Stosh

Difficulties arise squaring these examples into a cohesive canon.. and I demonstrate these conflicts in questions ,, the answers to which one might find strange ,, if they are indeed consequences to such a view.... Then as You see it , the 'way' is a policy of non-interference? Natural things interfere , they eat each other , and so then , nature is not following 'the way', is that correct? This sage , who follows this advice , then , must preach ,( because there is no aggression at the time going on to act as a foil.) But if There Is aggression by the overlords, then he shuts up and tries to save his own skin. Is that correct?

Though I usually abstain from quotes, here are some which would seem to indicate that at least elsewhere there are those who think the sage doesn't entertain ambitions, doesn't get involved , and isn't preoccupied with his physical body. And so , I think there may be a grammatical issue with the quotation as presented , because it logically it may be 'non-sequitur' to the larger body of Daoist Canon. The Tai chi symbol you mentioned, represents the ceaseless cycle of yin and yang .. it presents no point which balance is not present, no moment which does not contain both elements of the polemic , there is merely a shifting tide of dominance-ascendancy , is there not? Lao Tzu: The Tao Te Ching / An English Translation, 1998© by Eiichi Shimomissé Who can be so serene that makes gradually muddy water settle? Who can let things grow through invisible motion? The person in tune with Tao does not seek fulfillment, Heaven and earth have no particular favor, They see Ten Thousand Things as straw dogs (with indifference and equality). The sage (the person in accordance with Tao) have no particular interest. Each of us makes a big fuss about whether one is treasured or disgraced, And worry about one’s own body as if it were a serious trouble. What is this to make a big fuss about whether treasured or disgraced? Ultimately it ought to be to take treasuring for disgrace, and vice versa, And simply consider loss and gain the same. It is a folly indeed to make a big fuss about whether treasured or disgraced. What is this to worry one’s own body as if it were a serious trouble? Because we possess our body, we worry about the loss of the invaluable. Without possessing one’s own body, why worry? Treasure the person who worries about the world as if it were his own body, Entrust the world to him who considers the world as his own body. Lin Yutang Nor can it be said truly that a pure-blooded Chinese could ever quite disagree with Chuang Tzu’s ideas. “Objective existences cannot harm. In a flood which reached the sky, he would not be drowned. In a drought, though metals ran liquid and mountains were scorched up, he would not be hot. Out of his very dust and siftings you might fashion two such men as Yao and Shun {6}. And you would have him occupy himself with objectives!”

May I contest these answers to see where it leads? or would you prefer I flag them mentally and wait.

Whats an example of the way not prevailing? and whats a sagely accomplishment?

What is there for me to ponder? Once the rabbit is caught,.... , you reset the snare.

This is not exactly promoting conventional virtues or morality ,right? We can all possibly agee this isnt telling people to be honest nice charitable etc? and so daoist virtue is not like conventional virtue., its closer to expediency , yes? So it might be that the Book of classic virtue could be retitltled the Book of unconventional expediency.

.... nevermind it doesnt matter, carry on

Safe space thats rich I

I quite agree, Whether someone acted as a mod-expert somewhere else or not, doesn't mean that they do , or do not know , ,whether the things they would choose to do anywhere else , are actually in the best interest of the current forum membership.

I've got one for you , do you think the guys who tanked our economy were considered 'experts'?

If I told ya I'd have ta kill ya

Ironically, hate fear and predjudice, are the reasons to judge pre-empt and exclude people for their ideas. In america the ideal is of free speech, and liberty, so long as its not interfering with the liberty of others. As soon as one decides how they want everyone else to act and speak, it is they who become the antagonists of free participation. Taobums presumably wants participation , and the idea is that , in allowing hostility , the participation drops because folks become threatened or disaffected. That makes sense to me as well, BUT, when the establishment decides to aggressively promote subdued behavior, they themselves have taken on the role of threatening and disaffecting the very public it wants to have participate. Taking on this role, taobums increases its own need to control everyone, its own burden is magnified. Thats why daoist opinionsuggests that leadership should choose to set liberal unrestrictive policy, include all under a tolerant standard and leave the public to flexibly respond to extraordinary issues. I wasnt here in the early days,I hear it worked fine back then, but membership was smaller, and perhaps that makes a difference,

