Original Dao Bums

[Shadow_self]

4 hours ago, ilumairen said:

But, I find in the above that you certainly seemed to imply it, and that your post comes across in a way that makes it also seem perfectly reasonable to me that the individual would feel compelled to clarify their own actual position on the subject - especially since you seemed to be casting some shade on them for what you didn’t directly say, but did imply.

 

Then your comprehension of what I said  is flawed - let me elaborate

 

• Person says there is Taoist conception of government
• Other person says no such thing is in that text, and that this is a literary device
• Other person ASSUMES one meant that their opinion was boxed into a little box that, and gets bothered by this
• Other persons decides to make clear a point they never needed to in the first place, based on an assumption that was founded in nothing other than a defense to an argument that didnt exist
• Report goes in because someone cant either ask the question, nor accept the statement of " I never said that"
• Shadow_self now has to elaborate because others cant understand his post

Sorry to be blunt, but there was no implication in my words.

 

What I do see is an increasing, unnecessary defensive position being taken by several members of the forum, where no defense is needed (especially for statements that didnt occur, and arguments that don't exist) 

 

If I though he was saying that, I would not have asked nicely for him not to put words in my mouth. I would have replied (but you are saying that)

 

Is that point going to be conveniently ignored so that the argument might have some hypothetical substance where the follow up statement I made to clarify his error in judgement didnt exist? 

 

4 hours ago, ilumairen said:

You’ve been reported for the above exchange,

 

Should I be concerned about a report where I've made it clear twice that another persons inability to either comprehend my words, or in this case, accept me clarifying because of their miscomprehension is the source of the problem

 

If I wanted to say that, id actually have said that

 

How hard is it for people to read words and take them as they are intended? rather than create a strawman or look for some nonexistent hidden sentiment? 

 

4 hours ago, ilumairen said:

and I would personally appreciate it if you could reign in the underhanded dispersions a bit. Thank you.

 

Id be more than happy to, except that's not what happened. Now you might think it did, but I can tell you, it did not

 

The actual evidence is there, as plain as day in the posts.

 

If you want to be suspicious. I cannot change your suspicions. I can only tell you the truth

 

(and I am honest to a bloody fault, a trait that gets me in more trouble and makes me less popular than you'd care to know) 

 

I am not an underhanded person. I am VERY direct,

 

I  really don't appreciate the unfounded claim like that, especially when I go out of my way to be direct

 

4 hours ago, wandelaar said:

Personally I simply tend to avoid further discussion with people like Shadow_self who resort to discussion tricks to win a discussion no matter what. That also solves the issue. But it would indeed be more pleasant for everybody when Shadow_self would at least try to understand what others are saying before disputing it.

 

I understand exactly what you said, that there was a Taoist conception of government in the DDJ

 

I said no there isn't, that's a clever literary device

 

You then proceeded to assume I said that's all I though you believed it to be, and made a rebuttal to an argumentative point, that simply did not exist anywhere outside of your own suspicions

 

If you never made the unfounded illogical leap, we would not be here having me explain it

 

And if I was trying to say that, id have made it clear, with zero reservations and nothing left to speculate upon. 

[Shadow_self]

On 16/01/2023 at 9:44 PM, Shadow_self said:

 

Is there even such a thing?

 

On 16/01/2023 at 9:51 PM, wandelaar said:

@Shadow-self

 

Sure - just read the Tao Te Ching.

 

On 16/01/2023 at 10:19 PM, Shadow_self said:

 

I think you are reading it wrong my friend It has nothing to do with politics really. That's a rather clever literary device

 

On 16/01/2023 at 10:31 PM, wandelaar said:

Yes - that's the fate of all classic religio-philosophical texts. People usually refuse to read what they say, and instead make them say what they want by means of allegorical and symbolical reinterpretation. If you like the TTC that way, so be it.

 

On 16/01/2023 at 11:10 PM, Shadow_self said:

 

Well actually,  There is a very clear path set out in there.

 

Of course those who either genuinely don't know, or who are too proud or distracted to seek out such instruction divert to incomplete information in order to arrive at a suboptimal, yet self satisfactory conclusion

 

But they miss out on the actual value of the text in favour of their head resting a little easier on their pillow each night 

 

Sometimes its important to realize how these things were meant to be interpreted

 

Symbolism is the language of the mysteries after all  

 

 

 

On 16/01/2023 at 11:33 PM, wandelaar said:

I rest my case.

