-O-

There is a Thunder Diety in Taoism - I believe called Lau Gung. And practices associated with - Thunderbreathing, Thunder Palm, Thunder magic etc. Some of Max's older teachings where these teachings. I think you can still find the videos somewhere if you do a search. The goal in lower level practices is to be "struck by lightening" (opening the crown) and later embodying the thunder and lightening - similar in techinque to Buddhist diety practices like purba.

I have guilty pleasure – every now and then; maybe 2 or 3 times a year I peek my head around past teacher's sites and sites for communities I've been involved in etc.; to see what is going on or what has changed. I came across this blog post which has inspired some thought/shock. Read it for yourself The post is labelled "Virtue its importance in self-awakening" And starts off about grasping to lower virtues and how this leads to negative things along the path to awakening – however the rest of the post reads like a rough, undeveloped understanding of transference and ends off with this pseudo poem "When a student comes to learn from you, they first respect you, Then, as they become empowered, they like you even more, then they love you for sharing the knowledge, making them feel important, then they despise you for teaching them, because the dark night occurs, then they hate you, then they wish they never learned from you and wish you were dead, then after your gone, they reflect on themselves, knowing they blamed their teacher, Then they miss you and love you even more, but its too late the teachers gone." What I have taken away from this is a diatribe about the exact point of view a teacher should not take towards their students. In fact I see this a shining example of how to construct a blanket argument to not take responsibility for any negative impact a teacher may have on students. I reads as an excuse - a rational to wash hands away from any adversity which may arise from students- which of course some of it might actually be founded. The sad thing is this is being passed on to future teachers. Blame the student is the main obstacle which prevents a teacher and teaching from improving. JMHO Edit: It talks about students placing responsibility outside of themselves (on the teacher) but isn't this view point of a students progression an example of placing negative entanglements a teacher has with student outside of themselves - onto the student? I think if this type of attitude is NOT taken then, as teachers, there is the opportunity to learn how to handle transferrence in a constructive manner.

A strategy for dealing with malcontents: When my more astute half picks on me, I will wait patiently until she is finished. Then with as much sincerty as I can muster I will says "Thanks, Honey" or "great point!". After six year it still casues her a moment of shock and confusion. Just enough time for me to get out of the room.

The other thing I notice that happens is this placement of blame on the results of the practice. I had a teacher that had allot of personal problems with students - allot of muddled boundaries etc. He kept saying it was the students etc. He came to the conclusion in the end that the techniques he was teaching must have been too much for the students so he ran away to a mountain for a while then came back with a whole new set of things to teach. It was pretty obvious to see that he just didn't have many skills with people. I mean he was charming and all - not awkward. But he dated within his student pool, his friends were all students currently or at one point. All of the relationships had this lopsidedness tipping to his advantage. He never abused that - but when situation came up where a friend would speak up - you know they have an argument - he would just kind of cut them off. Never talk them again. The people around him were always at arm's length. It was kind of sad to see because there were no true friendships in any of it - all highly conditional. Any way, these new teachings didn't solve the problem - the troubles came back. So there was an effort to take responsibility - by re-evaluating the teachings - but there was also the tendancy to hide behind energy/meditations (its not me it is the energy/meditation). It was like using spirit and meditation as a crutch - the safe place to run to when things were too confrontational - it's not me it is the technique - or their dark night. etc.

