Stosh

Directness on my part controls me , on your part ,controls you. Yes, its standing still to take the punch, to respond with directness, are you afraid the punch will crush your presentation? If so, then You think your argument is weak. Its not balance to be evasive , its an attempt to protect ones Own perception of their Own weakness from becoming apparent , it gives one maneuvering room so one can escape from truthful recognition of a valid point made on the other side. This cheating of your foil, of recognition for making a valid point is angering and puts the onus on , never getting to the heart of the matter , brings on ad hominem attacks , bailing out , and confusion. It doesnt therefore lead to emptiness , it leads to hostility and futility, which are anything but empty of ego. In martial arts , I have seen guys bow to one another for making a good move throw or punch ( touche') , direct acknowlegement at the end of the match about who won , recognition of the referee's authority and so forth. Its important for civility.

I didnt say you werent gracious, my issue with the answer that it was indirect. As far as entitlement goes I never claimed it, why then should I push for this directness? because , if you held yourself to it I think you would be moved to make concessions which I think fair , and nothing to be uncomfortable about really. If you said , No I cannot make myself like broccoli , then I would say something like, Then there is a limit to how much you can control these sources of desire. We then would not be polarized about the claim of control , but would instead be examining the limits of it , and the assertive fact of it. By constantly diverting and evading the tight spots , discussers just never get to the point where the attitudes of Both can agree rather than ensure disappointment. But like I indicated , its just a unicorn , an imagined creature , so its certainly not unusual not to see them. The habits of discussion are part of socialization, rarely examined. You quote Cleary Erikson and others , and they mean literally nothing , what they say is just claims , nothing at all , just a wast of space , compared to your own presentation which can be looked at closely.

Can you make yourself like broccoli, ignore the death of a loved one , remove your own ambitions , likes and dislikes ? so that they never modify your actions? My own palliative for discussions, a type of unicorn I would like to see some day , is much more basic ,it's simply the honest Direct answer of any question mark. I am willing to reciprocate. Mr Cleary isnt here to cross examine.

You personally, not Thomas Cleary, do this.....? and he/you can make himself like broccoli? like insults ? ignore the death of loved ones ? remove his/ your own ambitions and desires? If not you , I must declare this unsubstantiated second hand claim.

Thats certainly an approach that makes sense. It does fit a philososphy, but since there are others. It may not suit all of them. Im not sure one can transcend all socialization, which would put this view of wei wu wei permanently out of reach of all. So this view, needs modification to suit the reality that we cant function long without socialization at all. I am not under any compulsion aside from social pressures to be nice ,kind, harmless or exhibit virtue of any sort, and clearly individuals can benefit by actions outside those constraints.

I cant keep everyone from cutting themselves, especially when they just arent listening .

Certainly true Daeluin, its a train station. But despite agreeing , I still hold this as true, that sincerity and even opposition ,can be handled best by those who trust in one another, not to go too far. And soft soap works for those for whom that kind of a relationship doesnt exist. Personally,,, I do disclose, share more of my mind ,than is really tailored to those I dont know closely,, but aim at keeping it a moot point how they might take it. ,its not exactly trust or distrust. After a lot of that, I would say that little ever comes of words alone like that, Id just rather say it as I see it, than constanly reframe.

So far we have estabilshed a few things, that one needs to consider who it is one is speaking to.. That everyoune should be entering the conversation for complimentary reasons, , that the effusive groveling and sucking up to be accepted isnt neccesary. You can say ,Have a nice day, and someone may take it wrong. You might consider saying nothing, ,but thats not a conversation and its no fun. Platitudes go over great, when folks just want the superficial acceptance of platitudes. They flop, when someone wants sincere dialog. Goofing around likewise is fun, but not for everyone. Generally speaking its best to steer away from disclosing any fact which is in action able for the other party. Its basically hanging someone out to dry, by starting a subject which is personal, and is not up for random contradiction. Lastly, for now, its a good policy to check in frequently ,to see if anything being said, is sinking in, or readily digested, because if one goes on and on ,blowing past divided sentiments the stuff afterward is unsupported confidence wise.

One would have to know, what the purpose of the communication actually is. That is to ask, whats my motivation for saying anything , here. ? And from the readers perspective, why are they reading it? This is a much more subtle question than what the ostensible subject matter is. You see, The initial post, is often set up as a question, but its really a self sponsored opportunity ,to make a statement. And if the reader wasnt really having a question on the subject, its likely that they will not want a new perspective shown to them. Secondly, there is the problem that some people just bail out of reacting to statements, ,out of fear for loss of their own composure, and the others. People that accept one another, do not need to be ensconced in a protective shell of platitudes an inanities, and so can be vigorous in word with one another, still knowing respect is not gone. Pussyfooting around, is for stangers.

Then they would be white enough.

White enough ,for what?

Who , me? actual research ? .. Yes and no , I was looking for some other permutations of your paraphrase , and thought it curious, and then got to reading Robber Chih's spanking of Confucius.

hmmm Goes all the way back to 2012 and Chi Dragon ...

I don't know what that means but I actually like the sound of it. Its better than tinkling like rain , rolling like rocks.