 

On 17/01/2023 at 12:11 AM, Shadow_self said:

 

You should probably state one worthy of actual consideration first

 

But I get it, for most people it is easier to circumvent the effort and just "think" you understand

 

There's no substitution for experience though.

 

But you see there is this ever increasing narrative emerging where people believe that  by reading something, they somehow understand it. Its rather sad when you start seeing people do this, because you just know they could get so much more from it,

 

Except that they insist on tripping themselves up you see  

 

If you think the people who wrote the Dao De Jing were trying to convey a political message, You really need to go and find someone who knows how to  actually interpret as it was intended it to teach you whats really in there.

 

You can go and practice and figure it out for yourself then (and perhaps discover that practical advice you just opened a thread about)

 

On 17/01/2023 at 3:12 PM, wandelaar said:

@Shadow_self

 

I never said the TTC is only about politics. It's about politics, metaphysics, daily life, strategy, mysticism, meditation, simple living, creative thinking, ...

 

But the song remains the same: it's no use discussing with (true) believers.

 

On 17/01/2023 at 4:14 PM, Shadow_self said:

 

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said you said that.

 

There's no point in me trying to re-explain this, as its been mentioned elsewhere several times

 

 

 

 

 

The implication of course here is that the original purpose of the DDJ is to give those with the correct means to interpret it a method for inner transformation

 

The rest was extrapolated out of it, as it was encoded/hidden via the aforementioned literary devices.

 

And that was also intentional  

 

@ilumairen I've actually quoted the whole conversation here as well, just so it is evident that at no point did I make the assertion claimed in the hypothetical argument that doesnt exist

 

Hopefully that will clarify it for you. If not let me know and ill try to clarify it further

 

And I would appreciate next time, you at least ask me to clarify myself, before assuming I'm up to something. 

 

It is unnecessary to misrepresent me like that, when you could have just as easily tagged me and asked me.

 

Or do you have a problem believing what I say? Or that I am honest?

Edited January 26, 2023 by Shadow_self

[doc benway]

@Shadow_self

 

Give it a rest, take the opportunity to self reflect and move on please.

We always see ourselves more clearly when we’re able to integrate others’ observations.

Thanks

[Shadow_self]

27 minutes ago, steve said:

@Shadow_self

 

Give it a rest, take the opportunity to self reflect and move on please.

We always see ourselves more clearly when we’re able to integrate others’ observations.

Thanks

 

I think it only fair if someone accuses me of something, I can at least clarify my position to clear things up

 

Aside from that clarification, I have zero interest in taking anything further, I can assure you

 

Thanks

[ilumairen]

1 hour ago, Shadow_self said:

 

I think it only fair if someone accuses me of something, I can at least clarify my position to clear things up

 

Aside from that clarification, I have zero interest in taking anything further, I can assure you

 

Thanks

 

You've clarified repeatedly. And it always seems to involve another's lack of comprehension.

 

Perhaps it would serve you better to look at how you are communicating, and see if a shift in approach garners you different results 

[Shadow_self]

48 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

You've clarified repeatedly. And it always seems to involve another's lack of comprehension.

 

Yes, I have to do that a lot

 

Quote

Perhaps it would serve you better to look at how you are communicating, and see if a shift in approach garners you different results 

 

Or perhaps a bit more context might provide you more insight

You may check your PM for said context

 

Which also might explain my new signature, which you might approve of upon said context

Edited January 27, 2023 by Shadow_self

[Nungali]

22 hours ago, Shadow_self said:

....

 

How hard is it for people to read words and take them as they are intended? rather than create a strawman or look for some nonexistent hidden sentiment? 

...

 

Very hard , apparently .

 

I post on a history forum ; all sorts of people professionals , casual readers, various nationalities  do 'it' .  Sometimes it seems like a wave of  mis- comprehension .

 

A recent topic was about what differences distinguish Man from the other animals.  Wow !   I gave my answer ( based on an over 30 year study of anthropology and some other side subjects )  and the responses I got ;

 

" Man is also an animal ! "     I never said he was not .  " Man  didnt come from apes ! "   - but I never said that . I kept pointing it out,  the conversation developed  about 'self awareness' people got impatient with me and one guy challenged me ' Alright then . how would you  phrase ' being aware of your own existence ' ?

