Stosh

Just Dont get confused by the ironies of the discourse, nor be boggled or concerned by the paradigms of what people think of Taoism or Taoists or yin or yang or emptiness vs fullness nor none of it. A guiding light for navigating all that , is being in touch with who you were best meant to be.... Imo thats good advice though it still may be difficult to follow. " you and I have been taught many things , some of them we should embrace , and others are best let go. "

The only mastery is self mastery , the extent of it is what you can manage relative to what you may manage..

In chapter 12 Watson , Confucius doesn't know this on his own, he asks and is told by Lao Tan. Gnaw gap would not be a forgetter of self and adopt the ways of heaven. He would be partial and seek such as other men do. So this lesson in Zz is not one that Confucius teaches. .. or so it looks that way. .. and so it seems sometimes ,that Zz never ceases to order me up a serving of spankings.

Something eludes me , and If I am not being rude , I would like to ask, What about yourself is girl like ( call her She) , if not your anatomical parts, and neither is She, if the she is not a girl because of her parts, nor by what her mind is like. ? Otherwise put , Whats female ? as you see it. Or ,phrased another way, If neither anatomical parts constitute gender , nor does a mind correspond to anatomical parts, what is it you would think you were alike to?

Thanks, that seems like we have made a complete argument there. It can stand for review like that.

Ok that's a fair statement. But discussing menstruation isn't teaching leadership , or " how to be anything one wants to be". If BES wants to roughhouse climb trees shoot arrows with the boys, I think its great. Its fostering her to engage in things outside girl subjects and relate to the other half, rather than cloister her away to contemplate her period. Like wise for the boys , I think more relationships with the girls may broaden their view of the feminine perspective , rather than objectify.

You said the mixed group might nullify the ability of the group to teach the curriculum , and what about being "anything" they want to be , would having boys in there prevent? What is the impediment?

In your opinion , whats the intended purpose? was it successful? and does it impact in unintended ways, which are potentially detrimental ? ( Such as reinforce gender expectations and transfer them to girls so that they have no interest in science, but instead consider themselves potentially fit to compete in the baking of cookies)

"Suppose you and I have had an argument. If you have beaten me instead of my beating you, then are you necessarily right and am I necessarily wrong? Questions are fulfilled by answers so, there is no beating , the point is to find concensus. If I have beaten you instead of your beating me, then am I necessarily right and are you necessarily wrong? If we are honest the conclusion should be true. Is one of us right and the other wrong? Could be. Are both of us right or are both of us wrong? about what ? If you and I don't know the answer, then other people are bound to be even more in the dark. Maybe not , there's no basis for that assumption. Whom shall we get to decide what is right? Each of us needs to compare our model to reality. Shall we get someone who agrees with you to decide? But if he already agrees with you, how can he decide fairly? Shall we get someone who agrees with me? But if he already agrees with me, how can he decide? Shall we get someone who disagrees with both of us? But if he already disagrees with both of us, how can he decide? Shall we get someone who agrees with both of us? But if he already agrees with both of us, how can he decide? Obviously, then, neither you nor I nor anyone else can decide for each other. Shall we wait for still another person? You want a neutral party , if you cant be objective on an honor basis. "But waiting for one shifting voice [to pass judgment on] another is the same as waiting for none of them. Harmonize them all with the Heavenly Equality, leave them to their endless changes, and so live out your years. What do I mean by harmonizing them with the Heavenly Equality? Right is not right; so is not so. Cowards way out. If you were arguing for a purpose , then the purpose is thwarted by neglecting to acknowledge it. If right were really right, it would differ so clearly from not right that there would be no need for argument. No basis. If so were really so, it would differ so clearly from not so that there would be no need for argument. Forget the years; forget distinctions. No basis for this assertion . Leap into the boundless and make it your home!" Personal opinion unsupported by the argument. Re-reading Giles, I am not even sure of who made this argument. If its Zz then I disagre with him on this matter but from within the translation its not clear that these are his opinions, ,, any opinions? "When subjective and objective are both without their correlates, that is the very axis of Tao. And when that axis passes through the centre at which all Infinities converge, positive and negative alike blend into an infinite One. Hence it has been said that there is nothing like the light of nature. Probably an allusion to Lao Tzŭ's "Use the light that is within you to revert to your natural clearness of sight." We should then be able to view things in their true light. See Tao-Tê-Ching ch. lii., and The Remains of Lao Tzŭ, p. 34. So this to me looks like at least Lao is endorsing that there is a truth , a reality against which being right can be compared , which tears up the argument that one cannot determine if a thing is right. There are other issues but I suppose thats for a different thread.

