Mair 12:14

[Marblehead]

2 hours ago, nestentrie said:

Some observations, or notes.

 

 

Nice.  Yes, I sometimes speak of the importance of honesty.

 

And yes, strength is important as well.  But I always try to link strength with flexibility.  Rigidity can be easily broken.

 

[Stosh]

On 12/20/2017 at 7:25 PM, Starjumper said:

 

Most or all advanced masters don't look very favorably on humanity either.

I will take your word for that , ..but if so, this would need to be dealt with in some way, and how would they do that? Retreat? Cut 'em loose? And what could they say , if you complain that most folks are arseholes? ( or rephrased, How can they maintain humility if they think they are surrounded by relatively mean bumbling idiots? )

 

Edited December 22, 2017 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Hey Stosh!  There's still hope and faith.

 

[Starjumper]

On 12/22/2017 at 0:36 PM, Stosh said:

Quote

Most or all advanced masters don't look very favorably on humanity either.

 

I will take your word for that , ..but if so, this would need to be dealt with in some way, and how would they do that? Retreat? Cut 'em loose? And what could they say , if you complain that most folks are arseholes? ( or rephrased, How can they maintain humility if they think they are surrounded by relatively mean bumbling idiots? )

 

Ah so, you're going to make me work for that one.  For starters I refer you to Lao Tzu's comment about the sage treating people like straw dogs.  To me that means that the sage still can love people and treat them right while at the same time knowing that they are, or will be, burning in hell ... most of the time (which people get used to and think is normal).   The question about humility is very good and that's the one that will take some work  ... anyone?

Edited December 24, 2017 by Starjumper
speeling

[Stosh]

On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 5:49 PM, Marblehead said:

Hey Stosh!  There's still hope and faith.

 

Cruel cruel hope and faith .  

While individuals may be fine ,collectively humanity has a lot to fix.I agree with Cz that the good is outnumbered or outweighed. I dont really know if all other cultures end up the same, I hope not. Im not at all surprised if Sj is entirely correct..that taking an impartial and broad look at humanity, tends to be a bummer. Its Christmas , and my ride home friday really had me concerned that this was going to be a Highly lethal weeked.With all the erratic driving. 

 

[Stosh]

10 hours ago, Starjumper said:

 

Ah so, you're going to make me work for that one.  For starters I refer you to Lao Tzu's comment about the sage treating people like straw dogs.  To me that means that the sage still can love people and treat them right wile at the same time knowing that they are, or will be, burning in hell ... most of the time (which people get used to and think is normal).   The question about himility is very good and that's the one that will take some work  ... anyone?

From each according to their ability..His Staw dogs thing is very good.; Im curious what youd say on it, works for you?. I have an answer As well but it feels forced. In some ways  I guess I have retreated , cut em loose. I certainly am not highly integrated. 

 

Nestentrie , Wanna give this subject a twirl ?

Edited December 24, 2017 by Stosh

[Stosh]

I guess i should explain or disclose .. I am confused. Im disappointed a lot. I dont understand why people act the way we do.while i would really like to get along better , somehow it doesnt work out. For instance, Today a lady asked me if I had seen or photograhed any thing interesting. So I told her There was a surf scoter (bird) at the other beach. She didnt care and said Thats good. Then she said someting about the weather, so I fed her back her Thats good. Which pissed her off. 

 

What the hell am I supposed to say? The clouds have lessened? She can see the sky herself, and if she doesnt care about the bird , what does she think I could photograph ? The goddam ringling bros circus?

i figure she is a decent person but she doesnt make sense to me. 

[nestentrie]

You want me to comment on Starjumper's, straw dog reference, Stosh?

Since we're on Zhuangzi I'll take his (or his students') approach.

 

 

DISCUSSION ON MAKING ALL THINGS EQUAL

[...]

