Questions for the scientists in our midst

[manitou]

You may want to consider reading more of the Masters.

 

Dancing as we speak :-)

[Marblehead]

Dancing as we speak :-)

That's great!!! But don't over-do it. Remember your age. (Sorry, I had to do that, you know.)

 

You may want to consider reading more of the Masters.

Ah!, but they are just as delusional as I am. Why add more confusion to my already confused mind. Know when to stop!

[manitou]

Yes, you knew when to stop. My guess is that it was with Nietzsche

 

Touche, as to the age thing. My guess is you're no spring chicken either, lol.

Edited November 20, 2013 by manitou

[Stosh]

Not yet. Hehehe.

 

No, I wasn't suggesting merciful actions. But in order to undertake such actions based on a judgement I suggest that there is caring involved. Caring requires emotions.

 

I will leave him alone.

Machiavelli may not be your favorite,

But Im using him as an illustrative example

he spoke to what he believed were the expediencies of rule ,

facts and human conditions being what they were....

That a sage would also be instructive regarding the expediencies of rule rather than operating out of some kindly emotional involvement with the people. His, was adherence to a sort of 'code of virtue' just not the christian type virtue of loving everybody.

'Compassion', like anything else , doesnt have to be central to a code of ' virtue',

it is not a synonym for virtue,, just as 'religion' is not a synonym for 'decency',, 'anarchy' is not a synonym for 'rebellion',, 'God' is not a synonym for ' Tao' ,, and 'Straw dog' is not a synonym for a 'scapegoat'.

As I see it.

 

Yes, there is meaning (Don't be asking me for the meaning of life. Hehehe) but no caring, no judgements. Judgements and caring require emotions. We will not personify Tao.

So WHat IS the meaning of life or ( Tao ) which you referred to,, Hmmmmnn??

Im contending that this other view of universe seems to require a target on which meaning or purpose can be placed to justify things categorically as good or evil, or for it to be proper vs improper, to treat anything as a straw dog.

 

Maybe Manitou can provide a solid excerpt depicting the certain goodness of a Sage?

Edited November 20, 2013 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Yes, you knew when to stop. My guess is that it was with Nietzsche

 

Touche, as to the age thing. My guess is you're no spring chicken either, lol.

Actually, I read Nietzsche before I read the TTC the first time. Yes, his philosophy is important to me.

 

Yep, I think I have a couple, maybe even a few, years on you. But that's only because I was born first. Duh!

[Marblehead]

Machiavelli may not be your favorite,

But Im using him as an illustrative example

he spoke to what he believed were the expediencies of rule ,

facts and human conditions being what they were....

Actually, I have never read him. All I have is what others have said about him and what he wrote. I guess my inner anarchist prevented any desire to read him.

 

That a sage would also be instructive regarding the expediencies of rule rather than operating out of some kindly emotional involvement with the people. His, was adherence to a sort of 'code of virtue' just not the christian type virtue of loving everybody.

'Compassion', like anything else , doesnt have to be central to a code of ' virtue',

it is not a synonym for virtue,, just as 'religion' is not a synonym for 'decency',, 'anarchy' is not a synonym for 'rebellion',, 'God' is not a synonym for ' Tao' ,, and 'Straw dog' is not a synonym for a 'scapegoat'.

As I see it.

WoW! You gave me nothing to respond to here.

 

Yes, the rule of the Sage would be of a kindly nature. And importantly, I think, equality for all. This doesn't mean socialism of communism or anything like that but rather laws being applied to all equally.

 

Yes, there would be a root of virtue, or integrity, in the rule of the Sage. And the laws would be established based on minimalist views. Afterall, the more laws a society has the more criminals there will be.

 

I think it is sad that the term "straw dog" was even applied to any of the Ten Thousand Things let alone to the human animal.

 

So WHat IS the meaning of life or ( Tao ) which you referred to,, Hmmmmnn??

Im contending that this other view of universe seems to require a target on which meaning or purpose can be placed to justify things categorically as good or evil, or for it to be proper vs improper, to treat anything as a straw dog.

 

Maybe Manitou can provide a solid excerpt depicting the certain goodness of a Sage?