Yes, it was always there, But I still think its a good analogy , an emotional hurdle looming large , the death of a loved one or something, and you fear it or are saddened or something , and yet you go forward , till its not looming above anymore , then you work your way back to level ground, and its there again, but different. You've been up there, and you made it back whole , and while you don't want to go through that all again , its just not the same ,, though it was indeed always there , just as it is now. So it is ,, to return to the innocence and openness and bright confidence of ones youth , having been beyond.

Like Columbus, I am going to stick with going to the orient by heading West ,, which is to say, become less uncertain , because in my youth I was at my most certain , and least troublesome. Can you be as the innocent child , honest and just , uncorrupted by the slings of misfortune , and misguided paradigm?

Ufo theorist

I would think the Japanese might consider themselves not to be part of China's sphere of influence ... George Friedman and Jacob L. Shapiro One of Geopolitical Futures’ most controversial forecasts is that by 2040, Japan will rise as East Asia’s leading power. Many readers often ask for an explanation of the logic in this forecast. They understand that GPF is bearish on China. And while some readers may disagree on that point, they usually see that the reasoning is sound and that China will face serious problems in coming years… problems that will strain the Communist Party’s rule. Japan, however, seems a bridge too far. Its population is less than a tenth of China’s size (and it’s not just aging but shrinking). Japan also has a debt-to-GDP ratio over 229%. So, how is it that Japan will emerge in the next 25 years as East Asia’s most powerful country?

Whats that in English?

Then what connection do the dark gray areas have to 3 8 9 14 1 ?

No, that's not going to happen. But I'm not even religious!

I can't think of anything else.

But I cant be! I like small animals and I'm argumentative !

Liberalism is a label, which I have found doesnt fit affirmatively with some attitudes I hold. The position devolves IMO to whether a persons attitudes can change or be changed intentionally. , and to that I say its obvious that they can be magnified or minimized intentionally. Then theres the issue of fate and I say that our decisions do pivot events . Can a person value that which does not serve what another envisions as their own best interest ? Sure. Daoism IMO, doesnt instruct that one must have no intents , nor that one take no actions whatsoever. Its suggesting that we tend to drag burdens to our own plate. by the enactment of ego motives. For instance , me responding to the thread brings the opportunity for rejection as well as vindication. It really can only serve me if I am bolstered and that service would be to an imagined self. The sage would consider the effort foolish, and instead would focus on that which served his own performance of fate... the part he most is advantaged to experience , the hand he is dealt rather than the bluff of ego.

Well that is a bit of a defiant introduction. If youve scanned many posts already, I would point out that they indicate a wide spectrum of ideas. The people with them overwhelmingly are nice and well intended , so it doesnt matter so much what the esoteric beliefs Are IMO, The important thing is considering virtue health and sound decision making.. I dont know what you might find useful , but in the mean time , just ignore the Li Peng , Feng Shue and anything else you consider chaff simply because it may make your own path be rockier. The stuff you already read suggests it, doesnt it ? You wouldnt be alone in thinking that everybody else is on the wrong track

I hope you find good stuff here. Personally I figure that I act extroverted or introverted, largely depending on circumstance though I probably prefer to be on my own a bit more. Still I am figuring that everyone or anyone would seek others if they were stuck isolated on an island or if people they could relate to were handy. I dont think taoism is all that needing of preponderously isolated situations, much of its input heavily relates to social activity and it would be a waste not to make it be an active real boon in dealing with others. That balance is personal though and we all vary in how much of a social tradeoff we are willing to make. May it assist you in finding a happy balance.

Don't forget to invite Denis-over .

Ive seen it contended that Laozi also was intended for rulership of state and if so then Conf is in the same sack as Lao, If ,as Rene contends, Zz was an extension of Lao, then he too is in there , and for the same reason so too all the guys were proponents of the same genre of political opinion. I construe Mh to be indicating that all these were extensions of traditions which preceded them, and they provide no substantial point of differentiation to furcate the traditions.

And what of Zz?

I'm confused myself, If the western Zhou dynasty was replaced or became the Eastern Zhou in 770 BC , thats about three hundred years before Conf Cz Lao Mencius and so forth. (who lived during the warring states period, appx 457 BC , which finally broke up the Eastern Zhou into territories around 314 BC. ) SO all of the Scholars would technically be Eastern Zhou. So , then, This kind of makes sense .. The modern thinking , was that which originated with Lao and Cz , Confucius would be 'old school' by studying old texts, even if he lived at the same time, or after Lao. Have I got this straight?