 

My answer was  ; " being aware of your own existence "  and I added   "  Why do people keep paraphrasing me and not quoting me and using the words I actually used . I chose those words and arranged them in that way, to convey a special meaning .  By changing the words you changed my meaning to YOUR meaning, and now you are arguing not against what I wrote , but actually arguing against yourself and what  you  wrote . "

 

Then the guy that asked me that question got angry with me  for 'quoting back at him '  .  .... and probably put in a report .

 

The report side usually 'wins'  .... such is life  ( as they have made it ) .

Edited January 27, 2023 by Nungali

[Shadow_self]

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

 

Very hard , apparently .

 

I post on a history forum ; all sorts of people professionals , casual readers, various nationalities  do 'it' .  Sometimes it seems like a wave of  mis- comprehension .

 

A recent topic was about what differences distinguish Man from the other animals.  Wow !   I gave my answer ( based on an over 30 year study of anthropology and some other side subjects )  and the responses I got ;

 

" Man is also an animal ! "     I never said he was not .  " Man  didnt come from apes ! "   - but I never said that . I kept pointing it out,  the conversation developed  about 'self awareness' people got impatient with me and one guy challenged me ' Alright then . how would you  phrase ' being aware of your own existence ' ?

 

My answer was  ; " being aware of your own existence "  and I added   "  Why do people keep paraphrasing me and not quoting me and using the words I actually used . I chose those words and arranged them in that way, to convey a special meaning .  By changing the words you changed my meaning to YOUR meaning, and now you are arguing not against what I wrote , but actually arguing against yourself and what  you  wrote . "

 

Then the guy that asked me that question got angry with me  for 'quoting back at him '  .  .... and probably put in a report .

 

The report side usually 'wins'  .... such is life  ( as they have made it ) .

 

I've put a little note as my signature that will hopefully prevent at least some this in the future

 

Sometimes, I have found that people who tend to get defensive and/or argumentative about a point never made, are often demonstrating an external expression of the internal struggle they are having related to the topic.
 

I just wish I didnt have to get unnecessarily dragged into that intrapersonal conflict when it does happen. It is their business I guess.

 

Being very direct is something that gets me into trouble quite a lot sometimes in real life.

 

Why? I don't understand. Some people call being blunt or direct rude. I call it being honest, so I do my best to be honest and hope people understand that.

[silent thunder]

I'm a proponent of attempting to say exactly what I mean and meaning precisely what I say.  But this is never an excuse for bludgeoning people.  There's always a way to share directly without abusiveness or bullying.

 

I've grown  intolerant of insensitivity, belittling or abusiveness played under the guise of 'just telling it like it is, or talking straight', or under any other guise.

 

Caveat to 'being direct' without acting like an ass involves tact, thoughtfulness of speech and methodology in approaching how what is being shared, is offered.  It is crucial that being direct is not used tolerated as an excuse to just go about being a bully about one's opinions and personal perspective in life.  Implication and Inference are key.

 

As in all interactions, context, intent and manner of sharing is utterly crucial.  And seldom are we sharing objectively concrete information in life and here on the board.

 

We each experience life from the center of our own awareness and in this all perspectives are subjective.

 

 

 

[Shadow_self]

1 hour ago, silent thunder said:

I'm a proponent of attempting to say exactly what I mean and meaning precisely what I say.  But this is never an excuse for bludgeoning people.  There's always a way to share directly without abusiveness or bullying.

 

Was someone bludgeoned or bullied or abused?

 

Quote

I've grown  intolerant of insensitivity, belittling or abusiveness played under the guise of 'just telling it like it is, or talking straight', or under any other guise.

 

As above? 

 

Quote

Caveat to 'being direct' without acting like an ass involves tact, thoughtfulness of speech and methodology in approaching how what is being shared, is offered.  It is crucial that being direct is not used tolerated as an excuse to just go about being a bully about one's opinions and personal perspective in life.  Implication and Inference are key.

 

Not everyone is of the the same mental make up as you. For one lets start with definition

 

Bullying = Intentionally seeking to harm or intimidate, or coerce

Being honest = telling the truth

 

If a person asks me if they are overweight, and they are, I will tell them that they are, directly

 

I will not run around them screaming "fatty fatty fat fat ass" or whatever

 

But I will not lie to make them feel better.

