Is anything really objective?

[steve]

Yes, nearly all other belief systems promise 'real' reality after you die. In Taoist philosophy we already have what is real. We have the fullness of everything. We don't speak about after we die because we don't know.

Let's look at this for a moment.

There is a great deal of Daoist thought and the Daoist canon that is dedicated to issues related to immortality and what occurs beyond death.

It is interpreted differently by different traditions, schools, individuals.

My own beliefs about this are a result of cultivation and not much influenced by written Daoism and are probably different than the "party line" Daoist view so I won't go into that much.

But there is an enormous amount of Daoist attention on the afterlife and it's interaction with our present lives.

 

But no, I don't look at Tao as the true objective reality but I think that objective reality lies within Tao - it is an aspect of Tao but it is not the totality of Tao.

For me, Daoism is primarily about self cultivation. I don't mean to say that I discredit other aspects or uses, I just don't take advantage of them. And the foundation of Daoist cultivation (not to mention Daoist science and medicine) revolves around the concept of Qi. There is and has never been any objective or measurable evidence that this exists. Some may argue that this is incorrect but, believe me, when the international scientific world can verify the existence of an objective quantity called "Qi" it will not remain a secret for long (conspiracy theorists please don't derail me too much here, we can always start a new thread ).

 

So what is Qi, Mr. Marbles? I don't mean to sound patronizing, offended, challenging, or defensive, but do you practice any form of Daoist cultivation? I think this is very important when it comes to your attitude toward objectivity.

Have you spent hours, months, or years trying to come to terms with Yi, Jing, Qi, Shen, Wu, and all things related to that?

If you truly have, I think that your outlook regarding objective and subjective might be a bit less dogmatic.

Because here you just may find the area (metaphysical, philosophical, spiritual, intellectual) where the objective and the subjective become blurred in truly Daoist terms and within the underlying principle of Daoist cosmology.

 

And as far as I am concerned, the heart and soul of Daoism is to be found in practice, not study or debate or intellectual understanding. And I would confidently maintain that old Lao Zi, Zhuang Zi, and Lie Zi (and any other Zi's you ask) would support that assertion. I have friends who are intellectual and philosophical Daoists and through interacting with them, I don't believe one can begin to truly approach Daoism without direct personal experience through some of it's associated practices. Because Daoism is a way of living not an understanding of life. Many may disagree with this also and begin to discuss whether or not the sages practiced this or that method of cultivation but after spending several years of practicing credible Daoist methods, one can see deeply into the classics in a way that relates directly to what is occurring and experienced/experiencing inside and there are things that just can't be understood and communicated in words - a very common and fundamental theme in all Daoist texts. In fact, the lessons of the Classics are much better experienced through practice than studied and understood intellectually.

 

And this is why I get a little irritated when there is a conversation about 'self' and who or what we are. When we start taking the person apart we no longer have a thing that is useful. Better to look at the entire person, accept it for what it is, a living, breathing human being, and yes, define its usefulness to us. A friend perhaps. Maybe a lover. But we have to accept the whole person without trying to change it (unless it wants to change and asks for help).

 

Acceptance of what is. The physical manifest is the objective reality. We cannot change that fact. All we can do is apply our subjectivity to it. But why create illusions and delusions? Accept it for what it is, enjoy it, live it, and then die.

But what is so important about useful? Isn't that what Zhuang Zi was saying?

And when you speak about a person, you have already taken him/her apart.

How useful is a person without their environment?

How useful is a person without air? Without water? Without the ground to stand on or space to move around in?

How useful is a person, isolated with no other people, animals, or "objects" as you call them.

A person does not and has never existed in isolation, nor has anything.

It is all present in relation to everything else, always and forever.

 

Organismenvironment - all separation is artifact of our brain.

And the "object" is nothing more than the illusion created by mind which draws boundaries.

Because it is much easier and "more useful" to imagine things as isolated and separate because to try and wrap our puny intellects around the whole thing is impossible, the intellect must be let go to connect with Dao (entirety/non-duality).

