S:C

15 minutes ago, Maddie said:

a whole ancient text just about that. 

Would you mind telling which one it is you speak about?

3 hours ago, Maddie said:

Basically he's distinguishing between objective reality and subjective experience. 

What is what? 
 

Sense data interpreted by mind - subjective.

Objectively it is not hot, only a sign of the body, that there is inflammation and trying to defeat outside or pathological bacterial or viral influences? What is it about TCM heat? Where does that come from?
 

What of that is objective? 
Why does this seem obvious to anyone but me?! Oh well… there’s @kakapo, at least someone.

37 minutes ago, dwai said:

In real terms, energetic flows aren’t hot or cold, electric or magnetic, etc . The mind interprets them that way.

How is that interpreting possible? 
 

What do you mean with „in real terms“?

Funny, why is it cool for many and hot for others? Electric or fluid? What influences minds interpretation?

Interesting, @Maddie I do remember a different practice suggested to women than men, by Mrs. Edmund/Mr. Mitchell. Heart center for women (emotions), lower belly (base desires) for men. 
And women have a better tendency for sound practice, I remember… 

As I said, he seemed to do well with emotions . (I might be wrong)

So does the dan tien practice have anything to do with dealing with emotions better?

On a tangent: which system has a practice that teaches this and doesn’t rely on classic meditation?

6 minutes ago, Pak_Satrio said:

It’s good to know what system your practices come from, so you can see if it’s a dead end, or there is room for progression. Also if the system has a bad reputation of practitioners getting harmed from the practice or not having any progress at all. Do your research before committing to something that you will spend a lot of your life doing. 

I see. He was hard to talk to and I never got any straight and true answer from him. I wasn’t even looking for something spiritual. Just dealing with emotions, he seemed to know better than I. 
 

and now I am lost  

doesn’t help to whine, don’t think the practices advocated here would be doing my case any good.  

17 minutes ago, Pak_Satrio said:

Ask your teacher. If you don’t have a teacher, then you don’t belong to a system. 

I cannot be sure. I once asked someone to teach me, without asking for qualifications.
He didn’t ask what, just smiled and gave me homework. Which met the topic I had been thinking of while asking: how to better deal with one’s emotions (nothing spiritual). 
I have never known which system if any he works in. 
At some point, things just got weird. Have never known, now…
 

So no need for this practice, then, I guess? Thought about taking a leave of absence anyways. I ain’t getting anywhere here these days.

17 minutes ago, Master Logray said:

The system you belong will determine the method

How does one know which system one belongs to? (Serious question!)

my interpretations and judgements are quite possibly unsubstantiated. so… don’t mind me.
 

(no pun intended.)

intriguing 

19 hours ago, wandelaar said:

Do you consider it an undecided (or even undecidable) problem if we are in fact currently having a discussion on an internet forum called The Dao Bums?

I would consider it a matter of probability (and paradox, maybe, but you want to exclude ‘absolute truths’).

19 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

And I don't mean as a question of absolute truth, because you could of course argue that maybe it was just dream, or an illusion created by a demon, etc. Those options are all irrelevant to our daily live in which matters are decided by common sense, observations, arguments, etc.

¿Are they really? [rhethorical question]

I understand your preference and frustration with relativists, @wandelaar.

To your question and the interesting article (thanks), - a follow up question: who in your opinion is supposed to have the interpretational souvereignty or prerogative about matters of truth or expertise?

—

4 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

a more specific reason to deny morality is its  extinction in the west. "we dont judge over here. ok?"

But westerners DO judge if people (also other westerners) judge for themselves now, don’t they?

This is probably unfortunately much too generalized now to contain significance. 

Please, - do carry on! And thanks for the reminder on my too simplest understanding of Epicureanism @wandelaar.

25 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

Epicureanism is much more subtle than that. In fact it's a perfect example of how understanding nature (including human nature) leads one to an enlightened form of self-restraint in following one's emotions.

Agreed. What I meant was rather ‚hedonism‘ or ‚the water way‘ or ‚eudaimonia’ or ‚living on the edge’ or ‚ to the fullest’. Oh no, I am mixing concepts again, damn postmodernism, it gets me so confused.

1 hour ago, Nintendao said:

😹

Classic example of going against nature? (but maybe it‘s her ‚true will‘ or ‚khvarenah‘….so she follows ‚her (perceived) nature‘ modern times are so confusing...)

1 hour ago, SirPalomides said:

If we say "follow nature" then we also have to account for how something can arise against nature- can that be done without lapsing into some kind of dualist metaphysics? The Stoics avoided the question by adopting fatalism. 

One way for certain. Does it mean to follow one’s emotion to the extent that they arise (epicureanism) or try to find a (humming) center of equilibrium / disattachment for emotional disturbances, as that might be the ‚individualIty‘ that goes against world-nature? 

How is it even possible that separate  consciousnesses do exist - without relying on parables? (Been carrying that question for the past 24 years.)
 

11 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

of course there can. screw the world, you are the decider whats wrong and whats right

I start to like you.  

Thanks for the explanation! I probably do conflate object nature with world nature, it however feels a bit like a mistake.

6 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

s'. It amuses me to repeat that there is no word for 'nature' in ancient chinese'; and whatever it is translated as nature, nobody is required to 'follow' it.

What about xing 性? 

Does Mr. Pregadio 

translate it wrongly, in your opinion?

and can there be a „wrong translation“ in a postmodernist world?

Quote

it is because by now in the west words have no meaning in general. its called post-modernism. 

This started with Wittgenstein? Or even before?

Quote

o the dictionary says that ethics morality virtueare one and the same thing. 

It really depends on the dictionary, you are using, doesn’t it? 
Ethics might mean a broader concept of categorization, while morality is always an evaluation/opinion, in my point of view. Virtue however seems lost, as individual preference rules now. (There was a great quote about that around here, might post it later.)

We suffer more in imagination than in reality. And there is no easy way from earth to the stars. 
Seneca did his homework. Apparently I did not.

3 hours ago, Cobie said:

.

.

So how did you yourself - personally - come to the conclusion or observation (if I may ask)?

There is no objective person or objective judgement of any person as long as they still are caught captive in the subject-object duality. (= Assertion that might happily be refuted with further arguments.)

With this I retreat and hope to learn with a vow of future silence in this thread. Thanks.