FREE TAPATALK APP

lifegazer · 15th January 2004, 02:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I think it is ok and natural to desire, want, and like things, just not healthy to be obsessed and controlled by them.

"Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations."

Clearly, this text advocates the goal of desireless being. This is another contradiction, of course, since to aim for that goal is a desire unto itself.
Regardless, it seems that your attitude does not mirror that presented by the writer of the scripture. Which implies you disagree with that scripture.
I am not talking about the right & wrongs of having sex. Rather, I'm talking about the right & wrong of desiring anything in light of such scripture. It seems to me that this scripture advocates celibacy. In fact, it seems to me to advocate the life of a hermitical monk, of sorts.
To what ends, I have yet to discover, since an afterlife or a God is not mentioned. Reincarnation? I dunno... but the whole point of the Tao evades me.

UndercoverElephant · 15th January 2004, 02:25 AM

Quote:

....the whole point of the Tao evades me.

We know. It shows.

lifegazer · 15th January 2004, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff

We know. It shows.

I don't think you know the point yourself. In fact, I'm sure that you don't.
Your tactic to avoid answering any logical inconsistency or any meaningful question doesn't do you any favours in a philosophy forum.

UndercoverElephant · 15th January 2004, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

I don't think you know the point yourself.

No, I'm just a bozo.

Quote:

In fact, I'm sure that you don't.

You are sure of lots of things.

Quote:

Your tactic to avoid answering any logical inconsistency or any meaningful question doesn't do you any favours in a philosophy forum.

Well that should suit you, shouldn't it?

Makes your life easier if I don't argue with your "demolition", doesn't it?

I mean, other people are arguing with you, why aren't you happy with that? Why do you need me to argue with you in order to make your point?

UndercoverElephant · 15th January 2004, 03:40 AM

In fact, you've lost sight of what and who you are arguing with now, haven't you?

This thread wasn't about Taoism - it was an attempt by you to try to attack what you think is my belief system, because you see me as a problem you cannot get past. And you are apparently totally incapable of comprehending either (a) Taoism or (b) Why I am not interested in defending it.

So it seems your "philosophy of world peace" involves passionately attacking both people and philosophical systems which you do not understand and which make no attempt defend themselves.

Lifegazers philosophy, forced upon others :

World peace via endless pointless mindless conflict. You are a genius.

Geoffs philosophy :

Do not attempt to defend a philosophical position against people who do not understand that philosophical position, and under no circumstances attempt to force your beliefs on others.

Why?

Because it doesn't work.

lifegazer · 15th January 2004, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff
This thread wasn't about Taoism - it was an attempt by you to try to attack what you think is my belief system, because you see me as a problem you cannot get past. And you are apparently totally incapable of comprehending either (a) Taoism or (b) Why I am not interested in defending it.

I know alot about your belief system. Don't challenge me on this or I will tell the readers what you have told me. I have honoured your privacy about everything except the things you yourself have discussed within the public eye. Your love of Wittgenstein and the Tao was publicly expressed in the W thread. You even stated that Wittgenstein's conclusions about the death of philosophy mirror the Tao's proclamation that "He who knows doesn't say, etc.".
However, what you have failed to do, is to address the clear logical inconsistency that is apparent within the aforementioned conlusion/proclamation. It's as clear as daylight, yet your response is "I have no need to defend the Tao.". Well what about Wittgenstein? Did you have no need to defend him either?

You're a closed-minded extremist who has resorted to parroting mantras in order to sustain your own beliefs.

Quote:

So it seems your "philosophy of world peace" involves passionately attacking both people and philosophical systems which you do not understand and which make no attempt defend themselves.

A philosophical system that cannot use logic to sustain its own axioms or assertions is worthless. Your philosophy has been found to be invalid in several key areas, yet in this forum of philosophical debate, your responses now amount to humble silence or "I have no need to defend...".
It's a complete crock and you know it. Your credibility aint worth a dime in here now. So please don't ever attack the credibility of my philosophy ever again.
In fact, do the honourable thing and limp away into the mist lest you make a complete mug of yourself. I'm beginning to feel embarrassed for you as I read your responses - they're really that bad.

Quote:

Lifegazers philosophy, forced upon others :

World peace via endless pointless mindless conflict. You are a genius.

I have told you that all revolutions require radical change. And all change requires the destruction of the old as a preparation for the construction of the new. You are a witness to the destructive era.

Quote:

Geoffs philosophy :

Do not attempt to defend a philosophical position against people who do not understand that philosophical position, and under no circumstances attempt to force your beliefs on others.

This isn't a philosophy. Because that's not what philosophy is all about. You'll have to call it something else. How about "tripe"?
Head for the mist Geoffrey. You can live in denial there. But not here. Stay here and the light of reason shall hunt you down until you fall.

UndercoverElephant · 15th January 2004, 06:57 AM

LG

Quote:

I know alot about your belief system. Don't challenge me on this or I will tell the readers what you have told me.

You know what I've told you, that is all. Most of what I believe is likely to be beyond your comprehension anyway, in addition to being completely irrelevant to your own philosophy. Why are you so obsessed with what I believe, given that I haven't told anyone what I believe?

Also, should you choose to publish private messages, then I presume you will have no objection to me publishing the choicest selection of those you have sent me.

Quote:

I have honoured your privacy about everything except the things you yourself have discussed within the public eye. Your love of Wittgenstein and the Tao was publicly expressed in the W thread.

No, you can't read. I mentioned there was a correspondence between something Wittgenstein said and something Lao Tsu said. I don't even like Wittgensteing, and I'm not really a Taoist. It's all in your head, Lifegazer.

Quote:

However, what you have failed to do, is to address the clear logical inconsistency that is apparent within the aforementioned conlusion/proclamation.

You are right. Instead I have repeatedly told you that I am not an apologist for Taoism and have no desire to defend it. You are fighting shadows, Lifegazer.

Quote:

It's as clear as daylight, yet your response is "I have no need to defend the Tao.". Well what about Wittgenstein? Did you have no need to defend him either?

I didn't defend him either. Again, I merely clarified what he said.

Quote:

You're a closed-minded extremist who has resorted to parroting mantras in order to sustain your own beliefs.

Whatever....

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So it seems your "philosophy of world peace" involves passionately attacking both people and philosophical systems which you do not understand and which make no attempt defend themselves.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A philosophical system that cannot use logic to sustain its own axioms or assertions is worthless.
Your philosophy has been found to be invalid in several key areas, yet in this forum of philosophical debate, your responses now amount to humble silence or "I have no need to defend...".

Do I no longer have the right to silence?

Quote:

Your credibility aint worth a dime in here now.

So why are you so obsessed with me?

Quote:

So please don't ever attack the credibility of my philosophy ever again.

What has "your philosophy" got to do with this thread or with Taoism?