Yeah, maybe Manitou would agree with you. Hehehe.

 

There is no absolute "good/bad", "beautiful/ugly", etc. There are always variables that must be considered. No "black/white", only shades of grey.

[manitou]

Actually, I have never read him. All I have is what others have said about him and what he wrote. I guess my inner anarchist prevented any desire to read him.

 

WoW! You gave me nothing to respond to here.

 

Yes, the rule of the Sage would be of a kindly nature. And importantly, I think, equality for all. This doesn't mean socialism of communism or anything like that but rather laws being applied to all equally.

 

Yes, there would be a root of virtue, or integrity, in the rule of the Sage. And the laws would be established based on minimalist views. Afterall, the more laws a society has the more criminals there will be.

 

I think it is sad that the term "straw dog" was even applied to any of the Ten Thousand Things let alone to the human animal.

 

Yeah, maybe Manitou would agree with you. Hehehe.

 

There is no absolute "good/bad", "beautiful/ugly", etc. There are always variables that must be considered. No "black/white", only shades of grey.

 

 

And why wouldn't it possibly be a form of socialism that befitted the sage? I'm assuming you don't see our brand of capitalism as the be-all, end-all. It just couldn't get any worse...

 

Or would the sage like the dog-eat-dog nature of pure capitalism?

Edited November 20, 2013 by manitou

[Stosh]

Dog eat dog is perspective based, it can also be described as give to get" not to mention that we don't have pure capitalism either and have it mixed with socialism. There are clearly some points of agreement between any of us ..its just not the three of us all at the same time

 

The kindness of sages hasn't been established though yet ,, you indicated there was lots of things along those lines..so.. if the sage is happy with the baggage cart then he isn't making normal value judgements..if he prefers the arc de triumph to JFK, he would not be so satisfied with the samsonite, No?

Edited November 20, 2013 by Stosh

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Any 'scientific' discussion of ethics has to begin with game theory which since the 80s has been largely dominated by the results of Axelrod's work and the success of Rappaport's 'Tit for Tat' strategy, the implication of which is that it is a 'dog help dog' world and that cooperation will tend to evolve in any system in which there is more or less continual interaction. You can read about it here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

[manitou]

Dog eat dog is perspective based, it can also be described as give to get" not to mention that we don't have pure capitalism either and have it mixed with socialism. There are clearly some points of agreement between any of us ..its just not the three of us all at the same time

 

The kindness of sages hasn't been established though yet ,, you indicated there was lots of things along those lines..so.. if the sage is happy with the baggage cart then he isn't making normal value judgements..if he prefers the arc de triumph to JFK, he would not be so satisfied with the samsonite, No?

 

 

One of the sage's 3 treasures is Love.. This indicates to me that he is always going to err on the side of kindness and love. Not love expecting anything in return, just agape love. Sometimes that love has to be cruel in appearance, although never in intent. Sometimes people have to be walked away from, sometimes a person has to be told a truth about himself. The sage knows himself to the core, and consequently he sees the core in others as well. That's the secret. The pony under the manure pile. This gives him the Eyes to see - others with the Eyes to see are capable of seeing each other. Love shines from between their words, their actions.

 

To work wu-wei, if you're able, you know that in Not-Doing while allowing things to arrange themselves in perfect alignment, one must sometimes handle that which comes to him in regard to that dynamic. When the marble of the situation rolls our way, it must always be the highest path of reaction that must be taken - the kindest path - in order for the dynamic to continue to align itself as it wants to if left alone. The tendency of the Dao, of the creative dynamic, is always mutual attraction, or love. The sage knows this, and will not stir the pot to make it any other way.

 

When I find myself in times of trouble

Mother Mary comes to me

Speaking words of wisdom,

Let it Be.

 

Our inner dynamics, our reactions, are always based on either love or fear. The sage knows that the fear dynamic will produce nothing other than extensions of itself - anger, jealousy, pride, excessive ego - all of these. He acts accordingly, that's all. Yes, the sage is by nature kind and gentle. But this does not mean he does not have internalized The Art of War. This he understands too - only he knows that by loving his perceived enemy, by knowing his enemy as he knows himself, he anticipates what the enemy will do and will act before the enemy acts to position himself to be on the high ground when the enemy gets there. He does not revel in the killing. He is the reluctant one, the sorrowful one because killing must be resorted to. But because he sees all things as One, he knows that the Dao favors no man; it is only be working the dynamics of the Dao will the sage be victorious.