Then I will make the second point without a foil. As it stands, one cannot live down what they have said in the past. This medium preserving everything, preserves every argument and error , anyone can dig up the old stuff and read how it was you were thinking literally years ago, they can presume your attitudes are unchanged ,and have expectations based on them. So if a person does indeed grow, shift their thinking and come to a perspective, then these folks do not get seen in the light freshly. Instead of approaching the live and responsive person of the present, viewers may dig up the frozen content of the past. We got into arguments , said things we might not say now, ,and that record will not ever be expunged. It represents- never being forgiven. So I rhetorically present to any individual who wants to powerlessly preserve every paragraph of their own speech, Are you exactly the same as when you began ? Are you perhaps clinging to an ego image which has been branded to your name? You may be sad to let go of memories, sad to have evaporate the carefully formulated phrase. But again, We forget in order to move on ,and live the new days.

The principles and rights of people exist if they are honored, and don't exist if they are not. These things live only in the hearts of men. This is a fact of reality. Those who do not honor such things are not acting principled, as regards these matters. That includes our various spy agencies and law enforcement . The actions of an individual or corporation, we attribute to that individual or organization. If Daobums wants collectively, any person to be quoted , to be asked in advance , if they may be quoted , I am fine with that and consider it to be a most gracious and respectful thing to do. However , , for the sake of speed this act of respect is set aside , but I would honor it if a person presented any objection to forgoing that grace. I also would honor anyone whom I had quoted in deleting what they want , of their words. Again , the issue is mostly speed and ease regarding doing that. BUT No I am not going to search through thousands of posts to delete individually every thing I quoted of you for instance,, ,( you should have told me sooner ,, recent stuff ,, fine ) . But it appears that there is computer connection between the origins of quoted segments and their originating posts , the little curvy arrow ,, and so it is not beyond the realm of potential possibilities that originals can be automatically linked to subsequent copies , to allow for later edits and deletions. And so it seems like a thing on the table being discussed , whether its wanted , that originators have complete control of what they have written , to the greatest extent that is possible , or if those rights are to be heavily abridged , so that lurkers and non-participants of conversations, have more convenient access, to conversations made by the people whose right to edit is abridged. This quoting process, as it stands now, circumvents the right to edit ,,, period. I still think you should delete all inactive ( as in , no more substantive participation in it ) threads after a year... or month.,,but not a second or minute like in chat.

Understood , but that doesn't change the bogosity quotient. Such an act is an attempt to circumvent the rights to which folks have been granted ,if one says that on principle one agrees that the originator of the text should be allowed to remove the material .. then its not exactly honest to have copies of it retained, it violates the principle one is claiming to defend or agree with, regardless of whether one claims to have a legal type argument that says they the posting person agreed to allow copies. Is Daobums a principled site?

But the quotes are of someone else's intellectual property as well , its simply a work around to prevent deletions by someone who one has granted the right to delete their own text. Either give someone that right and the ability to actually do it or do not, but its bogus to allow deletions on one hand , but prevent its actual removal with the other.

We could probably all agree , that the world is intimately interconnected , that we cannot predict all the ramifications of any normal event, ( but we can predict some of the less remote consequences to our own actions based on our observations and making analogies ,, or divining the principles by which events proceed, so as to bring about pleasant outcomes). We just cannot rely heavily on those mechanisms to bring about events which we will consider just, without actual effort. There is a tend for things to balance out however and without effort this may bring about exactly what we might want . Some actions will work to bring about the outcomes we might want , and others will not,, so one needs to be flexible and work within the system , according to the basic rules of the system ,,, which are not ours to write. OR we have to just accept what falls our way and call it a victory. (Hey wow , that's just like Daoism!)

It could also be seen as duplicitous to deny racial ethnographic categorizations as being things which literally exist, in light of defending such a categorization of people obstructing a certain pipeline ( which shall remain nameless). Plenty of folks were supportive of a nominee for president -also remaining nameless - based on his categorization along these lines, or call for preferential hiring based on these types of categorizations,, Or vote for politicians who are said to be representative or sympathetic to the needs of people conforming to such categorizations. All of which is bogus if there is no legitimacy to the categorizations in the first place. As I've said before ,, unheeded ,, You cannot defeat the mindset of the importance of these bogus categorizations , by continually high-lighting them, ( the idea that undermines race categorization is the minuscule variability in the human genome relative to other species divisions into subspecies or race, not its complexity ,,,, but that's not un-assailable either ), considering these distinctions to be important or as having some moral validity , is where the fallacy is )

Don't worry, I'm sure the next post will be just as good.

removed

I just lost my post, ,, restarting,, I could live with that, but modify almost every post so that the autocrunch feature puts my spacing the way I typed it. So turn that annoying feature off and the spyware that autosaves , and you got yerself a coconspirator.

One forgets so as to move on , like an unceasing bellows be , no grasping hoarding attempt at immortality in a forgotten thread. Anyone who ever changed their avatar should be at least amenable to understanding the need to cut with the past. Avoiding the long lines at the baggage checkout , looking over ones shoulders , and neurotically changing posts that couldv'e just been left to lie as they may , all 'wabi sabi' and such. Let it go, and float free again like a balloon ....