Do you think that by trying to poke holes in other belief system it somehow makes your own invulnerable to criticism?

Quote:

I'm beginning to feel embarrassed for you as I read your responses - they're really that bad.

:shrugs:

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lifegazers philosophy, forced upon others :

World peace via endless pointless mindless conflict. You are a genius.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have told you that all revolutions require radical change. And all change requires the destruction of the old as a preparation for the construction of the new. You are a witness to the destructive era.

The only thing you are capable of destroying is yourself, and you are doing a very fine job if it too.

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Geoffs philosophy :

Do not attempt to defend a philosophical position against people who do not understand that philosophical position, and under no circumstances attempt to force your beliefs on others.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This isn't a philosophy. Because that's not what philosophy is all about. You'll have to call it something else.

That isn't philosophy?

It is, actually. It is called ETHICS. It is the branch of philosophy that is about understanding what sort of behaviour is acceptable and what sort of behaviour is not.

Quote:

Head for the mist Geoffrey. You can live in denial there. But not here. Stay here and the light of reason shall hunt you down until you fall.

Sorry but....

UndercoverElephant · 15th January 2004, 07:08 AM

So remind me again...

Was it me you wanted to demolish or was it Taoism?

Taoism is one of many philosophical systems. I am what is called a coherentist. This means that I can have many interlocking beliefs, provided they are all coherent. It also means I am an anti-foundationalist. This means that there is no one absolute foundation to my beliefs system.

By contrast, everybody here who is a materialist, and yourself, are foundationalists. This means there is an absolute foundation to your belief system, in their case it is materialism, in your case it is a load of incomprehensible garbage that you made up.

However, since I am an anti-foundationalist coherentist it is not possible to "demolish my belief system" by attacking what you believe is its foundation - since it has no foundation. It also means that if you choose to attack one small part of what I believe it does not make me feel threatened in the way you feel threatened by me.

So - go ahead and keep trying to demolish Taoism if it makes you happy.

Also, if you really want to attack me, rather than Taoism, you could always start a thread with the stated aim of attacking me (oops, forgot, you tried that already and found out it wasn't so clever, then tried to pretend it wasn't you, got found out again, then tried to pretend it was your hamster.....)

Should anyone be interested in the relationship between coherentism, foundationalism and skepticism then you may find the following article interesting :

http://personal.bgsu.edu/~roberth/coherence.html

Dancing David · 15th January 2004, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

Bop.

Rebop ah bebop

Read my philosophy and find out.

It would seem that most who read your philossophy have a violent disagreement to it, so have the words had the effect that you might have hoped for?

Not where I was raised.

Which is the anmwer that leads to the solution of taoism A good door has no lock...

Over-rated?

A good explanation. Also a matter of timing and not over doing it.

Are you in the right thread? Rather, are you on the right planet?

And you said I had no sense of humor.

The Mind of God is not light. Not as we know light, anyway.
And it's as clear as anything that there can only be one absolute-truth, at the very most.

Yes but how do we as mere humans express that light. You are more in agreement than you know, with the tao. Except I am not sure Lao Tzi would have said something like absolute truth.

Photons are the truth?

Obstufication: your words lead people farther from the truth. darkness within darkness...

Objects of the mind have an abstract existence. They appear to exist when, in fact, they do not.

Hmm, now you sound like me.

So there is nothing abstract?

What exists is the Mind alone. Even now, as we are having this conversation, only the One can hear it. For there is no other.

Which puts you more in a greeement with the tao than you can imagine.

Bop.

Bop beep. bip. bap. Bub.

I return your bop, thanks.

Dancing David · 15th January 2004, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

"Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations."

Clearly, this text advocates the goal of desireless being.

Silly rabbit is you want to know the source you still the desire, if you want to see the manifestations then you follow the desire.

This is another contradiction, of course, since to aim for that goal is a desire unto itself.

In some eastern philosphies it is considered that the truth of nature can not be contained in words, contradictitions are deliberate and meant to occupy the mind. Heard of zen?

Regardless, it seems that your attitude does not mirror that presented by the writer of the scripture. Which implies you disagree with that scripture.

I think that Laotzi would never have felt that humans can actualy remove desire from thier lives, just advice to tone things down, 'merge with the dust' and all. Daoism would deny any absolutes in the human realm. They would be relegated to Heaven.

I am not talking about the right & wrongs of having sex. Rather, I'm talking about the right & wrong of desiring anything in light of such scripture. It seems to me that this scripture advocates celibacy. In fact, it seems to me to advocate the life of a hermitical monk, of sorts.

So you think that it is good idea to live your life purchasing more things and consuming more goods and lusting after more objects. There is the middle path you know...oh, maybe not.

To what ends, I have yet to discover, since an afterlife or a God is not mentioned. Reincarnation? I dunno... but the whole point of the Tao evades me.

The point of the tao is lacking!

RussDill · 15th January 2004, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

"Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations."

Clearly, this text advocates the goal of desireless being. This is another contradiction, of course, since to aim for that goal is a desire unto itself [...] I dunno... but the whole point of the Tao evades me.

I wonder why...why would the Tao evade you...hmmm...maybe because you've never read it! You haven't a clue what the text advocates. If you wish to know, read it, or wait, no, sorry, reading books is too hard and it might change your perception of the world.

RussDill · 15th January 2004, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

I know alot about your belief system. Don't challenge me on this or I will tell the readers what you have told me.

Ooohhh...big man, defending your points on Daoism has come down to blackmail. I'd think being that you have the cosmic truth and all, answering questions about it, debating other philosophies, etc, would be a piece of cake, but, instead, we get threats of blackmail.

Quote:

Your love of Wittgenstein and the Tao was publicly expressed in the W thread.

Really...is this anything like the time you said that we were attacking your philosophy with "He who knows does not say, he who does not know, says"? You yelled, and moaned, but you still haven't shown us where or when that happened. Instead, you continue to make up stuff that NEVER HAPPENED:

paranoia paranoia everybody's coming to get me just say you never met me i'm going underground with the moles….put me in the hospital for nerves and then they had to commit me you told them all i was crazy. -- Flagpole Sitta -

Quote:

However, what you have failed to do, is to address the clear logical inconsistency that is apparent within the aforementioned conlusion/proclamation. It's as clear as daylight, yet your response is "I have no need to defend the Tao.". Well what about Wittgenstein? Did you have no need to defend him either?

The statement you speak of has already been addressed, you have failed to make any attempt to defend your position. You view is without any merit.

Quote:

You're a closed-minded extremist who has resorted to parroting mantras in order to sustain your own beliefs.

Ignoring the fact that this doesn't sound like Geoff to me, who else do we know that refuses to question their beliefs, and repeats the same mantras over and over...hmmm....that sonds like lifegazer to me.

