Stosh

13 hours ago, Marblehead said:

Yeah, a number of perspectives could be had concerning this section.

 

But really, just two perspectives of the workings of the Universe.

 

Whats another?

41 minutes ago, rene said:

 

Or as Mr Spock says....

The answers are easy,

once the question is understood.

Logical. 

1 hour ago, Marblehead said:

Agree.  It seems that the border Warden is the one with the wisdom of Confucius while the Sage has the wisdom of Chuang Tzu.  Ironically thought, at the end it has the Sage seeking Confucian wisdom.

 

But then, one can easily read this different than what I just presented.

 

I didn't spot the irony , but I think its typical of the typical story structure to reinforce the point being made.. and so ,agree completely.

Cz didn't ever say Conf was stupid, and I think he in fact respected the smarts,, though in some ways I think,  he felt it fell short of what could be 

, maybe that's the big issue between them,n why Cz uses Conf as his foil. 

In fact.. I will take your point one step more and point out that the guy is a warden at border, of the summit ,, one step shy , and is looking for the blessings of the sage , but doesn't recognize him right in his face , because he thinks he has the correct answers already.

This passage appears to be delineating the conceptual difference between 'sages.

' Worldly smarts , of Conf, ,vs wisdom that Cz would condone. 

Oh its a workable scheme, works like a charm. However its not for everyone

I think I like Diana Krall's version best  Bubles version is a little too much a mix of styles that are blended but still rather distinct , like the James bond theme. ( and now you say you love me portion sounds like one of those , which one Im trying to find out.. ) and thats odd because I think Bassey did this song , as well as some of the bond stuff right ? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PI_SverY0w

 good luck , but if you lose ten pounds in month one, youre gonna still be on the hook for five pounds month 2 right ? 

40 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Gotta concern one's self with one's self first so that one become able to help others.

 

If I have two broken legs I would be totally unable to help anyone walk.

 

Ok, I can live with that exception, as long as the point is to help others. 

16 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Although I didn't give it a "Thank You", Stosh's post above is a valid perspective.  Just not one I hold to.

 

Fine, but what does that mean?

1 minute ago, liminal_luke said:

The science of genetics is besides the point -- at least to me.  My point above was not that parents actually live on genetically through through children, but rather that theres a felt sense of immortality (usually on a less-than-conscious level) that people get through the project of raising kids and -- hopefully -- having them live on after they`ve died. .

Well , they certainly have every right to have false senses of imaginary persistence through time.  

22 minutes ago, cold said:

 

I will play devils advocate, when you state :

 " Your genes don't have an individuality , they're just coding."

I suggest the gene combination or coding I express is unique to me.  The sum is greater than its parts.

 

My Y coding in common with my father and brother(s) of the same parents is a part a tiny part of my genetic makeup. My fathers genetic makeup may have undergone minor or major mutations in the time period between my and my  brother(s) respective conceptions.

 

And I expect increasingly we are all becoming some kind of mutant.

As our genes are increasingly exposed to chemicals, radiation, etc. they are going to mutate.

Which leads to the old Nature versus Nurture debate.

 

Did my mother eat a wide variety of foods while I was in gestation? Did hers? and her ancestors farther back?

It may or may not have an influence on my eating habits later in life. Science suggests our diet it has a variety of important influences

 

I knew of a squirrel who couldn't build a nest. Oh (s)he tried and tried but time after time (s)he failed.

Was this due to poor eyesight, and if so was that trait inherited ?

Or a result of a vitamin deficiency?

 

Luckily (s)he found a partner whom had some skills in that area and I can report they seemed to live out their life peacefully thereafter... as best I could determine... now the skunk under the porch is well shall we say a horse of another color.

 

Pardon me if that's not PC, but if befits the rabbit whole.

Ill agree that you are not just the sum of your parts , but the son is also not identical to the father since you weren't produced by fission or budding. 

Epigenetics are a fair consideration ,

but those influences are also not constant in a genetic lineage to the point where you can say ...all members of this line will be fat or skinny based on them. 