Intellect is of no use in that realm.

 

Wu Ji can represent entirety, non-duality, once Tai Ji enters there is duality - Me and everything else ---> 10,000 things. Here is the crux in Daoist terms. There is Wu Ji, which you may want to try and describe as objective but being non-dual there is nothing to experience it, there is no subjectivity or objectivity, it just is and is not nor is it or is it not (I know, sounds a bit B-ish doesn't it??). So what is the nature of the relationship between Wu Ji and Tai Ji. How does Wu Ji give rise to Tai Ji? That's right, the mind - subject/object split, judgment, consciousness, whatever terms you want to use. Tai Ji is the equivalent of relative reality where Wu Ji is that nebulous state that some would apply the word "emptiness" to that underlies or precedes reality. We are what creates Tai Ji out of Wu Ji. We are what therefore creates the 10k things. We are doing so completely through our conscious awareness which creates the subjective/objective split. So we are both completely subjective and objective at the same time, fundamentally. No other way.

 

The physically manifest can be experienced by our particular characteristics of existence (the thinking brain and it's sensory apparatus) in terms of relative objectivity but dividing everything into bits is an artificial (and very useful) tool that can only be seen through with individual and arduous (for most) practice. Objectivity is a direct result of "bitting" the continuity of existence, it is a completely subjective artifice created by you.

 

Perhaps this is one reason why, metaphorically, Zhuang Zi spurns the useful?

What advantage has the useful over the useless, it comes and goes. It has no substance. Show me the number 7 - it has no existence. It's like when Alan Watts talks about coming across a bustling construction site and a month later, after economic collapse, he returns and asks why no one is building anything and one of the workers replies - because they ran out of inches!

 

We live then we die, everything that occurs between occurs to us as completely and utterly subjective individuals.

And when we die, what is/was the use? Each object (living) that you affect is a subject from their perspective.

No one is anything other than subject and we are all interconnected in ways that are subtle but very real.

[Marblehead]

Let's look at this for a moment.

There is a great deal of Daoist thought and the Daoist canon that is dedicated to issues related to immortality and what occurs beyond death.

It is interpreted differently by different traditions, schools, individuals.

My own beliefs about this are a result of cultivation and not much influenced by written Daoism and are probably different than the "party line" Daoist view so I won't go into that much.

But there is an enormous amount of Daoist attention on the afterlife and it's interaction with our present lives.

 

This is true but I let others talk about that because it is not a part of my beliefs nor is it a part of my life. And I must say, you have done a pretty good job at it. But again I stress, this is not a part of my life. I am an Atheist. That's just the way it is.

 

So what is Qi, Mr. Marbles? I don't mean to sound patronizing, offended, challenging, or defensive, but do you practice any form of Daoist cultivation? I think this is very important when it comes to your attitude toward objectivity.

Have you spent hours, months, or years trying to come to terms with Yi, Jing, Qi, Shen, Wu, and all things related to that?

If you truly have, I think that your outlook regarding objective and subjective might be a bit less dogmatic.

Because here you just may find the area (metaphysical, philosophical, spiritual, intellectual) where the objective and the subjective become blurred in truly Daoist terms and within the underlying principle of Daoist cosmology.

 

Is that a trick question? I don't practice Tao. I live Te. The Te of Tao most of the time but occasionally the Te of Marbles. And Tzujan as well. I do a lot of cultivation in my garden. There are lots of pretty flowers and animals that are attracted to the flowers.

 

Why would I want to be less dogmatic about my path? It works perfectly for me. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! At least it is "MY" path, not someone else's.

 

And so I have found the path I am supposed to walk. I talk it and I walk it. Many think I am lost but that is a subjective value judgement.

 

Yes, I accept duality as a given as soon as we view something subjectively. But I try very hard to resist the temptation to place value judgements on anything except for the thoughts and actions of man. And this is because man distorts objective reality.

 

I really can't respond individually to the remainder of your post because you inclued so many different concepts in your discussion.