Quote:

A philosophical system that cannot use logic to sustain its own axioms or assertions is worthless.

I'd same I'm glad to hear you say this, but then I realize you'd never apply the same standard to your own philosophy.

Quote:

Your philosophy has been found to be invalid in several key areas, yet in this forum of philosophical debate, your responses now amount to humble silence or "I have no need to defend...".

Wait, when were discussing Geoff's philosophy?

Quote:

It's a complete crock and you know it. Your credibility aint worth a dime in here now. So please don't ever attack the credibility of my philosophy ever again.

excuse me while I get back in my chair, I suddenly had a large number of spastic vocal reactions and fell off of it.

You are the one failing to respond to argument. You are the one ignoring questions about your philosophy. You are the one claiming things that NEVER HAPPENED.

Quote:

In fact, do the honourable thing and limp away into the mist lest you make a complete mug of yourself. I'm beginning to feel embarrassed for you as I read your responses - they're really that bad.

you are truly a master debater, I'm sure your words cut really, really deep. In fact, I should PM Geoff to make sure he is ok.

[Special tip for LG, show someone's post is embarrassing, *then* say they are]

Quote:

I have told you that all revolutions require radical change. And all change requires the destruction of the old as a preparation for the construction of the new. You are a witness to the destructive era.

Uh-huh...I'm waiting (hears elevator music)

UndercoverElephant · 15th January 2004, 10:08 AM

Russ

Quote:

Ooohhh...big man, defending your points on Daoism has come down to blackmail

Cute, isn't it?

lifegazer · 15th January 2004, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Was it me you wanted to demolish or was it Taoism?

Both. Any philosophy which amounts to a religion founded upon beliefs shall be exposed as such.

Quote:

Taoism is one of many philosophical systems. I am what is called a coherentist. This means that I can have many interlocking beliefs, provided they are all coherent. It also means I am an anti-foundationalist. This means that there is no one absolute foundation to my beliefs system.

Your belief-system may borrow from several philosophies, but ultimately, it should be a singular philosophy which does not contradict itself.
Since I know that a great part of your belief-system is founded upon Wittgenstein's conclusion about the death of philosophy, I practically bring the whole house of cards down by exposing this massive flaw in your thinking. Yet you avoid facing the music by saying dumb mantras: "I don't need to defend my philosophy". That has to be the biggest load of pooh I've ever heard from you. It's an insult to this forum's intelligence that you should try to use it as a legitimate retort within a philosophical debate.

UndercoverElephant · 15th January 2004, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Both.

Ah. So the thread should really have been called "Demolishing Geoff", yes?

Quote:

It's an insult to this forum's intelligence......

T'ai Chi · 15th January 2004, 11:42 AM

Hi lifegazer,

"Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations."

That is from Chapter 1. The "Ever desireless" part, in Chinese, is the word 'wuyu'. It does not mean the total absence of desire, but rather it is the goal of differential desire. That is, it is desire based on a noncoercive relationship with the universe. The desire is not to control things, but rather to enjoy and celebrate them. So the Daoist problem of desire does not concern desiring itself or the things that are desired, but rather the manner of the desiring.
(paraphrased from Daodejing Making This Life Significant, p. 42)

A different translation for that same excerpt from Chapter 1 is:

"Thus, to be really objectless in one's desires (wuyu) is how one observes the mysteries of all things.
While really having desires is how one observes their boundaries."
-Ames and Hall, 2003

Quote:

It seems to me that this scripture advocates celibacy. In fact, it seems to me to advocate the life of a hermitical monk, of sorts.

I doubt it, simply because that might be a little too much yin, and they are always about balance.

There are also stories in other Daoist books that talk about women, wives, etc. I'm sure some Daoists are celibate, especially the dirty ones in mountains somewhere in China.

Quote:

..contradiction, of course, since to aim for that goal is a desire unto itself.

To reiterate, desire is no problem, it is the manner of the desiring that might be the problem.

Quote:

To what ends, I have yet to discover, since an afterlife or a God is not mentioned. Reincarnation? I dunno...

Well of course 'God' is not mentioned (except in early translations where the translators were missionaries!) since it is a purely Chinese work of philosophy.

Reincarnation? I'm not sure. It is said, and easily seen from observation, that life is a transformation though.

lifegazer · 15th January 2004, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Hi lifegazer,

Hello. I've come to the conclusion that you are not a daoist, but are in fact a hippy.

RussDill · 15th January 2004, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

Hello. I've come to the conclusion that you are not a daoist, but are in fact a hippy.

Hopefully, this is an attempt at humor, and not an advertisement of your ignorance...

lifegazer · 15th January 2004, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RussDill

Hopefully, this is an attempt at humor, and not an advertisement of your ignorance...

Lighten up Russ. Chapter 62.

RussDill · 15th January 2004, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

Lighten up Russ. Chapter 62.

Just checkin', cause it would be rather silly for someone to say such a thing without reading the Tao...oh, chapter 62

No man should be abandoned
because he has not found the Tao.

T'ai Chi · 15th January 2004, 02:23 PM

Hi lifegazer,

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

Hello. I've come to the conclusion that you are not a daoist, but are in fact a hippy.

*shrug*

Feel free to address some of the points in my previous post about desire and etc.

T'ai Chi · 15th January 2004, 03:01 PM

Hi JustGeoff,

Thanks for that interesting page on foundationalism, skepticism, and coherentism. The authors' other writings were pretty interesting too.

DarkMagician · 15th January 2004, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer
I'm an insult to this forum's intelligence that you should try to use it as a legitimate retort within a philosophical debate.

FIXED!

epepke · 15th January 2004, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

I don't think you know the point yourself. In fact, I'm sure that you don't.

The Dao that has a point is not the true Dao.

Dancing David · 15th January 2004, 04:14 PM

The books talk about dulling the sharp and not tinkling like jade chimes , but the secong book talks about the buthcher and the knife that never needs sharpening. So would the doa have a point, other than the one on my head?

UndercoverElephant · 16th January 2004, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Hi JustGeoff,

Thanks for that interesting page on foundationalism, skepticism, and coherentism. The authors' other writings were pretty interesting too.

Yeah...interesting stuff is going on in philosophy.

As for this :

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Hi lifegazer,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello. I've come to the conclusion that you are not a daoist, but are in fact a hippy.

Yet again, when we all thought it couldn't get any sillier, our friend has managed to surpass himself. He appears to have responded to the word "Hi", whilst ignoring completely the rest of your post!

However - there seems to be a noticeable silence in that department around here today.

UndercoverElephant · 16th January 2004, 05:34 AM

.

lifegazer · 16th January 2004, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by epepke

The Dao that has a point is not the true Dao.

= The Dao is pointless.

lifegazer · 16th January 2004, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JustGeoff
However - there seems to be a noticeable silence in that department around here today.