Great understanding is broad and unhurried; little understanding is cramped and busy. Great words are clear and limpid; little words are shrill and quarrelsome. In sleep, men's spirits go visiting; in waking hours, their bodies hustle. With everything they meet they become entangled. Day after day they use their minds in strife, sometimes grandiose, sometimes sly, sometimes petty. Their little fears are mean and trembly; their great fears are stunned and overwhelming. They bound off like an arrow or a crossbow pellet, certain that they are the arbiters of right and wrong. They cling to their position as though they had sworn before the gods, sure that they are holding on to victory. They fade like fall and winter - such is the way they dwindle day by day. They drown in what they do - you cannot make them turn back. They grow dark, as though sealed with seals - such are the excesses of their old age. And when their minds draw near to death, nothing can restore them to the light.

[...]

 

The Way has never known boundaries; speech has no constancy. But because of [the recognition of a] "this," there came to be boundaries. Let me tell you what the boundaries are.

There is left, there is right, there are theories, there are debates,13 there are divisions, there are discriminations, there are emulations, and there are contentions. These are called the Eight Virtues.14 As to what is beyond the Six Realms,15 the sage admits its existence but does not theorize. As to what is within the Six Realms, he theorizes but does not debate. In the case of the Spring and Autumn,16 the record of the former kings of past ages, the sage debates but does not discriminate. So [I say] those who divide fail to divide; those who discriminate fail to discriminate. What does this mean, you ask? The sage embraces things. Ordinary men discriminate among them and parade their discriminations before others. So I say, those who discriminate fail to see.

The Great Way is not named; Great Discriminations are not spoken; Great Benevolence is not benevolent; Great Modesty is not humble; Great Daring does not attack. If the Way is made clear, it is not the Way. If discriminations are put into words, they do not suffice. If benevolence has a constant object, it cannot be universal. If modesty is fastidious, it cannot be trusted. If daring attacks, it cannot be complete. These five are all round, but they tend toward the square. Therefore understanding that rests in what it does not understand is the finest. Who can understand discriminations that are not spoken, the Way that is not a way? If he can understand this, he may be called the Reservoir of Heaven. Pour

into it and it is never full, dip from it and it never runs dry, and yet it does not know where the supply, comes from. This is called the Shaded Light.

[...]

 

First off (and i'm saying this to a general audience), the sage is not bad to people, and treating them like straw dogs doesn't go contrary to that. If one were to suppose the sage treasures people, look to his impartiality. His charity extends to each individually, never holding to the one person over another. If he were to hope his object could do all things, and exclude all else until he witnessed it,  he would be cramped and busy. If he were to dare fix his object of all its sin, being already cramped and busy, he would commit to quarrel.

 

As for idly standing by watching his children fall into fear and impotence, he can still save.

 

[...]

Chu Ch'ueh-tzu said to Chang Wu-tzu, "I have heard Confucius say that the sage does not work at anything, does not pursue profit, does not dodge harm, does not enjoy being sought after, does not follow the Way, says nothing yet says something, says something yet says nothing, and wanders beyond the dust and grime. Confucius himself regarded these as wild and flippant words, though I believe they describe the working of the mysterious Way. What do you think of them?"

Chang Wu-tzu said, "Even the Yellow Emperor would be confused if he heard such words, so how could you expect Confucius to understand them? What's more, you're too hasty in your own appraisal. You see an egg and demand a crowing cock, see a crossbow pellet and demand a roast dove. I'm going to try speaking some reckless words and I want you to listen to them recklessly. How will that be? The sage leans on the sun and moon, tucks the universe under his arm, merges himself with things, leaves the confusion and muddle as it is, and looks on slaves as exalted. Ordinary men strain and struggle; the sage is stupid and blockish. He takes part in ten thousand ages and achieves simplicity in oneness. For him, all the ten thousand things are what they are, and thus they enfold each other.

"How do I know that loving life is not a delusion? How do I know that in hating death I am not like a man who, having left home in his youth, has forgotten the way back?

 

[Stosh]

I was inviting your personal input on the overall virtue of overall humanity. Your own summary . If you feel the texts have been impactful to you personally, my question asks what it is you now think. Rather than refer back to what others said. 

Do you conclude humanity sucks? How do you maintain humility if virtue does not thrive around you? Or is it that you feel you are less virtuous than your peers. 