I think where issues come up has allot to do with cultural context. So for instance the master-disciple, guru-student relationship comes out of an eastern culture where there is allot of emphasis on family and the head of the family. So while growing up in that culture there are subtlies on how to approach the relationships which are taught from very early. And the expectation that the labours o your life is to be contributed to the family - sort of family first - self second. Unquestioned obedience to the head of the family etc.... so along side of this there are master-disciple traditions which are build on this cultural context. Then you bring that tradition into a different cultural context - like a western context which is more about stepping out of thy fathers house with an expectation to move further or beyond what those have done before - sort of a self first - family second. And then the cultural context and the tradition collide. A western student may then be in situation which inherently encourages transference and they have no real experience or "common sense" for it. There are not may relationships in the west where we are required to bow down so deeply, so unquestionably - so that can be taken too far. So the way I see it is - if there is a solid distinction of this interpersonal dynamic then the relationship can be constructed in a way to to minimize and use the transference for benefit... We come from a culture where we have beheaded the king, we question our leaders and have built a society around this questioning as a means to keep out corruption etc because in the past authority has perpetually been abused. So that in mind how can we be surprised when we are critical to our "superiors"? Titles and positions in the west do not come with inherent respect or admiration. We may walk into a court room and address the judge as "your honour" but on the golf course he is still call "Bob" And it is known that Bob the Judge is just as capable to screw up, get in trouble, make mistakes etc... So Bob is a man just like the rest of us - that is understood so we don't walk around having to remind each other that Bob the Judge is a man just like the rest of us.... but you change the title "your honour" to "sifu" and with that we are expected to behave to such an extent as to not question, or we should never criticise or have negative opinions... and that is akin to saying that "sifu" is not as capable to screw up, get in trouble, make mistakes etc like Bob. Sifu is somehow beyond reproach. If I take a driving lesson, I pay my $300 and spend three days learning to drive on an oval track. Is it expected of me to have gratitude to the instructor? Not really I paid him my $300. But is I take a 3 day meditation seminar for $300 there is this sub-culture expectation that we should be really grateful to the person teaching the class - because they suffered so much to be able to teach, or they don't really have to do this for me etc... etc... So I do believe that the hostility from the students allot of the time has to with the teacher and the way the relationship is formed.

Do I amaze you Micheal?

Well I get my jabs in there too. We're both a bit introverted and tend to be a bit workaholic - so we sort of monitor each other a bit - remind each other to take a break etc. A while back she was work allot of late nights. I don't normally say anything unless it goes on for a few weeks. It was coming up on about three weeks of this and we hadn't seen each other much. She called me at about 6:00. I knew she was calling to say she had to work late again. I told I had our daughter at the sitters and a bottle of wine, fine food all laid out in front of the fire place... I said that it would be far more rewarding than "....spending the evening with her boyfriend." Of course she jumps on the trust issue band wagon and as soon as she says "...you know I'm not cheating", I cut her off and said "of course you are just listen to me for a moment. "... you’re in your office after hours. It is quiet. All the lights are turned off save for the calming light from your desk lamp. You have neatly stacked piles of papers clipped with shiny new bull-nose clips with a sticky note labelling each, and each is placed in a certain position on your desk according to priority.... and this feels warm and cozy to you, comforting like the warmth of a fire or bearskin rug.... Each of these piles are methodically making their way into the "completed" section of your desk and this is intoxicating to you. If you doubt me then remind yourself that each time you complete a task you say to yourself 'I should go home... I'll just do that one more thing...' like a bar fly says as each glass is emptied 'I'll just have one more for the road...' But you can't help it, the aroma of a task well done has the flavour of fine wine to you... You sit and anticipate the accolades of a job well done once this work is submitted. The approval of your hire-ups and the envy of your colleagues... this waiting, anticipation is like foreplay to you. But there is nothing you can do until the morning so you come home to your husband, wooed, swooned and FRUSTRATED because you didn't get the satisfaction you were looking for..... so what I'm getting at is 1) you are with your boyfriend now 2) My wine is of a finer vintage 3) my fireplace is warmer and most importantly 4) You will not be left unsatisfied!" She says "I'm on my way" EDIT: Of course I was bluffing. She walked in the door to find me in sweat shorts, a ratty old t-shirt; with my daughter under one arm, popcorn on my lap and a Disney movie on. She took one look at me and said "And you wonder why I cheat on you!"

Yes, I have to be careful. She is way more astute then I am. When I manage to make her especially aggravated then every word out of my mouth is "a reflection of my inner desires" She says "How does this outfit look" I say "Good" She says "Why are you so threatened by other men?" I say "wha...????!!". She says "Well this outfit obviously looks ridiculous and you would have me wear it in public, so.... Either you are extremely hostile to women and want to humiliate me in public; or you don't want me to be attractive. I know the former isn't true because you are too naive to be so hostile; so it must be the later. So the only reason I can think of for you to keep me unattractive is because you are threaten by other men. Your Mother never should have let you walk home from school sooo young!!" I say, " uh, duh... uh...- walk?? school?.." She says "Well you should know you can trust me by now! And if you don't then you must have been mildly neglected when younger. You couldn't trust your Mother then to have you arrive home safely and you can't trust my loyalty to you now. Besides why do you want me to sleep with other men anyway. " I say "WHAT?!" She says "Every fear is a hidden desire. You're afraid I'll sleep with someone else. So you must be thinking of me with other men. My god you have a wife and child - you'd think your sexuality would have settled by now! So what do you think of this outfit?"