 

The softest of things overcomes the hardest. The water will eventually overcome the rock. Love will eventually overcome hatred.

 

Yes, he is kind because he knows that is the most expeditious, that is The Way It Works. It taps into the creative dynamic.

Edited November 20, 2013 by manitou

[manitou]

Any 'scientific' discussion of ethics has to begin with game theory which since the 80s has been largely dominated by the results of Axelrod's work and the success of Rappaport's 'Tit for Tat' strategy, the implication of which is that it is a 'dog help dog' world and that cooperation will tend to evolve in any system in which there is more or less continual interaction. You can read about it here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

 

 

Looks like a wonderful site, but my old brain is too tired to go through it completely. Could you translate your familiarity of this concept to what we are talking about here? That is, if you can figure out what we are talking about here, lol.

[Marblehead]

And why wouldn't it possibly be a form of socialism that befitted the sage? I'm assuming you don't see our brand of capitalism as the be-all, end-all. It just couldn't get any worse...

 

Or would the sage like the dog-eat-dog nature of pure capitalism?

I have no idea of how to properly rule people. I had to be a dictator when I was in the Army because that was how things were done although I did lead by example whenever I had the opportunity.

 

Yes, and sadly, pure capitalism sucks because of all the greedy people on the planet.

 

I just recalled the discussion with Zerostao about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Nothing wrong with that.

 

Socialism sucks because it waste too much money in the management of the system (non-productive work).

 

I'm just glad I never wanted to rule the world.

[Marblehead]

The kindness of sages hasn't been established though yet ,, you indicated there was lots of things along those lines..so.. if the sage is happy with the baggage cart then he isn't making normal value judgements..if he prefers the arc de triumph to JFK, he would not be so satisfied with the samsonite, No?

What? Okay, Henricks again from Section 1, Te, (Virtue), Chapter 38, Lines 13 & 16

 

Therefore the Great Man

...

...

Therefore, he rejects that and takes this.

 

 

Now really, isn't that pure discrimination? Making judgements and taking actions based on his virtue?

[Stosh]

One of the sage's 3 treasures is Love.. This indicates to me that he is always going to err on the side of kindness and love. Not love expecting anything in return, just agape love. Sometimes that love has to be cruel in appearance, although never in intent. Sometimes people have to be walked away from, sometimes a person has to be told a truth about himself. The sage knows himself to the core, and consequently he sees the core in others as well. That's the secret. The pony under the manure pile. This gives him the Eyes to see - others with the Eyes to see are capable of seeing each other. Love shines from between their words, their actions.

 

38

When the Way is lost, there remains harmony;

When harmony is lost, there remains love;

When love is lost, there remains justice;

But when justice is lost, there remains ritual.

 

Notice in Merels version , love is a fallback position , not one of three treasures

Do you recall where these treasures are described?

 

 

 

 

To work wu-wei, if you're able, you know that in Not-Doing while allowing things to arrange themselves in perfect alignment, one must sometimes handle that which comes to him in regard to that dynamic. When the marble of the situation rolls our way, it must always be the highest path of reaction that must be taken - the kindest path - in order for the dynamic to continue to align itself as it wants to if left alone. The tendency of the Dao, of the creative dynamic, is always mutual attraction, or love. The sage knows this, and will not stir the pot to make it any other way.

 

Where are we directed to kindness first ? as above , kindness is a fallback positon.

When I find myself in times of trouble

Mother Mary comes to me

Speaking words of wisdom,

Let it Be.

Acceptance isn't something I'd argue against, in fact I promote it -to everyone else

 

Our inner dynamics, our reactions, are always based on either love or fear.

Thats not TTC , nor do I think they represent our only motivations well .

 

The sage knows that the fear dynamic will produce nothing other than extensions of itself - anger, jealousy, pride, excessive ego - all of these. He acts accordingly, that's all.

