Stosh

Revenge is sweet they say, and sweeter still when you can justify your own aggression , by suggesting that you are just helping someone else find a path to recuperation. Kind of like the inquisition , where they would torture people with the intent of 'showing them to the light of the savior'. Those who told me to sit down and shut up are just trying to dominate the argument themselves , but with themselves at the top of the heap. They have no moral standing to push me into line as they see fit, and they are quite likely to hear me tell em to 'Make me'. I feel I am right because I am right. That should just be taken as a 'given' , a problem only exists in that they are wrong , and leaving it to them to flip sides ,over to being right, is already not going to happen , since they are going to stubbornly stick to the wrong view. Why not just force the opinion down their throat ? I have seen this work , especially when an element of fear is involved. Walking away with the disagreement standing , is just asking for trouble down the line.

Good response Rene, you saved me from delivering the next missive in line .

Harmony , is it an eye for an eye? Is meditation inspired yin balancing yang , when I dominate a conversation , others must submit? I saw a guy on TV , he meditated 14 yrs in a dark cave on a mountain , to become enlightened,, which means , he was not enlightened at thirteen years 364 days, what good is fifteen minutes of staring at ones eyelids , when one opens these same eyes and goes right back to the same gut reactions of the hour before? I argued Chuang did not think much of the process, but W indicated its a settled matter , obviously , and then indicates he still has an open mind about it. How can one find harmony with such a one who denies his own attitudes? likewise H wished to challenge my point and yet did not want to spend the time to present even one example from the book , on how Lz was 'proven' to be a rewrite of Gz? Frankly its exasperating , and I have no idea how to harmonize with that.

My post was a long time ago , it revived the thread I suppose. But whether that is it or not , the contentious part is not mine , shots across the bow are coming from several others , including you! I was quietly minding my own business.,, but thats far too sophisticated a response right? I am supposed to, If I would suit you , rudely ignore people who converse with me ,or about my post, so that , whether a challenge was correct or false , you only have one half of an argument to deal with. Sorry , I always trend to attend to those who address me out of my own , courtesy and respect, and willingness to engage with them, not changing anytime soon boobala. If you think ignoring everyone or retreating has so much virtue , you should be doing that ,and not attack me.

Honestly no , IQ doesn't answer certain things , its just a speed rating. I have created , created plenty and shared it . Over 7000 posts of my own thought, poetry prose and photos. But I do recognize that what I have supplied doesn't have much demand. Because that which would be most helpful to absorb , is that which has been rejected- for some reason or other -to begin with.

I think I agree heartily with that and you can answer for me on this, since it looks nicer.

That's your prerogative, but that's what would be the better part of talking about the stuff. If Lz is just a re-write of Gz , well,, thats a big enchilada!

Reading a book , doesn't put one in a position to challenge what the author is saying or presuming , telling me to read a book you read , puts me in that same position, and I am not going to do that. The issue is simple enough not to require a book to prove. If the author made connections that he feels confirms that Lao parrots Gz , a conversation could include one of those comments. That would be the informative part of the conversation , wouldn't it? If I have rebuttals for the comments you chose , then , rebuttal might be valid. We don't know yet. but This possible validity is not something everyone might want to entertain, and if that's the case, then there is not actually a conversation happening , to get to the truth of the matter ,,, what is going on is , the defense of a wrong book.

I don't need to , I already understand that a person might be influenced by people before them , but one cant assume that we are in lock step with those folks , just as a presumption, since , for example , we don't go by Copernicus' theory of the solar system. What youve done is bow out , point at some other guy ( book) and say to me , well argue with them .. and so, its my presumption that is what I have already been doing, with you as proxy . You read them , and now parrot the ideas back at me. Sorry that's harsh' but I don't care for that abrupt cut-off in a conversation with a person I like , which would be you .

Youre still making a presumption that Lao was of the tradition of Gz , right? You have to Show that their opinions are the same first, you cant presume that they have the same outlook ,,,, they were understood even back then, to be of different schools of thought. The pope believes in god , I dont ,, we both have been exposed to the teachings of Peter, but we aint on the same page. Even if teachings that look like Gz and Lz both end up in the Neiye, you still have to discern if the teachings are pristine. Anybody could write a dao , same as they can write a memoir , there's no logic to saying that my dao , my theory of how the world works , is the same as the popes. We are of different schools of thought . Me atheist , him Christian , and that will affect every aspect of how the texts we write should be understood. By the way , Nice to see you posting again.

I dont think he wrote the Neiye. Besides, we Tbums dont agree on , much desipite all living in the same period. So its a faulty supposition to figure Lz must agree with Gz . Remember that there were different schools acknowleged in those days ,by Them. And the point still stands , He never read the document. Right?

A Good plan ,, unless you do it much , and you find out the messengers almost always take it personally.

