Stosh

Enjoyment is just as irrational as those other tools. Notice that it says you have to part with your music and friends as well, to have virtue.

No, I dont. The extreme of logical development ,which denies the spiritual aspect of humanity, would be the the terminus of humanity. It would be .. The destruction of what has any value in a person whatsoever. Sociopathy is not a virtue IMO. perfection of rationality is not a thing We could attain and remain virtuous. It requires irrationality, to have love as well as hate, fear as well as courage and so forth. But all that is gymnastics of mind.

" NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE." Terry Pratchett

Its said that , The view of heaven is that the Dao is no respect-er of men. The next earth killing meteor , isnt going to veer off and avoid obscure wrinkly dudes with an odd sense of humor. It doesn't recognize 'the old master' as anything more than the rat ,or rice. Nor does it bless 'Joseph with the technicolor raincoat' . Nor vice versa. Another mangled Daoist quote , is that the Dao laughs at us anyway.. a favorite of mine , (but you don't care for the anthropomorphism, if I remember correctly). So from the view of heaven , the impartial view , the view of the full fledged sage , there is no master guy, nor scholar. A baby in their arms would just see the silk robes or the grizzled smile of either of them, totally oblivious to the labels the author introduced. He would take no sides, nor root for favorites, nor find himself validated, or invalidated.

If you countered them , you competed IMO. But From my view , the author presented a slanted view of the event , to elicit an expected response. The important aspect of this event, is that the two fictional men represent light and dark aspects of personality , yin and yang , if you will. Your own view of Daoism , which you have told me in the past, aims one at a sort of moderation and balance. Its not that one should really need to emulate the hermit and have magical rice fall out of the sky to feed his needs by sucking off the teat of nature. One need not be a recluse , to be daoist, nor is there even a polemic perfection to strive for. Nor does one have to sit and do nothing. Because the world constantly turns beneath our feet , we age , burn calories, need warmth and shelter , we constantly need to shift to re-find that balance point , but that doesn't mean we have to be upset about the requirements this imposes on us. The scholar is fine with pursuing his betterment , and the thief , is fine with pursuing his minimalist food and shelter (with a rat for a pet indulgence, rather than fine duds) . One wisely comes to a balance between the needs of their heart and body in material setting, nature-heaven is neutral about the morality of the decisions we make, we on the other hand, are not. Both men live ,for now.

It does fit more with Confucian ethic as I see it so be, but , that is not quite alien to Chuang-dao spirit as it might seem. I can tie the virtues exhibited easily to daoist canon. You didn't fail either , without gravity one cannot hold traction.

On the other hand , the old thief sits there stunned , what has he to fear to lose? He thinks he is caught. Why is all this stuff laying around cooked and uncooked? because he stole it in whatever state he found it to be. Who does he sympathize with ? The rat! He literally feeds the vermin! When fancypants comes back self humbled , then he finds his cojones to lay into the guy, why? because he thinks the guy is duped. If they two are mirrors , which they are , then wherever one succeeds the other fails, and so the Old master is a master of thievery, and his two graces are that he is basically satisfied with the state he is in , and he isn't recklessly impulsive.

ll lay it out, Who trusted what he was told and went on a long journey? Fancypants So he trusts , and he puts his money where his mouth is, and he takes the thing to the bitter end. He, on his long journey , was NOt jailed as a brigand-thief. His calluses show he has indeed done plenty of walking and is not averse to making his efforts. He actually gets to this guy , who he doesn't know who has nothing to steal, and it proves he is on the level about his goals. He wears impulsive clothes and takes on impulsive missions , and he speaks what is on his mind impulsively. Understandably , he is dismayed , acts impulsively as he usually does, but later comes back to amend the situation instead of bailing out. He can 'cry all day because his motives are sincere' , he acts naturally and understandably and he is admitted universally . Try getting past guards wearing a scowl and a stained t-shirt .

