XieJia Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) What? Me change? I've done that many times in the past. I'm on a roll right now so don't expect changes from my part of the world any time soon. I meant it in a positive light, something like The Tao is ever-changing, How change it change from that. Edited October 17, 2012 by XieJia Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 17, 2012 I meant it in a positive light, something like The Tao is ever-changing, How change it change from that. Hehehe. I know you meant it with a light heart. Yes, we are ever-changing. That is Tao, can't be helped. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GrandmasterP Posted October 17, 2012 Q. How many Taoists does it take to change a lightbulb? A. NONE. Let it cultivate. It'll change. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted October 17, 2012 (edited) . Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 18, 2012 On a different note I thought someone said that the tao be what which does not change... So which one is it... Tao changes or tao does not change? Oh anyone CAN be helped... question is will they allow it... Nice catch. That is one of the paradoxes of Taoism. Yes, The Tao that can be spoken of is dynamic - ever-changing. The eternal Tao, that which cannot be spoken of exists eternally. And, as it is the totality of all that ever was, all that is, and all that always will be, that it is what it is is never-changing. So which one is it? Both. Noun and verb. Agree, everyone can be helped. But then, some feel they don't need help; some will refuse the help you offer; some will say that your help would only make things worse; some will accept your help but be unable to utilize it properly; and if you are lucky, some will benefit from the help you offer. It is this last possibility that keeps those who truely want to help to keep on trying after experiencing many failures. (Now, please understan ET, this is not an invitation for you to keep bugging me. I fall into that first group of "some". Hehehe.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) . Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted October 18, 2012 On the changing nature of Tao Ive read it both ways and so, posted it both ways. Depending on perspective they are either both true or false. Do I speak the way I do with certain purpose That would be yes and no To a degree it is just habit To a degree it is indicative of intent , which is clarity Lao and Chuang , I have read considered that stating the negative case was more accurate , it is often more precise to say things in the negative I do not speak for the universe , addresses the issue more pointedly than to say I speak for myself, which would seem more of a derailment. More later . Stosh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GrandmasterP Posted October 18, 2012 Tao may or may not change (I have no idea one way or t'other and frankly don't care as, in the scheme of any one life; it doesn't matter). What is for sure is that people change and we are the ones doing the perceiving (or lack of same). 'Searching for the meaning of the Tao' In Tao (ism) though there's a path involving 'us' changing in some ways. From Unconscious Incompetence (don't know don't care) maybe to... Conscious Incompetence (know a bit and know there's much more to learn and WANTS to learn) maybe to... Conscious Competence (Can do some moves pretty competently, still needs support, getting better by keeping at it). maybe to ... Unconscious Competence ('Master' proficiency in a chosen aspect of the way). Bit like how many times you changed gear with a manual shift last time you drove one. You don't know because you have unconscious competence in changing gear. HTH Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) . Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) . Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GrandmasterP Posted October 18, 2012 You are catching on a treat ET, well done. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) I want to say here that I admit to continuing to assume that the papers and poems that I have read and contemplated are just not the standard fare I thought they were Its just that it just dovetails so neatly with what some folks like Marblehead and Aaron and Steve write ..I just forget its more of a leap. and it just doesnt help that I read the stuff so long ago that I am not sure I can even locate the original references either. On saying what a thing is not.... It was a linguistic logical argument , in vogue at some point during the eastern daoist classical period that if one wanted to say a thing in the Absolutely best most assertable form it sould be said in the topsey turvey manner following. That it is not- a- cat , I assert. Linguistically ,a ' cat ' is a concept , it covers big ones, small ones, black ones, tall ones etc The term is vague or undecided to a degree , but it is highly specific relative to all the things which are not cats.( which also has a degree of uncertainty) If a person brings a thing into the room and you want to say with best certainty something about it... You might declare it a whole cat if it fits all the cat parameters , or you could declare it not-a -cat by any single parameter which cats do not possess. So If it has leaves , its not a cat , story over... But if it has fur, it might be a cat, and if it has teeth, it might be a cat ,and if it has whiskers ,it might be a cat ,and so forth.... uncertain-Specificity, versus , highly certain ambiguity. So they made some logical arguments in the inverted negative style to be posessing of the greatest logical certainty in their assertions. I speculate that this logical quirk led to the neti neti mystical meditative practice , and find it quite ironic that a linguistic logical argument was repurposed as such. Et you will have to take it up with Chuang tzu, Stosh Edited October 18, 2012 by Stosh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) . Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 18, 2012 I think paradoxes are the lazy way for the mind to deal with a conflicting situation... rather than resolving the situation... I seen paradoxes disapere before my eyes and think they stem from what is bad... for good has only good... Why in the world would you want to resolve the issue of whether Tao is a verb or a noun? And I suppose that bad has only bad? Sounds pretty darned dualistic to me. What happened to your "All is One."? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stosh Posted October 18, 2012 Well Et , I dont want to drag the thread too far away from its main line of thought replacing that with the subject of my speech patterns , which I cant really change find appropriate to that which I want to say and I do not see as particularly useful knowlege ... Clearly you get the logic of Chuang tzu on that subject in the same way that I do , but you took some exception with it and I dont disagree with your point ,nor do I entirely feel a need to Challenge the reasoning of Chuang on it. Its just a little diamond sitting by itself one can reflect on it and be reflected in it. I dont even want to change it. I brought up the cat thing because It described the logic of why I said , what I said , in the way that I said it. Because I did not think that my choice of words was indicative of much more than what I considered was the best way to respond. If you can glean more information out of my word choices , that would be an admirable tool to have. But ultimately for me , my speech patterns arent going to change much The words pop out before I am aware of them , for the most part De novo , as Steve might say. I hope Ive answered the important stuff , and would like the thread to get back where it belongs so that other folks can participate , a wandering thread tends to throw passengers faster than they board. ( even though I like em just fine.) Stosh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) . Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 18, 2012 You can stop supposing... and recognize that bat be bad :-) Hehehe, Good and bad are both subjective concepts. A wolf eating a sheep is good for the wolf but bad for the sheep. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
et-thoughts Posted October 18, 2012 (edited) . Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 18, 2012 Hang in there. I will find something else to question you on before long. Hehehe, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