The question is about how one might most wisely relate to ,or judge society, virtue-wise. As you see it. 

Sj is just one of those rare honest men , problematic yes but Understandable if you can match him. .. so I think I understand his point. Your point is a bit elusive as of yet . 

Edited December 24, 2017 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

16 hours ago, Stosh said:

Cruel cruel hope and faith .  

While individuals may be fine ,collectively humanity has a lot to fix.I agree with Cz that the good is outnumbered or outweighed. I dont really know if all other cultures end up the same, I hope not. Im not at all surprised if Sj is entirely correct..that taking an impartial and broad look at humanity, tends to be a bummer. 

 

Indeed.  Looking at an honest representation of humanity from it birth to date does not paint a very pretty picture.  But still, some things must be going properly as the human population keeps increasing.

 

[Starjumper]

I think the idea put forth, that while individuals can glow in their own light humanity taken as a whole is screwed up.  Those who can see further can see a doomsday of sorts coming for the masses who are racing each other to be first to the slaughterhouse. It's mainly due to society and population overcrowding.  Even rats get crazy and violent when forced into overcrowded conditions.  It's society, modern society.  If we look instead at small groups of very primitive people we don't see that kind of insanity, we see more of what is called 'real people'.  Closer to nature.  If the Earth's population were reduced by 99.9%, enough to make technology unsustainable and drive people back to the stone age of bronze age that then would change the sage's view of humanity.  To put it another way - my teacher was so psychic that he said it was like being tuned into a news radio station 24 hours a day ... and 99% of the news was bad.  They can clearly see how fucked up things are.  Wishing it was better but knowing there's no hope.

 

So when the sage looks out across a big city and sees and endless sea of toilets he realizes things are screwed up, however when the sage gets to know an individual he can see a being like himself.  Nothing special, with some talents and some stupidities, with good and bad bitching at each other inside their heads, everyone's got some problems of some kind, including the sage, maybe he has a bad knee and takes a half hour to pee.  The sage knows that he was a messed up weirdo before, just like his buddy there, Joe Blow, and yet for the grace of his master he can see clearly now, that he's still a messed up weirdo, he just has a certain attitude of carelessness about it and accepts himself as is.  This maybe explains how a sage can act humbly while seeing how screwed up people are.

Edited December 24, 2017 by Starjumper
spelling

[nestentrie]

I live a pretty isolated life. Apart from a few trips a week to the bottl-o and tobacconist I'm home most of the time. I have family that I keep in contact with, and friends online, but for the most part I don't deal with society at large. My life is all online.

 

I could talk about the things behind that, I guess. I could talk about mass media and the manufacture of consent, and I could talk about globalisation, but I don't suppose it goes close enough to the question.

 

Is humanity at large corrupt and degraded? No more or no less that at any other time in history. Progress is always measured by how far fascism can go before there's a regression, and that fascism can occur on any side of the political demarcation.

Humility has its place. Staking one's claim to one's lot, and allowing no further interference goes some way towards reliance on the sanctity of virtue. Yet for me that's a given. I adopt earnestness.

If I were to divide myself from the world I judge, I would be cutting my tether to the source. I don't see the profit in drawing lines and choosing a side on which to stand. If I'm to one side, then those that are on that side are my friends. If by erosion or deliberate interference the lines are redrawn and i find myself on a different side with different people, then I tune my efforts for that side and those people.

 

Sure, if one can see that one is surrounded by arseholes then it can be a burden, but because a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, and all light is given, strength can still be borrowed. Didn't the sage say that he doesn't expect the speedy fulfillment of a deal? It doesn't matter if he's the virtuous one among many defectives, because his weakness is always going to be the hinge on what people rely. No one is so far gone that the sage can't be their friend.

Not the greatest post I've ever made, but it's a difficult question. 

[Marblehead]

9 hours ago, nestentrie said:

No one is so far gone that the sage can't be their friend.

 

While I agree, I must suggest that caution should be used with every step.