Yes, Point , , you said -"But still, the Old Master has a point in the last paragraph" . But the Old dude is accusing Fancypants falsely , whereas the person who sat there restrained like a drawn crossbow.. was the old thief himself. I cant give him credit for making a valid point when he is lying.

That he was satisfied with things the way they were, is basically true but , What point did he make that was valid ?

You really should just consider to see it from my view and only my view, the author made it perfectly clear that no other was valid.

That's the rub, its not just choosing the standards by which one judges to decide if being flashy is worse than being .. untidy. What the supposed master said is both false and aggressive , which belies being a master of anything. And Old dude was just as concerned with externals , if not more so.

Oh ! so you think I did some cosmetic surgery on that? hmmm , well , I did do the version from the alternate perspective, that the so called master really was a master ,,, and there is a big hump to giving it equal credibility. This certainly could be a Confucian spin on some daoist writing such as it stands , and it has some elements which I don't think are entirely consistent with some of the other stuff. I think its my view that Fancypants actually IS the better person already , and more in line with the true Daoist ideals. Standing on reputation, there is the 'Master', how do you know he is a master of anything? Drop that assumption. Fancypants , is being judged by his clothes or presentation, as is the master ,, drop that presumption as well. (judging a book by its cover) The story reads quite differently when you do not take sides or get wrapped up in these presumptions.

If anyone requests it, I'm willing to take the part of Fancypants and tell off the other guy. But, in this story the two characters are mirror images of a sort. The suggestion to treat all men as straw dogs , comes to mind. Fancypants is untrained, but sincere and humbly seeking to learn. His garb belies his sincerity, and he blurts out a reaction in his momentary dismay at having traveled so long , only to find the guy he did. Inversely, the 'Master' is wasteful and a slob, it gives a hint to his true lack of sincerity , and the face he begins with , of self discipline and humility , falls away the next day as soon as the opportunity appears. He has been hurt , and has stewed in his upset overnight, the acceptance of the labeling is gone, whereas Fancypants regrets his outburst as having potentially stomped on the feelings of the 'master' - which he did. If anyone should be mistrusted its the phony 'Master' , not Fancypants , who, though dressed ostentatiously , actually has concern for his fellow man and so , with his humility, can indeed learn the face of Mastery from the slob. And in fact ,once he takes a step back , he comes out of the shadow of the slob, and is revealed as the greater of the two.

I figure , regarding others views of me , I think it is most like the three stooges. Bumping into one another and poking eyes.

Well, we only -exactly- disagree it seems, its useless to judge our own attitudes, because the same winds are at play at 50 as were in motion at twelve. That's why people do not trust themselves to make their own religion ; they want an independent arbiter. Its why they wish for some bolt of lightning, grace of god ,miagic, or rising kundalini , to shake them all the way back to the core values they established by six yrs old. The Taoists of old viewed the simplicity and virtue of a child to be the most uncontaminated display of what human virtue could be, and it was inarguable with. A virtue paradigm anchored in an in-arguably uncontaminated basis. “Can you focus your breath as supple as a newborn child? Can you cleanse your vision till there is no blemish? He isnt asking whether you can poop your pants and cry all day, he is suggesting you can let go of the tears , wipe your eyes and take a deep breath. Let that crap and sadness go along with all the attitudes that brought on the anguish, its really beautiful. But no , to emphasize MO, I bring up- A Christmas Carol. Scrooge , is firmly set , rationally substantiated -as regards the facts of life in general, and his own life ,in particular. His arguments are iron clad, and he has substantial cause for his anger , and his so-called cold-comforts. He supports the community , provides a job for Bob, and asks for nothing but to be left as he is. He is 'the adult' living the life which he learned or concluded was virtuous/justified. The ghosts make their arguments , and none prevail , but one, and that! had to be shoved in his face. In the face of the meaninglessness of his efforts , and his final dissolution into nothingness.. its his own wish for his life to be otherwise that moves his spirit , and he has to roll back all that accumulation. I have my own idea why Dickens gave the story the title that he did, Its because, like a carol , the story is perennial, and the public may throw tokens of appreciation before re-closing the door on it, Or they may just say Bah Humbug! dismissing this ghost. Grim, this 'ghost' is meant as a gift, a wake up call, and it says that while one may have good reasons for their attitudes , there's one reason which trumps the rest. We read from the story , that had not Jacob not taken it upon himself to make a difference, Ebeneezer would have lived out his days in the manner he had adopted and justified. That's all just a story though , right? Bah humbug on it