I can agree there , love also can beget those things though , if begetting happens as described.

 

Yes, the sage is by nature kind and gentle

Thats a reiteration of the Assertion we are discussing .

But this does not mean he does not have internalized The Art of War.

Maybe , I dont know if he read it.

 

This he understands too - only he knows that by loving his perceived enemy, by knowing his enemy as he knows himself, he anticipates what the enemy will do and will act before the enemy acts to position himself to be on the high ground when the enemy gets there.

I thought he wasnt suppose to set himself first.

 

He does not revel in the killing. He is the reluctant one, the sorrowful one because killing must be resorted to. But because he sees all things as One,

Does he ? If all things are One then it just doesnt matter that he be sorrowful.

 

he knows that the

Dao favors no man; it is only be working the dynamics of the Dao will the sage be victorious.

Victorious , would mean that he put himself first again and imply that he takes sides ,,hence favoring one man ,himself, in making things the way he wants them to be rather than accepting the vicory of the other and being happy for the other at his own expense , which to him is nothing.

 

The softest of things overcomes the hardest. The water will eventually overcome the rock. Love will eventually overcome hatred.

Yes, he is kind because he knows that is the most expeditious, that is The Way It Works. It taps into the creative dynamic.

If one hates the other and destroys that one , then I find it hard to see how love over came hate. killing someone often ends a conflict , its a 'Pax Romana' thats why its so popular.

[Stosh]

What? Okay, Henricks again from Section 1, Te, (Virtue), Chapter 38, Lines 13 & 16

 

Therefore the Great Man

...

...

Therefore, he rejects that and takes this.

 

 

Now really, isn't that pure discrimination? Making judgements and taking actions based on his virtue?

38 Peter Merel

When the Way is lost, there remains harmony;

When harmony is lost, there remains love;

When love is lost, there remains justice;

But when justice is lost, there remains ritual.

 

Yes that would suggest the making of descriminations and taking actions based on them according to his (Te?).

If it was accurate ,, it seems to conflict with flowing with the tao though ,,but Ill have to take a look at the other transl. to see where this wire is crossed.

[Stosh]

38 Henricks
1. The highest virtue is not virtuous; therefore it truly has virtue.
2. The lowest virtue never loses sight of its virtue; therefore it has no true virtue.

3. The highest virtue takes no action, yet it has no reason for acting this way;
4. The highest humanity takes action, yet it has no reason for acting this way;
5. The highest righteousness takes action, and it has its reason for acting this way;
6. The highest propriety takes action, and when no one responds to it, then it angrily rolls up its sleeves and forces people to comply.

7. Therefore, when the Way is lost, only then do we have virtue;
8. When virtue is lost, only then do we have humanity;
9. When humanity is lost, only then do we have righteousness;
10. And when righteousness is lost, only then do we have propriety.

11. As for propriety, it's but the thin edge of loyalty and sincerity, and the beginning of disorder.
12. And foreknowledge is but the flower of the Way, and the beginning of stupidity.

13. Therefore the Great Man
14. Dwells in the thick and doesn't dwell in the thin;
15. Dwells in the fruit and doesn't dwell in the flower.
16. Therefore, he rejects that and takes this.

 

 

 

Therefore the ultimate Way is not ' virtue' or' humanity 'or 'righteousness'

and the subject is the goodness of Sages,,

here Henricks translation says some stuff that the Way is not ideally speaking.

So somewhere things are twisted if he is saying the Great-man-Sage

doesnt follow the highest order behavior in accordance with the Way.

[Stosh]

Examining just the first line , which is meant to be instructive. The highest virtue therefore must be not what ordinarily IS considered virtue. OR the instruction makes no sense. It then describes the lowest level in comparison.

Line three describes the ordinary idea of virtue or the highest again. Not taking action unreasoned if its level two and implying that there is reason to not act which would be level one

So reasoned or unreasoned not acting are up at the top there.

Ordinary wise behavior is to choose , and the highest behavior we are being described is to not choose.

 

Yes Spelled out it reads as too complicated, but the author was brilliant and didn't want to disclose too much too blatently.