This morning, my wife, after reading this line "Then they miss you and love you even more, but its too late the teachers gone.", made a tongue'n cheek observation saying. "Now you know why he faked his death."

Well, there will always be people who project and transfer etc. In the end the only way to deal with it is to establish clear boundaries in the roles before people invest themselves in the activity and then those boundaries need to be constantly re-enforced and held.... Detox is not what lead to the issues in the community - although detox became the catalyst and fuel. There are very specific things being said that appear to be small and insignificant but are the very things which are establishing the foundation for those issues later. For a hypothetical example, if a teacher talks about his relationships with his teachers - there is an underlying message being sent or which can be inferred by the students - that message being "this is how I expect you to be as a student". To the person saying it, the intentions might different or even insignificant - however if the stories continue like that then eventually it starts to sink into the students that "this is the way to be a student". The teachers I have seen that handle transference well have little or no reference to themselves or their own experience - and do not rely on anecdote for validity - in fact they do nothing to address validity. I have a friend that wrote a book on counselling. He presented it to a publisher which liked the idea of the techniques but said "it is un-publishable as it is...". The wanted more "stories" about his life etc. When asked why he was told "so the read can relate" - in other words - so the reader can "attach". If there is no self-importance, or as some wrongly use the terms "ego" in a teaching then it would read like a scientific journal - straight information. Personalizing a teaching - creating a community with a name etc - are grist for mill for the "ego" attach or identify with the topic.... if you do this then later you will have issues with peoples "egos". It is not a small matter and is the very reason why there is strict conduct in the medical industry for behaviour between therapist and patients... it is another area where transference is nearly impossible to avoid. When things get ugly it is the professional's conduct which is reviewed - not the patient's.

Holding one accountable leads to healing as well - quite literally in a llot of cases. ... seeing the true nature of a "self" which "Holds" onto the inflicted pain as a means to assert its own solid reality in the face of it's inherent falseness I think affords some relief - but by no means changes the consequences of the action in the first place... the wood block which was carved yesturday - in the face "it is the past, the past in illusion, let the past go...etc" does not change its shape. ... I think IMHO when we are hurt, betrayed etc part of the sting of those wounds is the inherent state of powerlessness which we foudn ourselves in that moment... and solitary efforts to free our "self" from the impact of others actions is either a re-enforcement or resignation to that state of powerlessness. I find people who tout to others "take responsibility for yourself", then when confronted by the consequences of their own actions lean on "forgiveness" and "let the past go". How very convenient. Be accountable - hold others accountable seems to work the best, again JMHO.

I'll put my vote in for that.

Interesting - however, how are those temparatures to be produced. I don't believe solar power with in the atmosphere will produce temparatures that high.... then there is the application, used to produce synthetic version of fossil fuels which produce more carbon dioxide...?

Your reference is more to do with the education of women and hte finding come from Africa. It is not so much about stupid people breeding as much as it has to do with cultural roles of men and women. As women are allow to be educated, vote, work - essentailly have the same opportunities as men - then pragmatic decision around planned pregnancy, birth control etc. begin to have an impact on the whole population. So it is not a matter of IQ's produce lower populations as much as education leads to mature life decisions.

