Stosh

I hope I do learn from you , and indicated I accepted you when you said you were leaving, addressed you when you arrived , and I am still conversing with you. If you are self righteous, in actuality , where you feel that your way has to be the way of everyone else otherwise you are going to either banish yourself or hammer the other.. I don't know yet as fact, but you Have indicated some things which do look a bit that way.

Um,, no they didn't tell you what you need to know. What you need to know, is that your values exist in your head alone , and on that basis,, you can accept others who do not have the same values, uncompromisingly. Your niece or granddaughter is going to have her own too, as she grows into a young lady. She is going to want to have pretty hair , a bright smile, friends and family, and be accepted. You are going to have to reject her , or tolerate her values as being her own. Just as she will have to make accommodation for her strange grandparent. Right now , very young she can accept, because she hasn't been taught intolerance, and we find it charming. This is the uncarved wood , we are supposed to remember. Not only for everyone else's benefit but for our own , because there is no carbon copy of me , or you.

Speaking for myself only , I think "certainly!" , and its not even a dislike of X personally. There are so many ideas and systems that folks follow here , that one really needs to focus on being tolerant of that . If Mo Pai , doesn't focus on any discipline ,, as in real discipline ,,,as in actual behavior,,,, as I think I read somewhere that it does not , there will be a perennial issue with those who want to learn stuff to have special power , but they will not be recognizing that power of any type represents what can be a loose cannon. Its far more important what direction or vision do you want to make of , or do , with your new insights etc, than it ever will be how much extra Zing ! you think you have now. Taoism just might have a little flavor to add to the pie , 'ya doesnt have to be at odds.'

There is some indication, that through the mechanism of ones feelings, we become notified of our attitudes . Often intents-motivations-attitudes are also being influenced by our feelings. Thus there appears to be an effort to reconcile the two sources. Which we become consciously aware of, secondarily.

If not specifically addressed to MH, IMO,.. ch 38 if ....A truly good man does nothing, Yet nothing is left undone. Then lies of omission are not excused by , active participation -or lack thereof. "Oh! What A Tangled Web We Weave When First We Practice To Deceive" Scott

I agree they are not, and for ones own sanity , one needs to find a cut off point for the concern one might aim at others. But I wouldn't expect classical virtue to draw that line at zero.

If you don't have responsibility to fellow human beings.

Sorry I missed the point, Kill chaos? humans are chaotic ?

Having told not so few of them myself, I think its time to say what needs saying. I Had a brief conversation with a total stranger this weekend, and she told me at least three lies in the first three sentences out of her mouth. A lie is an attempt to deceive, the point is to present a false view of the actual state of things so that the person being lied to cannot react and behave in manners consistent with the real world as it stands. If one is dealing with someone who is an enemy , it makes sense to deprive them of the ability to act appropriately , lying to those who you respect or care for is a usurpation of power. There's no excuse in good intentions , its still a usurpation of power. One of the things she lied to me about was when I pointed out a factoid about a bird, she wasnt looking at it but pretended she was , the second was when I told her a factid , and she pretended she knew what it signified, and the third was when she approached small talk , saying Wow you could really get lost out here, To which I said , not really , its a one way road. There was no call to bullshit me , no welfare to preserve ,no teaching to convey ,, and while I figure there was no harmful intent , I know that she lies because she wants to present herself in an amenable light , which is ironic, because I don't think dishonesty is beneficial to me. So , No , the lying about everything undermines what might have been of value to her , which she could've brought up instead. The exposure of flaws enables one to know the extent to which they are not doing themselves well in actuality . Eventually the bull has become so pervasive , that to just 'tell the truth' is seen as a vice. How is that, all - for good intentions ? So If someone calls any of you, or me, a liar and bullshit artist, well we should instead take that as a sort of compliment about our savvy and it implies that we have this hidden beneficial intent stacked up somewhere, Right?

We use alphabet soup here in the west as a metaphor for chaos, but actually , either might make for a good breakfast tomorrow morning.

It was my address to the Op complaining,you may be responding to. It seems to lay the miseries of the world at the feet of others. My point is that mozt of us attend to that which is within our scope and cant fix that which is outside of it. You may be right , that the world balances light with the dark. But , Would it not render all action futile? and if so, there would be no call for virtue, no valid support for anything.

I dont know what chi is, is supposed to be ,or would feel ike if I did feel it. It might be the sensation of simply being alive, or be as indistinguishable as a drop of water in an immense sea. Do good with it and Ill say its good, smash fruit with it, and Ill call it silly, be cruel with it , and I will think it a shame.

Go ahead and fix it.

Bummer, I liked the guy. Poetic in speech , novel in attitude. But, if this crowd is too ecclectic for him to find his comfort zone , I hope he finds one better suited.

Depending on circumstance, being crazy or mentally non-adept may be of advantage. Its the circumstance that defines what traits are best to prevail. That's why we all aren't Einsteins built like Apollo and with the drive of a Genghis Khan , (or other someones) A rational person may be susceptible to a rational argument , the crazy or foolish may persist beyond what someone else might do. In fact the craziest person is often very compelling, and the slowest may be first to arrive at the lowest common denominator. I know very few folks that would say they prefer these traits , but frankly , very smart people Often find themselves mal-adapted. I saw one guy , seeming very familiar with higher math, come to the conclusion that his math explained why telepathy was valid. Which isn't really all that different from someone who was fooled to think it was a valid process.

You didn't have to bring it ( prior stuff) up all Sir, You could've just started fresh and seen for yourself if there's bias about Just your thing and would've found out that you're entitled to whatever system you are into. IMO , Start fresh, just speak for you. and don't have everyone else's errors be your burden.

