Stosh

I will take your word for that , ..but if so, this would need to be dealt with in some way, and how would they do that? Retreat? Cut 'em loose? And what could they say , if you complain that most folks are arseholes? ( or rephrased, How can they maintain humility if they think they are surrounded by relatively mean bumbling idiots? )

I just wrote a big long explanation as a reply , It's the one right before you said 'no one replies'. Being lazy myself, my grammar, which is a rigid structure to impose upon the fluid grace of my thoughts , is often shoddy, and this has been upbraided. But as with many of the great writers of poetry , we expect the audience to consider the meat of what has been said, for, often the point may be lost when subjected to restrictive rules. When one writes , there is either a second draft to formulate , OR , ones ideas are just so simple that they fit easily into grade school structures. Do you not consider what you have said ? and play these words which have bubbled up from the subconscious back to yourself to see if they are sufficiently explanatory? SUrely yes, and so , you should also be able to recognize that the way the sentences are phrased changes the content. In your post , I have no idea what you are getting at , though the grammar might be fine ,( I don't know). So I , for one ,wouldn't jump to respond to it. That would be foolish of me , right? To start blabbing a response to a post in legalese which I cant understand. So I will bestow two tidbits of well meant advice ( a dangerous gift in any circumstance) , one is that one shouldn't assume that the audience is willing to run off and follow links. ( I didn't ,,and only rarely include any myself, .. because I think my ideas do not need the crutches) And the second, is that you could try letting your thoughts flow more organically, apply less rigor , and be less concerned about whether Mrs. Goldstein from 6th grade english class would approve ,( or any of us either ) . As the great book says , "Nothing is left undone ,since there is nothing needing to be done". See? Now thats great prose!

Thanks, but I am pretty ingrained in my speech habits, grammar cramps my style.

If his actions- words expressed, are continually edited in such a way , so as not to risk our disapproval , this is the type of flattery, which would make him unfit to lead us or teach. ( My grammar was intended to show the similarities between lordship and authorship within one sentence, (I generally presume Mh and Tt are familiar with this speech habit of mine.) Say you go to school to learn Spanish, and your teacher is afraid to correct your diction , because you will resent it. Then this Spanish teacher is unfit. It is You the student, who is expended to bend conform and change, the teacher isn't there to kiss your spoiled behind ,and have you walk away not having learned the material. If the son never makes decisions for himself without daddies approval , then he hasn't learned for himself where he is about to screw up. He hasn't had to live with the consequences of his own decisions and he isn't proven as a leader. So If Cz is too soft , does not confront us , does not lend a clear direction or vector to his lessons, and leaves us guessing , then he would deem himself to have been a sucky teacher , to get us to read his dao, and he has sacrificed his intent for the audience.,, (making him a flatterer, who sacrifices their integrity to fawn on someone else's good humor- ours).

I suppose you get these too ?..

I could also read in that it may have been his great fear, one night by torch, to read this brain child intended to be a creation of love and found it to be a swiss cheese of unspoken meaning. But that may be too imaginative of me, Ill have to see if there is a sustained shift in tone going forward.

I was watching a Columbo episode last night, and when pressed for advice ,he told the guy to do the right thing. Its this kind of evasion which in throughout These passages. I think he here is explaining why. (BUT I am not willing to excuse this ploy on this basis, unless an explicit directive is uncovered somewhere ) ps, and he should agree with me , if the son has to to break with his father to establish himself as a worthy man in his own right, he ,as author needs to break with the flattering niceties to establish his stance is not just a flattering ploy.

It suggests to me that this is simply an inevitable component of the human condition. The piece also seems to suggest that he considers his own efforts ,that which he would confer, are a waste of effort which backfires ,making people uncomfortable. While I get the point, I would like to contest some of his assertions,, unfortunately he isnt living. It could be that tis dao survives precisely because its so cagey and nonconfrontational. He would like to have been more of a positive influence but seems to have become a bit pessimistic which prevented him from pushing us hard. I think , we are hinted to examine ourselves but also that this May not work.

It looks added on, like a notation. But it relates fine. The last thing she wants to be exposed to , her disfigurement and shame will constantly be shoved in her face, magnified exponentially. Same as the guy being called a toady or phony. Syphilis would probably be clearer than leprosy.

Thats pretty grim, and looks nothing like what has been posted before. Does it declare that change is not going to happen? because the forces which dictate who we are ,remain pervasive? Extending the same rationale, which is here directed towards others, to ourselves, it seems ..a grim verdict With more consideration, the thrust of this passage may be exposure and judgement. Theres two points that I dont think this handles. One , is that we can consider our presentation to be genuine to us . And secondly, The person of high standard may not be secretly guilty of gross transgressions, they may just feel a heightened importance about some issues. If in any way one can intentionally change their standards of outward behavior, I think they could be credited with some level of internal change. The issue becomes the depth at which the change is made, and whether it represents just a new spin to the same objectives.

