Stosh

Matthew 21:28-30Tree of Life Version (TLV) A Parable about Intentions and Actions 28 “Now what do you think? A man had two sons, and he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go work in the vineyard today.’ 29 The son answered, ‘I won’t,’ but afterward he had a change of heart and went. 30 The man went to the second son and said the same thing. But he answered, ‘I will, sir,’ and didn’t go.

I cant read that format.

Ok , how to word it then ? 1 Virtue is not to have any intent to cause anything to happen. 2 Virtue is to cause the things to happen, that one intends. 3 Virtue is the intent to cause things to happen, which one doesn't intend. 4 Virtue is to cause things to happen that one does not intend. ? got a favorite permutation. .. I think version number 2 would be a pretty standard idea. If you agree its a good start , then there would need to be another character in the mix. SO , Virtue is to cause things to happen which one intends ... by doing the reverse of what normal people would pick? . By doing things halfway , by choosing things that society deems good, by doing things which make you least uncomfortable .... ? Virtue is to do things which you intend , and not much of what you dont intend , when what you intend is to have no impact based on your own preferences? so you're like some robot or a blameless cog in a machine..? add your own modifier .

Waking up from sleep ,after establishing a regular schedule , is easier. And suddenly some french toast is enough of a temptation to dump that lovely dreamy half wake state unceremoniously.

Yeah, the habit is to just keep squeezing virtue into the box of the word as we already use it. I keep coming back to psychopathology though , if its virtue for lions to kill zebras , isnt it virtue for them to kill people? and if so, then killing people must also be potentially virtue, and if so , there seems no constraint limitation ,on behavior suggested by virtue. So what could it be?

I suppose so, Well said. Thanks.

Does it matter WHEN we do the caring? or THAT we cared. Doesit likewise matter how many lives we impacted well? or that we made things even one smidge better. Some of the 'far out' ideas I have come across , actually appear to be the only rational ones. We are inorganic atoms of wave potentials somewhere in a field which can sustain awareness. Its every bit as weird as the fact that each of our cells ,and even mitochondria is ... a living thing in its own right. I know we will still feel and act as if we really exist as individuals , and thats fine , but at the end of my ephermeral vortex of interrelated wave forms I will be grasping on to remembering that , so I can lt go a bit easier. Its been on my mind of late, there really is just one NOW. That however this now is, really is all that is, and I really want to be on good terms with the now that IS... and I just dont care much about trying to pin down now, in a conventional context, what its duation is, whether it connects with all the future and past nows. Screw the other nows, but right now I can be planning for other ones, which dont exist, and it doesnt matter if they do or dont. Sorry , I know that was cryptic.

I guess ya gotta say that he has enthusiasm for the human spirit. Though the translation may be glossing over various nuances,or important inferences, , and could throw in some words like spirit. That one can crush creativity enthusiasm and imagination. That learning is not considered governance musnt be ! if we are to have these great ideas ,and so forth. So I take it that governance being spoken of is narrowly meant to be applied reward and punishment with the intent to enthrall. Persons not provoked tempted diminished threatened already have virtue. But notice he isnt against active engagement ,,, some seem to draw a picture where virtue is only being at rest, only nondual apprehension , and think he squashes that idea here, even if the translation is missing some nuance.

Thats ok , but I would like to hear why... and then try not to argue the opposite.

Realist , hmm, OK, I was aiming more that he was a rational man giving rational comparisons/ exemplars, so that one could intuit the rationale that led him there, rather than just pile on stuff with no sense whatsoever , with the idea that one is supposed to magically osmose a superior mindset. Yes difficult and requiring the benefit of the assumption that there was indeed 'method to the madness'. Realist is fine with me , though ,,, I am not sure what it means in Daoist context. ( all that exists is real , so, if it isn't real , it doesn't exist ) I was ,earlier , thinking about whether one can make a valid argument that mankind has made progress. Man as the measure of all things, being unchanged , would leave it all relatively ...non-progressing. OR, the human condition being the basic standard of what is good bad pleasant etc then , if we would rather live in societies than die quick in a jungle , then , well then there could be said to have been progress for humanity , and the impression of a zero sum scenario being inevitable ,, has a serious flaw. If one chooses to accept the way that things are , gives up on making the world more of the 'better place' they desire it to be , then they can back off on being judgmental pushy self-righteous , potential failures , and so forth. If one thinks the world can progress, then all those other uglies still are in force. I figure Cz would rather have us conclude that the world is zero-sum or total goodness , rather than have possibility of improvement. ( nothing undone) ,,and in his time , using normal natural and man mediated processes as examples , this would indeed be the rational paradigm. Its an awkward pill to say nothing can be done to make the world a better place overall , or worse place overall , though I imagine the sun 'laughs' at the idea.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/detecting.aspx

Yep ,it is that simple, from one attitude. For me, well , I have to be more willing to accept the zero sum total. I doubt that anywhere CZ really points at this sort of non-practice as being the truest or best , ( it seems it would be a self contradictory stance ) but I can be wrong about that. and as you know, I don't believe Cz was a mystic,so therefore he shared in the fault of sages , and therefore had to also accept the zero sum stance, at least, in part.