[Marblehead]

,, it seems to conflict with flowing with the tao though ,,

I hope you find yourself a good answer.

 

I personally think that this phrase is extremely over-worked and that it is a left-over from the Hippie days.

 

To allow a neighbor to rob things in your house every time you go somewhere is kinda' stupid, IMO.

[Marblehead]

Therefore the ultimate Way is not ' virtue' or' humanity 'or 'righteousness'

and the subject is the goodness of Sages,,

here Henricks translation says some stuff that the Way is not ideally speaking.

So somewhere things are twisted if he is saying the Great-man-Sage

doesnt follow the highest order behavior in accordance with the Way.

This is very important in my mind Stosh.

 

And it is not all that much different from what Nietzsche taught.

 

The Way is "Beyond Good and Evil". That is to say, Tao does what need be done, nothing more, nothing less; totally without regard of any valuation, without judgement.

 

It is only after man created laws that the Way of Tao could not be totally followed by man; there are now restrictions and limits placed upon man by the powerful. So now man must rely on his own virtue, his own "te".

[Marblehead]

Examining just the first line , which is meant to be instructive. The highest virtue therefore must be not what ordinarily IS considered virtue. OR the instruction makes no sense. It then describes the lowest level in comparison. Line three describes the ordinary idea of virtue or the highest again. Not taking action unreasoned if its level two and implying that there is reason to not act which would be level one So reasoned or unreasoned not acting are up at the top there. Ordinary wise behavior is to choose , and the highest behavior we are being described is to not choose. Yes Spelled out it reads as too complicated, but the author was brilliant and didn't want to disclose too much too blatently.

Yes, here we are comparing the Virtue of Tao with the virtue of man.

 

And yes, when we act with reason we are not being in the state of "wu wei".

[Stosh]

Yes, here we are comparing the Virtue of Tao with the virtue of man. And yes, when we act with reason we are not being in the state of "wu wei".

So , as you see it , is the way of Tao doable by men or beyond what men can do? And in doing it they are wu wei ing Unreasonably?

[Stosh]

I hope you find yourself a good answer. I personally think that this phrase is extremely over-worked and that it is a left-over from the Hippie days. To allow a neighbor to rob things in your house every time you go somewhere is kinda' stupid, IMO.

Why you choose an understanding, which concludes its a stupid thing that I am thinking or describing , rather than give me the benefit of a doubt that the thrust of my interp may not be that of the hippies ..suggests that your understanding could use a little lanolin.

[manitou]

Stosh, you win. You have totally exhausted me. Do see the things the way you wish to see them, in negativity, and also see how you life rolls out.

 

Very best to you.

[Stosh]

Stosh, you win. You have totally exhausted me. Do see the things the way you wish to see them, in negativity, and also see how you life rolls out.

 

Very best to you.

Thanks for the best you are offering today,

and my intent re: ch 38 was to explain what I couldnt gloss over without just making innuendo to what it was I was trying to say, and in scope that was on scale with the lengths of your own mode of posting.

I didnt think anything being said by anyone was , or was intended to be, negative. But there we have it , and I hope you change your mind as to seeing any of this in a negative light and so, come back to this thread when you feel fresh again.

But Id hope you consider these two things ,

One, Are you trying to be negative when you say something which contradicts me?

Two, The beauty of the stars lies not in them , but in the viewer.

and you can decide for yourself if the answer you have is valid , since I wont know what it was.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

So , as you see it , is the way of Tao doable by men or beyond what men can do? And in doing it they are wu wei ing Unreasonably?

Yes, living in a state of we wei is possible during our everyday life. But remember, wu wei is not equal to doing nothing. Chidragon explained it pretty well a while back in another thread.

 

I like referring to it as doing what needs be done, nothing more, nothing less. In other words, if it is time to get your lazy butt out of bed and go to work then that is what you should be doing, nothing more, nothing less.

 

And yes, you are going to work because you have rent to pay, food to buy, clothes, utilities, etc. This applies to nearly all of us.

 

And along the way if you need to stop and help an elderly lady cross the street then that is what you should be doing.

 

But you don't have to play the games other people play just because they say you have to play or you can't be a part of their "in crowd".