Stosh

Some people may consider a work as great because its seen as having had impact, or as a relic of ancient ideas. Even this last quote indicates no specfic meaning or understanding, so, though he makes a magnanimous gesture of not alienating anyones particular take on it,, it doesnt indicate that he feels it has an intended meaning by the author. If I took the time to craft a long discussion, and you concluded I had no point, Id take it that you werent receptive, or it was poorly written to relate to you. Neither would I as author consider every possible confusion equal in successfully getting my point. Taoism is far older than Lao, I see Fh as being in line with that older tradition. Lao went philosophical, and after he or they couldnt maintain this difference , that older tradition subsumed the work, reflavored it with mysticism. Lao wasnt the father of daoism, he was an offshoot. I dont know why traditionalists dont just relegate Lao to the care of the west ,since logical philosophy is a forced fit with immortals and so forth.But that up to them .

There are portions I don't get fully , but that's not the real reason,, Not reading ancient Chinese, I will always have doubts about what words are really contained in the text expressing the intent of the author. As Fh was planning to be comparative anyhow, I figure that its ok to use this comparison as a device to determine who isn't sticking to the script as far as meaning goes. There are details which one can fairly gloss over,figuratively, whether a bird is a partridge or parakeet may make some difference as far as folks in antiquity being that they may have been helped to certain associations regarding the difference by such device, though such isn't likely pivotal. This thing about the therefores as I see it is majorly pivotal in that it more than suggests the author was going to lengths to explain , so none of the wild interpretations should be considered as a final word on the meaning of a chapter. Either its a crappy translation or we're supposed to really understand what he is saying in the way its being described. We aren't supposed to be left saying , Wow that sure is mysterious! and pretend we got the point. Out of courtesy I did in fact back up and at least scan Mr Chan's stuff, He does indicate that sentiment , the Wow its so great not to understand this sentiment.And so I take him at his word that he doesn't really get what has been told to him (regardless of how intelligent he is or how much he knows about Chinese history). As I see it, getting the point isnt much about being able to learn and store large amounts of data , its about sincerely trying to connect with a mindset we don't ordinarily employ. He says himself ! he doesnt understand it , he writes it off as mystical clap trap, pretty , engaging , teasing etc but not having a valid point of its own.

Cool, Should I take it that , you still are daily aware of your ego as an existent phenomena ? which would mean that it isnt really 'dead' per se' , and ,What difference , do you feel, this event has had in your regular life ?

What if I am honestly presenting the picture I want them to see? :-) But frankly, Im trying to envision whats going on , are you supposed to sit and imagine youre water ? and at some point you get it so that youre not aware of your identity ? if thats it, I dont get the point of the exercise, because one often isnt thinking about pretensions. Im thinking the idea of yourself as being a mental objectreally only happens periodically. One keeps refreshing and updating a residual identity, or so it seems to me. Ive been told that true emotions are really fleeting momentary attitudes lasting less than a minute! You just replay certain messages or do a sensation check of your body to tell you which emotion has been stirred. Taoists have said that all one really has to do, is let the emotions settle and peace can prevail. This seems accurate to me, so .. I dont get the point or mthodology of killing ones ego being described. Why do ,,, whatever this killing thing is ? to be forever happy ? Someone with a dead ego is what? more effective at going through the motions of living without appreciating anything? Im really asking, and yall appear to be willing to explain,, so , wherefore do what exactly ?

How then do I know if my ego is engaged moment to moment , or not? When I wake up , I dont review my name, I just go through a routine.

Can you smell pancakes when your ego is turned off?

Who is the problematic suspect ,cause of the sql issues?

Thanks for the offer, but I gotta be honest, I wont be reading what Mr Chan has to say. He cant hear me back. Whatever youd like to express and endorse of it however , would be of interest. It might seem irrational , to refuse such direction, on my part, but the reason is this,, if I did not agree with something he just isnt there to dicuss it!.He isnt putting his own ass on the line. You do, I do, a redirect to some disembodied speaker isnt something I chase. So whatever he has to say is pontification from an unassailable retreat and Im not going to put myself in that kind of position by a redirect. Perhaps I too will be more convincing when Im dead, by virtue of not being able to answer either :)Picking two people at random, Marblehead and Ralis, they are willing to voice their beliefs ,in front of perhaps thousands of readers, stand their ground ,make their point, And defend why they said what they did ,honestly by what they believe. I respect that. There is no higher authority than that, certainly not the unattended comment or paper.