Was you missing me Geoff? How nice.
I need Randi's dosh and then I can devote myself to saving the world!!

T'ai Chi · 16th January 2004, 01:38 PM

Hi lifegazer,

Do you have any comments on our discussion about 'desire'?

lifegazer · 16th January 2004, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

"Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations."

That is from Chapter 1. The "Ever desireless" part, in Chinese, is the word 'wuyu'. It does not mean the total absence of desire, but rather it is the goal of differential desire. That is, it is desire based on a noncoercive relationship with the universe. The desire is not to control things, but rather to enjoy and celebrate them. So the Daoist problem of desire does not concern desiring itself or the things that are desired, but rather the manner of the desiring.
(paraphrased from Daodejing Making This Life Significant, p. 42)

A different translation for that same excerpt from Chapter 1 is:

"Thus, to be really objectless in one's desires (wuyu) is how one observes the mysteries of all things.
While really having desires is how one observes their boundaries."
-Ames and Hall, 2003

I doubt it, simply because that might be a little too much yin, and they are always about balance.

There are also stories in other Daoist books that talk about women, wives, etc. I'm sure some Daoists are celibate, especially the dirty ones in mountains somewhere in China.

To reiterate, desire is no problem, it is the manner of the desiring that might be the problem.

So, it's alright to desire things, as long as you don't try to force those things to happen? It's a bit vague, to be honest, but sounds much better than the literal interpretation of that specific text.
But I still have a problem with it; for in my opinion, the noblest form of desire is selfless desire that is actively enforced.
The laid-back approach of the daoist might be misread as indifference. What say ye?

Quote:

Well of course 'God' is not mentioned (except in early translations where the translators were missionaries!) since it is a purely Chinese work of philosophy.

Reincarnation? I'm not sure. It is said, and easily seen from observation, that life is a transformation though.

So, you have no answer to the question: What possible reason might I want to be a daoist for? What might I gain from it?

T'ai Chi · 17th January 2004, 12:39 AM

Hi lifegazer,

Quote:

So, it's alright to desire things, as long as you don't try to force those things to happen?

Yes, I think as long as the desire is to celebrate and enjoy and not own or control the object(s).

Quote:

It's a bit vague, to be honest,

It is more than a bit vague.

Quote:

The laid-back approach of the daoist might be misread as indifference. What say ye?

Yes, I think it could be misread. The actions a Daoist takes are hopefully spontaneous, and therefore are nonassertive, not no-actions.

Quote:

So, you have no answer to the question: What possible reason might I want to be a daoist for? What might I gain from it?

It probably varies from person to person, but for me it was to get a new perspective on reality, furthering and more deeply appreciating the things that make up my field of experience, to help with my goal of self-transformation, and cultivating a disposition for making my way in the world. These things can probably be done with any philosophy/religion, but as I've mentioned, I already had enjoyed Chinese martial arts and culture (and short books).

Wudang · 17th January 2004, 10:27 AM

Um, Tai chi - you know your tai chi is rotating in the degenerative cycle?

T'ai Chi · 17th January 2004, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wudang
Um, Tai chi - you know your tai chi is rotating in the degenerative cycle?

Just stand on the opposite side of your monitor and it will be spinning in the correct direction.

I really don't care for all the 'table setting' that goes on (what direction it is spinning, if white is on top or if black is, different colors being used for black and white, etc.). All that matters to me is the idea of yin, yang, and t'ai chi.

Yahweh · 17th January 2004, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lifegazer

"Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations."

Clearly, this text advocates the goal of desireless being. This is another contradiction, of course, since to aim for that goal is a desire unto itself.
Regardless, it seems that your attitude does not mirror that presented by the writer of the scripture. Which implies you disagree with that scripture.
I am not talking about the right & wrongs of having sex. Rather, I'm talking about the right & wrong of desiring anything in light of such scripture. It seems to me that this scripture advocates celibacy. In fact, it seems to me to advocate the life of a hermitical monk, of sorts.
To what ends, I have yet to discover, since an afterlife or a God is not mentioned. Reincarnation? I dunno... but the whole point of the Tao evades me.

I didnt want to do this so quickly, but I think I need to introduce you to something, its called the "GOLDEN MEAN".

Try to imagine a graph, on either side is the extreme. In the middle is what you would call the mean. Here is a graphical representation.

[Total and Complete Celibacy]######==========-------------------==========######[Obsessive Compulsive Sexoholic]

In the middle of that graphical representation is the Golden Mean.

The Golden Mean is where you want aim if you ever hope to achieve a form of "perfection" or "happiness". Any extremes can lead to "unhappiness".

Because most peoples Moral Attitude is subjective, their Golden Mean will most likely vary slightly with yours.

My criticism to the Golden Mean is simply "sometimes extremes are necessary, sometimes the Golden Mean is unacheivable". Aside from that, its a pretty sturdy Philosophy (albeit a rather primitive one).

Aristotle's metaphysics may have been crap, but his Ethics were perfect, fine, dandy, and fluffy. That is at least one way I can present the whole "Desire/Desireless" debate.

Your interpretation that the Daoist Philosophy is a doctrine of moral absolutes or that it implies Total and Complete Celibacy is incorrect.

Yahweh · 17th January 2004, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wudang
Um, Tai chi - you know your tai chi is rotating in the degenerative cycle?

For some reason, it just doesnt look right spinning like this...

15th January 2004, 02:09 AM	#81
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047	Quote: Originally posted by T'ai Chi I think it is ok and natural to desire, want, and like things, just not healthy to be obsessed and controlled by them. "Ever desireless, one can see the mystery. Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations." Clearly, this text advocates the goal of desireless being. This is another contradiction, of course, since to aim for that goal is a desire unto itself. Regardless, it seems that your attitude does not mirror that presented by the writer of the scripture. Which implies you disagree with that scripture. I am not talking about the right & wrongs of having sex. Rather, I'm talking about the right & wrong of desiring anything in light of such scripture. It seems to me that this scripture advocates celibacy. In fact, it seems to me to advocate the life of a hermitical monk, of sorts. To what ends, I have yet to discover, since an afterlife or a God is not mentioned. Reincarnation? I dunno... but the whole point of the Tao evades me.
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047

15th January 2004, 02:25 AM	#82
UndercoverElephant Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sussex, England Posts: 9,060	Quote: ....the whole point of the Tao evades me. We know. It shows.
	__________________ "I am real!" said Alice, and began to cry. "You won't make yourself a bit realler by crying," Tweedledee remarked: "there's nothing to cry about."

