GreytoWhite Posted April 6, 2017 (edited) Here's part of a series I'm working up about Grand Unified Field Theory and Daoist writing. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YK5arGrvuvWiUcEJstl-2g5e51hyzdHETQ27lgCIfIg/edit?usp=sharing Edited April 6, 2017 by GreytoWhite 6 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[email protected] Posted April 7, 2017 Scientists want to quant everything, to find out the smallest part of anything, while Taoism appeals to return to the whole essence of the universe through body and spirit development. This is the basic difference which will be valid until science looks at the world like at the frog that can be cut with a knife just to look what is there inside. Rgrds, Ilya 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GreytoWhite Posted April 7, 2017 Science is not just cutting with a knife but sewing back again as well. If one does not cut somewhere then how does one learn to kill? If one does not sew somewhere then how does one know how to find a mate? Are not these basic experiences of humanity? Does having the ability to see things in a different perspective blind a person? Perhaps. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[email protected] Posted April 8, 2017 This is not a statement that modern science is some evil part of ourselves or anything like this. This is just to mention the difference. Imagine that you don't need the cure just because you don't become ill... Science gives us a cure if we are ill, and Taoism gives us methods to get ill as rare as possible. That is the difference. Rgrds, Ilya 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted April 8, 2017 Yep. Prevention is always better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GreytoWhite Posted April 9, 2017 I have about half a dozen pages and a few YouTube videos to explain this stuff. I've already checked my logic with US Navy nuclear engineer. I'll need to take better pictures. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rocky Lionmouth Posted April 12, 2017 Daoism necessarily incorporates physics and science. Science is hardly what get portrayed in media or arguments made by those who twist science into undisputable proofs and whatnot. Real scientists understand the principle that your results are o ly as good as your questions and that sometimes the answer is a new question to a whole new pornlem. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GreytoWhite Posted April 12, 2017 Thank you Rocky. It's been a hell of a ride - had to shed my internal martial arts teacher as he kept proclaiming himself to be a quantum physics expert but had no ability to communicate on the subject. Then he completely derided my efforts - I'm a stroke survivor dumbass, that I'm out here practicing at all is a feat. I'm tired of having to prove that I'm related to this guy.http://www.biography.com/people/ernest-o-lawrence-9375538 I keep hearing self-proclaimed "enlightened" people spout off about quantum physics but are completely unable to even reference a single experiment - meanwhile they're more than happy to regale me of how, "I've meditatively linked my acupoints to my chakras so it's like all the acupuncture all the time man. Like totally open to the Universe. Nah, I dunno what a dantian is..." 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rocky Lionmouth Posted April 12, 2017 (edited) Yeah, i was in a hurry to post earlier but i get what you're saying. I'm not at all against people using illustrative language that arent on the dot correct but give you an idea, but i've heard afew similar rants about quantum mechanics in situations that just became cringeworthy. Your previous teacher sounds like he was ripe and ready to fall off the branch, good on you! Mostly it's completely exhausting for me to put up with people who argue that science has a logical truth-value of it's own when all that serves is to fill their own fallacies. It's like peddling sunflower seed oil calling it superglue. Then you got your "recent studies have shown" ads and lobbyists who quote cherrypicked secondary statistical conclusions as bonafide firsthand quantitative material. And at that point we're not even taking semantics and expanded associative meanings. If one is a manipulative douche or just a blind fanatic it's not at all hard to ducttape all sorts of proofs together and expand it with speculative questions right? That kind of stuff really pushes my buttons. I also proclaim myself as a low-odds favourite for winner of "TDB Neologism championships of 2017" with my brilliant typo: "Pornlem". Ooh, Emmh Gee. Somebody facepalm me. Edited April 12, 2017 by Rocky Lionmouth 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