So a person who deems right and wrongness as existing ,is healed by understanding the balace of the two. And people who are feeling its all ok ,arent disturbed. And those who dont even know enough to even consider the morality are not questioning it. The facts remain whatever they are, unrepairable overall. The sentiments vary, and one must cope.

Ignorance sheilds either way. The truly ignorant simplefolk live in a world they deem righteous a monist view. Those who are blind to the perverse situation of society ,also deem it all fine. Sages reveal whats going on ,and one must come to grips with the dualism that there is a value difference ,but that it is zero sum.

Then they are welcome to my half as well.

I dont get your point as regards my comment. Im just saying why you cant measure your poop to see if you could go without eating because it doesnt mathematically equate to your food intake in grams or ccs. Internal flora exacerbate the situation, and I can attest that eating some diets can render you unneedful of much TP.

54

Poop is just the stuff your body couldnt use like fiber . What you succeed in actually taking up, is metabolically broken down into co2 and water, which you breathe out. So in vs out isnt a thing you can observe to evaluate with any accuracy.

If I have to sit with my eyes closed, I might as well take a nap. Because the cascade of my reactions to my environment ,to the degree I am aware of it, are nothing like what goes on behind my eyelids, it seems. Many claim to meditate few claim enlightenment, few appear to be any different from any supposed experience , from the general population. I have no idea whatsoever what other people are doing when their eyes close , and so I have no reason to think that what they are doing, is going to lead affirmatively, anywhere., other than to the obvious event of avoiding daily tribulations. One is quite entitled to hibernate or engage as they see fit.

Since women really aren't like that , open to all things , weak , dependent, obedient , passive etc, .. . that is just a self flattering stereotype of what men thought of femininity ,or what the feminine role was... they aren't suggesting you need to cross-dress, nor poop your diapers like a baby, its actually described , in what ways one might modify ones behavior , and the imagery of babies and passive women isn't required. Can you be fair and honest , let others fulfill their dreams , allow things to proceed unmolested ?, and set your ego on the back-burner because its not all about You. Can you help people , nurture animals , teach and heal? Rather than ride off on some arrogant ego trip trying to defeat destroy and undermine?

, Jack has made decisions, and youre right ,in a situation like that, a person may need to draw such lines. However not all stars come to the defense of their ego using disdain. And no one is expecting movie people to all be spiritual leaders, as I agreed ,his attitude isnt really extrordinary h owever! as paragons in your own ways ,you guys, I expect higher things of. I dont picture , Buddha, HHDL, Lao ,Cz ,Ghandi or any of those inspired, should be as contemptuous of others as the pic is drawn up to look. And so I wont condone an attitude such as it ,to be healthy generally or the goal of spiritual seeking. or that its the solution those guys were encouraging. All it is is a conventional ego defense, Im not saying I think its unusual, nor even that it may be all that is available to some.

..no wonder , I am such a misfit ,if an attitude such as the one depicted, is the sagely lesson of . virtue.

I like Jack N , but the sentiment isnt any better than revenge. Its meant to be smug and dehumanizing ,as depicted, for both Jack and his foil. As a practical approach, it probably entails fewer technical difficulties though, to simply ignore ones own social instinct. The ugliest atrocities are spearheaded by dehumanizing to enable either revenge or aggression, the idea is to disconnect , but it is also reinforcing ones identity as alien and unrelated. Again, this passive aggressive attitude ,as depicted by the smug image is trying to defend ego.. not wu wei, and completely conventional.

Revenge being a requirement , that you place upon yourself , to even a score of pride , which you also may burden yourself with , is not an indicator of wu wei. It's your/anyone's , decision to act like that, to take this handy excuse, to beat someone up ,kill them or something,... for the power trip which is intended to pull you/anyone out of some imagined honor deficit. Justice , similarly , is a moral invention , which has nothing whatsoever with nature or the natural world. Self defense is natural , even reflexive, but revenge and justice are other things than that. It is indeed far tougher to absorb a loss and cut the chain of reaction, call it karma if you want, than it is, to decide you have more power , and to just go ahead and exert it. Those who have fighting skills , measure things up just like the weaker do , before they decide to venture vengeance , and bail out just the same ,when they expect a loss, if not even sooner. The impulsive , also measure things , they just come to an abrupt decision that is not really based on much fact. I am not saying I haven't ever had the impulse to revenge , nor am I saying I cannot be pushed to that point, but , it is not something that should go internally unopposed because its destructive , and often self destructive, and indicates one is still acting-out on a stage of pride and imagined ego, which you are entitled to do , but its not wu wei , it's just a conventional ego action.

People are not accurate indicators of virtue , their own , or anyone else's , in light of this , I figure there can be no such thing. Virtue is a mirage. And Going one step more , the only thing that one can say about it is that one would have to judge themselves based on what makes them feel least uncomfortable. Which , I guess , is an agreement with what you said.