What the !@#$ is Postmodernism?

[Protector]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSF176ukBjI

 

Then suddenly Taoism strikes.

 

Taoists use a Tao as a tool, or should, or maybe it's just me and I'm rambling like the guy in the video. Tao is outside of everything and touches nothing and that in turn makes it a part of everything. So in that way Taoists should be able to relate to everything, too.

 

Tao is the most fundamental part of nature, I especially like the mental part. Studying and recognizing it makes more solid and straightforward things, like religions, more understandable and relatable to each other. But everybody knows that. I guess I just wanted to show an interesting video.

[ralis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSF176ukBjI

 

Then suddenly Taoism strikes.

 

Taoists use a Tao as a tool, or should, or maybe it's just me and I'm rambling like the guy in the video. Tao is outside of everything and touches nothing and that in turn makes it a part of everything. So in that way Taoists should be able to relate to everything, too.

 

Tao is the most fundamental part of nature, I especially like the mental part. Studying and recognizing it makes more solid and straightforward things, like religions, more understandable and relatable to each other. But everybody knows that. I guess I just wanted to show an interesting video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSF176ukBjI

 

Then suddenly Taoism strikes.

 

Taoists use a Tao as a tool, or should, or maybe it's just me and I'm rambling like the guy in the video. Tao is outside of everything and touches nothing and that in turn makes it a part of everything. So in that way Taoists should be able to relate to everything, too.

 

Tao is the most fundamental part of nature, I especially like the mental part. Studying and recognizing it makes more solid and straightforward things, like religions, more understandable and relatable to each other. But everybody knows that. I guess I just wanted to show an interesting video.

 

The Tao is not outside of everything. That makes no sense.

[三江源]

I did try to watch the video. I cant help it, I have to say this : it isnt pronounced classickism, its classisism.

 

Tao is outside of everything only in the sense that it is inside of everything also.

[Protector]

The Tao is not outside of everything. That makes no sense.

 

Then let me make it make sense.

 

Tao that can be named(or tao'd, as they say in that one thread) is not an eternal Tao. The reason is the moment it is given a name, it changes from what it was before. It was mystic and special and becomes mundane. If you put it on a pedestal where everyone can see it, people who see it everyday will get bored of it and loose interest. The same thing is with God, this is the reason it is forbidden to name God in many cultures, and in others God has many names because people get tired of the old ones. So the true Tao is not on a pedestal and outside of where curious taoists can grab it.

 

At the same time it is like one of the extremes of the taiji. It's so yin that it becomes yang and so yang that it becomes yin. It's not anywhere so it must be everywhere. I'm not holding it in my hand but it is in my hand, you can't experience it yet you do anyway. It contradicts itself and eats it's own tail, that's what makes it what it is.

 

Aw dang, I explained Tao perfectly and that means I'm wrong

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

if something "doesnt make sense" you're still too caught up in contradictions...

[ralis]

Then let me make it make sense.

 

Tao that can be named(or tao'd, as they say in that one thread) is not an eternal Tao. The reason is the moment it is given a name, it changes from what it was before. It was mystic and special and becomes mundane. If you put it on a pedestal where everyone can see it, people who see it everyday will get bored of it and loose interest. The same thing is with God, this is the reason it is forbidden to name God in many cultures, and in others God has many names because people get tired of the old ones. So the true Tao is not on a pedestal and outside of where curious taoists can grab it.

 

At the same time it is like one of the extremes of the taiji. It's so yin that it becomes yang and so yang that it becomes yin. It's not anywhere so it must be everywhere. I'm not holding it in my hand but it is in my hand, you can't experience it yet you do anyway. It contradicts itself and eats it's own tail, that's what makes it what it is.

 

Aw dang, I explained Tao perfectly and that means I'm wrong

 

Semantic arguments are not absolutes in that semantics are agreed upon definitions of the so called objective world of objects. Therefor, the objective world can in no way be categorized or quantified to satisfy the incessant need of human primates to control what is not understood.

Edited January 3, 2013 by ralis

[ralis]

if something "doesnt make sense" you're still too caught up in contradictions...

 

I am certainly not caught up in contradictions. See my next post.

[ralis]

Human primates are obsessed with the 'isness' of objects that have no inherent identity except what human primates designate as such. Elaborate attempts to describe the Tao even in terms if Yin/Yang are futile.

 

I would suggest reading Korzybski's work to have a better understanding.

 

 

 

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Sanity-Introduction-Non-Aristotelian-Semantics/dp/0937298018/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1357241847&sr=8-6&keywords=korzybski

Edited January 3, 2013 by ralis

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

I am certainly not caught up in contradictions. See my next post.

 

 

Then are you saying you CAN understand how contradictory elements (can also) mutually coexist?

[Protector]

I can only draw a box

 

http://www.angelfire.com/hi/littleprince/framechapter2.html

[ralis]

Then are you saying you CAN understand how contradictory elements (can also) mutually coexist?

 

Terms are fabrications of the human mind and are not inherent in the universe. Language has evolved over time as a method of communication. A tribal contract. The evolution of myriad languages and not one absolute. One word in a language can have an entirely different meaning in another language.

[i am]

Sometimes I think there are people who just don't know how to relate to the world except through contradiction and being contrary. I've been guilty of it at times myself.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

so.... ralis is just hung up on semantics then? ... im not really even sure it matters at all lol

[Thunder_Gooch]

 

Reminds me of Clifford Stoll

[GrandmasterP]

 

The ironizing of nostalgia, in the very act of its invoking, may be one way the postmodern has of taking responsibility for such responses by creating a small part of the distance necessary for reflective thought about the present as well as the past.

 

HTH

[zerostao]

this is postmodernism;

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBv5MDhLwj4

[ralis]

This explains it all.

Edited January 3, 2013 by ralis

[Birch]

I still don't understand Quantum theory.

 

More seriously, there has been some work done on the way terms are used not to describe but to prescribe. Think everything we say has an actual 'signified'? Think again.

[GrandmasterP]

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=r0cN_bpLrxk&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dr0cN_bpLrxk&gl=GB

 

This may be of interest K.

Edited January 3, 2013 by GrandmasterP

[Stosh]

Then are you saying you CAN understand how contradictory elements (can also) mutually coexist?

 

Its called irony

[Birch]

Thanks Mr GranP.

If you remove the "m." from the start of your video URL (web link) it will show up directly embedded in your post.

[GrandmasterP]

 

 

Its called irony

.....

 

Proofs of consistency which are based on models, and which argue from the truth of axioms to their consistency, merely shift the problem.

 

[GrandmasterP]

Test

Edited January 3, 2013 by GrandmasterP

[ralis]

I still don't understand Quantum theory.

 

More seriously, there has been some work done on the way terms are used not to describe but to prescribe. Think everything we say has an actual 'signified'? Think again.

 

I wasn't intending to start a discussion of Quantum Mechanics but to prove a point about semantics. The point being is that verbal representations are not the objects in question but a collective agreement so that cooperation among persons in a culture and by extension other cultures can take place. E.g. a box is only named such so that someone else knows what I am referring to. There is no absolute object in the universe called a box. The box is a collection of smaller parts.

[Birch]

 

 

I wasn't intending to start a discussion of Quantum Mechanics but to prove a point about semantics. The point being is that verbal representations are not the objects in question but a collective agreement so that cooperation among persons in a culture and by extension other cultures can take place. E.g. a box is only named such so that someone else knows what I am referring to. There is no absolute object in the universe called a box. The box is a collection of smaller parts.

 

Yes, I'd realised that. My post wasn't intended to discuss QM but was a joke to myself carried over from a different thread.