et-thoughts

Who can stand and talk outside the Tao when the Tao envelopes all?

The sage knows that his actions are part of the natural course of things and intervenes as the sage would intervene and does what needs to be done by the sage precisely when its supposed to be done... (which may be to stand like the rock, flow like the water, bend like bamboo, move like the wind, glow like fire etc...) btw the can be judgments, good, desirable, understanding even when there is no duality...

ChiDragon stemming from what you said... the complement of men is woman and child and ... dog the complement of beautiful is smart, funny, caring etc... To me duality stems from the bad seeking recognition as equal to good or what isn't good seeking to negate what is good. I believe its possible to know good by knowing good When one knows the truth one know what be true even while ignoring what isn't true.

I do place my expectations on others... ...of course realizing that they and what happens may just surprise me! of course in a good way (though there are other ways)! I used to have a phrase: Expect the best and be prepared for the rest... BTW How did you manage to become the proprietor of your world ... now which be the world that you claim to be under your possession... and be perfect? This somewhat side road seeks to expose a notion that often keeps dialogues from focusing on 'what be' the natural way... what be desirable... what be true... Asking me to remember a time when there was no life on this planet would shift the dialogue from the agreed state of a human animal position to a different one. Do you want to go there? Do we actually know that before there were people there were no words? BTW When we look closely we may realize that we assign the value and meaning to words... words are just words ... the same could be said of physical matter... what constitutes you being you? the physical body you inhabit? the emotional array you display? the conceptual ideas you sustain? the relationships you hold? " distinctly unique while identical"... alludes to the notion that separate minds can know the same thing by each holding their own identical copy. Evidently what each holds is distinctly unique ... realizing that the two singular instances can actually be identical, took me quite a while to accept... and even now i find that depending on what I choose to believe its either this or that... Fortunately I can expand and contract at will what I hold to believe on this matter without resulting in a complete alteration invalidation of my original position... there is a change in my original position though somewhat tangential ... to begin with I used to hold that ' identical copy' where impossible and latter changed that position to ' identical copy' are possible... To me your statement " that was BS" seems like a defensive mechanism to get rid of the notion instead of dealing with it... BTW how we apply our subjective thinking to that hot stove-top DOES determine whether it be quite cool or quite hot... of course how we determine what be cool and hot hardly changes the temperature of the stove-top... I do wonder if "what be" is dualistic in nature... acting is acting (even if one the act involves nothing). I do wonder if a tree is a tree if nobody distinguishes it as such. Sure the arrangement of matter is still there but its the distinction of a tree that makes it into a tree...

Marblehead Being alive in a perpetual way of being alive and creating life ... can be an eternal way of being... There can exists singularities where there are enriching expanding things ... Everyone has many choices even if they do not see them nor choose them... Yes some people choose not to choose and hold that they have no choices. Yes Many children on this planet are still starving to death... dew to the choices made by some individuals ( to act a certain way or not to act a certain way). OK its now time to choose once and for all... and now its again that time ... and now it again that time... We certainly can talk about what is natural for you or for me AND also about what is natural. Sure you and I would differ in what is natural for us and we may even differ in what is natural. What we consider/hold/believe natural does not determine what be natural ... what be be what be if what we consider natural corresponds to what be natural then we get it else we just think that we get it We can talk about others and what be natural if we know others and what be natural wether they speak or not is irrelevant when we actually know and have a clear accurate idea that does correspond to what be

Nay, Its more like negative thinking ... and we can choose and benefit from more of a positive one... right? if you agree then you see the point ... if you don't well you see another point... which point would you rather hold and keep the good one or the bad one? Sure there are many possibilities some of them much better than the others Maybe when you get through reading this post you will consider other stuff eternal ... and see many singularities ... including that black holes contain quite a bit of stuff... I venture to say that you know of the ripples in the pond caused by a stone 'dissipate' and permeate. I imagine you can imagine that the ripples move the water, the air, the earth and (at least in principle) eventually propagate throughout the universe... sure an infinitely imperceptible ripple the further from the original point while still detectable by infinitely sensible being. Well the actions, words, thoughts, feelings we create are like little stones thrown into the pond... they have an instant singular beginning and then dissipate and permeate everything they have a beginning and "last forevermore". the other example I thought of for a singularity that is eternal was the absolute meaning of a word... it is created when used and set forevermore ... of course every time we use it we set it and again and again create the absolute meaning of that new singular word forevermore (usually in line with the previous singularities). Hope you manage to see the point I wanted to convey here... To transcend the dualistic thinking we need to find a singular point where all are distinctly unique while identical... this can be observed with the singular absolute meaning of words... What was said and what was heard are two separate instances when they are identical though clearly separate if you know one you know the other while distinguishing them apart and together...