I had that exact excerpt in mind Yueya. While I like the writing, its nuance in connotation , its sophistication in constuct, at heart, the important thing to me is what I believe the author wanted me to understand. I think I get it but need reminding, need confirmation if I am on the right track . Because its so easy to get astray, for me. Im as suceptible to all the error that anyone else is and cant change the dualistic and imaginative and emotional biases that I have. Understanding only goes ,so far. You put a finger right on one example, which is that a forum such as this, in fact pushes with the impetus ones desire to speak up, to be .... confrontational. Silence doesnt type out easily. Certainly no one knows the degree to which I hold my tongue. And saying ditto doesnt add anything , It just looks like kissing up to favorite authors. I wasnt going to insert my views, but then did. I see the idea that ANY perspective being equal , as an end to enquiry, which bothers me if its about this stuff. There is mystery at the root of living and being , but what one man wanted to relate to us ,respect equates to wanting to at least hear the man out.Hear him clearly and unspun with our own bias. He spoke to people that spoke his way , and the fact that we now dont remember the way words were use 2300 years ago means we we have to work even harder . So we do need to really apply our brains.... and only then can begin to forget specifics.

It seems the thread has gone silent, the prospect of there actually being correct and incorrect understanding perhaps diminishes the enthusiasm of some,, Or maybe its the idea that in considering everyone's speculations as being equally correct ,means that one cannot actually attribute special meaning authentic to the author. As Flowing hands introduced the idea in this following fashion in the Other thread,... I compared the presented translations , discovered an inconsistency , determined that inconsistency to be unsupported by the text and therefore out of line with the authors intent. The reply indicates that the intent of the author is considered not to override the personal slant of any given reader , and inconsistency with the original work is not universally considered to be important. Readers openly admit they find the text mysterious and confusing , but they like it that way, It's more romantic as a poetic mess, less intimidating as a puzzle, more embraceable as a Rorschach blot.. ,,than it is as a heartfelt and sincere attempt to convey truth. That is , in fact what it is about ..truth, and why one should embrace the truth, to the point of living in harmony according to ones natural response to this new perspective. IMO Flowing Hands, I quote ,, "There have been many differing translations of the DDJ. Each has a different slant and meaning. Why should it be translated completely right? We can look at various chapters and compare them and how they differ and what we comprehend from each variation and was this meaning intended by Lao Tzu for instance? So put up some versions we could start off with verse one and analyse each verse and the various translations available. We can contribute to each lines meaning and see what we get from various members perspectives. It will be an interesting challenge, with some self understanding along the way perhaps!"

The author gave us things to consider , so he must've thought there was some benefit to considering certain things. There being a benefit to be gained , there is likely a perspective which can yield this benefit , and potentially perspectives which do not. Personally I think the work has both merit and intent , so I cant agree that any perspective is equally correct, nor can I agree that excluding the therefore is inconsequential , since the understanding pivots on it. Leaving the therefore out does potentially yield a view that the sage just acts contrarian , or leaves the passage indicating that the way of the sage is simply the inverse of what everyone else does. I'd consider it equally valid to hold that opinion , if I was not just told that the therefore is indeed explicitly indicated.

Thanks, So then , since we should then consider the therefores as integral to the initial intent ,many if not all of the chapters could be considered explanatory rather than mysterious , correct? (mysterious meaning,, defiant of rational understanding) The work should be considered as an exposition , rather than a dogmatic or esoteric work. Yes? And Mr Star is leaving out important portions in his interpretation. Considering this passage in that light , how do you see the first part, justifying the sage managing his affairs as described in the second part?

I'm curious how y'all deal with the irony inherent in the statement describing not speaking/ teaching - to the audience , as being sagely , but at the same time be ' speaking /teaching ' to the audience.. the reader. Also, it appears Mr Star omits a 'therefore' , so I'm wondering whether the closest original has any actual indication of a 'therefore'. ( since its very much a significant modification indicating that the stuff before it becomes rationale for the stuff after it, when you DO include a therefore,,, and doesn't necessarily imply that the earlier portion is rationale for the later part , if one doesn't include a 'therefore'. Omitting it, one could comprehend the two portions as being comparative , rather than part one being causative for the second)

Never?

One has to see the flaws in their own attitudes , from a position of objectivity , and be , not only ready to make some changes in their head , but modify their behavior in a way which manifests the validity of the changes. Ideas are fleeting , compared to habit , ,and dubious , compared to empirical conclusion endorsed by our socialization. It takes time to entrench . And its possible that these hurdles are great enough to point people to hope for miracles overnight. We have the additional difficulty due to the circumstance of being ensconced in a lifestyle , embedded in a culture ,which is responsible for the very attitudes we already have , So recidivism is common. Our desires are often as problematic as our aversions - we just don't want to let go of the ego identity we have constructed. I told a man a fact once, and he doubted it. And I told him my opinion about it , so he rejected me. He feels safer that way I guess.

Um, Theres many many translations, and one can multiply that number by the number of people willing to read more than just one,, and you get a huge tally of opinions... We each stand on a podium and speak our understanding, which nobody else closely agrees with. There are some highly intelligent and knowledgeable people on here , and they could ,,IMO ,, with ahuge amount of work, delineate an unprecedentedly encompassing and unifying translation. In a line by line negotiated discussion they would be exposed to everyone elses views, and in the end all us readers could finally read a presentation that we could feel embraced the basic sentiments of the texts which spoke to all of us, having these guys representing the various ..factions.Its F H,'s thing though, and not my place to push the idea.