15th January 2004, 02:40 AM	#83
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047	Quote: Originally posted by JustGeoff We know. It shows. I don't think you know the point yourself. In fact, I'm sure that you don't. Your tactic to avoid answering any logical inconsistency or any meaningful question doesn't do you any favours in a philosophy forum.
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047

15th January 2004, 03:09 AM	#84
UndercoverElephant Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sussex, England Posts: 9,060	Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer I don't think you know the point yourself. No, I'm just a bozo. Quote: In fact, I'm sure that you don't. You are sure of lots of things. Quote: Your tactic to avoid answering any logical inconsistency or any meaningful question doesn't do you any favours in a philosophy forum. Well that should suit you, shouldn't it? Makes your life easier if I don't argue with your "demolition", doesn't it? I mean, other people are arguing with you, why aren't you happy with that? Why do you need me to argue with you in order to make your point?
	__________________ "I am real!" said Alice, and began to cry. "You won't make yourself a bit realler by crying," Tweedledee remarked: "there's nothing to cry about."

15th January 2004, 03:40 AM	#85
UndercoverElephant Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sussex, England Posts: 9,060	In fact, you've lost sight of what and who you are arguing with now, haven't you? This thread wasn't about Taoism - it was an attempt by you to try to attack what you think is my belief system, because you see me as a problem you cannot get past. And you are apparently totally incapable of comprehending either (a) Taoism or (b) Why I am not interested in defending it. So it seems your "philosophy of world peace" involves passionately attacking both people and philosophical systems which you do not understand and which make no attempt defend themselves. Lifegazers philosophy, forced upon others : World peace via endless pointless mindless conflict. You are a genius. Geoffs philosophy : Do not attempt to defend a philosophical position against people who do not understand that philosophical position, and under no circumstances attempt to force your beliefs on others. Why? Because it doesn't work.
	__________________ "I am real!" said Alice, and began to cry. "You won't make yourself a bit realler by crying," Tweedledee remarked: "there's nothing to cry about."

15th January 2004, 05:39 AM	#86
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047	Quote: Originally posted by JustGeoff This thread wasn't about Taoism - it was an attempt by you to try to attack what you think is my belief system, because you see me as a problem you cannot get past. And you are apparently totally incapable of comprehending either (a) Taoism or (b) Why I am not interested in defending it. I know alot about your belief system. Don't challenge me on this or I will tell the readers what you have told me. I have honoured your privacy about everything except the things you yourself have discussed within the public eye. Your love of Wittgenstein and the Tao was publicly expressed in the W thread. You even stated that Wittgenstein's conclusions about the death of philosophy mirror the Tao's proclamation that "He who knows doesn't say, etc.". However, what you have failed to do, is to address the clear logical inconsistency that is apparent within the aforementioned conlusion/proclamation. It's as clear as daylight, yet your response is "I have no need to defend the Tao.". Well what about Wittgenstein? Did you have no need to defend him either? You're a closed-minded extremist who has resorted to parroting mantras in order to sustain your own beliefs. Quote: So it seems your "philosophy of world peace" involves passionately attacking both people and philosophical systems which you do not understand and which make no attempt defend themselves. A philosophical system that cannot use logic to sustain its own axioms or assertions is worthless. Your philosophy has been found to be invalid in several key areas, yet in this forum of philosophical debate, your responses now amount to humble silence or "I have no need to defend...". It's a complete crock and you know it. Your credibility aint worth a dime in here now. So please don't ever attack the credibility of my philosophy ever again. In fact, do the honourable thing and limp away into the mist lest you make a complete mug of yourself. I'm beginning to feel embarrassed for you as I read your responses - they're really that bad. Quote: Lifegazers philosophy, forced upon others : World peace via endless pointless mindless conflict. You are a genius. I have told you that all revolutions require radical change. And all change requires the destruction of the old as a preparation for the construction of the new. You are a witness to the destructive era. Quote: Geoffs philosophy : Do not attempt to defend a philosophical position against people who do not understand that philosophical position, and under no circumstances attempt to force your beliefs on others. This isn't a philosophy. Because that's not what philosophy is all about. You'll have to call it something else. How about "tripe"? Head for the mist Geoffrey. You can live in denial there. But not here. Stay here and the light of reason shall hunt you down until you fall.
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047

15th January 2004, 06:57 AM	#87
UndercoverElephant Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sussex, England Posts: 9,060	LG Quote: I know alot about your belief system. Don't challenge me on this or I will tell the readers what you have told me. You know what I've told you, that is all. Most of what I believe is likely to be beyond your comprehension anyway, in addition to being completely irrelevant to your own philosophy. Why are you so obsessed with what I believe, given that I haven't told anyone what I believe? Also, should you choose to publish private messages, then I presume you will have no objection to me publishing the choicest selection of those you have sent me. Quote: I have honoured your privacy about everything except the things you yourself have discussed within the public eye. Your love of Wittgenstein and the Tao was publicly expressed in the W thread. No, you can't read. I mentioned there was a correspondence between something Wittgenstein said and something Lao Tsu said. I don't even like Wittgensteing, and I'm not really a Taoist. It's all in your head, Lifegazer. Quote: However, what you have failed to do, is to address the clear logical inconsistency that is apparent within the aforementioned conlusion/proclamation. You are right. Instead I have repeatedly told you that I am not an apologist for Taoism and have no desire to defend it. You are fighting shadows, Lifegazer. Quote: It's as clear as daylight, yet your response is "I have no need to defend the Tao.". Well what about Wittgenstein? Did you have no need to defend him either? I didn't defend him either. Again, I merely clarified what he said. Quote: You're a closed-minded extremist who has resorted to parroting mantras in order to sustain your own beliefs. Whatever.... Quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So it seems your "philosophy of world peace" involves passionately attacking both people and philosophical systems which you do not understand and which make no attempt defend themselves. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A philosophical system that cannot use logic to sustain its own axioms or assertions is worthless. Your philosophy has been found to be invalid in several key areas, yet in this forum of philosophical debate, your responses now amount to humble silence or "I have no need to defend...". Do I no longer have the right to silence? Quote: Your credibility aint worth a dime in here now. So why are you so obsessed with me? Quote: So please don't ever attack the credibility of my philosophy ever again. What has "your philosophy" got to do with this thread or with Taoism? Do you think that by trying to poke holes in other belief system it somehow makes your own invulnerable to criticism? Quote: I'm beginning to feel embarrassed for you as I read your responses - they're really that bad. :shrugs: Quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lifegazers philosophy, forced upon others : World peace via endless pointless mindless conflict. You are a genius. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have told you that all revolutions require radical change. And all change requires the destruction of the old as a preparation for the construction of the new. You are a witness to the destructive era. The only thing you are capable of destroying is yourself, and you are doing a very fine job if it too. Quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Geoffs philosophy : Do not attempt to defend a philosophical position against people who do not understand that philosophical position, and under no circumstances attempt to force your beliefs on others. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This isn't a philosophy. Because that's not what philosophy is all about. You'll have to call it something else. That isn't philosophy? It is, actually. It is called ETHICS. It is the branch of philosophy that is about understanding what sort of behaviour is acceptable and what sort of behaviour is not. Quote: Head for the mist Geoffrey. You can live in denial there. But not here. Stay here and the light of reason shall hunt you down until you fall. Sorry but....
	__________________ "I am real!" said Alice, and began to cry. "You won't make yourself a bit realler by crying," Tweedledee remarked: "there's nothing to cry about."

