Stosh

The Dao Bums
  • Content count

    8,296
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

About Stosh

  • Rank
    ¿

Recent Profile Visitors

7,385 profile views
  1. Contradiction ?

    No contradiction..you could think it's ironic, or counterintuitive, but it's just a logically accurate view.
  2. Plan ahead of time. Plan so freaking far ahead that you need a calendar to remind you. You will propel yourself to all sorts of things when you aren't heedful of the dissuasive issues. People have ideas, but then they say "Nah". Don't say Nah so much.
  3. Mr Bean,- Atkinson ,close second.. ,Tina Fey doing Sarah Palin. Oh boy those were funny! Also the crews of Seinfeld and Monty Python, those had more staying power, George Carlin ,also great , but that was a lot agreeing more than just hearty laughing.
  4. Everyone post some favorite quotes!

    The only folks who don't thoroughly enjoy saying, "I told you so.." are those who never have anything to tell us.
  5. Oops, it's been a minute

    Oooo...
  6. Artificial Intelligence

    I don't think computers think well of me, what side does that put me on?
  7. Oops, it's been a minute

    Heck! I thought I lost track of time easy ,! 😁 Add more kitten stories.
  8. Things being what they are, the obvious validity of your point, shouldn't invalidate it. 😁 But generally people only accept new ideas when they agree with them. The Daoist writings were supposed to be self evidently true, easy to recognize, so naturally, they've been arguing over it for thousands of years. The main beloved pamphlet, studied so assiduously, told folks to act natural, stop trying to be so smart, and not be setting ones self on wild goose chases. But then after years of wrestling with it, you go and helpfully share this wisdom, annoying people left and right.
  9. If that was true , then all the native speakers would all agree, on the meat of it, and when they wrote their translations, they would be similar and mutually supportive. Native speaking Chinese have indeed written translations , and they do not all agree, so being a native speaker of Chinese means precisely , nothing. Either one understands what they are reading , or they do not , be it a good translation , or be it in modern-rendered Chinese. To translate , modern folks draw on hundreds of sources , they put down on paper their findings, So there are many people from whom you can get a distilled version of the knowledge of literally hundreds of other authors ,and other very smart people. Who is the reader that they should second-guess one of these experts? Why should one expect to end up knowing More than an expert? Does the expert more accurately understand with each adherent reader? And if the number of adherents is not directly correlated with the accuracy of the rendering , then by what means would one determine which the one true representation of the data would be?
  10. For crying out loud! Woo Hu said, just get the average of three and move on!
  11. I think its called a happy meal.
  12. Today's Biggest Threat: the Polarized Mind

    Eeeeww !
  13. Today's Biggest Threat: the Polarized Mind

    It's hard to say whether you guys are of the same opinion, or the exact opposite. Like, is the enlightenment of Buddha, being considered to be ,not knowing just how wrong you really are? Or is it that you think you're right when you aren't.? Or is the duality being said, to need embracing , the monism of Tao ,or is it the dualistic thinking which allowed science to flourish. ?
  14. True, to the point of being a little spooky, I have been eating apples this week, but, not continuously all week , and so ,me liking apples more than mangoes, would still fall under the same delusion-ary boundary that you consider would apply to the mango eating. Tomorrow , again, is still a time in the future which hasn't occurred yet ( so it cannot really exist now. )
  15. Sort of true, ,, but , me liking mangoes, is present tense or some such grammatical thing , and someday else , is future, and I have never had too many , that is supposition. (A single point in time is never changing, because change requires either a past or future to be meaningful , at the same time the present exists.) Good try though ! I like where you were going with that.