Understood, I was just thinking that since you read many versions,perhaps coming to a more thorough enriched view , and thus perhaps cancelled out some of the personal biases , which any individual translator cant help but impart.... that this same potential for improvement could be imparted to the thread. I'd have liked to see that result , But its your thing and Im Ok with looking on.

It would be very interesting to see if y'all together could negotiate , for each chapter , a single summary translation that y'all could agree contained the essence of the subjects sentiment rather than just have everyone state their own interpretation which didn't coincide with the others. To come to an accord for each portion ,since the virtue of discussion , if it has any , is not in remaining obstinate with heels dug in yet deeper , but to get to the soul of it.

Since this ends as a question , I hope its ok to challenge it., since I've been thinking about this subject lately. If the spiritual , is not the physical ,then the boundary of the spiritual , is the physical manifestation of what exists. So the spiritual is a bounded subset of the whole of what exists ,just as the mental is. This is in accord with the idea of the universe as a monist entity, and its in accord with the idea of polemic yin and yang model of its operation. The polemic exists, as mental abstractions regarding the monist universe, but the stars do not recognize space to be cold , since are not indulging in this polemic mental division , (having no brain which we are aware of.) 'Everything which does exist , exists' , logically , is a tautology. That means its inherently accurate within the scope of its own claim, and one can only refuse it from an an angle which is illogical. Similarly one cannot logically argue that the spiritual or physical are unbounded yet somehow -not united. A person is the creator of the yin yang polemic view , and may source what it is they value in either the physical material manifestations of what exists , Or they may source what they most highly value in the mental inventions made possible by physical brains. Any of these views can be judged correct , incorrect , partially correct , but all these are mental fabrications describing mental models of a universe which actually exists as an 'entirety'.

True, ,I was beginning to think it was posted as an ironic lesson , which is to say, in concluding everything really needing to be said about the subject, we would proceed to leaving it alone, demonstrating the virtue. But me ,occasionally being a friendly sort, energetic and communicative ,, would prefer to hang around whether the thread had functional utility to me or not. Thus exemplifying another use for uselessness,, that it could serve as a backdrop highlighting whether folks just wanted to hang out with you , or if they really were looking for some other kind of gain.

Sorry dude , this issue seems to be regarded as covered already.

Clicking on the icon which you have , Brian, for stylometry , I was directed to the wikipedia entry ... From wikipedia "In time, however, and with practice, researchers and scholars have refined their approaches and methods, to yield better results. One notable early success was the resolution of disputed authorship in twelve of The Federalist Papers by Frederick Mosteller and David Wallace." Which is probably more than coincidental, considering how many of us ' write like' him Indeed, the first time I quoted from the Bible I got a correlation with James Joyce, BUT , when I randomly picked a spot that didn't have 'Lords' strewn through it , I got Mr Harrison the fiction writer. I suspect that emotion laden words , key phrases , and anachronisms will weigh heavily. Re: the writing of .. DF Wallace ...manic, human, flawed extravaganza Wallace's fiction is often concerned with moving beyond the irony and metafiction associated with postmodernism. (actually the other David Wallace is david L wallace but its still an odd coincidence )

I got a H P Lovecraft , Fennimore Cooper , and David Wallace. ,, umm I dont see much in common between these writers, expect maybe they wrote like Me. I tried some others, apparently Melville wrote like Robert Louis Stevenson ,and Chuang tzu wrote like Isaac Asimov and Winnie the Pooh wrote like Mark Twain. Since it does seem to make some sense to draw those comparisons , I figure there may be something in the comparison. An excerpt from the bible suggested ,,,,,,,, Harry Harrison Photo by Szymon Sokół. CC-BY-SA 3.0 Harry Harrison (born March 12, 1925) is an American science fiction author best known for his character the Stainless Steel Rat and the novel Make Room! Make Room! (1966), the basis for the film Soylent Green (1973). He is also (with Brian Aldiss) co-president of the Birmingham Science Fiction Group.

There obviously are two types of 'sage' to consider, the mythical sage who lives on dew and flies around, and the earthly guy who has to make a living, and still has all the basic human attributes. Obviously the real guy is the greater sage of the two, , understood, for obvious reasons. Well we actually may disagree on the tai chi since I didnt say that there is a return to perfect harmony , I said that the balance is present at all points.

Bravely bold Sir Robin Rode forth from Camelot He was not afraid to die Oh, brave Sir Robin He was not at all afraid To be killed in nasty ways Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin He was not in the least bit scared To be mashed into a pulp Or to have his eyes gouged out And his elbows broken To have his kneecaps split And his body burned away And his limbs all hacked and mangled Brave Sir Robin His head smashed in And his heart cut out And his liver removed And his bowels unplugged And his nostrils raped And his bottom burnt off And his penis split and his... "That's... that's enough music for now, lads." Read more: Monty Python - Brave Sir Robin Ran Away Lyrics | MetroLyrics