 

[nestentrie]

3 hours ago, Marblehead said:

While I agree, I must suggest that caution should be used with every step.

 

 

 

And Jesus wept.

[Stosh]

22 hours ago, nestentrie said:

I live a pretty isolated life. Apart from a few trips a week to the bottl-o and tobacconist I'm home most of the time. I have family that I keep in contact with, and friends online, but for the most part I don't deal with society at large. My life is all online.

 

I could talk about the things behind that, I guess. I could talk about mass media and the manufacture of consent, and I could talk about globalisation, but I don't suppose it goes close enough to the question.

 

Is humanity at large corrupt and degraded? No more or no less that at any other time in history. Progress is always measured by how far fascism can go before there's a regression, and that fascism can occur on any side of the political demarcation.

Humility has its place. Staking one's claim to one's lot, and allowing no further interference goes some way towards reliance on the sanctity of virtue. Yet for me that's a given. I adopt earnestness.

If I were to divide myself from the world I judge, I would be cutting my tether to the source. I don't see the profit in drawing lines and choosing a side on which to stand. If I'm to one side, then those that are on that side are my friends. If by erosion or deliberate interference the lines are redrawn and i find myself on a different side with different people, then I tune my efforts for that side and those people.

 

Sure, if one can see that one is surrounded by arseholes then it can be a burden, but because a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, and all light is given, strength can still be borrowed. Didn't the sage say that he doesn't expect the speedy fulfillment of a deal? It doesn't matter if he's the virtuous one among many defectives, because his weakness is always going to be the hinge on what people rely. No one is so far gone that the sage can't be their friend.

Not the greatest post I've ever made, but it's a difficult question. 

It was a very good post, and unless I am being extra special gentle, instead of genuine, I try not to ask either easy or impossible questions. 

I think about that Kind of thing myself. I figure it might yeild insight . 

Ive tried the other but get bored really fast.

 

[nestentrie]

So what do we discuss now? Any other chapter discussion anyone can recommend?

 

[Stosh]

34 minutes ago, nestentrie said:

So what do we discuss now? Any other chapter discussion anyone can recommend?

 

Mh has a whole slew to revive, and when in attendance , he is responsive.. likes Neitzche more methinks. Generally we just wait on his installments though. 

[nestentrie]

22 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Mh has a whole slew to revive, and when in attendance , he is responsive.. likes Neitzche more methinks. Generally we just wait on his installments though. 

 

Ok. No worries.

[Marblehead]

On ‎12‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 10:40 AM, nestentrie said:

 

 

And Jesus wept.

I'm not a religious person but I thought that was a good response.

 

[Marblehead]

14 hours ago, nestentrie said:

So what do we discuss now? Any other chapter discussion anyone can recommend?

 

They all are still open for discussion.  I'm sure if you post to any of them you will get a response, if only by me.

 

[Marblehead]

14 hours ago, Stosh said:

Mh has a whole slew to revive, and when in attendance , he is responsive.. likes Neitzche more methinks. Generally we just wait on his installments though. 

Interesting perspective of me regarding Nietzsche.  All things considered, I think Chuang Tzu holds a higher position for me than does Nietzsche.  But then, as I read Nietzsche prior to ever reading Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu it should be understood that Nietzsche set me up with the roots of my views in order to feel closer to Chuang Tzu than I otherwise would have.

 

 

[Stosh]

43 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Interesting perspective of me regarding Nietzsche.  All things considered, I think Chuang Tzu holds a higher position for me than does Nietzsche.  But then, as I read Nietzsche prior to ever reading Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu it should be understood that Nietzsche set me up with the roots of my views in order to feel closer to Chuang Tzu than I otherwise would have.

 

 

I stand corrected, but unabashed, since it seems like Cz you quote, but Fred you explain and get energetic about. Buts its not like I did a survey to check. Perhaps we both feel about ,and react to certain authors, in complex fashion.

I was watching come classic movies last night , Rear window with Grace Kelly ,  and North by northwest with Eva Marie Saint..I used to prefer Grace, but Eva,, , had her own very nice thing going on.