 

I will always speak from the point of my own understanding. I make no value judgement of the worth of my understanding to anyone else but I can tell you that is has great value to me.

 

We can speak more to this but let's concentrate on one or two concepts at a time. I get confused easily. Hehehe.

[steve]

This is true but I let others talk about that because it is not a part of my beliefs nor is it a part of my life. And I must say, you have done a pretty good job at it. But again I stress, this is not a part of my life. I am an Atheist. That's just the way it is.

 

 

 

Is that a trick question? I don't practice Tao. I live Te. The Te of Tao most of the time but occasionally the Te of Marbles. And Tzujan as well. I do a lot of cultivation in my garden. There are lots of pretty flowers and animals that are attracted to the flowers.

 

Why would I want to be less dogmatic about my path? It works perfectly for me. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! At least it is "MY" path, not someone else's.

 

And so I have found the path I am supposed to walk. I talk it and I walk it. Many think I am lost but that is a subjective value judgement.

 

Yes, I accept duality as a given as soon as we view something subjectively. But I try very hard to resist the temptation to place value judgements on anything except for the thoughts and actions of man. And this is because man distorts objective reality.

 

I really can't respond individually to the remainder of your post because you inclued so many different concepts in your discussion.

 

I will always speak from the point of my own understanding. I make no value judgement of the worth of my understanding to anyone else but I can tell you that is has great value to me.

 

We can speak more to this but let's concentrate on one or two concepts at a time. I get confused easily. Hehehe.

Cool - I get carried away pretty easily....

 

Atheism has nothing to do with it. We are not speaking of deities. The reason I brought up the afterlife was because you said that 'in Daoism we don't speak about after we die' - in Daoism, it is spoken about alot (and I also think misinterpreted a lot).

 

No trick questions - trying to be fundamental and direct.

 

Why less dogmatic? Do you have any interest in learning anything new? Any interest in opening to reality? Again, I'm not trying to be at all offensive, please don't think that's my intention. Dogma gets in the way. Dogma fills the void.

Do you need to do any of that? Absolutely not. Is that one reason you frequent TTB? It is for me.

 

I don't think you're broken at all. I think you are insightful, intelligent, and affable and you are one of my favorite imaginary internet friends, . I'm only responding to the topic you created in which who asked to debate subjectivity and objectivity. In doing so, did you not invite a challenge to your beliefs? Was that not your intention? And if so, perhaps you want to change your beliefs and path, not me (that is, I don't want to change your path). I'm just expressing my own in hopes that it may help us both to grow.

 

We pass value judgements on everything, that is what defines objective vs subjective. Man doesn't distort objective reality, he creates "objective" reality by separating and then choosing. You like your garden and flowers - not shit and desert, that is a value judgement. You like your path, you like what works for you. You are choosing, defining, separating, dividing - objectifying.

Attachment to the worth of your understanding prohibits opening to other possibilities that may ultimately be of more value (or less) to you. Again, if you want to stay where you're at, fine. But then what are we doing here? I also have learned the hard way to try and avoid making a judgement about the value of my perceptions to others. It can be hurtful, traumatic, unhelpful, rude, and I am certainly no one's authority. Maintaining a presence on this forum, however, implies that we have an interest in sharing, an interest in relationship, and so remaining open to looking at each other's ideas without placing relative value on them in advance seems to me to be worthwhile.

 

I'm happy to stop there for now and we can see where we go from here.

[Marblehead]

Cool - I get carried away pretty easily....

 

Yes, I am well aware of that. Hehehe.

 

Atheism has nothing to do with it. We are not speaking of deities. The reason I brought up the afterlife was because you said that 'in Daoism we don't speak about after we die' - in Daoism, it is spoken about alot (and I also think misinterpreted a lot).

 

But Atheism has everything to do with a belief of any form of afterlife. I cannot even accept the Buddhist concept of reincarnation.

 

Not in my Daoism it is never spoken of. I have already expressed myself regarding this concept in other threads.

