yin Imo Stosh

As some say, the 'devil is in the details' I believe there is pedigree to versions of the texts Right now I am thinking that the original authors whoever they may have been, whether individual authors per text or multiple authors per text 1 wrote in figurative language liable to misinterpretation 2 actually intended that misinterpretation could be likely ! 3 may have had multiple angles on wu wei themselves. The taoist tradition hit a bottleneck around the period in which Confucianism flourished , (I forget the years but they are debatable anyway) And emerged as neo daoism which then had a buddhist flavor ( I wasnt actually there ..I just read that) which had a strongly Laoist bias that hadnt been there earlier SO.. Frankly , and as I see it Logically .. I will never be able to say who got it 'right'and who gets it wrong unless I see the meaning myself and verify the way it plays out in practice. I can go on with further explanation and analogy but I figure you can just enquire further about what I didnt successfully say clearly I hope my angle is clear enough I believe absolutely no one, based on what group they associate with sangha, church ,temple tradition ,school diploma reputation ,culture or even experience ... but if what they say makes sense... if what they say resonates true with my personal experience... them I deem credible. Stosh

Im familiar enough with that stuff which is why I called it 'protoscience' Im at a loss as to where to go with that though. I figure it is accurate as historical fact but I dont see what quality it has to spur debate,, maybe someone else has curiosity about further description or explanation So I yield the floor for that. Stosh

Twinner, I give up on trying to discuss anything with you no matter what I say you take it as hostile and make insinuations and statements to try the patience of anyone . Im not surprised you ended up in a fistfight at all. And I am becoming more and more convinced you provoked it because you wanted to be violent. You should be ashamed not only for starting the fight but lying to everyone here that you were some sort of innocent. Is violence justified ! Yes you deserve a spanking! I think that hits on the point of the thread! Stosh

CD,, My computer locked up when I went to access that tin yang thing So what is the fundamental you want approached first? Aseeker I agree , you wold pick whoever you think would get the job done best The physics students may also be big dudes on the football squad and make the job easy The 'experienced' dropouts might not make safe decisions and get someone killed or vice versa. But I think the point that was trying to be made was that book smarts -while is generally true helpful etc the narrow experience derived understanding of piano moving may be the knowlege required to get the job done. AGAIN I SAID How do you think, considering yin and yang as 'forces' sheds light on objective reality? the response I'd answer yin yan theory and even more so 5 element theory is an ideal way to view the world. It allows the mind to come up with real world solutions to real world problems. Its a way of strategic thinking that works well. It's not be chemically correct, but if studied gives a dynamic way of looking at and solving problems. and ever since then I have been trying to get someone to lay a foundation for the assertions. maybe we just need to restart the thread anew. Stosh

I havent had the chance to look more thoroughly at that stuff yet but I am completely sure that it shouldnt be takne to mean that all science is bogus Like I said , it is an idea that is taken into realms where it shouldnt be applied. Back in a college microbiology class I was required to grow stain and classify a bacterial culture I calculated the expected growth curve and went back a day or so later when the numbers were conducive to the staining counting and description process. Then ..I observed the colonies calculated the numbers and growth, killed and stained them etc. The moral of this little story is the data was normal , the colony growth was as predicted' I completed the task of verifying what had been done by others before me etc. But in observing the microbes ,,(that is , killing staining counting describing etc..) I was affecting the system, but that didnt make the data bogus. So certainly ,there may be an underlying subatomic level of uncertainty about particles of mass but it doesnt make a hill of beans difference in even microbiology. And just as certainly it doesnt suggest any advantage of yin yang and the 5 elements over science. Stosh

Zerostao,, I hadnt noticed the post was gone. But any way, I am just trying to hold my end up in this thread which several folks seem to think is a good subject Lets just get back to nuts and bolts. Ive said, and still say, that yin and yang are not forces in the objective frame of reference. In physics .. There is gravity , electo-magnetsim, the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force. thats it. We live in the 'gravity pertinant' or 'gererally relativistic' frame of reference. There is also a quantum frame of reference where gravity is negligible and the nuclear forces become significant. But discussing modern physics doesnt address the point of the thread! Stosh

