Stosh

Verily so

Wisely having been drawn back on subject by Davesdom,, internal peace in particular,, to the degree that it can be found ,,and in western terms if possible,, what WOULD be the situation between superego-id -ego or inner child inner parent and inner adult look like ?? I have never heard a clear equasion between the eatern vs western depictions of psyche, as it probably takes a rather diversified perspective to answer. I believe it answerable because objective truth isnt owned exclusively. This! I would really be interested to hear!

A thread is begun, and as posters become engaged , the thread takes on its own life Rarely is there an "answer" or 'conclusion' to ANY thread. but the fact that folks are engaged in one seems like an odd reason to break one off. Bickering, and the cause of it isnt usually remedied by temporary partioning. It arises again being unresolved. In the virtual world ,is there not room to let differences be resolved in their own time? contributing real actual learning value, IMO far more important than making arbitrary points about dusty manuscripts. I understand the desire to keep everyone acting politically correct. and I understand the desire for order. But tolerence to the lack thereof is also a good lesson to learn. So leave it be as much as possible and promote growth by having a light hand.

I was waxing poetic, as is my wont and was chuckling at myself,,but I am aware of my superego , always have been , but .. I cant say I've really learned yet how to get the damn thing off my back for good. If that makes any sense.

Thats a very emotionally moving post , in integrity, far beyond any I have ever seen anywhere! and I can have no comment on most of it, But since your avatar has meaning to you and for you , and may even be a tool you use for conceptualizing , You will need to find it for yourself. Same as meaning in a life, we each carry the blessing and burden of finding it. Accepting someone elses choice is often a sell out,( unless we get to the same place on our own) Since you brought up the subject of inner-child I just thought I would add that the beauty of your post , the wisdom and emotion of it, are all "Inner child" That also includes the avatar issue. I just figured you should recognize it in yourself, the inner child is far more wise capable and wonderful than it is sometimes concieved. Give your own the authority to choose the new avatar. (P.S.) What clearer mark of a Sage could there be?

Sages idiots or otherwise,, I dont think any of us cares a lot for the moral opinion of others except for "significant others". and for the purpose of being able to "relate" Its the internalized super-ego's critique that one really has to watch out for, often enough it will judge so harsh and irrational that our dearest enemy would weep with concern for our wellbeing if he could hear it pronounce our judgement of ourselves.

If a man the origin of morality, the man would be considered "Good" regardless of the actions he takes. When the needs of society as a whole, instead, determines what is good,,, only then the desires and actions of individual men puts them at odds with what is "good". A man is not evil lest he be rendered evil ( same for pit bulls and cats ...and labrador retrievers and nasty tempered lap dogs which bite far more folks every year than pit bulls)

Could you clarify the seeming contradition?

Substituting the word 'alternative' for plan B Would put all of us in agreement, would it not?

Thanks, Thats nice of you to say, I will however need to check in on the Buddhists for a bit and get a better grasp of their vantage point ( and I have a cold ) maybe its time to sit back and recoup- review.

Bingo! , An issue remains.. if we can really get beyond the outlined limitations of the human experience ,,(before dying). I figure Taoism as a path ,not because it is outlined by a philosopher for other folks to do, It is because one is trying to do a thing they will inevitably fail at( in my opinion.. as yet), so the best that can be said for it is that it is a path! rather than the destination. Our past is carved in stone and can never be modified, our future is yet to be written, So what one is left with is a consecutive string of NOWs and we are all muddling along trying to find the best set of nows we can have, based on the cards we are dealt. The human conditiion of bridging the subjective world of our experience with the concrete material world of objective phenomena is the thing that divides us from cats ( or dogs ).So I feel it appropriate that we can retain some degree of moral perspective...That is OUR THING!

There are at least two meanings for dualism, one is that to differentiate anything in the universe the compimentary reciprocal must also exist. ( to recognize light- you have to recognize what it is not..dark) Moral dualism is a belief that good and bad both exist, but they are externally determined to oppose each other. Building on that, the peresence of complete peace in the material world would be undefined. In the hearts of men, I believe similarly that complete peace would lack definition as well. In order to be neutral and achieve that undefined state one would have to be oblivious to distinctions such as viscious. To embrace peace and enlightenment ,I figure one has to embrace the "negatives" of the world just as much as the "positives". My cat is the sweetest little furball that ever crawled on the lap of man, I also know she would kill without mercy and relish the game! This is the heart of Tao.