These are 'historic ' influences but this would make our kids then be a 'product of their times' more so, than 'inheritors of that which made us , us,"

For instance, long life spans may be linked to nutritional circumstances of our ancestors and alternate with generations, .. but then would the kid be more like his dad , or be more like his grandfather? .. there are such effects , yes , but they are environmental or chance. 

Vitamin deficiencies can be due to the lack of them in the diet , but they can also be due to need for extra , which may not be abnormal requirement somewhere else. 

After several generations , the coding for us is decentralized , all our molecules have been replaced , all our memories gone , the only thing left is the ripple effect we had on the world and on society. 

 this is getting complicated to explain. 

No you're not any closer to mortality, Ill rephrase,,,, every gene that codes for you ,, is also coded in other people ,, unless you're some kind of mutant. 

If you had a kid, at most , half of your genes would be passed on, in that individual ,and the other half still , by the breeding public. 

Your genes don't have individuality, they're just coding.  Your Y chromosome coding is the same as your dad and brothers coding,,.  

(If you were a mutant, that could be either a good thing or a bad thing , If its good , it should be perpetuated , and if its a bad one , it should be minimized. Which may or may not be rare , but only occasionally is of significance )

That which is you, but not coding or body, such as your experiences and concerns, can still be passed on without the genetic vessel of a kid. And even if you did have a kid there's no reason to expect that those things are going to be passed on. ( like how you built a birdhouse ,enjoy macaroni ,or do good deeds) 

17 minutes ago, gendao said:

Fake news.  Yes, there has been bisexuality observed in wild animals, but generally only as a Plan B to heterosexual mating (always Plan A).

 

Cases of "true homosexuality" have only been found in domesticated sheep and humans (domesticated sheeple, lol).  But note that domesticated sheep are artificially-selected for HIGHEST FEMALE FERTILITY - which is what male homosexuality might then be a byproduct of.

So essentially, homosexuality could be a symptom of excessive feminine/matriarchal energy.

I wasn't presenting the sexual orientation of Gays as being ordinary , but rather that , functionally speaking , one doesn't have to produce young to advance the welfare of their genetic code.  Human attitudes vary bigly from the motivations of animals , my comment is anti  darwinesque- invalidation that personal procreation is needed for a being to be fit. 

A simple example might be wolves ,where not all breed, yet the common genetic pool is still promoted, or bonobos, where there's a social bonding aspect to sex, which advantages the group. Even for a breeding human , only half of ones code gets handed down to a child , and so ones brother is just as good a genetic substitute parent to the next gen ,as ones-self, so not all males need to compete for the ladies.

Those males are still valuable though, as they can still help kick the ass of the unrelated neighbors out of the tree, 

as are, the intimate relations that may come about amongst women, as an extension of heightened social integration. 

Homosexuality happens in patriarchal societies just as much , ( I'm told) , so I don't believe the empowerment of women makes the men gay. 

Nuf said on my part , you can have the last word. 

Think in terms of the    'win win" scenario.

But the consideration of ones self second is still valid 

in

The relationship between student and teacher

Husband and wife 

producer and consumer 

king and subjects 

etc 

Without trying to punch holes in it , you will see that the idea works.

Generally, If X puts himself first , then everyone else has to see to themselves first

If X puts himself second then folks can work for each others benefit easily

Its not perfect in all scenarios , especially because many folks are screwed up , but when I have put my students first , there was common interest , accord and respect. We had fun. If I made the whole thing about me , and promoting my wonderfulness, I doubt it would have been anything like that, or if the students were just entirely wrapped up in trying to do whatever they thought etc. 

8 hours ago, TheWhiteRabbit said:

 

I was thinking about this stream I often would spend time by as a kid.  Even as thought streams go.  Some people throw rocks and pebbles in and still the beautiful stream keeps beautifully moving onwards.

 

Kind of like a discussion of the scouts.  I went back a bit through the posts, but I do not really see "opposition" it is just a rolling stream.

 

@rene I like the merit badge.  It is spacey.

I thought it was there... ? now I dont see it either. ???  

Well, there are some things which seem invalidating .