The evidence points in that direction, I have 3 positive assertions that they do not , the box, the cabinet ,and my wallet. If one does draw a graph of probability on the existence of them things, its a flat line out to infinity . They do not exist, is the correct assertion, based on the evidence we have - they are not here. Some day , should someone find contrary evidence , then it can be taken into account, until then ... They have no proof whatsoever, that those things exist , and so this is a silly assertion to make. It is thus proven as a logical conclusion, they do Not exist. Say you wanted to prove there were no blue oranges , you would check any oranges you knew of , and see none of them were blue, the logical conclusion is that oranges are never blue.. there are no blue oranges. It is just not logical to conclude that things exist ,when one has no evidence, nor that they probably exist , nor that they assertively exist , albeit, very improbably. The burden of proof , upon the person making the assertion of the existence of the thing, is the same as on the one asserting it does not exist,, the difference is just that I can show that one is not here., they have to show one IS somewhere.

This translation presents the skull exhibiting its opinions in a dream of Chuang's. As usual , the final lines may be taken in either vein , as rhetorical ,, that the skull thinks its both logical and preferable to sit and do nothing- as a dead skull. Or , as an admission ,that if there was a way to get living again ,the skull would choose fleshly life,, with its ups and downs, ,,whether its logical to do that or not.

To have SOME proof ,is logically , a more supportable argument , than to have NO proof whatsoever. I have, but to, open an empty cabinet , cardboard box, or wallet , to have some indication that the space-alien doesn't exist. To prove it does , you need to 'pony up' -one space alien.

Ooh , I know that one ! Turn the computer off , and turn it back on again

I submit that the word choice, natural, may imply different things in variable context, and so , I consider it prudent to divine what it may be presumed to mean , by considering the behavior of things not human. Animals regardless of their life success ,invariably attempt to promote their own welfare, whether that is entirely reflexive,or if it has a component of learning based on the interplay of environment on individual propensity. Humans have propensities ,but are not often hard wired in behavior. So for humans, I suggest that the natural things are to use intellect and emotion in the pursuit of self promotion .

Any intelligent person should understand that the IQ graph is a bogus representation of a undefined qualitative state, For instance, I don't even fit on it. But since folks are susceptible to flattery , ,,, they who are told a big number , will ignore all the problems with IQ tests , all the inaccuracies, and all the unfair assumptions ....... which proves !!! , that high IQ does not! in fact , test for correct conclusions or responsible consideration ! ., it tests for the speed at which one will jump to flattering conclusions about themselves ,and throw away rational and cautionary considerations.

Just because , the path is there doesn't mean one must use it. The path provides a justification for being willing to threaten the welfare of pedestrians. A bicyclist moving at speed is taking up far more space than a meandering pedestrian, he is claiming a large amount of space before he even gets to it. Ride the bike where its not a threat to the people around you, drop the self righteous judgement that one has the right to the path , and be alright with the oblivious self-absorption they show, and , which you probably manifest yourself , like say ,, when riding your bike ,,,, simple as that. Buying into the idea that you are justified and so everyone else is wrong , puts you at odds with the greater portion of humanity, you make yourself unsatisfied with the rest of us , since we do not fit your expectations , and Why? because some schmuck decided that bicycle paths should intersect with places where pedestrians are. To be safe and in control , the cyclist needs to get off the bike , and walk with it , to the point where there are no pedestrians , before remounting. But what you have are helmeted cyclists who wish to hurtle carelessly out of control , at twenty miles an hour , round and round in circles. Get out of my way ! Get out of my way , you silly cows! cant you see I am listening to the radio while riding here!

Willow symbolizes either humility , or recovery from hard times, (like at a funeral where the branches may be included or carried. ) in this venue. To be in Kunlun - extending from the center of the earth to the heavens , (a fantasy situation) , its possible that the Nuncles in the clip ,were actually deceased - ghosts , looking at the remains of their flesh being recycled by nature. Nuncle slippery does indeed resent the loss of his flesh , but knows he shouldnt, so he is 'backsliding' a bit , having a bit of resentment rather than humility. Very understandable. Nuncle Scattered , has made a more thorough break, more mature , and also understandable, and Slippery knows it. ( the flip side , is that it is slippery who is accepting of the circumstances being revealed , and is therefore recovering -like the willow ,, and its scattered who is thinking there is resentment because he isn't as cohesive on the idea of rebirth like that. Same message though )

I expect no less.

Evasive Balderdash , another one bites the dust.

Ok, but I was aiming most at the OP.

As you see it ,, 1 If one makes a claim about yin -yang , and I am convinced , is that yin ? ,, 2 If I am opposed , is that yang ? 3 if I do nothing , but stand opposed , is that yang or yin? 4 If I already agree , is that yang or yin ? 5 If I agree and say so , is that yin or yang?

I think the word comes from an alternate pronunciation of chan, L. Its like saying you somehow defeated existence because you took the chain of logic past its rational terminus. Existence didn't end , there was nothing to defeat, nor a way to try.