 

There is a very clear distinction between the truth and bullying

 

Id go one further than to say a lot of the attack on free speech is conflating these two things, without noticing that a distinction is very clear and evident for anyone willing to actually use their mind instead of having a limbic response

 

Quote

As in all interactions, context, intent and manner of sharing is utterly crucial.  And seldom are we sharing objectively concrete information in life and here on the board.

 

Are you suggesting a universal standard that nobody should deviate from at all? I ask that you be clear about this because if you are, Im sure you and I may have an interesting discussion here.

 

Quote

We each experience life from the center of our own awareness and in this all perspectives are subjective.

 

Then by that very fact everyone should have a different manner of communication and expression.

 

Moreover unless we seek to discriminate, then these diversifications should be respected, unless they breach universally accepted standards (such as the bullying standard above)

 

As opposed to false accusations (I'm going to pretend you said this, and create a scenario to form an argument that doesn't exist)

 

The latter creates nothing but problems, and occurs through nothing else other than a lack of direct communication, and a series of illogical leaps to conclusions that often, are no more than the result of said subjectivity, regardless of how distorted it is.

 

 

P.S: Please take note of the asking of questions, to infer whether person is suggesting things that arise in my mind so that process A>B>C>D can happen

 

as opposed to the faulty, problematic logic of

 

A>missing>missing>imagined D that doesn't exist because there is no information to suggest it does other than biases driven by subjectivity

 

This is important to discussion

Edited January 28, 2023 by Shadow_self

[liminal_luke]

@Shadow_self

 

Somehow this thread morphed from Original Dao Bums to let's debate Shadow_self's communication style.  I think I liked the previous topic better but -- forgive me Shadow_self! -- will add a few cents anyway.  

 

Awhile back you reached out to me by PM to ask how I was doing with a difficult issue we'd discussed in a thread months earlier.  My sense is that you are a person with a tender and caring heart.  I think you genuinely want the best for people and are happy to help when you can.  To me, this is a beautiful quality.  Actually it's the quality I value above all others -- above intelligence, know-how, or even high-level cultivation.  I think a lot of people, at least on the board, don't get this about you.  People don't always see your kindness.

 

I hope you won't mind if I mention that your posts often have a yang tone -- forceful, emphatic, self-assured.  What I call a yang tone is probably what you call honest and direct.  For some people, this yang tone obscures your heart.  It can be hard to see the softer side of Shadow_self.  Occasionally people react in a negative way to this tone, both on the board and, you've mentioned, in your real life.  Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with a yang tone.  It's an important mode of communication and at times the most appropriate way of speaking or writing.  I myself find it difficult to strike a very yang tone and feel I would benefit from adding this polarity to my repetoire.  In a similar vein, you might find that there are occasions when another more yin style of expression suits the mood better, allowing you to get your points across with less interpersonal friction.  Or not.

 

Just my dos pesos...

 

LL

Edited January 28, 2023 by liminal_luke

[Nungali]

I blame Mercury .  It went and positioned itself next to the Sun , inside Earth's orbit .

 

Hence, all those Mercury retrogrades .  < shakes fist at the night sky >

 

What I find even more crazy  ( hey, its okay, I am talking about myself here, so I can be as rough and insensitive as I like ! )  is when a word or phrase is misheard , and my brain interprets something wacky and stuipd was said ... whereas if I had thought a moment about the context, the preceding and basic rational logic .... I would NEVER have come up with that .

 

Eg.  I am getting a 'therapeutic'   ( painful    ) massage . At the end , the masseur says ; " I can offer you a panther massage if you like ."

Me:  "  What ! ?  That doesnt sound very 'therapeutic ."

 

Her; " What do you mean ? "

 

Me; " Sounds a bit scratchy and bitey ."

 

Her; " What on Earth are you talking about ?"

 

Me: "   'Panther massage ' ... what, you going to bring a panther in here ?"

 

Her :         ....  "  Pamper   massage I said !  " 

 

 

[Nungali]

" I'm a little stiff around the back of the next - just here .... "

 

 

[doc benway]

This has run it’s course

and is heading for rapids

Let’s move on my friends