This is interesting.... A digital experiment a few years back (I think called Avida) found some interesting observations regarding evolution, resources and competition. A few (from memory) that I think apply... 1)When the envirounment that the species are in has unlimited resources - evolution slows and even stops. 2) When a limit is placed on resouces evolution across may species will accelerate (same as above I guess) - others will dies off 3) 3-5 species comepeting for the same limited resources is the ideal for evolution across all of them (with more - the resources runs out - if less 1 or 2 sepecies wil dominate and subsequently the evolution of those dominate species slows) 4) When one species dominates over the others thier evolution slows or halts and population will devour the available resources until the entire envirounment dies. 5) bad mutations - turned out to be really important for the evolution of the population over a long period of time. 6) Although it appears that as life evolutions the "systems" become more complex - but in actuality the "complex systems" are really an accumlution of simpler systems (as they evolve thier systems become simlified. THis simplification allows for adapting additional systems.) Some personal musings: Humans are a species that are not in competition for resources with other species (we dominate the envirounment). Is technology a complex system - or an set of smaller simplified systems (simplified from systems prior - or more complex then systems prior: think food gathering, resource harvesting)? Technology is larging based in data or knowledge - if we think of knowledge or data as a resource then the next question would be.... "is data/ knowledge a limited resource for which we compete - or is it unlimited?" (in terms of "limited" think of it this way - I have comsumed a bit of data and then made it available here - as you consume it by read, has the "data resource" increased or decreased?) Are humans at a dead end of evolution? Perhaps a "culling of the herd" would place our species back into a position to compete for limited resources with other species. Survival systems like medicine, hygenien, food sterilization, weapons, shelter technology... have allowed us to dominate an envirounment and thus seal our fate as aspecies.... On the other hand there are observations that as a culture move from post-industrial thourgh modern and into post-mordern ages the population naturally drops (it increases through industrialization, flattens at modern and begins to drop at post-modern). It is simply this - as a country increases in wealth and moves out of a manufacturing economy people tend to have less children - instead of 2.2 kids per family it drops to 1 - so two parents produce 1 instead of two kids which over the course of just a generation or two the population would be halved... but only after ALL cultures have reached this level of wealth....) So perhaps if we can hold off long enough and spread the wealth/prosparity then our over population issue will eventually, naturally begin to decline. (are there enough resources to get us to this point?)

How is that different then mechanism of dellusion/hallucination?

Here-here. I think I'll stick with Joe's mini 14.

Well the corrupt are too. And there is coruption which is legal. agreed. Yes, organisms compete in their local envirounment - but survival of the fittest has the winnings going to the species that can adapt best when that envirounment changes. Beavers survied when temperatures plummented but their four foot high cousins met a quick demise. This is a good example of how a social evolution outweighing an individual evolution. Pack animals are early social structures. I also think the example of corporate kanagroo hoping is an example of alphas being rewarded regardless of production. And also the high divide of wealth. But a thought comes to mind now... perhaps both this individual evolution and social evolution is what the real debate is. Social structure inherently protect a larger protion of the population by protecting the weak and what we see as flaws in socialism and flaws in capitalism relly has nothing to do with economic philosophy but rather different aspects of nature or of evolution. Socialism reflects an exagerated priority on evolution by population, capitalism refelcts evolution by individual effectivness.... oh but wait this is just looping around to mixed economies again.... And maybe we're right back to the begining - some mentioned anarchist-primitivism - so when the society collapses who is going to survive?