wu wei - mystery action - that includes what one does and does not do if everything is changing then change itself is changing... and eventually everything will just be in a perpetual way of being ... BTW the notion that one only has one choice is a bit absurd to me... everyone is forced to be while free to determine how they will be... Some believe that stuff varies between individuals and that the individuals determine the stuff when the individuals just choose what to do with the stuff... talking about what is natural would naturally lead us to what is natural... unless we seek what is unnatural knowingly or not covertly or openly...

wu wei - mystery action - that includes what one does and does not do if everything is changing then change itself is changing... and eventually everything will just be in a perpetual way of being ... BTW the notion that one only has one choice is a bit absurd to me... everyone is forced to be while free to determine how they will be... Some believe that stuff varies between individuals and that the individuals determine the stuff when the individuals just choose what to do with the stuff... talking about what is natural would naturally lead us to what is natural... unless we seek what is unnatural Knowingly or not covertly or openly..

Marblehead Ok relax, take a deep breath, hold it.... hold it... hold it... OK what I will do next... LOL I found something you said hilarious ... "In my real life I always concentrate on the positive. Sure, I consider the negative - the what if's - but I don't get all wrapped up in that stuff. I don't watch the news, it's too depressing. I have enough in my life so I don't need worry about the life of others". Do you see the humor? I do believe you that you want to concentrate on the positive... though its rather peculiar how you when on and focused on... depressing worries rather than energizing caring notions .-) If nothing is presented then one can choose to present what one desires ... one need not have a reason to act, one can just choose to act, because one so chooses to do it... love work that way... if the conditions do or do not present themselves one can work to create them... the substance of the conditions need not determine what one will do... for what one will do determines the conditions and arrangements of the substances... The world, the universe be... life expands and multiplies ... the temporality of death will soon die off... as the eternity of live lives on and then there will be beginnings that endure and last forevermore... I see other possibilities and that life determines life... and how to live... liked the distinctions you used "what is" (objective) and how we decide to interact with it (subjective).

Marblehead, Yo is the physical universe, the Manifest. Wu is the Mystery, what has not yet manifested (potential), the possibility that become real or remain as a possibility would that mean that wei is action (including none-action) BTW What is natural for one person might well be totally unnatural for the person its just that they still have to learn what be natural for them to do.

Marblehead, "when the two of us are standing outside and you suddenly raise your arm and create a pointing finger and say 'Look', I think it is natural to look at the pointing finger". Sure it is natural to look at the pointing finger to see where it be pointing... and then it is natural to followthrough and focus on what be pointed to, rather than focusing on the finger :-) though I also realize other possibilities including how difficult it can be to actually determine what be pointed to... by ourselves... can be! its much easier to wonder out loud! Yea sometimes ones thinking, our thoughts, cause ourself to have an experience. The same could be said in other words... replace 'thinking' with 'feelings' 'faith' 'expectations' 'habits'... Indeed we can be creating ourself a bunch of illusions and delusions and dreams and experiences and feelings and memories and realities and more... I considered the subjective/objective topic in line and complementing with what we were focusing on... though we can leave it aside... the point on the microscope as I see it focuses on dialoguing about duality what is and what isn't and singularity what be

I am left wondering why you choose that .... I would prefer continuing the interchange/ adventure to see what we discover though understand how some choose to follow other paths... rather than venture over the abyss ... its happen before... I make a comment and point something out and some become petrified, I wished they would just keep on going hovering on... but hey thanks for the opportunity I enjoyed and learned from this... hope you did the same

