Stosh

Ok, then substitute Dan where I said Chuang. I thought Mair was telling chapters from Cz.

I thought the old longears was traditionally a name for Chuang, was it not?

The author potentially could be anyone who lived after the characters , but from that vantage could mix and match anyone from any past time and indicating accurate sentiments of past persons . Right? For ex: This reminds me of a time when President Lincoln said to Pablo Picasso, "I don't understand what you've done there, with the burnt umber. "

I think this suggests that Chuang is against endorsing principles which rub against normal human responses. To take the ' better angels' of mans nature and promote them as absolutes is indeed a cause for confusion. We have an individual morality which may in part be mirrored by someone else , but the moral doesn't exist as a physical truth independent of the persons adhering to it. That's the difficult part to get ,since its ordinary to figure our own views as being in accord with a right-ness. I think historically Confucius felt that , as long as he could get everyone on the same page.. that society would have an established standard of morality , which then one could conform to , and it didn't really matter which thing was deemed to be right. Traffic patterns could be arranged so that opposite bound traffic, is on the left side of the car , OR the right, with the Driver on either the left, or right side of the vehicle. He , Confucius , would just say Pick one! and that would become a 'right' way to arrange it. We might say that if the driver is in the right-hand seat and traffic passed on the left , maybe there would be fewer deadly collisions to drivers, dunno. But if you drive in countries with alternate arrangements , one generally concedes that its just a matter of custom , and not 'rightness'.

I read it as suggesting that one be aware and attend to their root principles. Not to be goofing off, being sloppy, or charging around based on the immediate 'carrots and sticks'. Its easy to be pulled off from center , lured or driven. ( I am aware of this keenly) So the winds metaphor of Lok Sang Ho seems apt , to me.

Because that which you contend against, becomes clear.

Summary conclusion plus effort.

It suggests that though yao is a benevolent leader by normal standards , Shun doesnt consider him great in heavenly terms because he takes an active interest in his people. I am unsure of the intent of that final bit. Perhaps it says that the great kings are most benevolent By being impartial and dispassionate rather than securing one at the expense of the other.

Oh, I got befuddled , my bad. I was looking at the Mair chapter just a moment earlier. One cant presume that an attribute is good , or bad , without considering the circumstance. Also .. Uselessness vs useful ,, refers to "who exactly is the beneficiary?" ,, answer -- the end consumer. Does man properly serve 'the state' ? Or, is the intent ,that the citizens, are the end consumer, who is to benefit ? The preamble of our constitution defines that the institution of the United States was to benefit , We, the people...to provide for the common ,, yadda yadda Not, We the people , in order for a king or state to exist, have decided to enslave ourselves to that end. This excerpt actually branches out in many directions , suggesting one examine the purpose of ones life. But also that one might attract friends by simply being themselves, feed a nation by making ones living , and so forth.

You might say I am opposed to this chapter , I don't think the presentation is consistent with some other stuff , and so I prefer to leave it for someone else to render , I wouldn't be kindly to it -as it stands.

I certainly would and in fact do , I bust a hump at what ever I endeavor to do , whether it has any material payoff or not. But no , I wouldn't do this job for free unless it had some other value related to it. I just cant find a job where I can get paid for sippin whiskey in my underpants and watchin TV.

Because I agreed to do work for money.

Didn't see that.

I did an image search

They look Chinese.

'Why ' What?

I told my boss this story once... He told me to get back to work.

Dude, the chopped quotes are kind of difficult to follow. But this was just some chatter , I figure heis happy with his faith but likes the FP stuff and can be at ease if he hangs around .Thats all it means. No biggie.

Taoist school is a breeze, you just have to forget stuff

That's what you get for making me google "eschatological"

That's fine , may you find your happy ending to be exactly as you would have it be.

I'm not sure what you're getting at , but actions which don't work out well are not immoral necessarily, nor do morally approved decisions or actions yield positive result. And I am not one of the 'inaction' adherents, which is why I need to define thins as being IMO rather than what you may have been described- to expect.

Just messin , but yes, IMO Taoism isn't a morality based system.

Ah, then I guess I should infer that the FAP habit is fine in FP , nevermind.

I'm not so sure its social media at fault, though I agree there is an issue needing fixin'. It appears an issue as old as any of these here texts.