 

There is a Grand Funk Railroad song with talking preamble that includes: "If you're bad you die when you die but if you're good you will live forever." I always thought that this sounded so beautiful. But then I thought, "How can this be?" I couldn't answer the question - it has been discarded.

 

Yes, Stig and I had that discussion as well. I don't want to change Stig; I don't want to change you. My only purpose is to present alternative perspectives. If others agree with me - good. If others disagree with me - good. If anything I say helps someone - great!

 

No trick questions - trying to be fundamental and direct.

 

In your 'round-about way, right? Hehehe.

 

Why less dogmatic? Do you have any interest in learning anything new? Any interest in opening to reality? Again, I'm not trying to be at all offensive, please don't think that's my intention. Dogma gets in the way. Dogma fills the void. Do you need to do any of that? Absolutely not. Is that one reason you frequent TTB? It is for me.

 

Well of course I wish to learn. Why else would I be here? But I am also here to unlearn. Ah!!! I was once a Christian; I unlearned that. I was almost a Buddhist; I unlearned that. I considered being a religious Taoist; I unlearned that. Each time I unlearn something useless to me I make room for more stuff. Some is useful, some is useless.

 

I don't think you're broken at all. I think you are insightful, intelligent, and affable and you are one of my favorite imaginary internet friends, . I'm only responding to the topic you created in which who asked to debate subjectivity and objectivity. In doing so, did you not invite a challenge to your beliefs? Was that not your intention? And if so, perhaps you want to change your beliefs and path, not me (that is, I don't want to change your path). I'm just expressing my own in hopes that it may help us both to grow.

 

Okay. Hehehe. Thanks for the compliment. Obviously I enjoy communicating with you else I wouldn't be.

 

Yep. The question was: Is anything really objective? I have stated that I believe that there is an objective universe. We Taoists call that the Manifest, sometimes it is referred to as the ten thousand things.

 

My intention was to state that I believe that there is a manifest universe. I also stated that I believe it has existed for a very long time - approximately 14.67 billion years. And that it functioned very will for most of that time. Recently man evolved and started placing his subjective values and opinions on "what is" and thereby has really screwed things up.

 

Yes, we are exchanging understandings. This is good. But we both might be lost in space.

 

We pass value judgements on everything, that is what defines objective vs subjective. Man doesn't distort objective reality, he creates "objective" reality by separating and then choosing. You like your garden and flowers - not shit and desert, that is a value judgement. You like your path, you like what works for you. You are choosing, defining, separating, dividing - objectifying.

 

No I don't pass value judgements on everything. I oftentime view things from the objective. There is a star in the sky. How could I ever pass judgement on that star? It just is.

 

No, no. Man creates subjective reality (but not always). Objective reality already existed before man view or heard (whatever) the objective object that he has placed a value judgement on.

 

Oh!, but kind sir! I love the desert. I also love the fish shit that I use to fertilize my plants with. But each has its own usefulness for me.

 

Yes, I have made my choices. Ah! Freakin' free will!!!! Ya' gotta' love it!!! Oh, sure, I have made some bad choices. I am sure I will make more in the future. But that doesn't mean I should stop choosing - to stop expressing my free will.

 

Yes indeed. We people make choices. We all do - even those who claim they don't because they have already done so by claiming that they don't.

 

Attachment to the worth of your understanding prohibits opening to other possibilities that may ultimately be of more value (or less) to you. Again, if you want to stay where you're at, fine. But then what are we doing here? I also have learned the hard way to try and avoid making a judgement about the value of my perceptions to others. It can be hurtful, traumatic, unhelpful, rude, and I am certainly no one's authority. Maintaining a presence on this forum, however, implies that we have an interest in sharing, an interest in relationship, and so remaining open to looking at each other's ideas without placing relative value on them in advance seems to me to be worthwhile.

 

That is not true. Example: If I have 'enough' money in my wallet and I am walking in the parking lot of a store and see a twenty I am going to stop, pick it up and put it in my wallet. Now I have more than enough. Perhaps there will be the opportunity for me to give that twenty to someone else.