15th January 2004, 07:08 AM	#88
UndercoverElephant Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sussex, England Posts: 9,060	So remind me again... Was it me you wanted to demolish or was it Taoism? Taoism is one of many philosophical systems. I am what is called a coherentist. This means that I can have many interlocking beliefs, provided they are all coherent. It also means I am an anti-foundationalist. This means that there is no one absolute foundation to my beliefs system. By contrast, everybody here who is a materialist, and yourself, are foundationalists. This means there is an absolute foundation to your belief system, in their case it is materialism, in your case it is a load of incomprehensible garbage that you made up. However, since I am an anti-foundationalist coherentist it is not possible to "demolish my belief system" by attacking what you believe is its foundation - since it has no foundation. It also means that if you choose to attack one small part of what I believe it does not make me feel threatened in the way you feel threatened by me. So - go ahead and keep trying to demolish Taoism if it makes you happy. Also, if you really want to attack me, rather than Taoism, you could always start a thread with the stated aim of attacking me (oops, forgot, you tried that already and found out it wasn't so clever, then tried to pretend it wasn't you, got found out again, then tried to pretend it was your hamster.....) Should anyone be interested in the relationship between coherentism, foundationalism and skepticism then you may find the following article interesting : http://personal.bgsu.edu/~roberth/coherence.html
	__________________ "I am real!" said Alice, and began to cry. "You won't make yourself a bit realler by crying," Tweedledee remarked: "there's nothing to cry about."

15th January 2004, 07:18 AM	#89
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,919	Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer Bop. Rebop ah bebop Read my philosophy and find out. It would seem that most who read your philossophy have a violent disagreement to it, so have the words had the effect that you might have hoped for? Not where I was raised. Which is the anmwer that leads to the solution of taoism A good door has no lock... Over-rated? A good explanation. Also a matter of timing and not over doing it. Are you in the right thread? Rather, are you on the right planet? And you said I had no sense of humor. The Mind of God is not light. Not as we know light, anyway. And it's as clear as anything that there can only be one absolute-truth, at the very most. Yes but how do we as mere humans express that light. You are more in agreement than you know, with the tao. Except I am not sure Lao Tzi would have said something like absolute truth. Photons are the truth? Obstufication: your words lead people farther from the truth. darkness within darkness... Objects of the mind have an abstract existence. They appear to exist when, in fact, they do not. Hmm, now you sound like me. So there is nothing abstract? *What exists is the Mind alone. Even now, as we are having this conversation, only the One* can hear it. For there is no other. Which puts you more in a greeement with the tao than you can imagine. Bop.** Bop beep. bip. bap. Bub. I return your bop, thanks.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

15th January 2004, 07:28 AM	#90
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,919	Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer "Ever desireless, one can see the mystery. Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations." Clearly, this text advocates the goal of desireless being. Silly rabbit is you want to know the source you still the desire, if you want to see the manifestations then you follow the desire. This is another contradiction, of course, since to aim for that goal is a desire unto itself. In some eastern philosphies it is considered that the truth of nature can not be contained in words, contradictitions are deliberate and meant to occupy the mind. Heard of zen? Regardless, it seems that your attitude does not mirror that presented by the writer of the scripture. Which implies you disagree with that scripture. I think that Laotzi would never have felt that humans can actualy remove desire from thier lives, just advice to tone things down, 'merge with the dust' and all. Daoism would deny any absolutes in the human realm. They would be relegated to Heaven. I am not talking about the right & wrongs of having sex. Rather, I'm talking about the right & wrong of desiring anything in light of such scripture. It seems to me that this scripture advocates celibacy. In fact, it seems to me to advocate the life of a hermitical monk, of sorts. So you think that it is good idea to live your life purchasing more things and consuming more goods and lusting after more objects. There is the middle path you know...oh, maybe not. To what ends, I have yet to discover, since an afterlife or a God is not mentioned. Reincarnation? I dunno... but the whole point of the Tao evades me. The point of the tao is lacking!
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

15th January 2004, 08:16 AM	#91
RussDill Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 3,348	Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer "Ever desireless, one can see the mystery. Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations." Clearly, this text advocates the goal of desireless being. This is another contradiction, of course, since to aim for that goal is a desire unto itself [...] I dunno... but the whole point of the Tao evades me. I wonder why...why would the Tao evade you...hmmm...maybe because you've never read it! You haven't a clue what the text advocates. If you wish to know, read it, or wait, no, sorry, reading books is too hard and it might change your perception of the world.

15th January 2004, 08:47 AM	#92
RussDill Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 3,348	Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer I know alot about your belief system. Don't challenge me on this or I will tell the readers what you have told me. Ooohhh...big man, defending your points on Daoism has come down to blackmail. I'd think being that you have the cosmic truth and all, answering questions about it, debating other philosophies, etc, would be a piece of cake, but, instead, we get threats of blackmail. Quote: Your love of Wittgenstein and the Tao was publicly expressed in the W thread. Really...is this anything like the time you said that we were attacking your philosophy with "He who knows does not say, he who does not know, says"? You yelled, and moaned, but you still haven't shown us where or when that happened. Instead, you continue to make up stuff that NEVER HAPPENED: paranoia paranoia everybody's coming to get me just say you never met me i'm going underground with the moles….put me in the hospital for nerves and then they had to commit me you told them all i was crazy. -- Flagpole Sitta - Quote: However, what you have failed to do, is to address the clear logical inconsistency that is apparent within the aforementioned conlusion/proclamation. It's as clear as daylight, yet your response is "I have no need to defend the Tao.". Well what about Wittgenstein? Did you have no need to defend him either? The statement you speak of has already been addressed, you have failed to make any attempt to defend your position. You view is without any merit. Quote: You're a closed-minded extremist who has resorted to parroting mantras in order to sustain your own beliefs. Ignoring the fact that this doesn't sound like Geoff to me, who else do we know that refuses to question their beliefs, and repeats the same mantras over and over...hmmm....that sonds like lifegazer to me. Quote: A philosophical system that cannot use logic to sustain its own axioms or assertions is worthless. I'd same I'm glad to hear you say this, but then I realize you'd never apply the same standard to your own philosophy. Quote: Your philosophy has been found to be invalid in several key areas, yet in this forum of philosophical debate, your responses now amount to humble silence or "I have no need to defend...". Wait, when were discussing Geoff's philosophy? Quote: It's a complete crock and you know it. Your credibility aint worth a dime in here now. So please don't ever attack the credibility of my philosophy ever again. excuse me while I get back in my chair, I suddenly had a large number of spastic vocal reactions and fell off of it. You are the one failing to respond to argument. You are the one ignoring questions about your philosophy. You are the one claiming things that NEVER HAPPENED. Quote: In fact, do the honourable thing and limp away into the mist lest you make a complete mug of yourself. I'm beginning to feel embarrassed for you as I read your responses - they're really that bad. you are truly a master debater, I'm sure your words cut really, really deep. In fact, I should PM Geoff to make sure he is ok. [Special tip for LG, show someone's post is embarrassing, then say they are] Quote: I have told you that all revolutions require radical change. And all change requires the destruction of the old as a preparation for the construction of the new. You are a witness to the destructive era. Uh-huh...I'm waiting (hears elevator music)