(I knew I shouldn't have peaked in here 'cause it will probably gobble up my afternoon) There are some flaws in you approach. Survival of the fittest in Darwinian sense has a high value on adaptability. The people you are referring too as th fittest in a society are largly NOT adaptable but rather conformist. And as the numbers of conformist grow more social systems are put in place to encourage and reward the conformity. Humans of 30,000 years ago are no different in potential or physiology then we are today. The potential to learn, adapt, assimilate language create tools etc is, in this barbaric sense identical. We have "evolved" greatly in the last say 10,000 years not because of a change in our basic, individual potential but rather by pooling our skills and resource. Then later create organizational systems that allowed this pooling of resource to be more and more effecient. Our recent evolution has not been on an individual level but rather a social level. When this social evolution becomes the basis for a species survival, then the "fittest" state of the individual becomes increasingly less relevant, or even irrelevant. It is because at that point it is the strength of the collective population which wins out... which comes to your next point about being only as strong as your weakest link. Not true IMHO, a society is only as strong as its mainstream mean of its population. For example the weakest demographic in a society would be infants. And we are obviously able to be more productive then that.... ah but you said productive members didn't you. If your logic was sound then the a society would not produce more than its base wage workers... and we know this is not true either. It is the mean across the population which holds the strength - or its mainstream. If you dump a tonne of non-productive persons into the population or lay off a large portion of you mean population than yes you weaken but this is because the "weight" of your average population is now less - or by god if the unproductive becomes the average then - you are only that strong. This impact on a society is not exclusive to socialist countries - it effects EVERY country the same way. So with any country the more homogeneous the population... etc. Back to survival of the fittest. The people best able to "survive" or "thrive" in our society are not nessesarily the fittest people in from a survival stand point but the most able to funciton within the conformist norm. If you removed the social structure which sets this norm or move that individual to a society where that norm is different you would see something I believe to be less thant successfull. Stick some of the most successfull people I know into a tuk-tuk in india, or the backwoods of NWT and you will see people completly lost regarding how to survive. However, the weakest people by your definition can exhibit greater adaptablity and resourcfulness regarding resources etc simply because of their "poor" lifestyles nessecitate it (the best example would proably be the criminal population).... I know these are generalizations but the point being, a person's financial success is not indicative of the "Fittest"-ness as members of our species but rather how well they have socialized. And in fact allot of socialized behaviour is counter to "survival" and evolution from an individual stand point. That being said all of this (and I think you will probably agree) is a numbers game where the "fittest" by your definition is over looked in capitalist culture as well. There have been more than a few times that I have witnesses (and done it) where the best, brightest, most productive employee was overlooked for a better position for two reasons - people good at execution are generally not good "talkers" and become ineffecient in leaderdship roles (because they try to do everything themself), and two they are too valuable to the organization in their current role. If they are rewarded - then somebody else has to fill thier shoes (and somtimes it requires more than one person). The highest earners I see and know on Bay street (directors through to senior VP's) are not high producers - they are high sellers and generally do not stay in positions longer than 2-3 years. At the 2-3 year mark thier shortcommings start to become apparent - so they consciously will shop around for a different, better position before the "honeymoon" period with their current one ends - because in the long run it makes more sense for them to do so.. these are not good examples of "producers" in my mind - but are the highest earners.

I think we agreed on a fair amount. The extreme tails of the last burst was the issue. There is this idea that boom&bust is a occasional anomaly and that the market has some sort of norm in there that the booms & bust disrupt. Its not. The B&B's are part of the norm so it becomes a matter of dampening what is can quickly become a positive feedback system creating more and more instablility with each iteration. I do get what you mean and occasionally wonder what it would be like if there was no bail-outs for the banks and co. ... just let them fend for themselves. It would be interesting that is for sure. Anyway it really has been fun (and educational) fencing with ya - thanks by the way.... now I need to get back to my own business

Not saying it is a zero sum game - like the example I gave earlier where a company begins production in a different market - then years later finds the market they have been selling to is no longer strong.... then turn around a find a new market elsewhere without realizing that it was their inital reaction which caused the shift in wealth.

My post is not to argue that my perpetual motion machine is better, but rather the logic in your comparision is seriously flawed. Much like the news which comes from below the 49th which states any government intervention at all is "socialism" and has never worked. Yet there are WORKING examples existing around you of mixed economies. I do get your arguement - even though you don't back the claims (References to GW blood letting doctors is not backing a claim by the way - just more deflection) and I recognized that they are not based in the reality of the world. Communism has failed yes, but capitalist economies with some government over sights have not - thats a fact jack. Markets left with no intervention at all will always be bubble and bust. SOME government regulation can soften the extremes of this and lengthen the term of those cycles. The markets on their own will not do this. (supply and demand encourages bubble and bust). IMHO the ideal would be if businesses regulate themselves. But this takes foresight and a value placed on slower, stable growth with smaller margins (which over the long term are more profitable when smaller margins are maintained for longer periods). I beleive that greed and self interest can be the basis of this... but it takes a willingness to be responsible for (like a gardener adn his flowers) of the market you're exploiting. But as long as businesses do not do this - then the government does. I lke small business because they are "closer" to thier market - see them everyday - they are real, breathing people. They understand that if those people can not buy then their business will fail. I've seen vendours invest in client companies because they know if that business suffers they will loose that client. I've seen service provider reduce rates ridiculously and work tirelessly to help a client out of a down turn, because if they are gone in the long run so is that revenue. (Large coporations CAN NOT do this because they are accountable -not to the market- but to investors) People often sight greed and laziness regarding capitalism vs socialism. And I agreed it is niave to believe these things will go away (or for that matter should go away)... but this greed and laziness is always in refference to the lower and middle classes and not the top, large and rich. The greed and laziness of the wealthy leads to the economic crap we have been going through. Quick buck making without the effort to consider the long term impact or the intrisic value of the activity. It is short sighted "hoorahh" thinking of folks with allot of money and power and little regard for the long term impact of the market they are gaining their wealth from.

