5 elements in the real world

[GrandmasterP]

Yep that Lama lad stops it raining almost to order, only locally mind you but enough so they can get around and stay dry.

Round these parts, I cultivate, it rains. But having said that it's always flippin' raining these days.

Now if I could get it to stop raining that'd be useful.

[Birch]

Yep that Lama lad stops it raining almost to order, only locally mind you but enough so they can get around and stay dry.

Round these parts, I cultivate, it rains. But having said that it's always flippin' raining these days.

Now if I could get it to stop raining that'd be useful.

 

But Mr GranP, you guys practically live in the rain! Other places one is often availed of what is known as a 'rain check' which is considered valid and has more to do with accurate knowledge of local weather patterns than any kind of influence.

Just so I'm clear, I'm not saying some people can't effect the weather (there's a whole bunch of them cloud-seeding, or at least they used to). And I'm not saying some people can't effect the weather in a Taoist way. I would say that to wonder to oneself if one has actually effected the weather could be a slippery slope. If you're doing it, know you're doing it, why you're doing it.

 

--- 2cts rant intended to avoid slippery slopes---been there----

[Stosh]

The condescending "modern science has made progress since then" stances is something I find highly amusing. No it hasn't.

Yes it has, you just dont accept how pervasive it is .

The thing which ' amuses you' , you find it condescending too, and thats a shame , since I tried to phrase it acceptingly of the old ideas. You dont see the confusion which surronds the 5 elements plan? that folks have it backwards or spiralling in circles? If you come to look at those older ideas with todays view, you might call wood organic materials , fire kinetic energy , water fluid dynamics and yin yang as thermodynamics,,, or suchlike.

But the general trend I see by many is rather a defiance or escapism "SCIENCE IS BAD FALSE blah blah blah" and they ignore that they type the stuff on a computer which is a product of the scientific age.

All science ever was , was a system to determine that which is objectively true, and if science is bad then one considers an understanding belief in the objective truth to be bad as well... but to say that the most primitive state of knowlege is as developed as the most progressed ...isnt sound. You may find it more intuitive , the old stuff , and maybe it has some angles on the state of the real world that western science community didnt pursue , BUT like I said, science itself is just an applied methodology.

 

But Ive been over all this once before , and said my two pence about it.

[GrandmasterP]

 

 

But Mr GranP, you guys practically live in the rain! Other places one is often availed of what is known as a 'rain check' which is considered valid and has more to do with accurate knowledge of local weather patterns than any kind of influence.

Just so I'm clear, I'm not saying some people can't effect the weather (there's a whole bunch of them cloud-seeding, or at least they used to). And I'm not saying some people can't effect the weather in a Taoist way. I would say that to wonder to oneself if one has actually effected the weather could be a slippery slope. If you're doing it, know you're doing it, why you're doing it.

 

--- 2cts rant intended to avoid slippery slopes---been there----

.........

That Lama lad stops it raining when they have to cross a slippery pass and it's teeming down so it would be dangerous for the ponies. Chap I know has travelled with him and he has no need to tell porkies it's just something the Lama can and does do if he needs to. No fuss about it and the locals , this is way up in northern India ; seem to expect it of him when he's there. Where I come from, on the high Pennine moors with the highest rainfall in England; webbed feet are seen not so much as a birth defect but more as a useful attribute.

I've given up being skeptical about what folk can and can't do. There's a little woman at the old dojo she's not eight stone wet (112 pounds) who can push a seventeen stone hulk through the air and onto his back without breaking sweat. I come in at 14 stone plus and she's had me flying a time or two.

[Taomeow]

Yes it has, you just dont accept how pervasive it is .

The thing which ' amuses you' , you find it condescending too, and thats a shame , since I tried to phrase it acceptingly of the old ideas. You dont see the confusion which surronds the 5 elements plan? that folks have it backwards or spiralling in circles? If you come to look at those older ideas with todays view, you might call wood organic materials , fire kinetic energy , water fluid dynamics and yin yang as thermodynamics,,, or suchlike.

But the general trend I see by many is rather a defiance or escapism "SCIENCE IS BAD FALSE blah blah blah" and they ignore that they type the stuff on a computer which is a product of the scientific age.

