The difference

[tashij]

War Crimes and Imperial Fantasies
Excerpt of an interview of Noam Chomsky by David Barsamian
?
David Barsamian: Every four years Americans, those who vote, are faced with what is often called the lesser of two evils as their presidential options. Dave Dellinger, who passed away in May, used to call it "the evil of two lessers." You say that there is "a fraction" of difference between George Bush and John Kerry. And this raised some eyebrows. I heard, "It sounds like Chomsky is coming out for Kerry." Could you expand on your position.

Noam Chomsky: There are differences. They have different constituencies. There are different groups of people around them. On international affairs I wouldn?t expect any major policy changes. It would probably be more like back to the Clinton years, when you have sort of the same policies, but more modulated, not so brazen and aggressive, less violent. And I would expect a kind of return to that.

On domestic issues there could be a fairly significant difference?it?s not huge?but different in its outcomes. The group around Bush are real fanatics. They?re quite open. They?re not hiding it; you can?t accuse them of that. They want to destroy the whole array of progressive achievements of the past century. They?ve already more or less gotten rid of progressive income tax. They?re trying to destroy the limited medical care system. The new pharmaceutical bill is a step towards that. They?re going after Social Security. They probably will go after schools. They do not want a small government, any more than Reagan did. They want a huge government, and massively intrusive. They hate free markets. But they want it to work for the rich. The Kerry people will do something not fantastically different, but less so. They have a different constituency to appeal to, and they are much more likely to protect some limited form of benefits for the general population.

There are other differences. The popular constituency of the Bush people, a large part of it, is the extremist fundamentalist religious sector in the country, which is huge. There is nothing like it in any other industrial country. And they have to keep throwing them red meat to keep them in line. While they?re shafting them in their economic and social policies, you?ve got to make them think you?re doing something for them. And throwing red meat to that constituency is very dangerous for the world, because it means violence and aggression, but also for the country, because it means harming civil liberties in a serious way. The Kerry people don?t have that constituency. They would like to have it, but they?re never going to appeal to it much. They have to appeal somehow to working people, women, minorities, and others, and that makes a difference.

These may not look like huge differences, but they translate into quite big effects for the lives of people. Anyone who says "I don?t care if Bush gets elected" is basically telling poor and working people in the country, "I don?t care if your lives are destroyed. I don?t care whether you are going to have a little money to help your disabled mother. I just don?t care, because from my elevated point of view I don?t see much difference between them." That?s a way of saying, "Pay no attention to me, because I don?t care about you." Apart from its being wrong, it?s a recipe for disaster if you?re hoping to ever develop a popular movement and a political alternative.

[tashij]

GET WITH IT GW & Oil Gerks.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/special_packages/5min/9708895.htm

[val]

While the Dalai Lama addressed the plight of the Tibetan people living under Chinese occupation and discussed the war in Iraq, he avoided politics, deftly dodging a question about how he would advise the next U.S. president. ''I think you Americans, you are in a better position to advise the next president,'' he said with a smile.

The Dalai Lama smiles... I grin. He's right you know. We ARE n a position to advise the next president. Keep hope alive... *grin*

Love,

Val

[tashij]

Yeah, now that HH has given the Chenrezig thumbs up on it, I'll spout forth a bit more. ha.

What gets me Val, are guys like Tucker Carlson and Pat Buchanan . Tucker Carlson thinks the Iraq invasion was a HUGE mistake, but there he is, still backing the ADMIN. Why??? Pat Buchanan is against this war, and the flunatic fliscal policies, but he is still backing the ADMIN. Even John McLaughlin kind of gives it up for the 'get outa Iraq' crew. Who is JM gonna vote for on that fateful day. I dont know. I still think it was the LAST election that was "the most important election of our lifetime."

Im still gonna vote for the lizard of two evils, hahaha, Hi Gene.

[gene]

The lizards have it Tashij, ha ha ha.

Gene

[gene]

Martin

No offense intended, I appreciate your posts and all and recognize you have a lot of intelligence, but you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Gene

[val]

http://www.debates.org/pages/his_2000.html

For those who believe in casting an informed vote... a good way to get informed.

Read what he said then, and listen to what he says Thursday.