the Subjective becomes objective based on singular distinctions used... hot cold is a subjective fuzzy distinction 0 ( °C, °F, K - Celsius/ Fahrenheit's / Kelvin ) be a more objective singular distinction So the more precise our distinctions are the less subjective and more objective the distinctions become (of course 'the more precise our distinctions are' may mean the more pertinent to the subject matter and thus the more subjective). The core of the point here centers on getting that: - subjective is a fuzzy distinction (valuation) - objective is a precise distinction (valuation) - how we define stuff determines what we see and a bit more Right now something 'clicked' in relation to "wu wei" and "yo wei". "wu wei" = what is "yo wei" = what isn't also "wu wei" = what be What be includes the dualistic notions of 'what is and what isn't' , the singular notion of 'what be', and a bit more And along comes man. "What a beautiful rose." Does that imply that there are ugly roses? WELL WELL lets see wether the statement be true or false... ...and wether the man that comes along be an ugly one or a beautiful one! I hold that the notions of what constitutes 'a subjective valuation' will tint what we find... IS A rose a rose by any other name? Is a flower a flower dew to what it be or what constitutes it being a flower. A better example could be the color red ... IS red red by any other name? (note this has a lot to do with stuff we create and project) "However, it is not just the rose but it is the entire plant as well as the soil it is planted in and the nutrients it lives on". Interesting... the rose contains the entire creation and is contained within the creation... and still the conceived rose exists without and within creation ...before it exists while it exists and after it exists... the conceived rose 'just' exists... the same for each cell... OK back to this thread central topic... " a dualistic singularity and the natural manner Focusing on " the stories we like to tell and cultivate"... Considering that there be so more good around why is it that the stories told tend to focus on what is not desirable rather than what is desirable... the natural manner would be to tell the stories according to what we desire to cultivate and what we value... still it seems we choose to allow other stuff to happen... seduced and entrapped into empowering and feeding that which entraps us rather than directing and entrapping the entrapper within a liberating dance that empowers and feeds that which liberates us. Marblehead if its ok with you... I would use something you said today... actually I am assuming it is ok with you ... today you provided us with a good example of doing that which one claims one will not do... and sort of denying what one be doing... you responded in a post "That is so close I'm not even going to speak to it". Note that your response did speak to it, though claimed otherwise... For a while now I know of the paradoxical incongruency of the judgement call 'of not judging' and point out that while we be forced to judge we be free to choose how to judge...To me a denial of what be eventually leads down a slippery slope into a prison that does not actually exist while still keeping those there quite entrapped (because their thinking its impossible, makes it impossible, and because of other stuff). I prefer the recognition of what be including what be possible with a bias towards the good stuff... (yea some bad stuff is possible and should once and for all remain as just a mere possibility)... until we find the way or the way finds us... we ought to wonder, ponder and question the way...

ehm... I see you focusing and looking at the pointing finger, rather than focusing and looking at the moon :-) and look here there exists a subtle distinction to observe. " 'Is' and 'is not' (BE) dualistic thinking"... and "'what be' be 'what be'" be 'singularistic' thinking. The reason we think dualistic may well be dew to inherited thinking parents... look at a baby does the baby think dualistically? The moon in my example corresponds to the singular integrating perspective contrasted to the singular individual perspectives. The old man who knows the elephant as an elephant can understand and take any singular individual perspective. Recall that the challenge was to define what a 'singularity perspective' is/be. I wonder if we have to first think to see ... some seem to experience stuff first then go through a thinking process to distinguish the experience as being this or that. Of course some go through a thinking process to distinguish the experience as being this or that and then experience stuff... in most cases its a bit more intertwined, a little of thinking and a little of experiencing ... DO we have to think dualistic before we can think 'what is'... NA babies seem to just experience-think-experience... there exists an interesting language called e-prime (english without the verb to be/is) that I found useful. I believe it is possible to learn stuff by knowing 'what be' and that knowing 'what isn't' isn't necessary... those who know the truth, need not know any lies... while those who know the lie may still ignore the truth (they just know what is not is not, that a lie is a lie, even-though they do not know the truth. For example one may know that the lie said that: "the moon is made of cheese" without knowing what the moon is made of. "all that happened was energy vibrations were sent out around it until the energy dissipated" how do we KNOW that be what takes place? The question of 'does the falling tree make a sound' hinges upon what constitutes a sound...

One can still fill a filled cup... as new stuff pours in, the stuff in the cup is displaced until only the new stuff fills the cup... a cup is always full... say half water and half air ... the idea that it be somewhat empty stems from a delusion that air does not fill it... I am sure some will claim that the subatomic fluid is mostly empty and that stems from a different delusion... fill up self with love peace understanding humility and various other spiritual traits, desires... remember that you may be able to clean one side of your bubble but still need the assistance of God to clean the other side... the merciful ways of life, fortune , growth, has infinite possibilities, some of which better remain as possibilties .

zero limits and infinite limits point to the eternal while still using the limiting ways... for the finite temporal its impossible to attain the infinite eternal--- still thanks to the infinite eternal what is impossible for one to do becomes possible for one to do... YES its simultaneously possible to transcend limitations thanks to the infinite possibilities and the two become one and the same and then three in one...

That sort of clarifies the issue a bit IF one knows what be the natural course be... death dies life lives thus eventually only life remains

duplicate post...