Imagination is cool. See , there , that's the problem. Once folks 'grow up' , they are still not in a position to determine if things are of value correctly.

Bad experiences can lead one to conclusions which are legit , but actually end up being a negative thing , having learned it. Rephrased ,, not everything one learns is a boon. In considering what natural means , I think its normal usage to consider those things which are not mediated by humans as natural , since we all undergo socialization , none of us is entirely natural. Even so, Humans do have natural propensities, the somewhat predictable consequence of the interaction of ourselves and the environment we happen to be in. And in these texts I think that what is meant by a natural acting person , is a person who is in accord with the normal propensities of humanity once socialized. (An enlightened man ,or a virtuous person.) Your, or my personal experiences, relative to what the texts are speaking of ,do not directly validate, or invalidate, the concept of 'the naturalness of generalized compassion'. Simply put, you cant just look at the shits you've known ,and presume everyone naturally is a - violent self serving animal, -though I am sure many do 'learn' that. 'Learning' really means that ones mental model becomes in accord with the environment they exist in, it does not universally lead to a true view , nor does it always lead to better outcomes of ones own behavior. People learn addictions, people learn negativity , people learn anxiety , and reasons to fear. Once these things have been learned , they have ramifications of their own. These ramifications arise from the use of that mental model, formed in past circumstances , to those in the present and future. This is why the sage is used as an uncontaminated model of idealized human nature. This is why that model , known as the sage , seems bizarre, and yet may make an emotional type of -sense. One cannot truly get to that ultra basic caricature, but it represents a direction to head in. We tend to be our own worst enemy , and that's basically learned behavior. IMO as usual.

"To have a loyal heart and be without conflict, to show universal love and be without partiality - these are the characteristics of humaneness and righteousness," said Confucius. The use of the word loyal here seems a bit skewed to how we use it, in this context it looks more like the idea is perhaps a generalized duty of allegiance - a sentiment which might be expressed as 'for the people' and one coincidentally associated with the phrase wei wu wei , or so I have heard. ( which would situate this Lao , as being anti- wu wei , if thats a correct translation of the term

Depends on the universal love degree, here in the US, we think that there is supposed to be SOMe level of generalized concern for others. It's not unlimited, its just broadly applied, and I don't think that generalization is all that unnatural. You'd have to apply it unnaturally , to say,, umm Ted Bundy . No?

Well tradition being what it is,, I figure there's some room for speculation. It could be three guys ,or one guy, or no guys who authored any of the... anthologies?

Why would it be dangerous ? that people love one another. It could be read that long ears wants things to be status quo. Violence and aggression , No?

In a 'third' , what? incarnation?

I can easily see it that way and accept the correction as solid. So what do you make of the significance?

I see that Dan and means ears or something , and thats associated with Lao , but the wording in the story , seems like it belongs more with Cz than Lz , certainly not Cf who is the rube once again, which I expect in Cz. In re-scribing the stories, I just don't know whether authorship and names were changed willy-nilly to satisfy the muckety -mucks who happened to be holding power at any given time., so my habit is to ignore names and try to see past them , like you did considering the wise guy here as Lao, because he was a librarian of sorts. I'm fine with any way that works out I won't be getting royalties. Guy 2 says to guy 1, that he is conflating moral rightness with established standards and shouldn't be.