The roots of Taoism go back beyond Lao Tzu SO the TTC cant really be said to define it in total. The established "churches" of Laoist taoism either used the texts exclusively ,or in part, but either way they had to interpret documentation to establish a traditional understanding Since you can read the stuff in the original as well You are just as valid as a source of tradition as they were! Im thinking the original actual texts were lost therefore all subsequent writings are interpretations and therefore subject to error and bias So..One would have to look at the spiritual value to determine validity therefore folks such as I or marblehead can also- may be legitimate followers of the original intents better than some dude in a monestary. I personally dont think that it was really aimed at rulers at all. Its figurative speech IMO Simply put, plenty of folks who have gone before me may never have gotten it right at all. You can call yourself to be part of the narrower definition , thats true - fair. But prove you guys got it right? I dont think so, theres plenty of room for dispute. The question anyone should ask themselves is if they are living well or better according to what they have learned from texts or traditions ,, and if the answer is yes You should just include yourself as part of the family regardless of the pedigree. Stosh

Steve your quote And since the early part of the 20th century it has acknowledged the FACT that the system is never (can never be) independent of the observer. Id like to see what the originator said , who was it ? or where is the rest of it. PS Why would daoist information gatherers be exempt from that flaw? Stosh

The heisenberg uncertainty principle doesnt say that things cant be known with reasonable certainty ,in an objective fashion What it describes is a difficulty in measuring the multiple properties of atomic particles at the same time because you interfere while taking the measurement. Folks sometimes take it to mean that you interfere with anything being knowably true because , if you measured it ,it would change. which is just plain untrue. Looking up to see if it is going to rain doesnt realistically affect its probability to any significant degree any more than if I picked up an umbrella instead. Stosh

Ill try to address everyones points really fast and get back on track zerostao The sidestepping I am referring to is that respondants keep affirming what they want believed but arent suppllying an actual answer or example of what they are describing I offered to respond to someone elses example or scenario since no one described my scenario by principles of yin or yang or elements. But I was ignored and I was asked if I read someone elses thread. I work for a living and was letting you know I had to break off, It was just common courtesy which you equated to the evasion I was talking about Cmon gimme a break! Taoism didnt believe in science? Agreed, they werent using scientific method. I still credit them with trying to find the fundamental basis for social harmony , personal happiness, and the workings of the objective world without just saying humanlike gods and fairies were running the show. I think it was Chuang Tzu who said this Who shall I employ as arbiter between us? If I employ some one who takes your view, he will side with you. How can such a one arbitrate between us? If I employ some one who takes my view, he will side with me. How can such a one arbitrate between us? And if I employ some one who either differs from or agrees with both of us, he will be equally unable to decide between us. Therefore, since you and I and another cannot decide, must we not wait for still others? and I think it applies to why science uses the methodology it does it is attemtpting to find an arbiter of what is true objectively and employs the whole community and it employs logical reasoning to get to a dependable answer Science is a slow way to learn and come to conclusions until a sturdy broad foundation is established and it will always require inspiration and insight to form hypothesis, but inspiration-intuition without an anchor is just flight of fancy. Then again Yin and Yang and Taoism dont monopolize any ownership of insight and intuition. I had originally said that yin and yang are not forces. Im not clear at what joeblast is getting at. Steve I dont think you sound preachy and I dont disagree significantly with the points you made as I read them to be meant But again .. What do you think you get from considering Yin and Yang as forces What makes you think they are forces since science doesnt list them How is it better than modern non-taoist science. Stosh

I reckon I have no Idea what Taomeows thread was and that we were investigating the ideas in thelerners thread here. I also reckon you are still sidestepping the point I was making and I have looked into yin yang theory enough to know that it is proto-science. How much have you looked into whether it makes sense at all to call yin and yang forces? (lunch is over I have to get back to work ,bye) Stosh

I see plenty of folks making assertions but no one is providing a 'fer instance' Its like watching politicians sidestep an issue. I didnt equate Taoism with a high school dropout relative to the 'college physics student' of Science. Though it might be apt analogy, Besides it isnt at all clear from that analogy what this yin yang advantage is supposed to be experience over understanding? Experience leads to understanding but ignorance isnt an advantage. Whether the college student is ignorant of what was required to move the piano or if the dropout is ignorant of the forces involved. ,I was told that yin yang theory had some virtues which science lacks, that it was someway better. And since everyone ,so far, has failed to describe even the super simple system I provided ,in terms of yin and yang. or address the issues I pointed out for redress... I dont think that any of yall have really given your own system a fair shake and certainly havent given my point one. You should provide a scenario now , to display your yin yang proto-science advantage over modern science. Since you failed at mine. Stosh

I dont think I know this story. . unless its the thing about burning wood turning to fire making ash etc Go on.. Stosh