Stosh

Agreeing with Dawei, the taiji is symbolic of the authors holistic view of things. It should be kept in mind that this is their mindset, that the yin and yang complement each other , literally making up the whole. That's the basis of Laoist taoism for you. So when you read the ddj , you should be literally looking for that irony, which is pervasive. If one doesn't see it , then you are not getting in the mindset of the author and you're missing the whole point of what the writer was getting at. Take , Those who know don't speak, Well, they don't speak because they both know the same stuff. If they disagree there Is plenty to talk about. SO one should expect contention , spoken or unspoken, when the they understand the things they are about to say , are not already shared by the listener... and so they may not say anything, because they don't want the headache , and have nothing to gain. Cautious as a one crossing thinning ice of the spring thaw... Well , one may be very slow and deliberate trying not to break through , OR they may just charge ahead to get the hell off. Polite as one who is a guest,, Well , being a guest is already an imposition and so its far more polite not to burden the host in the first place. Like I already said , this mindset is pervasive , and I am aware it can be hard to see this forest because of all the trees. With the soft overcoming the hard , the useless being useful , the un-carved wood being the most developed state, the good ruler being inactive, and the yin succeeding the yang .. one should come to recognize that the DDJ is not promoting one half of the taiji at the expense of the other. It is not telling one they need be timid , it is not telling one they need to be PC, not telling everyone to be industrious etc . As my dad used to say , with exasperation, who was not a taoist sage ," You're damned if you do , and damned if you don't. "

However I would add , that I can also see the wu-wei idea, that a person not exerting any personal bias or interference can also be seen as perpetuating forces which are in play around him , and therefore his acts could be seen as- not his , and so his participation is actually that of the forces outside. Like a water molecule perpetuating a wave it did not begin , might not be seen to be existing independently.

If there is such a one , I would say that indeed that is a reasonable interpretation. The Tao never falters , never struggles , expresses no sentiment or preference ... so yep Sage as a force of nature makes sense. (And yes, its not our lot to be perfectly happy, satisfied, finished, refined, know all ,be unaffected, or unbiased . )

Its my personal take , that the sage is a sort of object lesson , People Can be sagely , its just that they can't end up superhuman. They tell the story of the sage , who became so dis-embroiled from the tumult of human confusions , so that although he knew all the mysteries of the universe , there was nothing to be gained from him, and he wandered off to float somewhere by himself. The fact that we are imperfect, means we have to work to a degree, to get along with one another , to sacrifice to forgive etc. that we can be brave because we have fears , know pain and empathy . etc and blah blah blah. This is human virtue , to rise above , but for one who is already beyond it all ,... its just not the same. Its just my take on it , not that the sage represents false ideas , or ones that cannot work.. is that enough of an explanation? (Another being the sage who never sharpens his knife because he avoids all the tough spots , or the one who is happy to sit with his baggage when travelling because he is happy wherever he is. At the extremity the rational nature of the thing is lost and to the reader , it looks crazy. The one farthest ahead ends up at the end , ( because those who chase accolades are continually looking for the next hill to conquer ,- its cyclic. Perhaps one is generous, so he gives everything away , penniless and a pauper ,he now relies on the charity of others. They're all like that. The ol hunchback thats such a horn dog he lets the women walk all over him ,,, OOOh I almost forgot my favorite ...Robber Chih , who is such a bad-ass that he takes Confucius to school !

Take fidelity , honoring the bond out of love for your wife would be virtue. Take that to its extremity, when its all honor , its not about love for your wife , and if you just love your wife its not about honor. Either way , the extremity of the virtue , in a way , is its demise. Extending that idea The sage, person of greatest extremity , can be seen as no longer exhibiting a human virtue -fidelity.

Quite true.

The universe is not in contradiction with itself, the contradiction has to do with our expectations vs the reality of things. Your birth is the beginning of your demise. This appears paradoxical to some, but its just fact. The question for an individual is just how does this understanding impact the way that they relate to the world.

Actually I was highlighting a very good question , in what you posed , I just framed it ,... quizzically. Addressing it myself , I will play it straight up, One uses knowledge of facts , to ascertain the lay of the land , so as to be able to align with them and behave effectively. Facts themselves don't have preference, you provide that frame of reference.

yeah, how could statements of fact , be of any use in real life?

Gains can be chalked up as losses , " those who apprehend the tao laugh."

I figure it works out the same , Tao is nothing if not paradoxical and ironic. Cheers

Well,,, it would have been useful to you , if you had seen your way , my way. I never had nothing to gain or lose.

I give up , you win. Good luck getting your rules of thumb in order . No hard feelings.

Because , to the degree that you or someone would 'follow' the rules , that person is manifesting the rule. And to the degree that someone ignores the rule , then that rule is not manifested. 'Rule of thumb' is a fake proposition, you cant eat that cake and have it too. It's not sinking in , that - that which you are patiently being told from multiple people,( with hugely different mindsets, coming from totally different angles) ,is that the DDJ isnt a set of ten commandments even if one blows-it- off at the sign of slightest friction. The idea is that you make your own rules and apply them as you think right , to satisfy your nature , your dao.

From the originator of the word Grok, synchronicitically... "When probed by readers to expand on his presumed solutions for fixing the world, Heinlein had trouble disguising his frustration. On one occasion, he expressed his feelings by saying: “I was not giving answers. I was trying to shake the reader loose from some preconceptions and induce him to think for himself, along new and fresh lines. In consequence, each reader gets something different out of that book because he himself supplies the answers. It is an invitation to think, not to believe.”

I am sure you will be able to tabulate , a whole gamut of opinions about what Lao and Chuang would, or would not, have endorsed as good ideas. But I hold to the opinion that they tended to ... leave the angles open. Its in fact characteristic of the canon that one can spin the chapters to gainsay the overt point that may seem foremost, in a way , which even I cant do with the work of other sources. So I hold they intended it that way. (just Try it with Tsun tzu !)

I think that's generally understood that you meant it that way, but , lets take a concrete example , Some people appreciate and endorse political correctness , while others ,, kind of feel its blowing smoke up ones ass , an insult , lacking trust and familiarity. Should the wise ones have pointed us in that direction? or is that a thing to be relegated to ones personal stance in life , their experiences and judgement...

Yeah ! , Any rule bashing that I may have done was purely spontaneous and non-rule based.

Not much of a rule , if you are all willy-nilly about it, notice Mh didnt actually endorse any of them.

I'm curious about this here too,: Where exactly does Lao or Chuang require describe or suggest meditation. ( as any of you read it )

I like harmony ,, and birds,,

The basic idea is to learn to trust in your better nature. Rules often fail, but may help break bad habits. Still though the idea is to keep heading away from artificial controls as naturalness prevails more over time. If your rule is effortless to abide by, keep it.

What are you calling a person?

What exactly would tell you that you had free will other than sensing it? If nothing comes to mind as acceptable proof, then you have preordained Your position by negating any potential evidence you have.

Its just not functional to say that theres stuff we might not know that could be of impact. Its always claimable but dysfunctional. We have to move forward with whatever info we have, or we cannot proceed. It seems one controls their muscles. It seems we make decisions. If we presume that one is powerless one cannot apply justice , create , have pride, etc. Its A fine Escape clause for one who wants to be some blameless victim , or one who deems themselves virtueless. .. but not for one who draws Reward in having meaning And significance.