No worries about the Socialist reference... I get CNN - when they mention Canada I often have to stop and remind myself that I don't own a "Che Guevara" T-shirt. Both my wife and I do pretty well. By most peoples standards (in any neighbourhood but the one we live in) would consider us pretty well off (not rich but maybe wealthy). We recently bought into stock options in the company she works for. To do so we had to go onto a payment program. So no, not anyone anywhere can get a piece of the action... we might like to think as consumers we are all created equally, but this is just not so. You need to have the money on hand to get in on the game. One thing that is misunderstood about our system, specifically medi-care. It is not a freeloader system of free health care. It is paid for. We pay for it in our taxes and health care premiums. But we've also had about 70 years to grow into it, both our economy and our culture. For EI (employment insurance) you can only claim against what you have paid into... there's no way to "make a living" off of it. It is government controlled - but when a person walks into an employment centre here, they are walking into a private business that has competed for that contract. And has to do so every year. They are held accountable to the result they produce, so there is an incentive to get people back to work in a way that is successful in the long term. One thing you can always count on - a person's investment in their own self-interest. I think that is a good thing (self-interest) when it is mated up with personal accountability. My alert sirens go off when I hear of people's selflessness. They are either lying or worse lying to themselves. You tell me clearly what you are getting or wanting out of an activity and I will trust you. Tell me it is for everyone else and I will head for the hills screaming.

Yes the value of the goods is factored in... it is .5M in more profit made - it is also 1.5 M that isn't spent in on labour, logisitcs and natural resource with in the market you are selling.... and yes there is great value to buying goods overseas... like I said about my current venture - to have a competetive price I need to buy it there - which is good for me - but not the economy I am seeling too.... the .5M doesn't go back into the market to support your sales - but rather to the investors which do not have the same impact on the economy, as a demographic, as say the average working class. And the 2M worth of godd you bought at 1.5 then devalues the resource of the market your are selling to, leaving less wealth there. Like anything it is the trade offs. Buying from emerging markets spreads the wealth to regions that need it most, but it also weakens the market you are thriving from. So the eye has to be on the balance. I few years back (about 8 years or so) when the 0%, no down payment mortgage market was opening up south of the 49th, I was doing a fair amount of work for the Real Estate industry on the west coast. Well you can't do 0% down on a mortgage in Cananda - its regulated. So there were all of these ways around it - like getting a cash back for the equivalent of your down payment (and the amount is tacked onto the mortgage). So you would have 20year old kids, which have been working for a only few months buying a condo because they could borrow the down payment from Dad for 30 days (house closes get your cashback and pay Dad off), and the mortages were similar in monthly payments to rent in more central locations. Well people were buying up like gang buster and all were high risk... but the thing is - because of the regulation is wasn't wide open - it was risky, but not wide open for just anybody to walk into a home and default 6 months later. It forced the people buying to have at least a credible co-signer who was on the hook if they defaulted etc. In all of that; the Agents, the REM's and the mortgage borkers could care less if the person was able to pay for these homes - because they are all paid the day the deal closes... but the banks cared and governement cared, not so much to shut down the practice but enough to make sure that the industry wasn't killing itself - because the people involved surely would have done it if they could have gotten away with it. without a doubt. Like anything it is balance. If wealth creates wealth and wealth (like water) is flowing away from its source without being repleated then it will dry up. If you have no interest in preserving that source what else would you expect to happen. And I agree - it has to be in tandem. (and by the way Canada is not Socialist - we're a mixed economy that leans towards capatalism more than most - sorry they need to point the fingers in other directions)