I had an odd dream about an oval coin with an elk head on it which this person palmed and wouldnt return. Inexplicable it was. 

4 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Its fine and interesting, I just resented the implication that Luke and others are all malfunctioning. . Hes keeping his cool in the face of considerable opposition. 

Whats he supposed to say ? Im sorry about the magnetic field ?

Theres plenty of evidence even in the animal kingdom that not all members are geared to serve the species community by being the breeders , and considering that siblings share genetic code , there is no requirement to do that job in promoting ones kin.

11 minutes ago, rene said:

 

I don't see the connection, either.... cool links, though.

 

Maybe he's working on his Boy Scout  merit badge in Astronomy  .

 

 

 

Its fine and interesting, I just resented the implication that Luke and others are all malfunctioning. . Hes keeping his cool in the face of considerable opposition. 

Whats he supposed to say ? Im sorry about the magnetic field ?

Ridiculous BS n that stuff is hurtful and ignorant. Even if it was true there would be nothing other to do than join em. Homosexuality was as present in Ancient Europe as it is now , the statistics hold true across cultures and time. Whatever the reasons may be , its not due to solar flares magnetic variation or space aliens.

41 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

This thread started out about the Boy Scouts, and now somehow I`m talking about me.  Funny how that happens.  Perhaps it`s time to leave the world of trans issues, gay issues, and Luke issues and get back to scouting?

 

I do like what you say though, White Rabbit, about how we are not our positions.  Very true.  At the same time, it does seem to me that people sometimes attack other people (sometimes in ways that attract moderator attention, at other times in more subtle -- but no less nefarious -- ways).    

 

 

There is always some kind of attempt to prevail, there is also , rarely, hostility.... though its not the norm , so its best not to conflate the two. Imo

1 minute ago, liminal_luke said:

 

That didn`t take long.

 

Stosh, I`m not -ist against white man so you`ve got me all wrong.  There`s actually a big difference between an all white group and an all black group, for instance, and that difference is power.  Historically disempowered groups have a legitimate interest in coming together to support each other and fight for their rights.  Country clubs limited to white men..well that`s an entirely different thing.

 

That said, I`ve nothing against groups limited to men in general.  Nothing against groups limited to German men or Irish men or other groups of men with a particular shared interest or background.  It`s only groups limited to white men that seem suspicious to me.  I`m a white man myself and don`t feel a bit bad about it, so no, I`m not prejudiced.

Its not good enough IMO to be white , and so you get some kind of pass , to resurrect that which you feel has been wrong.

It's not a different thing. Its the same thing, and if minority groups , of which white men are also , ( do the math) , want these issues to go bye bye, then the issues have to be dropped , not preserved with reverse role positions. 

The thing that moves ahead the cause of any of these groups, is not the preservation of the group, but the dissolution of them,

not teamed up enmity , but a desire to be principled and just. You undermine that, and you undermine the resolution, of that which you find repugnant. *( I presume) 

17 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

You raise some great points Rene, and I don`t think there are any easy answers.  I`m fine with groups limiting membership to women, to blacks, or to gays.  But if a countryclub wanted to limit membership to white men I`d raise my eyebrows.  Some people here will no doubt consider me the worst kind of liberal hypocrite for saying so so openly, but I`m getting used to that. 

 

(I don`t know anything about the Dolezal case, and haven`t watched any of the videos posted in this thread.  But yeah, deception is bad.)

Luke, its the definition of hypocritical, whether you say it or not. Leave your eyebrows down.

Someone has instilled the idea in you that its fine to be -ist against white men , which it isn't, you lose the moral high ground if you're just as bad. 

Fine fine ... just put the gun down

Just Dont get confused by the ironies of the discourse, nor be boggled or concerned by the paradigms of what people think of Taoism or Taoists or yin or yang or emptiness vs fullness nor none of it. A guiding light for navigating all that , is being in touch with who you were best meant to be.... Imo thats good advice though it still may be difficult to follow. " you and I have been taught many things , some of them we should embrace , and others are best let go. "

The only mastery is self mastery , the extent of it is what you can manage relative to what you may manage..