canacan

I think that one, though in the Zhuang Zi, isn't actually from Zhuang Zi himself, but from a follower, long after his death. The style is very different, the idea is somewhat different and to be honest it is a bit crude, if not silly. It smells like political agenda, which is quite ironical within the Zhuang Zi.

I'd bow and prostrate in front of any person or thing diserving this. All things are equal in being one. But nothing is equal in being many. I worship whoever I need to strengthen wanted principles. Divinity is in everything. But no single thing is pure divinity. Not accepting authority of what is superior to me would be stupid. Not invocating pure divinities would be a waste, indecision and ignorance. Unless I am already a great sage and indecision can be my virtue, ignorance be my authority and all things flow in equanimity. But I am not sure such thing can or should be permanent. One has to be human too.

Thanks for sharing !

What about history... vastly disagreeing ? What about countries today like India, Brasil, Russia, USA ? I guess I'd better leave you guys to your conversation. Sorry for the disturbance.

Religion? Seriously???

Ok. I have seen it now. It is even worse than I thought. Propaganda, lies, buzzwords, treats people like dumb children... You name it. The simplistic, dualistic title and it's appeal to the need to find cause to situations, I thought would naturally make smile or laugh people versed in any form of Daoism. "Why is Dao as it is?" Is the very question by which refusal Daoism was able to flourish.

Shu and Hu discussed how they could repay his kindness. "All men," they said, "have seven openings so they can see, hear, eat, and breathe. But Hun-tun alone doesn't have any. Let's try boring him some!" Every day they bored another hole, and on the seventh day Hun-tun died. Zhuang Zi (translation by B. Watson)

Tigger: Hello, Pooh! I'm Tigger! T-I, double "guh," "err." That spells "Tigger." Winnie the Pooh: Yeah, I know. You've bounced me before. Tigger: I did? Oh, yeah! I "recoggonize" you. You're the one that's stuffed with fluff. Winnie the Pooh: Yeah. And you're sitting on it. Tigger: Yeah. And it's comfy, too!

It is both the same and there is a huge difference. At least, people can debate value of sources they point to... Short lived debate when the source is a snippet of YouTube propaganda aimed at people with short attention span and no incentive to read indepth books. Are Internet forums OK? ... I still don't know... At least if feels like there is some interaction.

I somewhat agree. Except that I have less belief than you have in books, even better books. To me, without experience, there is no possible wisdom. Books and talks are great to compare experiences, reorganize thoughts and such. But that is after you gained some first hand experience on the subject. Heated conversations can even be experiences in themselves. The problem with videos, is people automatically have a bias to them, taking them much too seriously (accepting or opposing), while the same opinion in chat would have been treated as lightly as it deserves (hopefully). I often wouldn't care... But when it touches philosophical, political or spiritual subjects, I feel it is cheating oneself. I have very little considerations for words and speeches. It takes at the very least huge paradoxes to say something of value.

There are two reasons why I won't watch that video. The first reason is the same I don't watch YouTube when looking for wisdom. The other reason is the title. But this is of lesser importance.

1970s, huh ? Well, that is before the end of the Cold War. Since then marines have been on many more battlefields, not a surprise then their average lifespan lowered... But 50% is still an impressive number... Wait... What ? Oh, sorry guys.

We seem to be on the same boat on this. Sorry I don't answer more on the rest for now. Lot of things to do today. In time, we may learn to understand each other better. Answering line for line seems pointless to me right now.

You flatter me. But truely I can't pretend to be that wise... Far from it. I have no mystic mindset. That's one of the acceptions of Daoism I am less at home with. Cater to my bias? ... No idea.

I am amazed. Marxism is about capital just like Capitalism. They are not very different. Non of them is intrinsically moral by the way. Capitalism only seemed to tolerate spirituality for a little longer. Now, amorality is the absence of morality, immorality is morality twisted in a mirror. So maybe your sentence makes perfect sense. Morality and capital are next to morality and capital. Indeed. Though it doesn't say much. And I may be wrong. (... and don't care, because I'll change my mind again a hundred times)