 

As I said before, every time I throw something out I have made room for more stuff. If you give me something of value I might hold to it, I might share it with others.

 

You somehow have assumed that I am close-minded just because I disagree with others fairly frequently. Hehehe. Well, I can't blame you but I think that is an assumption in error. But please don't just tell me something and expect me to accept it without question. If there is no logic to what you have said you will not impress me very much. Hehehe.

 

Yes, I am here to share. I have learned much while here but I can't remember any of them right now because I am busy responding to you.

 

I'm happy to stop there for now and we can see where we go from here.

 

Okay. We still talked a lot, didn't we?

 

The question still stands: Is anything really objective? I still say yes because no one has yet convinced me that my chair does not exist. Would you like to try?

[zerostao]

PSS I think this is a critical part of looking at Daoism. After all what are they telling us but to see through our "objective" reality and become one with it... completely merged.... completely subjective....

 

the higher goal is to get to the moment where object and subject both vanish.

 

No, I don't ever want to be completely subjective. I need to have an objective reality as well. Without it I would not be "complete".

 

is it easier to look at others objectively, than to look at oneself objectively?

 

Do Taoists have a concept of 'objective' as such?

 

So in English anyway both have the sense of something projected. So both the idea of a an objective reality and a subjective reality are thrown or projected by arising from a reality which is neither 'ob' or 'sub'. The sense of an ultimately real objective (and hence physical) reality ... which is totally dependable, i.e. will always remain to be itself ... is as much a projection or 'pie in the earth' as opposed to the 'pie in the sky' of imagined totally subjectivity.

 

how does that play in Danish? Soren, oh Soren.

 

So what is Qi, Mr. Marbles? I don't mean to sound patronizing, offended, challenging, or defensive, but do you practice any form of Daoist cultivation? I think this is very important when it comes to your attitude toward objectivity.

 

i have wondered this myslef previous and came to the opinion that Mh has cultivated in his own ways.

evryone does not have tp play tai chi. tho i strongly encourage that. but afterall, we are all continuing to

evolve along these lines or circles, none of us are completed .

 

Intellect is of no use in that realm.

i agree 101%

 

truth is largely subjective. reality is higher than possibility. and with respect to every reality that is external to me , i can only get hold of it by thinking thru it. in order to really get hold of it,

i would have to be able to make myself into that other, and make the foreign reality my own reality,

which is not possible.

so , alot of reality i must set aside over to being possible. or to a conceived or perceived reality.

then again Mh could be a reincarnated chrysippus

[steve]

Yes, I am well aware of that. Hehehe.

 

 

 

But Atheism has everything to do with a belief of any form of afterlife. I cannot even accept the Buddhist concept of reincarnation.

 

Not in my Daoism it is never spoken of. I have already expressed myself regarding this concept in other threads.

 

There is a Grand Funk Railroad song with talking preamble that includes: "If you're bad you die when you die but if you're good you will live forever." I always thought that this sounded so beautiful. But then I thought, "How can this be?" I couldn't answer the question - it has been discarded.

 

Yes, Stig and I had that discussion as well. I don't want to change Stig; I don't want to change you. My only purpose is to present alternative perspectives. If others agree with me - good. If others disagree with me - good. If anything I say helps someone - great!

 

 

 

In your 'round-about way, right? Hehehe.

 

 

 

Well of course I wish to learn. Why else would I be here? But I am also here to unlearn. Ah!!! I was once a Christian; I unlearned that. I was almost a Buddhist; I unlearned that. I considered being a religious Taoist; I unlearned that. Each time I unlearn something useless to me I make room for more stuff. Some is useful, some is useless.

 

 

 

Okay. Hehehe. Thanks for the compliment. Obviously I enjoy communicating with you else I wouldn't be.

 

Yep. The question was: Is anything really objective? I have stated that I believe that there is an objective universe. We Taoists call that the Manifest, sometimes it is referred to as the ten thousand things.