15th January 2004, 10:08 AM	#93
UndercoverElephant Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sussex, England Posts: 9,060	Russ Quote: Ooohhh...big man, defending your points on Daoism has come down to blackmail Cute, isn't it?
	__________________ "I am real!" said Alice, and began to cry. "You won't make yourself a bit realler by crying," Tweedledee remarked: "there's nothing to cry about."

15th January 2004, 10:09 AM	#94
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047	Quote: Originally posted by JustGeoff Was it me you wanted to demolish or was it Taoism? Both. Any philosophy which amounts to a religion founded upon beliefs shall be exposed as such. Quote: Taoism is one of many philosophical systems. I am what is called a coherentist. This means that I can have many interlocking beliefs, provided they are all coherent. It also means I am an anti-foundationalist. This means that there is no one absolute foundation to my beliefs system. Your belief-system may borrow from several philosophies, but ultimately, it should be a singular philosophy which does not contradict itself. Since I know that a great part of your belief-system is founded upon Wittgenstein's conclusion about the death of philosophy, I practically bring the whole house of cards down by exposing this massive flaw in your thinking. Yet you avoid facing the music by saying dumb mantras: "I don't need to defend my philosophy". That has to be the biggest load of pooh I've ever heard from you. It's an insult to this forum's intelligence that you should try to use it as a legitimate retort within a philosophical debate.
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047

15th January 2004, 10:26 AM	#95
UndercoverElephant Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sussex, England Posts: 9,060	Quote: Both. Ah. So the thread should really have been called "Demolishing Geoff", yes? Quote: It's an insult to this forum's intelligence......
	__________________ "I am real!" said Alice, and began to cry. "You won't make yourself a bit realler by crying," Tweedledee remarked: "there's nothing to cry about."

15th January 2004, 11:42 AM	#96
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,235	Hi lifegazer, "Ever desireless, one can see the mystery. Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations." That is from Chapter 1. The "Ever desireless" part, in Chinese, is the word 'wuyu'. It does not mean the total absence of desire, but rather it is the goal of differential desire. That is, it is desire based on a noncoercive relationship with the universe. The desire is not to control things, but rather to enjoy and celebrate them. So the Daoist problem of desire does not concern desiring itself or the things that are desired, but rather the manner of the desiring. (paraphrased from Daodejing Making This Life Significant, p. 42) A different translation for that same excerpt from Chapter 1 is: "Thus, to be really objectless in one's desires (wuyu) is how one observes the mysteries of all things. While really having desires is how one observes their boundaries." -Ames and Hall, 2003 Quote: It seems to me that this scripture advocates celibacy. In fact, it seems to me to advocate the life of a hermitical monk, of sorts. I doubt it, simply because that might be a little too much yin, and they are always about balance. There are also stories in other Daoist books that talk about women, wives, etc. I'm sure some Daoists are celibate, especially the dirty ones in mountains somewhere in China. Quote: ..contradiction, of course, since to aim for that goal is a desire unto itself. To reiterate, desire is no problem, it is the manner of the desiring that might be the problem. Quote: To what ends, I have yet to discover, since an afterlife or a God is not mentioned. Reincarnation? I dunno... Well of course 'God' is not mentioned (except in early translations where the translators were missionaries!) since it is a purely Chinese work of philosophy. Reincarnation? I'm not sure. It is said, and easily seen from observation, that life is a transformation though.
	__________________ http://www.statisticool.com

15th January 2004, 01:50 PM	#97
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047	Quote: Originally posted by T'ai Chi Hi lifegazer, Hello. I've come to the conclusion that you are not a daoist, but are in fact a hippy.
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047

15th January 2004, 01:56 PM	#98
RussDill Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 3,348	Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer Hello. I've come to the conclusion that you are not a daoist, but are in fact a hippy. Hopefully, this is an attempt at humor, and not an advertisement of your ignorance...

15th January 2004, 02:13 PM	#99
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047	Quote: Originally posted by RussDill Hopefully, this is an attempt at humor, and not an advertisement of your ignorance... Lighten up Russ. Chapter 62.
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047

15th January 2004, 02:19 PM	#100
RussDill Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 3,348	Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer Lighten up Russ. Chapter 62. Just checkin', cause it would be rather silly for someone to say such a thing without reading the Tao...oh, chapter 62 No man should be abandoned because he has not found the Tao.

15th January 2004, 02:23 PM	#101
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,235	Hi lifegazer, Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer Hello. I've come to the conclusion that you are not a daoist, but are in fact a hippy. shrug Feel free to address some of the points in my previous post about desire and etc.
	__________________ http://www.statisticool.com

15th January 2004, 03:01 PM	#102
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,235	Hi JustGeoff, Thanks for that interesting page on foundationalism, skepticism, and coherentism. The authors' other writings were pretty interesting too.
	__________________ http://www.statisticool.com

15th January 2004, 03:23 PM	#103
DarkMagician Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Des Moines, IA Posts: 1,539	Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer I'm an insult to this forum's intelligence that you should try to use it as a legitimate retort within a philosophical debate. FIXED!
	__________________ Sometimes going by "Nyke" \| "Pascal's Wager: Believe in Unicorns, or one might kick you in the nads!" \| "There is no hope for humanity. Reason is dead and we dance on the corpse. Tra la la la la!" --c4ts \| Intelligent Design & Expelled Exposed \| I'm on dial-up. If you want to reply to me, summarize please.