All science ever was , was a system to determine that which is objectively true, and if science is bad then one considers an understanding belief in the objective truth to be bad as well... but to say that the most primitive state of knowlege is as developed as the most progressed ...isnt sound. You may find it more intuitive , the old stuff , and maybe it has some angles on the state of the real world that western science community didnt pursue , BUT like I said, science itself is just an applied methodology.

 

But Ive been over all this once before , and said my two pence about it.

 

You have a whole bunch of points there which are not so much invalid as IMO misapplied. Let me explain if I can:

 

1. Condescending stances toward taoist sciences as "primitive science" are ubiquitous, you are not the only repeater of the repeaters of this premise. You got it from a rather universal type of indoctrination modern pseudoscience and its popularizers routinely use when addressing what they don't have the foggiest about.

 

To repeat mass-indoctrination slogans with the enthusiasm of a maoist chanting from the "little red book" is not scientific, it's merely compliant and conformist. Neither you nor others who repeat this line have done modern AND taoist science in any depth to have a real frame of reference for what they're talking about. Haven't compared approaches, haven't understood the real difference (e.g. the interesting fact that taoist sciences are primarily concerned with time, an area of scientific research Western science has been either blind to or not equipped to tackle with its methods), haven't integrated what they learned, and haven't arrived at this "primitive" conclusion as a result of any such scientific investigation. Those who did, however, like Niels Bohr, e.g., one of the greatest modern physicists, do not call it "primitive." On the contrary. Bohr is the author of the assertion "top notch theoretical science" in application to the taoist theory. When he was knighted for his accomplishments, he chose the taiji symbol (yin-yang) for his coat-of-arms. I've read works by modern scientists who did learn taoist sciences as well, and therefore had a chance to understand how far from "primitive" they are. They are my source of opinions because they are experts rather than repeaters of repeaters. Fritjof Kapra, the author of "The Tao of Physics," got his Ph.D. in theoretical physics from the University of Vienna in 1966, did research in particle physics at the University of Paris (1966-68), the University of California at Santa Cruz (1968-70), the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (1970), Imperial College, University of London (1971-74), and the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory at the University of California (1975-88). He also taught at U.C. Santa Cruz, U.C. Berkeley, and San Francisco State University. Johnson F. Yan, the author of "DNA and the I Ching," after receiving his PhD from Kent State University, did post-doctoral research on computational chemistry of biopolymers at Cornell University and taught there, and does research in the area of interpretation of DNA and protein sequences. Gilbert Ning Ling, one of the founding fathers of the science of biophysics... Lotfi Zadeh, the father of the mathematical theory of fuzzy logic... Benoit Mandelbrot, a pioneer of complex-plane mathematics, fractals and power laws... Roger Penrose... to say nothing of a whole host of scientists who started out completely mainstream, Ph.D. degrees from top universities, peer reviewed work in mainstream fields, and then went away from that and toward things more esoteric (like taoist sciences) as an outcome of their scientific evolution... Terence and Dennis McKenna... Nassim Haramein... Are you familiar with any of the works of the above mentioned scientists? Of any scientists who didn't limit themselves to standard indoctrination? If you are not, I would recommend it highly.

 

2. Yes, it's true that the new age crowd talking about taoist sciences doesn't have the foggiest. That's because they are not taught to the general public the way science that hasn't been demoted is taught, in any thought-through step by step sensible curriculum, starting from the basics, progressing to the complexities and to creative work. The general public gets snippets and rumors and distortions of taoist sciences. It says something about their availability (scarce -- taoist scientific works in physics, mathematics, geography, geology, astronomy, cosmology, medicine, metallurgy, and so on have been consistently illegalized, removed and burned by emperor after emperor -- Mao was not the first one to do that, nor was Rockefeller, with his influx of billions of dollars beginning in the early 20th century into dismantling taoist sciences in China, closing any and all institutions that taught them, and substituting his own "superior" brand of science). A persecuted science is seldom primitive or irrelevant. It is usually persecuted because it's dangerous. Because its truth might undermine the lies the ruling archons find better suited for their purposes. Which usually have nothing to do with scientific truth and everything with control, domination, and profit. A science they waged a war on for two thousand years trickles down to a modern aficionado in paltry droplets. That some people still feel these droplets are precious and try to build their own understanding on this drastically limited influx is not a sign of the inadequacies of their thinking as much as of some instincts still functional and homing, as best they can, on the real deal... but, alas, few get to any genuine sources, that's why you see so much confusion. Choose who to talk to about these things wisely -- judging the state of the science by what a random "just anyone" cut off from its bulk knows about it is like deciding to have brain surgery and inviting the first passer-by from the street to perform it.