The person who emailed this link to me (a co-worker) said: "here's what I have been reading before I go to bed... Nightmares!!!@."

Love,

Val

[tashij]

I dont believe it's in the bag yet, Gene. The constituents (referring to Chomsky's statement at the top) play a surprising factor in all of this. Even if it's slim factor, it counts.

Also, Gene, I hope it is clear that my laughing was not intended maliciously. At all.

[candid]

Imo, the hope of the left doesn?t come from Bush haters. And certainly not from Kerry lovers. Your hope lies in the conservatives who can not, or who can no longer in good conscience, support this war. Because after this war in Iraq, assuming it?s even resolvable, which I question, there?s another one immediately following, and another, and another. Kerry might at least help to stall out the forward momentum by attaching to the momentum of world opinion.

?People who try hard to improve things frequently achieve remarkable success in making them worse. In the final analysis, the solution to problems lies neither in action nor in inaction, but in understanding. For where there is true understanding there is no arguments or problems. As well wage a war to end all wars or engage in violence that will lead to love.? ~ unknown

[tashij]

I think you raise a few very important considerations Candid. To me what you say translates like this:

1., taking action can lead to more ignorance and suffering.
2., remaining inactive can lead to more ignorance and suffering.

And I agree with you about concerned conservatives. That is why I mentioned Tucker Carlson, Pat Buchanan and John McLaughlin.

I dont understand what you mean when you say 'a war to end all wars' or 'violence that will lead to love'. I can think of a wrathful dakini, crushing the head of ignorance, is that what you mean? A global tantric solution?

Suffering begets suffering. Eventually, it begets awareness. The only way thru hatred is love, we know this. There is the myth of a holy war, of sorts, in the Shambala legend, the Kalachakra mandala, but to my understanding, this is a remedy like the 13th fairy in the sleeping beauty tale, not a religous war. It does not end all suffering, because samsara will continue, and there will always be suffering, but the Shambala legend, the Kalachakra mandala offers liberation for a few individuals who have karma within that mandala, the upcoming 'war to end all wars'.

Do you think it is possible for a war to end all wars? Isnt that sort of the unconcious wish behind the nuclear bomb? But it seems to me, the bomb has only begotten more bombs.

[candid]

Tash, actually, I didn't write that, but I interpret the meaning as not being against action, but against action of force as a way of changing things. I don't think the writer had anything quite as deep as you've suggested in mind, but rather to be taken literally.

This is a tough one, imo, with no absolutes regarding right or wrong. Certainly action is required to fend this strange kind of enemy from killing innocents. The armies are not doing the most killings there. They are mostly killing each other. How is even the world's strongest army to defeat such an illusive enemy? I don't think it can. Not directly anyway. Not the way we're going about it. But neither do I believe we can for a second achieve reasonable reconciliation with those who promote change by terror.

I don't know what the answer is. If I did, I'd run for president myself. (now that's a scary thought) But I do strongly believe that understanding has to be bigger than party or national interests.

[gene]

An all out nuclear exchange might end all wars, because there would be nobody left to fight them.

Gene

[jte]

" How is even the world's strongest army to defeat such an illusive enemy? I don't think it can. Not directly anyway."

See Hex 14 - evil is not to be fought directly, but to be curbed... fighting it directly causes problems - IMHO, up to and including the "good" becoming evil itself.

Of course it seems that military minds often don't see it that way...

- Jeff

[candid]

So then, Jeff, what real application of 14 would you employ to curb terrorism? Is curbing the best that can be attained? If so, do we all just learn to live with the occasional car bombing, plane hi-jacking or kidnapping? How often is too often?

See, its very easy to sight a model or hexagram to speak to the ideal. Applying it to reality, a bit more difficult.

Meaning no disrespect to HH, but he shows his wisdom in deferring the solution to the countries involved. He accepts the loss of his own country for the sake of heavenly ideals. You don?t see him parading around protesting to take back Tibet. I?ll bet he has no animosity whatsoever toward the communist Chinese.

But what does this mean for us? Are you willing to be exiled from your own country for the sake of heavenly ideals?

And you think we have it rough now?