I dont think the Tao has any plan for us, its a great "gift" to define for ourselves the meaning with which we are going to live.,, If Gautama Buddha was correct that all life is suffering -(of a sort.. I prefer other terms) Then 'inner-peace' would be at the other end of that spectrum. So I see it as a trade off ,either, to be highly emotionally invested in the illusory-material world, or to pursue greater satisfaction-peace at the expense of it. Where one draws the line is personal choice. Whether one can achieve complete peace and still live? I dont know. I do however conclude that some wise pursuit of peace is terriffic, and that the pursuit of mundane joys is also terriffic. I see it as a middle path, a great improvement.

Nicely put, I wish you posted more often., but I am wondering further about your opinions here, Can one retain their competetive element , because they enjoy competing, and it not be self defeating for personal growth? Would the loss of bears and wolves and rattlesnakes be positive or negative? Can maybe we even embrace the savage dogs? ( assuming that 'savage dog breeds' is even a true phenomena) Are these things not at least somewhat enriching? Do they not complete a harmony where all things can coexist( like nature without man, but including man) The reason why I ask this is that Most of the responses to this topic seem have an inherent sense of dualism, which your own post seems to transcend ( to my humble and often confused opinion).

Ill try to keep in mind yours and Marks sentiments, I dont claim mastery.But I have heard many folks saying things along the lines that they dont have that mastery either ,they doubt enlightenment lives up to the advertizing.. do you and Mark claim Mastery of this phenomena either? I see folk on other threads acting just as dualistic or self motivated as the Christian dudes working behind me, so while I respect your convictions as such,, Im just not seeing anything that makes a difference evident. Its like watching the Inquisition happen while reading a bible. Ill keep reading though.

My even MORE limited understanding of Tao says that the tao doesnt take sides, has no bias for either the soft or the hard, It doesnt care if a man is harsh or mild, its benevolence is equally spread. It is only the bias of men that makes one approach things such as they do,and makes us defend what we see as good and revile what we see as bad , ALL ILLUSIONS, that is TRUE! But so what! if the very deluded nature of man is his basis of virtue.

Crushing ones own will to be at the whim of circumstance doesnt stike me as "being like water" flexible to circumstance but consistant to ones own virtue. Maybe is it just my dualism peeking out again, but I dont currently get why anyone, abstaining from judgement, abstaining from preference ,judges it desirable, chooses it as goal ,to squash their illusion of identity to become a non factor in the flow of events. You live once, so be it ! that it is illusion,, can't that disillusionment wait until you unravel? Live first , die later.

It is just my take , immature and undeveloped dualistic etc as it may be, that I have a life burdened and blessed with human nature, and I am accepting of that. I do not HAVE to visit Rome, it is my whim, I am not full of the satisfaction of the dead, because if I was I would have no purpose or role in existing (albeit as an illusion within the great Tao), maybe someday my whim will be to attain enlightenment and forget my own purpose, but it aint happened yet. Im just a Shmo trying to play the best hand I can generate. Ive been reading other threads and they are fascinating, and its clear to me that I am a relative lightweight here, so maybe Ill change my mind at some point..or I may dig my heels in like an obstinate ox, It doesnt matter, Ill die someday anyway.

To what end?, why would you want to do that? And besides, Tao has no will.

Im already aware wrong and right are subjective experiences. and Im already aware about the ideas those dudes had about word associations and the implicit judgement they carry. And again I find just about all your conceptry to be consistent with my own. Not EVERYTHING we think is identical though. Which provides a potentially fruitful situation...we arent on totally different pages! It is my aim in discussion to throw clarity on ambiguous terminology, then folks can still voice different opinions about various points and understand 'what the heck' one another is saying! Neither you or I really need much validation from each other, but that doesnt mean either of us should be casting aspersions or intentionally misinterpreting minor points of theory. My personal take on Tao IS my own, (and I am willing to talk about it.), and I believe that EVERYONE ends up having to interpret what the old texts mean about their lives. For instance, the dude staring at the baggage cart,..As for me, if I go to Rome, I am going to see the sights, not stare at the baggage carrier,but I can take the wisdom of the point too! and not get bent out of shape because some tourist attraction was closed.

