Questions for the scientists in our midst

[Marblehead]

Why you choose an understanding, which concludes its a stupid thing that I am thinking or describing , rather than give me the benefit of a doubt that the thrust of my interp may not be that of the hippies ..suggests that your understanding could use a little lanolin.

I have never claimed to be politically correct all the time. In fact, I rarely am. Those are the words that came to my mind. I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to find the words I think you or anyone else might want to hear. But I do try to be non-offending. Sometimes I miss that mark.

 

No, I have never thought your thoughts were stupid. Don't even think that. I stated my understanding and opinion. It was a response to your words but not specifically at you, it was at the concept.

[Marblehead]

Stosh, you win. You have totally exhausted me. Do see the things the way you wish to see them, in negativity, and also see how you life rolls out.

 

Very best to you.

I didn't know we were trying to win anything. I never win anything. If there were only two people playing the lottery the other person would always win.

 

We are having a discussion of our understanding of various concepts. There is no need for everyone to be in agreement when the discussion is over. It's food for thought. What we have said and read from others will play around in our brain. Maybe some day down the road we might re-think an opinion we have because of what someone else said. Maybe not. But discussions are good. Especially for me because when I am only thinking by myself I am always right and I know that in reality this is not a truth.

[Marblehead]

One, Are you trying to be negative when you say something which contradicts me?

Two, The beauty of the stars lies not in them , but in the viewer.

and you can decide for yourself if the answer you have is valid , since I wont know what it was.

Well, if it me you are talking with you will know my final answer because I will tell you. One thing I am not is bashful.

[Stosh]

Well, if it me you are talking with you will know my final answer because I will tell you. One thing I am not is bashful.

Yeah I noticed , but I wasnt referring to bashfulness either, I was just suggesting that the answer would be hers, not mine, I dont think Im saying anything there which I think she wouldnt arrive at on her own, if she considers it ,which I wouldnt want her to reject it for being something to do with a negativity of mine or due to coercion on my part.

I rarely ask anyone to "just take my word for it" and I dont own the answers to these things in some way which would exclude someone else , like authors of books ,or leaders of "lineages" sometimes think they do.

[Stosh]

I have never claimed to be politically correct all the time. In fact, I rarely am. Those are the words that came to my mind. I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to find the words I think you or anyone else might want to hear. But I do try to be non-offending. Sometimes I miss that mark.

 

No, I have never thought your thoughts were stupid. Don't even think that. I stated my understanding and opinion. It was a response to your words but not specifically at you, it was at the concept.

I was suggesting that you were jumping to a conclusion that MY going with the flow meant letting everything go to pot. I meant the angle as in rolling downhill if it takes you to your ends as opposed to going uphill due to mirages to try getting to your ends. Thats all.

Yep we all bump heads, Im trying to soften mine but I keep forgetting stuff in my haste.

[Marblehead]

Hehehe. I have been known to irritate Manitou. She gets over it because she knows it wasn't intentional but rather just me voicing my opinion, which oftentimes many people disagree with but that is the way life is sometimes. Sometimes I say something and I get lots of "Likes" and other times I say something and I get reported.

 

Problems will almost always arise when we cling too tightly to our beliefs without taking the time to try to understand the other person's "reality". My "reality" has changed many times over the years. Believe it or not, I am pretty stable right now so I don't expect my "reality" to be changing much in the near future.

 

Y'all be well!

[Stosh]

Yes, living in a state of we wei is possible during our everyday life. But remember, wu wei is not equal to doing nothing. Chidragon explained it pretty well a while back in another thread.

 

I like referring to it as doing what needs be done, nothing more, nothing less. In other words, if it is time to get your lazy butt out of bed and go to work then that is what you should be doing, nothing more, nothing less.

 

And yes, you are going to work because you have rent to pay, food to buy, clothes, utilities, etc. This applies to nearly all of us.

 

And along the way if you need to stop and help an elderly lady cross the street then that is what you should be doing.

 

But you don't have to play the games other people play just because they say you have to play or you can't be a part of their "in crowd".

Is your wu wei any different from expedient moderation ( Cd may or not have expressed it well but) I was thinking youd flesh out your own view since we ARE just trying to take a pleasant stroll around the garden.

[Marblehead]

I was suggesting that you were jumping to a conclusion that MY going with the flow meant letting everything go to pot. I meant the angle as in rolling downhill if it takes you to your ends as opposed to going uphill due to mirages to try getting to your ends. Thats all.

Yep we all bump heads, Im trying to soften mine but I keep forgetting stuff in my haste.

All I will say is yes, we both are hard-headed sometimes.

 

And yes, I think I know you well enough to know that you are not being blown by the winds. You live with purpose.

[Marblehead]

Is your wu wei any different from expedient moderation ( Cd may or not have expressed it well but) I was thinking youd flesh out your own view since we ARE just trying to take a pleasant stroll around the garden.

That is a fine question. I don't know if I can even answer it.