[tashij]

Many Tibetans have been protesting. His Holiness does not accept the loss of his country, he works ceaselessly, to return. He has very deep training, to practice compassion for the Chinese, but he feels the effects of their ignorance. He has been working consistently, all these years, to go back to Tibet. It WILL happen.

[candid]

Tash, that's not my understanding. Perhaps I'm wrong. I'm aware many work and protest the return to Tibet; my own son does just that, but I've never heard HH say a word of protest about it. He may pray for the return. No doubt he does. And as "fluffy" or spiritual as it may sound, that's what will make a way for the return. I believe it will happen too.

But do we in this country have such moving faith?

[tashij]

14 is a very good model to use to work against terrorism. Fund alternative sources of energy. Then we phase out oil dependance. Build schools, health facilities, Dont bomb them. Pour money in, dont ask for debt repayment. Operate from a vantage of abundance, because guess what, there is.

[candid]

Tash, Great ideas! It's gonna cost you though. Somebody's got to foot the bill. How does 30% net weekly earning sound? Consider that tax means more than income tax. Yeah, I know, the money we spend on the war could be used. But the shameful fact is, war generates jobs and money for the economy. Building schools is deferred gratification, but no significant cash flow. It's going to cost you and everyone else.

Again, nothing wrong with big ideals if we're ready to pay for them. Who here will be the first to give up their second bathroom? Who here will ration their water first? Who will take just one trip to the market per week to save gas?

[tashij]

Candid, Im so happy you too, think, know, that he will return. This is all that counts. Two images that fill me with tears- HH back in Tibet, Daw Aung San Sui Kyi free in the streets of Rangoon.

Faith comes from one taste of the Dharma. For me, it wasnt love, or peace, the real liberation is truth. KNOWing.

I guess we have a near civil war in this country Candid. We are so divided. This election, and the last one, were so close. We have all different faiths, but we do try and understand the constitution to unite under, if we unite under anything. I think if people here start loosing what we have taken for granted, yes, we will have faith and understand how wonderful it was what we had here.

But who is in danger of removing our civil liberties and changing the constitution Candid? Did the terrorists do that?

[tashij]

I'm already paying, and I object to my money mostly going to the pentagon.

[candid]

"The most likely formula for the return of the Dalai Lama would see him come back to Tibet as the country?s spiritual leader, in return for acknowledging China?s sovereignty and political rule." (The LGIB is the European and international arm of the Local Government Association.)

Acknowledging China?s sovereignty and political rule. This is not winning ones country back. Perhaps the long term plan may, but this is not it.

[tashij]

He has firm conditions he will return under, and only under. Within those conditions, he can help the people of Tibet and all sentient beings. He is Chenrezig.

[candid]

No doubt he can, Tash.

I noticed you asked me about civil liberties. They erode quickly during any national crisis. The left could sight the right, and right the left for loss of our original freedoms. It's exactly this kind of finger pointing that divides the country, and the world. I'm not so sure though that it's our fate to divide in a civil war. People and cultures realize things suddenly.

I agree, 14 is great model, but it still feels like 3 to me.

[jte]

Hi, Candid -

"So then, Jeff, what real application of 14 would you employ to curb terrorism?"

To clarify, when I posted, I meant the Image/Symbolism text primarily. IMHO, the somewhat privacy-invasive, but non-aggresive things our gov't did after 9/11 fit this model well. Attacking Iraq did not. Afghanistan was more than enough, MHO.

"Is curbing the best that can be attained? If so, do we all just learn to live with the occasional car bombing, plane hi-jacking or kidnapping? How often is too often? "

I think that unfortunately there *will be* the occasional (hopefully only occasional) act of terrorism - it's pretty much unavoidable. Curbing is *the best* we can do.

Unfortunately, terrorism doesn't just come from Muslim fundamentalists. The worst act of terrorism on U.S. soil *before* 9/11 was the Oklahoma City Bombing. And McVey's motivation was what he saw as our government's overly aggressive acts at Waco. And he decided to react with his own act of mass-murder.

How many people across the world are ready to react violently now because of Iraq? A whole new generation of potential terrorists is being created. Why do you suppose N. Korea and Iran are being so flagrant about their efforts to get nukes? Why shouldn't they - they've been singled out along with Iraq by Bush...