 

There's more I wanted to comment on -- maybe later.

[Aetherous]

I can't agree with your stance, Taomeow...but I appreciate how much you love Taoism.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

Stosh, I would like to point out that the objective universe is not the only reality. Science is great for objective truth, but the mind outside the body is nowhere found in objective reality. it is not an object, yet it interacts wit hthe objective universe in many levels.

 

 

Science cannot touch the subjective, yet the subjective is where science was born.

[GrandmasterP]

Objective reality is posited on a perceptual subject objectifying same.

No perhaps the best basis for empirical pursuits.

Who might be the 'I' perceiving?

[Birch]

Objective reality is posited on a perceptual subject objectifying same.

No perhaps the best basis for empirical pursuits.

Who might be the 'I' perceiving?

 

Too many answers and questions in that last one Mr GranP. How about I start (and don't go asking who I am as I won't say anything other than 'myself') with the first one:

 

- Is objective reality posited on any other condition? If so, what conditions?

[GrandmasterP]

Good point.

We were looking a triangulating data capture methods with Year 1s earlier this evening.

A checks B checks C and so on. Now that's pretty sound as far as action research goes but ultimately any conclusion drawn is subjective and of necessity limited to the scope or field of the research.

You can extrapolate how to make Teflon beyond the research set. If Teflon can be made thus, then replicating that thus elsewhere will produce Teflon as long as you do it right.

That's science ( and non stick pans), jolly useful it is too.

But perception, now that's a subjective call. Outside of planet non stick pan, where most of us think we live most of the time; things are ever so slightly more complex. Infinitely so.

Non stick pan world is a comfy place to live and move and have our being , most folk are happy there, but it isn't especially 'real' by any reflective definition of that slippery term.

HTH

Edited November 5, 2012 by GrandmasterP

[Stosh]

Stosh, I would like to point out that the objective universe is not the only reality. Science is great for objective truth, but the mind outside the body is nowhere found in objective reality. it is not an object, yet it interacts wit hthe objective universe in many levels.

 

 

Science cannot touch the subjective, yet the subjective is where science was born.

 

Im aware there is subjective reality and think I agree completely wholeheartedly and refreshingly

that they interact .both real, both somewhat illusory ,, parts of a whole view.

Im not taking the polar position of this old debate , the position I hold is inclusive, so the inverse

opinion is the exclusive one or muddles the two

(.. the one where a person rejects half the truth or confuses the limitations of either.)

[GrandmasterP]

Yep, muddle is about right.

We see, as it were...

'Through a glass darkly....'

As a famous medium once said.

[Stosh]

You have a whole bunch of points there which are not so much invalid as IMO misapplied. Let me explain if I can:

 

1. Condescending stances toward taoist sciences as "primitive science" are ubiquitous, you are not the only repeater of the repeaters of this premise. You got it from a rather universal type of indoctrination modern pseudoscience and its popularizers routinely use when addressing what they don't have the foggiest about.

 