Hehehe didn't see that particular interpretation until your post... Still working on understanding what is meant by "Wu Wei - You Wei"... I understand Action for action's sake... I do because I choose to do regardless of the prize or punishment involved... gains and/or losses mean nothing when fully committed ... 'Desirable' gives each what they want... to those who seek the desirable it gives the desirable ... to those who seek the undesirable it gives the desirable (which they find quite undesirable)... so some see only the abundance of the desirable and some see only something else...

Please elaborate what you meant by " here you have demonstrated the dualistic perspective". When I mentioned the old man I sought to convey the notion that old man was the only one to completely grasp the elephant as the elephant and was able to incorporate all the singular perspectives peaces within a cohesive whole. Remember that the challenge was to define singular perspective. I think it was clear the each ones description corresponded to a singular distinct perspective. I do not grasp at this time what you meant by "you have demonstrated the dualistic perspective"... I would say that each ones brain functions naturally whatever the manner each one has chosen (consciously or not)... The example of the tree seems interesting... is a tree a tree by definition or because a tree be a tree... this is a bit like the notion of figuring out if a tree falling makes a sound when no one hears it...

Indeed, and to know if they will listen or not well one has to tell the story and observe what happens... of course one may observe that others may not listen ... - this may be because they know and do not need to hear it - or because they don't know and do not care to know Of course those who know, know whether its the first reason or the second reason and regardless may choose to smile and tell the story again or walk away

Marblehead, If I shared with you the thoughts surrounding 'you wei' that I just had you would probably be ROTFLOL... I am completely ignorant in regards to the translations in use... so it someone said to me 'You Wei' is this or that I would just accept it and proceed on. In regards to the distinctions of 'desirable' and 'undesirable'... sure these two can be replaced by something else that includes them both just like hot and cold can be replaced by 'the temperature'... BTW the desirable: is undesirable to the undesirable is desirable to the desirable The undesirable : is desirable to the undesirable is undesirable to the desirable Note the singular notion of desirable being 'what be' be 'what be' where as the undesirable claims 'what is' isn't and 'what isn't' is When someone who is wrong tells somebody who is right "Hey somebody, you are wrong"? that someone just projected their state towards somebody and demonstrated how wrong someone really is. getting a bit sidetracked ... the point being made here is Hey lets focus on the core topic at hand... what the appropriate translation of "'You Wei'

Indeed, it be quite desirable, to focus most of the time and almost put all of one emphasis on 'the desirable' ...

Marblehead, I have quite a difficult time thinking like somebody else .-) I sort of just focus on the particular topic while considering the many possibilities... so If you can help me out with the particular distinctions that would be great... I am sure this thread will interlace with the "States Of Tao" thread and everything else .-) I trust we can direct the dialogue in enriching ways (evidently other possibilities also exists though I trust we can and will direct the dialogue towards wellness). Its fine with me to use the perspective of the human animal, especially since we each be one instance of such animal... Of course, assuming such be the case... (who knows it may be that some here are from some other dimension, place and time, all are welcomed :-) The notion of 'the perspective of Tao' can be left for a latter interchange. To define what a singularity perspective is I would like to first share an analogy that may help us grasp this... scratch that thought... the elephant experience seems quite applicable here. In a room there is an elephant. Several blind men enter the room and are asked to describe from their perspective the elephant: Its like a snake, its like a tree stump, its like a flat leaf, its like a boulder, its like a course paint brush. The oldest blind mind who only heard the descriptions of the other men triggers a childhood memory of seeing and elephant... Who can integrate the singular perspectives into and encompassing whole? I thinks it is possible to view life from a 'singularity' perspective...

Ok here we go... Note that the subject words arrangement used sort of plays a bit with the core ideas... the natural manner and singularity dualistic My current appreciation seeks an integrative consolidation that shifts from a fuzzy dualistic judgmental comparative appreciation towards clearer distinctions akin to the shift done when moving from warm-cold distinctions towards a temperature scale. A different analogy that may be useful involves the notion of 'the map' / 'the territory'... The interchange can really get interesting when we consider 'the distinctions' (of the map, of the territory, of the distinctions). What does the sage seeks to convey? My understanding would say: the sage seeks to convey "what be", nothing more and nothing less. I see that the sage often uses dualistic claims dew to 'inherited' (physical-cultural-emotional) traits though the diverse forms (messengers) point to and stem from a singular message. How do we know that what we think actually corresponds to what happens to be? (for we can only experience what happens to be by what we think)