So be it. I was relating that the 'negative sentiment about reasoning' is clearly destructive ,demonstrated by history. I didnt lump Pol-pot as equating any one. I was saying that the attitude folks broadly construe from the 'abandon knowlege' motto is misinterpretation and therefore contraindicated to me, although it was used by Pol pot to justify his attempts to exterminate the intellectual class. And it appeared unreasonable to think that the respected scholars and yourself consider knowlege to be 'bad'. But if you honestly think knowlege is bad..I've heard that sterno or dextromethorethan will dumb you down to a virtuous level. If you dont think it that way , and construe me to be confused ,you could take the time to explain...oh darn !you cant explain it to a Westerner". Drat ! Twinner said.. I've seen a lot of people come on to the board with their own ideas about what Taoism is. If you want to lump Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu with Pol Pot, that's fine, but I think you have a very weak understanding of what Taoism is about. Well I'd have been willing to explain. We seemed to have a lot of similar opinions and comparing notes might have been interesting, but if anyone is expecting that my own ideas are supposed to match somebody elses for validation I reject it as circular argument...Who validated them? The opinions I venture are my own , the interpretations are my own. I leave it up to the reader to decide whether they have inherent validity. If Lao and Zhuang were wise, and they somehow tapped in logically to a perspective which fell well into accord with reality., then the reality they tapped into is still there to be understood. The stories etc describe and delineate the virtues they CONCLUDED were rational ones for men, no angels dropped out of the sky to tell them what were virtues and what were vices, in fact the zeitgeist of the day was that personal perspectives were all important in deciding what would be good for an individual to pursue. In that very same spirit, even today, many people come to their own conclusions about what constitutes virtue just as Lao and Zhuang did,( which you mentioned),, and in doing so, write their own dao. Traditional tao still provides helpful suggestions, but there is no law and no guarantees. When tao was elbowed out by Confucianism it later re-emerged somewhat blended with Buddhism and had an entirely different view of Laos work and importance because,the very existance of the written work lended emphasis to what was only a part of a much larger philosophical and religious position. It is True, I believe, that tao doesnt really have a delineated path that is going to lead one to a great life or here-after, what it provides is a reasonable framework for understanding causality ,learning ones own path, suggests solutions to quandaries, and tells you that much of how you feel is internally generated construct, and therefore somewhat under your own control. So I dont really want to categorically say ,that what you(Twinner)said is wrong on all counts . I do however consider it to be a very narrow view that you are presenting ( possibly intentionally) to simply create hubbub.

My personal take is that the message of tao is to live well, or better ,by being on the path, but it aint guaranteed to make you sweeter. Whether it would be helpful for "dark side issues" it would depend on what the internal conflicts were, and how effectively one ingested the fresh rationale. Since there is nothing to sin against except to oneself, it doesnt provide an infallible "compass" ,there is no clear objective morality to grasp onto. The general message is about freedom ,with the suggestion of alternate conceptry,.. being like water. As a vehicle for curing really serious issues I doubt it is anchored sufficiently to drag a person away from their present path. A wise and well grounded teacher of tao ( or psychiatrist) might lend that anchorage though. But that all is speculation on my part, and even I promote taking this post with a big grain of salt. CT 's claim seems a rational one. Stosh

Its just the connotation, the broadening of meaning which tends to happen around this sentiment I oppose.One Might as well just tell folks to give up understanding others and the world around them. I believe A similar sentiment led to the 'Programs' of Pol-pot .. that intellectualism was a problem and everyone would be better off digging in the mud for a living. You strike me as well read ,Lao and Zhuang also are reputed to have been, It doesnt ring clear to me for any of ya'll to decry intellectualism. Admittedly one cant learn Karate from a manual alone, it has to be done also. But it doesnt mean that the manual is not of great potential help. But Yeah-sir , there is a time to walk the walk Regarding ..continuing a thread beyond the point at which new stuff is is being said , sure, its probably not helping much. Time for fresh stuff.

I figure 'developed Taoists' are folks that live effectively-according to basic Taoist principles like naturalness ,spontenaity ,flexibility, open mindedness and in general an aspect of keeping their perspectives clear. None of these things are unique to Taoism though, so they might look like anyone else. As far as the liking of the ideas, it is part of any religion or philosophy and forms the groundwork of their common perception.It helps make sense of the real world , one's place in it, and points where one may find personal meaning. Lastly, the know it alls may truly-actually know it all! (from their own perspective of course.)I would suggest to search most for those who share the opinions that you have in greatest common and then judge the rest with a degree of openness.( but not complete suceptibility)

I figured posts responding to a thread are understood to be addressing the thread starter without having to spell it out repeatedly, but I will make an effort ,going forward ,to be clearer. The point about the heat of your argument.. was that the original precept of the thread was clearly going to be taken as provocative by some, and you knew it, some responses seemed a bit ruffled as expected, but I did not consider the point to be particularly hostile. I took it as indicative of someone feisty, thick skinned ,respecting of his own conclusions ,and probably difficult to deal with. ( not at all always bad traits) In fact I find us in really rather close agreement so I expressed that. Which makes me curious , do you consider yourself a Buddhist, or some amalgam that doesnt really fit the recognizable religious "boxes". The exception to that agreement really lies with that recurrent and annoying position that talking about the subjects is pointless. (I take it as the position of the weak minded, finding themselves outclassed taking the sour grapes approach)In Taoism its due to misunderstanding Lao And Zhuang who were scholars and linguists not ignorant hermits.