Right from the get-go you have begun with partisan politics as part of a group rather than just as an individual. Despite what may be called politeness, there are still things to which people may take offence to , or get fed-up with. Are you posting to show up somewhere with outrage to display? , or to show allegiance to , what I would consider , just one more practice, in a family of related practices? You haven't given anyone a chance at all in your mind, bringing your baggage with you and creating the destiny that there will be divisiveness where you are concerned, and you've got something to prove. This is probably just an attempt to suck up to Mo pai folks elsewhere , and you aren't going to hear what I am saying to you.

Considering that we are all subject to socialization of different sorts , it may be that Robber Chih , should really be the most relate-able character. He has become great at what he is, a marauder , because he understands and is responsive to the state of the world and himself , acting accordingly . The social stigma put on him , is understood to be largely subjective opinion, he could have been a ruler , general or hero. Confucius similarly has become considered great , accumulating for himself reputation and comfort, as Cz points out , they have commonality of sorts. If, as you say ,these folks are different from the 'ideal sage' presumably the anarchist social reformer Cz ,, in that they do not totally represent the unmodified basic human model. It stands to reason,, then , that , we really need to check and see if this un-carved block is a viable way of life. It may have been Rara? who rhetorically posed (I paraphrase) -Who among us has not been socialized? 1) Maybe, we are just not all, cut out to be mild mannered anarchist social reformers. 2) What is the bait so tempting that one should not consider those other examples , to be presenting the best And also realistic acme of the Way? Certainly if both the Marauder and Bureaucrat are served by the way , without having to become .. like Cz, then the mechanism of the Way are not only approaching the state of un-carved wood , it is also the practical aspects of recognizing what the world allows and does not allow , and how it connects events... or something else ?

I bet my ego can beat up your ego.

I have a significant amt of conflict about this advice, I dont remember when it changed , or see the inherent boundaries of its scope. And to follow it, I am a bit lost. Not least of its issues is its irony., but skipping that, theres meat on its bones.

Ah , then we certainly are on the same page , this, " not being overly attached to external things " is at the center. I think there are things worthy of being attentive of , more than just ones own skin or pride , or whatever you are alluding to.. there is your daily bread, your family , your job , your posessions. I do not think in reality , (not the fantasy land of literature) you would not be willing to defend these " shallow primitive trivial" things . But As soon as you did so , you would be gainsaying all this non attatchment stuff. If not , I or others will indeed take your home and wife and everything else wanted. There are those who indeed do walk away from possessions etc, and they beg on the street , so they have also walked away from their contributions to society , health , family , and pursuits. I presume you are not a jobless , homeless , beggar ,,,, you seem educated , and linked in to society , and rather normal.

" make yourself like broccoli, ignore the death of a loved one ," meaning... make broccoli be appealing to yourself ( or whatever food you might substitute ) Someone might have misled you to believe that all opponents care about victory. The point being, that if you can keep moving away from the things you care about , you might declare yourself undefeated , meanwhile , I would push you off your food . You would bail out and re-declare a new center point you now ' defend '. Since you think you should just re-delineate what ground you claim to be master of , then you might think that victory was my point, because you do not see what you have lost . Like I said before, the evading is the protection of the center, not fleeing from it.. How is abandoning the thread, protecting it? "This is pretty much the definition of entrapment." No it would not be., how could I be trapping you by being upfront and explicit? You admit you want to be evasive, praise the behavior .. but if you started the thread , that is supposed to be inviting dialog , and then you want to evade that same dialog, That Sir ,, Would fit the term entrapment , (but since I dont feel trapped at all, I didnt call it so). This Sir, could be an excellent point ! " Are we to believe that without direct answers, we should make attacks upon others? How is this a palliative for discussions?" But I dont feel I have attacked you, "is this palliative ?" certainly not. But its what happens when one chooses to evade , defend evasion , and so it might stand as an object lesson for a quiet reader.

Someone might have misled you to believe that all opponents care about victory. Say you are a lion that found a dead zebra , then I walk up and you move off the kill to evade. I eat my fill and you can have the scaps that I dont care about. The analogy is that you have a thread , ostensibly that had a purpose for you , and then I push you off it But truth is I havent made a first stroke even, you see traps where all you needed to see was that I was not spinning anything.

You wish to guide me , to waste my time and effort , to prevent yourself from getting hurt. Well if we were in a physical fight and your goal is to remain in one piece , your plan has merit. But we arent. No,, opposing something doesnt always maintain it , continually running away and not accepting the verdict of 'what is the fact' , essentially true does. You see this in wars where , the defeated do not admit the loss , and so the victor has to keep beating on the loser until the victory is clear , otherwise the loser continues to proclaim they didnt lose in an attempt to rekindle the hostilities. And you see this in nature , where both the rabbit and fox , lives to run again. We agree evasion is confusing , but we disagree on whether that is desirable in friendly discussion. I say its not , its angering , and its self deluding. Wich brings us all the way back , to understanding what it is you are having your discussion for , what it means to you and the other. In your case , it appears the goal is to evade, and you have no desire , to together find the root truth. To properly evade , you just do not get into the discussion at all, I am sure your Sifu mentioned the great power of not being around , at all. And therefore your motives are self conflicting, to have a thread , and want to escape the conversation, becomes vexing to me, where we could have advocated from two different perspectives. You see, If I am honest , and I stick to fact , and you indeed , hold me to fact, then you cannot lose to me you will arrive only at the reality of fact. Evade, and you are pushed from your center , I can shove you all over the mat, and only if your goal is to be diverted and man-handled like a novice will you gain your goal. Thats not martial art , theres no , chicken-style kung fu ( that I know of).