15th January 2004, 03:24 PM	#104
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,953	Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer I don't think you know the point yourself. In fact, I'm sure that you don't. The Dao that has a point is not the true Dao.
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,953

15th January 2004, 04:14 PM	#105
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,919	The books talk about dulling the sharp and not tinkling like jade chimes , but the secong book talks about the buthcher and the knife that never needs sharpening. So would the doa have a point, other than the one on my head?
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

16th January 2004, 05:30 AM	#106
UndercoverElephant Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sussex, England Posts: 9,060	Quote: Originally posted by T'ai Chi Hi JustGeoff, Thanks for that interesting page on foundationalism, skepticism, and coherentism. The authors' other writings were pretty interesting too. Yeah...interesting stuff is going on in philosophy. As for this : Quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by T'ai Chi Hi lifegazer, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello. I've come to the conclusion that you are not a daoist, but are in fact a hippy. Yet again, when we all thought it couldn't get any sillier, our friend has managed to surpass himself. He appears to have responded to the word "Hi", whilst ignoring completely the rest of your post! However - there seems to be a noticeable silence in that department around here today.
	__________________ "I am real!" said Alice, and began to cry. "You won't make yourself a bit realler by crying," Tweedledee remarked: "there's nothing to cry about."

16th January 2004, 05:34 AM	#107
UndercoverElephant Pachyderm of a Thousand Faces Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sussex, England Posts: 9,060	.
	__________________ "I am real!" said Alice, and began to cry. "You won't make yourself a bit realler by crying," Tweedledee remarked: "there's nothing to cry about."

16th January 2004, 10:49 AM	#108
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047	Quote: Originally posted by epepke The Dao that has a point is not the true Dao. = The Dao is pointless.
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047

16th January 2004, 11:16 AM	#109
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047	Quote: Originally posted by JustGeoff However - there seems to be a noticeable silence in that department around here today. Was you missing me Geoff? How nice. I need Randi's dosh and then I can devote myself to saving the world!!
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047

16th January 2004, 01:38 PM	#110
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,235	Hi lifegazer, Do you have any comments on our discussion about 'desire'?
	__________________ http://www.statisticool.com

16th January 2004, 02:15 PM	#111
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047	Quote: Originally posted by T'ai Chi "Ever desireless, one can see the mystery. Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations." That is from Chapter 1. The "Ever desireless" part, in Chinese, is the word 'wuyu'. It does not mean the total absence of desire, but rather it is the goal of differential desire. That is, it is desire based on a noncoercive relationship with the universe. The desire is not to control things, but rather to enjoy and celebrate them. So the Daoist problem of desire does not concern desiring itself or the things that are desired, but rather the manner of the desiring. (paraphrased from Daodejing Making This Life Significant, p. 42) A different translation for that same excerpt from Chapter 1 is: "Thus, to be really objectless in one's desires (wuyu) is how one observes the mysteries of all things. While really having desires is how one observes their boundaries." -Ames and Hall, 2003 I doubt it, simply because that might be a little too much yin, and they are always about balance. There are also stories in other Daoist books that talk about women, wives, etc. I'm sure some Daoists are celibate, especially the dirty ones in mountains somewhere in China. To reiterate, desire is no problem, it is the manner of the desiring that might be the problem. So, it's alright to desire things, as long as you don't try to force those things to happen? It's a bit vague, to be honest, but sounds much better than the literal interpretation of that specific text. But I still have a problem with it; for in my opinion, the noblest form of desire is selfless desire that is actively enforced. The laid-back approach of the daoist might be misread as indifference. What say ye? Quote: Well of course 'God' is not mentioned (except in early translations where the translators were missionaries!) since it is a purely Chinese work of philosophy. Reincarnation? I'm not sure. It is said, and easily seen from observation, that life is a transformation though. So, you have no answer to the question: What possible reason might I want to be a daoist for? What might I gain from it?
lifegazer Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,047

17th January 2004, 12:39 AM	#112
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,235	Hi lifegazer, Quote: So, it's alright to desire things, as long as you don't try to force those things to happen? Yes, I think as long as the desire is to celebrate and enjoy and not own or control the object(s). Quote: It's a bit vague, to be honest, It is more than a bit vague. Quote: The laid-back approach of the daoist might be misread as indifference. What say ye? Yes, I think it could be misread. The actions a Daoist takes are hopefully spontaneous, and therefore are nonassertive, not no-actions. Quote: So, you have no answer to the question: What possible reason might I want to be a daoist for? What might I gain from it? It probably varies from person to person, but for me it was to get a new perspective on reality, furthering and more deeply appreciating the things that make up my field of experience, to help with my goal of self-transformation, and cultivating a disposition for making my way in the world. These things can probably be done with any philosophy/religion, but as I've mentioned, I already had enjoyed Chinese martial arts and culture (and short books).
	__________________ http://www.statisticool.com

17th January 2004, 10:27 AM	#113
Wudang BOFH Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Sheffield Posts: 8,317	Um, Tai chi - you know your tai chi is rotating in the degenerative cycle?

17th January 2004, 02:30 PM	#114
T'ai Chi Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 11,235	Quote: Originally posted by Wudang Um, Tai chi - you know your tai chi is rotating in the degenerative cycle? Just stand on the opposite side of your monitor and it will be spinning in the correct direction. I really don't care for all the 'table setting' that goes on (what direction it is spinning, if white is on top or if black is, different colors being used for black and white, etc.). All that matters to me is the idea of yin, yang, and t'ai chi.
	__________________ http://www.statisticool.com

17th January 2004, 03:20 PM	#115
Yahweh Ayay ashay ayay Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,029	Quote: Originally posted by lifegazer "Ever desireless, one can see the mystery. Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations." Clearly, this text advocates the goal of desireless being. This is another contradiction, of course, since to aim for that goal is a desire unto itself. Regardless, it seems that your attitude does not mirror that presented by the writer of the scripture. Which implies you disagree with that scripture. I am not talking about the right & wrongs of having sex. Rather, I'm talking about the right & wrong of desiring anything in light of such scripture. It seems to me that this scripture advocates celibacy. In fact, it seems to me to advocate the life of a hermitical monk, of sorts. To what ends, I have yet to discover, since an afterlife or a God is not mentioned. Reincarnation? I dunno... but the whole point of the Tao evades me. I didnt want to do this so quickly, but I think I need to introduce you to something, its called the "GOLDEN MEAN". Try to imagine a graph, on either side is the extreme. In the middle is what you would call the mean. Here is a graphical representation. [Total and Complete Celibacy]######==========-------------------==========######[Obsessive Compulsive Sexoholic] In the middle of that graphical representation is the Golden Mean. The Golden Mean is where you want aim if you ever hope to achieve a form of "perfection" or "happiness". Any extremes can lead to "unhappiness". Because most peoples Moral Attitude is subjective, their Golden Mean will most likely vary slightly with yours. My criticism to the Golden Mean is simply "sometimes extremes are necessary, sometimes the Golden Mean is unacheivable". Aside from that, its a pretty sturdy Philosophy (albeit a rather primitive one). Aristotle's metaphysics may have been crap, but his Ethics were perfect, fine, dandy, and fluffy. That is at least one way I can present the whole "Desire/Desireless" debate. Your interpretation that the Daoist Philosophy is a doctrine of moral absolutes or that it implies Total and Complete Celibacy is incorrect.
Yahweh Ayay ashay ayay Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,029