 

My intention was to state that I believe that there is a manifest universe. I also stated that I believe it has existed for a very long time - approximately 14.67 billion years. And that it functioned very will for most of that time. Recently man evolved and started placing his subjective values and opinions on "what is" and thereby has really screwed things up.

 

Yes, we are exchanging understandings. This is good. But we both might be lost in space.

 

 

 

No I don't pass value judgements on everything. I oftentime view things from the objective. There is a star in the sky. How could I ever pass judgement on that star? It just is.

 

No, no. Man creates subjective reality (but not always). Objective reality already existed before man view or heard (whatever) the objective object that he has placed a value judgement on.

 

Oh!, but kind sir! I love the desert. I also love the fish shit that I use to fertilize my plants with. But each has its own usefulness for me.

 

Yes, I have made my choices. Ah! Freakin' free will!!!! Ya' gotta' love it!!! Oh, sure, I have made some bad choices. I am sure I will make more in the future. But that doesn't mean I should stop choosing - to stop expressing my free will.

 

Yes indeed. We people make choices. We all do - even those who claim they don't because they have already done so by claiming that they don't.

 

 

 

That is not true. Example: If I have 'enough' money in my wallet and I am walking in the parking lot of a store and see a twenty I am going to stop, pick it up and put it in my wallet. Now I have more than enough. Perhaps there will be the opportunity for me to give that twenty to someone else.

 

As I said before, every time I throw something out I have made room for more stuff. If you give me something of value I might hold to it, I might share it with others.

 

You somehow have assumed that I am close-minded just because I disagree with others fairly frequently. Hehehe. Well, I can't blame you but I think that is an assumption in error. But please don't just tell me something and expect me to accept it without question. If there is no logic to what you have said you will not impress me very much. Hehehe.

 

Yes, I am here to share. I have learned much while here but I can't remember any of them right now because I am busy responding to you.

 

 

 

Okay. We still talked a lot, didn't we?

 

The question still stands: Is anything really objective? I still say yes because no one has yet convinced me that my chair does not exist. Would you like to try?

Nope, no interest in trying to convince you of my perspective, just sharing it with you.

Which is specifically that the chair is equally subjective and objective.

There is no separation of the two other than that artificially created by man.

My earlier rants were my feeble attempts at illustrating the genesis of my perspective.

 

Edit - the only thing that I would try to convince you of would be to begin some practice of Daoist cultivation methods (preferably meditation if available to you, less helpful but still worthwhile would be Qi Gong, Nei Gong, or Tai Ji Quan) as I think this could give you a different and complimentary perspective from which to view the philosophical component.

[Marblehead]

Nope, no interest in trying to convince you of my perspective, just sharing it with you.

Which is specifically that the chair is equally subjective and objective.

There is no separation of the two other than that artificially created by man.

My earlier rants were my feeble attempts at illustrating the genesis of my perspective.

 

Edit - the only thing that I would try to convince you of would be to begin some practice of Daoist cultivation methods (preferably meditation if available to you, less helpful but still worthwhile would be Qi Gong, Nei Gong, or Tai Ji Quan) as I think this could give you a different and complimentary perspective from which to view the philosophical component.

 

I have already suggested that the chair is objective as well as subjective. Afterall, nature does not create swivel chairs with castors and arm rests.

 

Ah!, but the tree. We don't need man's subjectivity for the tree to exist.

 

But Steve!, I already meditate. But my meditation is spontaneous - just like almost every other part of my life. But when I return to objective reality it is still there and you know what? - I can't do anything about that. Wouldn't want to if I could because it is so very wonderous.

 

And I have nothing against your perspective. I just wouldn't want you or anyone else to go walking down a very busy highway pretending that all the cars don't really exist objectively.

[dawei]

In particular, it's important to recognize that there is no such thing as solid matter or substance. This has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by physicists. This is analogous to what some say amounts to the fact that nothing exists. What appears as matter is nothing other than energy (or perhaps strings) but there is absolutely nothing solid in the universe. It feels solid and looks solid because that is our brain's interpretation. If it were not for cerebral pattern recognition, all that would be out there is incomprehensible patterns of energy of a variety of wavelengths and frequencies.