To repeat mass-indoctrination slogans with the enthusiasm of a maoist chanting from the "little red book" is not scientific, it's merely compliant and conformist. Neither you nor others who repeat this line have done modern AND taoist science in any depth to have a real frame of reference for what they're talking about. Haven't compared approaches, haven't understood the real difference (e.g. the interesting fact that taoist sciences are primarily concerned with time, an area of scientific research Western science has been either blind to or not equipped to tackle with its methods), haven't integrated what they learned, and haven't arrived at this "primitive" conclusion as a result of any such scientific investigation. Those who did, however, like Niels Bohr, e.g., one of the greatest modern physicists, do not call it "primitive." On the contrary. Bohr is the author of the assertion "top notch theoretical science" in application to the taoist theory. When he was knighted for his accomplishments, he chose the taiji symbol (yin-yang) for his coat-of-arms. I've read works by modern scientists who did learn taoist sciences as well, and therefore had a chance to understand how far from "primitive" they are. They are my source of opinions because they are experts rather than repeaters of repeaters. Fritjof Kapra, the author of "The Tao of Physics," got his Ph.D. in theoretical physics from the University of Vienna in 1966, did research in particle physics at the University of Paris (1966-68), the University of California at Santa Cruz (1968-70), the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (1970), Imperial College, University of London (1971-74), and the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory at the University of California (1975-88). He also taught at U.C. Santa Cruz, U.C. Berkeley, and San Francisco State University. Johnson F. Yan, the author of "DNA and the I Ching," after receiving his PhD from Kent State University, did post-doctoral research on computational chemistry of biopolymers at Cornell University and taught there, and does research in the area of interpretation of DNA and protein sequences. Gilbert Ning Ling, one of the founding fathers of the science of biophysics... Lotfi Zadeh, the father of the mathematical theory of fuzzy logic... Benoit Mandelbrot, a pioneer of complex-plane mathematics, fractals and power laws... Roger Penrose... to say nothing of a whole host of scientists who started out completely mainstream, Ph.D. degrees from top universities, peer reviewed work in mainstream fields, and then went away from that and toward things more esoteric (like taoist sciences) as an outcome of their scientific evolution... Terence and Dennis McKenna... Nassim Haramein... Are you familiar with any of the works of the above mentioned scientists? Of any scientists who didn't limit themselves to standard indoctrination? If you are not, I would recommend it highly.

 

2. Yes, it's true that the new age crowd talking about taoist sciences doesn't have the foggiest. That's because they are not taught to the general public the way science that hasn't been demoted is taught, in any thought-through step by step sensible curriculum, starting from the basics, progressing to the complexities and to creative work. The general public gets snippets and rumors and distortions of taoist sciences. It says something about their availability (scarce -- taoist scientific works in physics, mathematics, geography, geology, astronomy, cosmology, medicine, metallurgy, and so on have been consistently illegalized, removed and burned by emperor after emperor -- Mao was not the first one to do that, nor was Rockefeller, with his influx of billions of dollars beginning in the early 20th century into dismantling taoist sciences in China, closing any and all institutions that taught them, and substituting his own "superior" brand of science). A persecuted science is seldom primitive or irrelevant. It is usually persecuted because it's dangerous. Because its truth might undermine the lies the ruling archons find better suited for their purposes. Which usually have nothing to do with scientific truth and everything with control, domination, and profit. A science they waged a war on for two thousand years trickles down to a modern aficionado in paltry droplets. That some people still feel these droplets are precious and try to build their own understanding on this drastically limited influx is not a sign of the inadequacies of their thinking as much as of some instincts still functional and homing, as best they can, on the real deal... but, alas, few get to any genuine sources, that's why you see so much confusion. Choose who to talk to about these things wisely -- judging the state of the science by what a random "just anyone" cut off from its bulk knows about it is like deciding to have brain surgery and inviting the first passer-by from the street to perform it.

 

There's more I wanted to comment on -- maybe later.

 

Im sorry , Where exactly is my misapplication ?

I didnt think I got my point from any indoctrination ,,

I thought it was my own conclusion.

If I read all that correctly you are saying that there is legitamacy

to some Taoist conclusions ..

Ok fine

I absolutely agree with that too! with an exception ...

I dont agree that a person should dismiss the laws of

physics or nature as BS ,

2500 years ago

they didnt have chemistry or physics or thermodynamics

or quantum physics or techtonics or evolution or even

the gravitational constant (and a thousand other things!)

They tried to explain rusting- WITHOUT CHEMISTRY

They tried to explain biology - without knowing what oxygen was!

I credit their efforts

the saying goes that 'we only see so far because we stand on the shoulders of giants'

But we still see farther! give credit where credit is due.

[Stosh]

Yep, muddle is about right.

We see, as it were...

'Through a glass darkly....'

As a famous medium once said.

Sounds good, I think Ill have me one of those too!

[GrandmasterP]

;-)

[ChiDragon]

Im sorry , Where exactly is my misapplication ?