To this , I'm in favor of non-moderated threads in the pit, and if they were started in the pit , then I'd just let em run as long as enthusiasm for the thread exists. Not to be confusing , Ill elaborate , free speech isn't allowed generally, there's always someone who thinks they know what should and should not be said by other people, and this censorship is intrusive. Balancing that , there's the issue of creating a spectacle of rough language which the public may stumble into. If a person is sensitive about words , they can be respected simply by allowing them not to attend threads in the pit,, and if a person wants to give someone a 'piece of their mind' they could opt to do that in an appropriate setting where they know that readers have chosen to allow it. It would just be a spot to 'let it all hang out'. I think a policy like this allows moderators and posters to more comfortably deal with various issues, and some of the cool folks that used to be here would still be. I just see no reason why Daobums should force Every thing to be moderated. The PC stuff is out of hand .. I wandered off to a different forum , and though on my gentlest behavior , the moderator had the infantile gall , to correct me on my punctuation ,and rewrote my post as suited her , She told me that such bad grammar wouldn't be tolerated. I pointed out that her own punctuation was incorrect , (as defined by another source on English grammar.. .. in private) and she told me that her own bad punctuation wasn't the issue ,and didn't matter. She felt she should and could, push me around based on her own opinions . I just walked away from it and left her to dominate the folks there who would tolerate it. There is a level which is too much , and each forum should decide if they are going to be PC Nazis or if they are going to try to be a place where folks can participate freely , a reader can and will always vote with their feet , but the forum should consider whether it exists to serve political correctness or its members.

I like the idea of there being a pit to shovel difficult threads , which isnt open to public view. To let folks air out finish their debate ,but not to leave it as a podium for the public eye. ,, maybe limit the length of how long the thread can go before it predictably terminates on its own , so the mods dont have the burden of having to jump in once its in this pit. Ex: it goes to the pit and you've got twenty posts left, then it locks.

I don't ever actually need more than I have... at least I tell myself that Theres a decent chance I'll croak with cash still in the bank,, gaining no interest.

Dang,! I didnt think.. Astral projection! ah, I guess I goof around too much, the serious dudes seem to drop out when I participate.

Actually a pretty nice job , of nutshelling it , ,, though I dont agree about parts

Figured it out then? Auras.

Ah, that explains how everyone would know who had the rectal issues

Interesting, though I dont see how it plays into the claim of the post in this case. If I read it correct , the Magnus priests were Persians , and the sacrifices mentioned in the article were Chinese people fated to go with the Patriarch in death, their appropriateness was based on relationships , rather than if they had rhoids or not....... I figure .. I cant be sure on that..maybe .. too much rice... but anyway , What should one assume the religion of the people who had these things going on was?

To me , This rendering , doesn't seem to indicate that the spirit person did any sacrificing at all , he just shows a similar idea that there exists a polemic in his opinion that there is auspicious vs inauspicious. I looked up the magnus priest thing, and dont see any indication of human sacrifices by them ,, but its a generic term.,, I did however discover a custom of -not burying a man until his body had been opened by a dog or vulture.

I am voicing personally slanted views, no doubt, and you might not , in real life choose either of the options for any item number presented. Its my opinion that the classical authors of Daoism did not see the world as chaotic , saw repeating themes and relationships in the world , their lives and so forth. In a situation of True chaos one cant make predictions about what is going to happen whatsoever, the laws of nature, as we describe them would be inconsistent .. other people totally incomprehensible. Though life is often difficult , its a great thing to have SOME idea of what is going on, and what is to come. That's what Daoism offers , and I see it , that's what any faith , philosophy , pragmatism .... whatever ,, offers. But You don't have to 'buy' any. One can keep saying the universe is chaotic , deem one's own intended actions futile, and just suffer ineffectually through life flailing around. I certainly couldn't say that I knew it as a fact , that things would turn into a bed of roses , if you "just believe". For some folks ,randomly flailing around, is really the best they can do. Look at the president elect !

Since you didn't get a response, and its a legit question. .. I'll jump in, if thats ok, One can live in harmony with the universe simply by not doing anything stupid. Trick is then, to determine what is,, Not based on illusions , doesnt bring you sorrow ,loneliness ,or hastens your own demise. ( an inclusive answer that I think covers Whomever used the phrase) Whos up for a game of … Harmonyy with the UUNIVERSE !! Choose A or B , , being in harmony with the universe ,or being Not in harmony with the universe.. Ok ready? .. 1 A) wanton destruction of natural resources ,, or B recycling plastic bottles 2 A) arguing with everyone at your place of work ,, or B tender love making session with your spouse 3 A) heroin abuse ,, or B having a beer with dinner 4 A) an urbanite living in the city ,, or B urbanite wandering naked and cold in a forest 5 A) soul searching to determine whats really imortant or B keeping up with the Joneses

I never said it was.

Considering this myself, Can't there be another way of looking at something? I don't get why someone would ask it. What's missing? did fred say there was some absoluteness to things that were actually true?