I am glad to see someone actual write this out.

 

 

There is a great deal of Daoist thought and the Daoist canon that is dedicated to issues related to immortality and what occurs beyond death.

. . .

 

For me, Daoism is primarily about self cultivation. I don't mean to say that I discredit other aspects or uses, I just don't take advantage of them. And the foundation of Daoist cultivation (not to mention Daoist science and medicine) revolves around the concept of Qi.

I do agree with the first part. As is said that true healing occurs in the 5th dimension, it is the realm of complete union with Dao.

 

That it is about self-cultivation and revolves around Qi is only one of the levels. I would say that it is probably the most common level and highest level for many. The next level would be Spiritual (Shen) and then Divine (Dao). This seems to be mostly preserved in Medical Qigong as how ancients (shamans) followed.

[Marblehead]

I am glad to see someone actual write this out.

 

Are you looking for a fight? Hehehe.

 

Yes, what he said is true but it doesn't matter in 'real life'.

[steve]

I have already suggested that the chair is objective as well as subjective. Afterall, nature does not create swivel chairs with castors and arm rests.

 

Ah!, but the tree. We don't need man's subjectivity for the tree to exist.

 

But Steve!, I already meditate. But my meditation is spontaneous - just like almost every other part of my life. But when I return to objective reality it is still there and you know what? - I can't do anything about that. Wouldn't want to if I could because it is so very wonderous.

 

And I have nothing against your perspective. I just wouldn't want you or anyone else to go walking down a very busy highway pretending that all the cars don't really exist objectively.

Existence is as it is, it's only our perspectives that vary.

I'll be extra careful crossing the street tonight!

[Marblehead]

Existence is as it is, it's only our perspectives that vary.

I'll be extra careful crossing the street tonight!

 

Hehehe. Yea! Steve. You really done good in our little discussion. I enjoyed it.

 

Yes, please be careful. Lao Tzu told us to look both ways before crossing. (That's disinformation, BTW.)

[steve]

That it is about self-cultivation and revolves around Qi is only one of the levels. I would say that it is probably the most common level and highest level for many. The next level would be Spiritual (Shen) and then Divine (Dao). This seems to be mostly preserved in Medical Qigong as how ancients (shamans) followed.

I agree with you.

What I meant to convey is that Qi is very fundamental in cultivation, very basic, and hence worthy of examination for Daoists.

And really what I was getting at was focusing Marbles on Qi since it is a good example of something that may be difficult to appreciate as "objective" that is fundamental to Daoist thought, practice, and philosophy.

[dawei]

Are you looking for a fight? Hehehe.

 

Yes, what he said is true but it doesn't matter in 'real life'.

It does depend on how one defines that. And I know your's is purely a physical existence. Unfortunately, the ancients never thought this way.... but I am not here to change anyone's Way here

[Marblehead]

Unfortunately, the ancients never thought this way....

 

Are you sure about that? Hehehe. Just messing with you. Mess back if you will.

 

(This is all subjective, you know.)

[dawei]

Are you sure about that? Hehehe. Just messing with you. Mess back if you will.

 

(This is all subjective, you know.)

Well... the ancients which LZ and ZZ refer too... and shamans...

 

If they allow an ancient history section, we might be able to explore some of this

[Marblehead]

 

And really what I was getting at was focusing Marbles on Qi since it is a good example of something that may be difficult to appreciate as "objective" that is fundamental to Daoist thought, practice, and philosophy.

 

And you did notice that I ignored your attempt, right?

 

(Yes, it is an important concept and I believe it to be real (objectively) but that's a different discussion.)

[Marblehead]

Well... the ancients which LZ and ZZ refer too... and shamans...

 

If they allow an ancient history section, we might be able to explore some of this

 

Ah!, yes. What you say is true. But we must ask, were there really those ancients woh LZ and ZZ refer to or were those only ideal of a past that could not and cannot be verified?

 

Yep. I'm still a skeptic too. Hehehe.