I didnt think I got my point from any indoctrination ,,

I thought it was my own conclusion.

If I read all that correctly you are saying that there is legitamacy

to some Taoist conclusions ..

Ok fine

I absolutely agree with that too! with an exception ...

I dont agree that a person should dismiss the laws of

physics or nature as BS ,

2500 years ago

they didnt have chemistry or physics or thermodynamics

or quantum physics or techtonics or evolution or even

the gravitational constant (and a thousand other things!)

They tried to explain rusting- WITHOUT CHEMISTRY

They tried to explain biology - without knowing what oxygen was!

I credit their efforts

the saying goes that 'we only see so far because we stand on the shoulders of giants'

But we still see farther! give credit where credit is due.

 

Didn't I tell you once or twice already that you are a scholar and a gentleman.....

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

a tall dark glass of muddle please or... maybe just a shot, I gotta go to bed lol

[Andrei]

Wow wow Stosh, wait a minute, do I really need to tell you that I have a PhD in aerospace engineering? And believe me I really know what are materials, kinetic energy, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics and such.

[Stosh]

Wow wow Stosh, wait a minute, do I really need to tell you that I have a PhD in aerospace engineering? And believe me I really know what are materials, kinetic energy, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics and such.

 

You can

but it would be a helpful supplement to add what it is I am supposed to learn from that

I dont know what your point is.

[Stosh]

Didn't I tell you once or twice already that you are a scholar and a gentleman.....

 

Yes you have , thanks

my underlying message is very moderate

and its nice to know one or two people out there also

see that Tao is not anathema to scientific understanding

they are complimentary

Edited November 6, 2012 by Stosh

[GrandmasterP]

"Nice to meet you Mr Scientic Understanding"

smiled the Tao.

"The pleasure is entirely mine sir", replied that suave gentleman.

 

As a possessor of possibly the most useless PhD in the history of the academy (Gender in Education Management), might I counsel anyone considering undertaking such long laborious cultivation to possibly think again and perhaps plump for a career in maybe lap dancing of short order catering?

You'll have far fewer headaches and the tips will be a lot better.

[GrandmasterP]

That aerospace engineering PhD by the way!

Not exactly rocket science is it?

 

[Taomeow]

I only have master's but I come from four generations of Ph.D.s -- physics, engineering, biology, medicine. My father had me recite a treatise on thermodynamics by heart when I was 4, just to amuse the guests. I knew the books medical students study from when I was 8, also by heart (I had photographic memory and learned to read at 3).

 

Stosh et al, the point here is that for some of us -- key word "some" -- taoist sciences is not a cop-out resorted to due to a lack of "modern" scientific education, understanding, and ability -- rather it's the continuation of these into the next, superior, more advanced level. I know it's hard to stomach. But that's exactly true in my case, and I believe Steam was trying to say something similar.

[Mo Tzu]

In answer to GrandmasterP

 

Way old Grandmaster Chang told it was....

Wood through fire burns to earth

Mine earth for metal

Pure water condenses out of the air onto metal.

Which for some reason was always a highly polished metal mirror.

 

 

Wood creates Fire

Fire creates Earth

Earth creates Metal

Metal creates Water

Water creates Wood

 

As far as I can see, the mirror is the reflection of the viewer. Which is "wood". The creative. Therefore the cycle starts again. Onwards and upwards. xxx

[Stosh]

I only have master's but I come from four generations of Ph.D.s -- physics, engineering, biology, medicine. My father had me recite a treatise on thermodynamics by heart when I was 4, just to amuse the guests. I knew the books medical students study from when I was 8, also by heart (I had photographic memory and learned to read at 3).

 

Stosh et al, the point here is that for some of us -- key word "some" -- taoist sciences is not a cop-out resorted to due to a lack of "modern" scientific education, understanding, and ability -- rather it's the continuation of these into the next, superior, more advanced level. I know it's hard to stomach. But that's exactly true in my case, and I believe Steam was trying to say something similar.

 

Well It sure is nice to hear so many folks stand up and admit it for a change, instead of just those who think they

have telekinesis or can turn invisible or can change the weather with their minds, it allows me to drop into preferable obscurity

rather than be a lone voice for the value of Science as a means to ends rather than an enemy of Taoism.