 

I was outside doing things at the gardens and at the ponds earlier this morning. My wu wei is doing things before they become a problem. Yes, these things are done with intent. I suppose that one could say that I am moderating future possibilities.

 

Let's see if I can remember how I expressed my understanding once upon a time.

 

Wu wei, to me, is doing whatever needs to be done, nothing less and nothing more, and doing nothing with an ulterior motive.

 

Example: Helping the little old lady cross the street. We do it because she appears to need help, not because we think that if we do it she might reward us somehow. We help her cross the street then we are on our way. Doesn't even matter if she says "Thank you." or not.

 

 

My thoughts are wandering. In response to a question you posed to Manitou, "Love" is one of the Three Treasures as translated by Lin Yutang instead of the commonly translated "Compassion". But helping the lady above could be said to have been done out of love for the lady or out of compassion for the lady. Doesn't really matter what we call it as long as the lady has been helped.

 

But wu wei is also being true to one's own personal nature - to live naturally; spontaneously. Sonme people wouldn't naturally help the lady cross the street. That's okay too. (Although not very compassionate. Hehehe.)

[Stosh]

I just read some on Lin Yutang.

 

Lin's relation with Christianity changed over the years. His father, of course, was a second generation Christian, but at Tsinghua, Lin asked himself what it meant to be a Christian in China. Being a Christian meant acceptance of Western science and progress, but Lin became angry that being a Christian also meant losing touch with China's culture and his own personal identity. On his return from study abroad, Lin renewed his respect for his father, yet he plunged into study of Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism, and did not identify himself as Christian.

 

Im thinking the treasures may relate to his upbringing and new interests.

 

In comparison, this is attributed to Ben Franklin

 

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

 

Do you think Is this a compassionate view on Mr. Franklins part ? ( just as it reads)

Edited November 21, 2013 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Do you think Is this a compassionate view on Mr. Franklins part ? ( just as it reads)

Yes.

 

(I will speak further to any direct question.)

[Stosh]

Yes.

 

(I will speak further to any direct question.)

Does that indicate that you think it is not a direct question?

[Marblehead]

Does that indicate that you think it is not a direct question?

It means I don't want to be sounding cynical so soon again after the last time I was accused of being such. Hehehe.

 

Based on my experiences and observation in life I think that Franklin's statement is rooted in truth but there are so many variables that unless I am speaking to one question only I may be easily misunderstood.

[Stosh]

It means I don't want to be sounding cynical so soon again after the last time I was accused of being such. Hehehe.

 

Based on my experiences and observation in life I think that Franklin's statement is rooted in truth but there are so many variables that unless I am speaking to one question only I may be easily misunderstood.

Ok Ill rephrase to remove some variables which you do not want to be mistaken as having addressed,

A man once said ,,

"the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."

Do you see a way, to this being a valid point, possibly indicative of compassion, rather than cynical or vindictive behavior, which you could describe in such a way , that you expect will not be misunderstood,, since it indeed involves a subtle point?

Edited November 21, 2013 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Yes, you can give a man a fish and he will eat for one day. Teach a man to fish and he has then the choice of having fish for a lifetime or waiting for someone else to give him a fish.

 

The sheep are always happy when they are led to green pastures. They need nothing else. They don't really care about the pastures as long as there is green grass to be eaten.

 

It is my opinion that teaching people to be dependant upon handouts from others, especially governments, is only teaching them to be dependant on handouts and offers no incentive to become independant.

 

Yes, the poor must be supported while they are learning to become self-sufficient. And society as a whole, not just government, should insure that there is employment for the individual after they have successfully completed their training. At this point it is up to the individual to either become self-sufficient or return to begging for hand-outs.

 

The saying, "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink" is valid here. You can give a person an education in a field where there is employment available but you can't make him work. Working or not is the individual's choice.

 

It has been my observation that there are people who just don't want to work because, well, it's work. Why work if government gives them money to not work?

 

So the person lives their life. With pride? I won't presume to be able to answer that.

 

My (and yours) government is not listening at all to what Franklin said. Keep the unemployed quiet. How do you do that? Give them money to be quiet. Send our manufacturing industries overseas where the wealthy can earn more profit and don't have to pay taxes on their income. But don't worry, you who have had your jobs out-sourced, we are going to give you money to not work. Just like our government gives certain farmers money to not grow anything so that the price of their products can be kept at an inflated rate.

 

 

There, see? I'm already being cynical.

[Brian]

Ok Ill rephrase to remove some variables which you do not want to be mistaken as having addressed,

A man once said ,,

"the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."

Do you see a way, to this being a valid point, possibly indicative of compassion, rather than cynical or vindictive behavior, which you could describe in such a way , that you expect will not be misunderstood,, since it indeed involves a subtle point?

 

I'm guessing you haven't raised children, Stosh?

[Stosh]

What lesson do you think I havent learned by raising kids that I should have is indicated by the rephrased query Brian?

[Stosh]

Well Mh there is cynicism and there is often enough fodder to support it. But that wouldn't make you compassionate,, oh yeah! Now I remember.