[dawei]

Ah!, yes. What you say is true. But we must ask, were there really those ancients woh LZ and ZZ refer to or were those only ideal of a past that could not and cannot be verified?

 

Yep. I'm still a skeptic too. Hehehe.

There's a lot of ancient books outside of LZ and ZZ... and archaeology with ritualistic findings. It seems most just like to stick to a few books and call it enough and be skeptical of anything else. You can be inquisitive or a skeptic. No problem.

[Marblehead]

There's a lot of ancient books outside of LZ and ZZ... and archaeology with ritualistic findings. It seems most just like to stick to a few books and call it enough and be skeptical of anything else. You can be inquisitive or a skeptic. No problem.

 

Nice return. You win that round.

 

Let's see now. What was the objective of this thread?

[ChiDragon]

LaoTse was initially subjective, only once, for being became "Wu Wei". After that, then he was very objective hereinafter.

[Marblehead]

LaoTse was initially subjective, only once, for being became "Wu Wei". After that, then he was very objective hereinafter.

 

That post caught me off guard. I have never considered Lao Tzu's subjectivity/objectivity.

 

 

Interesting too "wu wei". Seems to me that were one in total wu wei one would truely be living in the objective universe (the physical as well as the spiritual).

[Apech]

 

 

But no, I don't look at Tao as the true objective reality but I think that objective reality lies within Tao - it is an aspect of Tao but it is not the totality of Tao.

 

 

 

But then subjective reality is also within the Tao ... if you are going to use those terms. What is the test that we should use to decide if something is real?

[Marblehead]

But then subjective reality is also within the Tao ...

 

Absolutely.

 

... if you are going to use those terms. What is the test that we should use to decide if something is real?

 

Ha. I have no freakin' idea. If we do not have a perfectly clear mind as well as perfectly clear senses we will distort what is real due to our subjectivity.

 

But I will stick with my useless/useful concept. This is why I cannot directly argue against religions, beliefs in ghosts, etc, and all the other things that I think are useless to me. Apparently they are useful for others. It's all subjective when we apply our mind to it. That is, unless my thought about 'wu wei' being equal to pure objectivity. But that is a new thought for me and I would need input from others in order to test my thoughts.

 

I could speak of scientific proof but that subject gets boring after a while. One can say only so much in this field.

 

Does a cougar contemplate whether a rattlesnake is real? I doubt it. The cougar has two choices, avoid it or try to kill it. S/he knows it is real. But then, if a phoney snake is put in its path and it opts to kill it, it will proceed with the process of killing until it realizes that it is not alive.

 

I don't know! Darn! Ask me an easier question to answer.

[Apech]

Absolutely.

 

 

 

Ha. I have no freakin' idea. If we do not have a perfectly clear mind as well as perfectly clear senses we will distort what is real due to our subjectivity.

 

But I will stick with my useless/useful concept. This is why I cannot directly argue against religions, beliefs in ghosts, etc, and all the other things that I think are useless to me. Apparently they are useful for others. It's all subjective when we apply our mind to it. That is, unless my thought about 'wu wei' being equal to pure objectivity. But that is a new thought for me and I would need input from others in order to test my thoughts.

 

I could speak of scientific proof but that subject gets boring after a while. One can say only so much in this field.

 

Does a cougar contemplate whether a rattlesnake is real? I doubt it. The cougar has two choices, avoid it or try to kill it. S/he knows it is real. But then, if a phoney snake is put in its path and it opts to kill it, it will proceed with the process of killing until it realizes that it is not alive.

 

I don't know! Darn! Ask me an easier question to answer.

 

Ok, what does real mean? Maybe that's the same question so its a bit unfair I suppose. Or better what does Taoism say about what is real? How about that ... or are you going to go back to your tree now.....

[steve]

And you did notice that I ignored your attempt, right?

 

(Yes, it is an important concept and I believe it to be real (objectively) but that's a different discussion.)

Of course and yes, it is most definitely another discussion.

Show me the Qi!