Honestly, no , my pets have always been graced. But yes i can see that some get abused horribly. Traumatized. What a horrible thing that is... I think the animals behavior indicates its expectations of what will happen to it , rather than what it thinks of itself. This is a fine distinction , I know .And I am not sure they do not have a perception of self akin to our own. But they dont appear to react as we would expect ourselves, to things.

Examine these things getting called weakness, they are traits or habits about which we do not consider ideal. Isnt this then a self assessment ? That we are supposed to be different based on what we see of others? If so this lends an explanation for why animals dont seem to get down about themselves, and why it seems people do Not often appear to change much despite a negative self evaluation. Depression and anxiety may be more about expectations than actual flaw.

Dude, just go ahead and assume you fit the description., (as in having the potential for third party endorsement to substantiate the integrity of what you have to say. If one can't recognize for themselves the validity of some spoken point or other and wants to rely on some anonymous 'other person' to tell them , so be it. Its not unusual).

I want to add this , despite the fact this may already be understood. Is Confucius a smart guy? Yes Does he have wealthy students , pander to the rich , have ambitions of instructing on social issues and governance? Yes Does he attempt to modify the world in order to bring physical comforts to himself , rather than hold true to old habits and attitudes? Yes. Comparatively.. The sage , in this case " governs what is inside, but not what is outside." He is a gardener nurturing the world ,simply growing his food. He thinks, "When one harbors an ingenious mind in one's breast, its pure simplicity will be impaired." So the thing one should examine , is what is it exactly that Confucius is not 'getting'? I say , he is not 'someone who understands great plainness' ,, and why does he persist throughout all the stories as the 'wrong guy' ? He doesn't think he has anything more to learn,,, 'what is there in them for you and me to learn? The gardener is satisfied , with himself, his life , his ways ,, he knows there is much he doesn't know, but he accepts that. From his point of view , the water wheel thing is just an odd contrivance to master , and cannot make him , More satisfied, it will make him less so, because his way is to master himself , not to grow more than he needs. Anyhow , that's what I think this means , as of 12-12-17

May I suggest that Conf. actually does evaluate what is going on, correctly. But from his view , the natural thing is to conform to the worlds requirements to gain effect , rather than abide by his own unaffected nature. Its a matter of opinion , whether the great man is rightly moved by the waves of his own willfulness. Since Confucius isn't ordinarily the protagonist , one should correctly take it that the gardener , who eschews worldly gain to the degree that it moves him from the way that he embodies, is the sage. Unmoved to the point of being 'unreasonable' , Like Frank Sinatra , he will do it his way. Has a man lived more richly , if he is un-grounded in his own habits and morality? I think someone looking back will be more at ease with his own errors innocently made , than having been tempted to uproot and chase his happiness. Since one only lives one life at a time, one cannot know the real effects of having gone in another direction at a certain time, Like Jimmy Stewart in 'Its a Wonderful Life'. (.. I hope that's the right movie) But , at least one can say 'This was me , this is what I chose, what I wanted , and what I was able to do, , all things considered. I lived .'

There may not be a cure for 'dead'.

The over-all menu is chosen for cultural affiliation , as is the decor, music, the chopstick offer , and it seems , often the chef -serving staff. So the whole situation is a presentation , for atmosphere, why should the customer balk? ( I'll take the spoon though, I don't really like spoons , preferring forks ,, not sporks however. )

The energy outlay of the entire procreation process often dictates whether a contributor should be picky or not. Its often not a females role to select by her actions the father of her progeny , nor are males always promiscuous. Humans have a very variable system, due to social complexity and long childhood, So I would personally hesitate to draw much conclusion from other species behavior, taking it for what it is rather than trying to make much of alternate examples.

To me , thanksgiving is the best holiday. An ol fashioned feast day ,with no real reason ,other than to have the feastday. BUT for those who need it theres a thin storyline to add structure. Its open to persons of any culture who wants to do it, folks have a simple nice humane reason to feed homeless folks, or embrace those less integrated . Once it became a beloved tradition, it has its own reason to be perpetuated.

Ok, if it counts as frosting. Then I have to redact. Whats in the middle of the eruption cake ? Aha ,white chocolate cheesecake, very nice.

Frosting is for the kiddies. The chocolatey caramel drizzle , on the eruption cake however looks yummy.. but Ill take a New York style cheesecake ,plain , any day. Thats real Food for the soul.

I can't say that its a bad thing.