Does the comment of the Franklinlike guy indicate unequivocably that he is not speaking from a compassionate standpoint ?

.

 

[Zhongyongdaoist]

 

Any 'scientific' discussion of ethics has to begin with game theory which since the 80s has been largely dominated by the results of Axelrod's work and the success of Rappaport's 'Tit for Tat' strategy, the implication of which is that it is a 'dog help dog' world and that cooperation will tend to evolve in any system in which there is more or less continual interaction. You can read about it here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

Looks like a wonderful site, but my old brain is too tired to go through it completely. Could you translate your familiarity of this concept to what we are talking about here? That is, if you can figure out what we are talking about here, lol.

 

Leaving out the complex game theoretical background, what Robert Axelrod:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Axelrod

 

And Anatol Rapaport

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatol_Rapoport

 

managed to do was to demonstrate that 'Golden Rule' like strategies are viable strategies in strictly utilitarian terms. In essence that 'doing or not doing unto others... ' was a simple and effective strategy for individuals and the communities which they made up to pursue, which resulted in a robust and prosperous community, that amounted to a real 'commonwealth'.

 

Contrary to common belief 'Golden Rule' ethical injunctions are not 'religious' in origin, but are common to both ancient Greek and Chinese philosophy and can be viewed as a normative precept involving self-knowledge and empathy rather than a religious 'revelation'. Often invoked as an ideal of conduct, what Axelrod and Rapaport did was to demonstrate that this was also a practical strategy as well as a an ideal, with the implication that it would evolve naturally in living systems.

 

I first read about it in Axerod's original article in 'Science'

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/211/4489/1390.short

 

Way back in 1981 and immediately saw its implications. Axelrod wrote a book about it, which you can see here:

 

http://http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-evolution-of-cooperation-robert-axelrod/1111766607?ean=9780465005642

 

From the book description given there:

 

The Evolution of Cooperation provides valuable insights into the age-old question of whether unforced cooperation is ever possible. Widely praised and much-discussed, this classic book explores how cooperation can emerge in a world of self-seeking egoists-whether superpowers, businesses, or individuals-when there is no central authority to police their actions. The problem of cooperation is central to many different fields. Robert Axelrod recounts the famous computer tournaments in which the “cooperative” program Tit for Tat recorded its stunning victories, explains its application to a broad spectrum of subjects, and suggests how readers can both apply cooperative principles to their own lives and teach cooperative principles to others.

 

The book that explores how cooperation can emerge in a world of self-seeking egotists, when there is no central authority to police their actions. (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

Would be 'Anarchists' should pay particular attention to what is bolded above.

 

The Reviews on Amanzon are informative:

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Evolution-Cooperation-Revised-Edition/dp/0465005640http://www.amazon.com/The-Evolution-Cooperation-Revised-Edition/dp/0465005640

 

And this blog has a nice, simple summary:

 

http://http://lawrules.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/the-axelrod-tournaments/

 

I hope that this is helpful.

[Marblehead]

Well Mh there is cynicism and there is often enough fodder to support it. But that wouldn't make you compassionate,, oh yeah! Now I remember. Does the comment of the Franklinlike guy indicate unequivocably that he is not speaking from a compassionate standpoint ? .

Yes, I think Franklin was viewing reality from a compassionate point of view.

[Stosh]

Now , Was that really so difficult ? Can I skip the legal-ese? Im sure you can see my end game a mile off Im not trying to be tricky.

If you want, we can do the same with reversed roles and you can guide me to where it is that you are coming from.

 

In Henricks he says this ,

1. When everyone in the world knows the beautiful as beautiful, ugliness comes into being;
2. When everyone knows the good, then the not good comes to be.
3. The mutual production of being and nonbeing,
4. The mutual completion of difficult and easy,
5. The mutual formation of long and short,
6. The mutual filling of high and low,
7. The mutual harmony of tone and voice,
8. The mutual following of front and back—
9. These are all constants.

 

SO is it possible to divide the conceptual " possession" of compassion from its inverse ? what would it be exactly ?

and what alternative is there to the 'compassion and its inverse' scenario?

Edited November 22, 2013 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Okay, to the point, if you insist.

 

The inverse of having compassion would be treating people like straw dogs.

 

And remember, one of Lao Tzu's Three Treasures is Compassion.

 

He never said that one of his Treasures was to treat people like straw dogs.

 

Now, you realize that this is going to shorten our discussion of this subject dramatically, don't you?

[Stosh]

Okay, to the point, if you insist.

 

The inverse of having compassion would be treating people like straw dogs.

 

And remember, one of Lao Tzu's Three Treasures is Compassion.

 

He never said that one of his Treasures was to treat people like straw dogs.

 

Now, you realize that this is going to shorten our discussion of this subject dramatically, don't you?

It can, you dont need an excuse at all really,

 

 

Edited November 22, 2013 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

This has been a good thread. It would be sad if it died a sudden death. Hopefully Manitou will be back talking about love again.

[Stosh]

Ok