Honestly, I think our own aggression has NOT made us safer. Hence the 14 model makes sense. MHO, our efforts at fighting evil directly with military force are not paying off.

- Jeff

[candid]

Jeff, ok, I see your points. Clarity and strength, or strength with clear vision.

Seems we were lured into Iraq; essentially playing into the hands of those who hate us, and our aggression has gained them sympathizers, globally. Our pride and fear getting the better part of our patience. Or lack of. Their own propaganda machine effectively pointing to injustices committed by our hands. Very clever, these zealots.

This acceptance of ?unavoidable? terror I find unacceptable. We?ll become as Israel: Never knowing when or where the next restaurant or subway station will blow, effectively creating a police state. Always on the defensive.

I just asked Yi, what is the solution? 27. 3,6 ? 36

Not turning away from nourishment, but being and looking to the source of nourishment. Guarding our light by not holding it up to the world.

[sparhawk]

Here is an old article by Jack Balkin, he wrote The Laws of Change (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/080524199X/qid%3D1096470081/104-3779086-9944721)

The Most Dangerous Person on Earth (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/opeds/themostdangerous1.htm)

Luis

[candid]

I hope no one minds of I interject a bit of comic relief into this distressing thread.

A burglar was going through a house late one night. Hearing a loud voice from behind him saying, ?Jesus is watching you?, the thief jumped and spun around, but saw nothing. Again the voice spoke from out of the darkness, ?Jesus is watching you!? Turning his flashlight in the direction of the mysterious voice, and onto a parrot in his cage, the burglar asked, ?who the hell are you?? ?My name is Moses,? the parrot said. ?What kind of idiots would name their parrot Moses?? asked the thief, sarcastically. ?Same ones that named their rottweiler Jesus,? said the parrot.

[tashij]

funny.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020401fa_FACT1


im out of breath here. its a gray windy day and i want to walk in the leaves. before the war makes them go away and there are no more leaves and no more nice days and i have to take my down blanket with me everywhere, that and my french pot, cause it's all ill have left. as it is, i just sent a broke friend some money cause my friends are seriously HURTING in this fu*ked up economy. , lol. humor. before i go, just this. It has never been conclusive, to me, WHO the terrorists were on Sept. 11th. At the very least, I think highly placed officials in the Bush Gov. used the events of Sept 11th to springboard an aggressive agenda. i think the article above was written before we went into Iraq. to nice out to fact check that, but the article is good. long live the resistance.

[tashij]

Hi Anon,

I just want to respond, quickly, to your post. HR 10 is up for consideration on the floor of the House. The Senate is considering a bill called the 'Collins Leiberman'. I believe that "Collins Leiberman" has no Identity card in it, but I still have to research it. Two members of the House did oppose HR 10 with a modification called "Shays Maloney". "Shays Maloney" is stripped of all the troublesome extras, like a national identity card, and the vendeta against refugees. "Shays Maloney" however, at this point, has been defeated.

It would be very productive, at this point, to call your Representative and urge them to ask the House Rules Committee to grant a rule to allow "Shays Maloney" to be reopened. In this way, HR 10 will have a chance to be killed again.

In short, we still do have due process, and if people get invovled, we can affect these draconian measures that are thrown in the blender.

BTW, The Senate's consideration, "Collins Leiberman" will have to face off with HR 10 even IF HR 10 makes it out of the House, and if we stay active, we can kill the National Identity card then.

So yes, make a lot of noise, and yes, we CAN stop the National Identity Card.

Ok really, I've promised to be out of breath here, and so, please, love to all.

[gene]

The national identity card is coming, that is for sure. States rights are considered to be an issue of the past, distant past. We might fight it for a while, but it will come.

Gene

[gene]

This is the reason the second plane hit the twin towers. This was the best way the military industrial complex could think of to get the American public to accept loss of freedoms, and especially the national ID card. The excuse is terrorism. If you take a look at the pictures of the second plane flying into the world trade center, closely and in slow motion, you will notice that there are no windows on the plane. Also, there is a strange globe like structure at the top of the airplane. There was also a second fuselage on the plane. Commercial airplanes all have windows. This was not a commercial plane. It was a military plane. Then take a look at the pictures of the pentagon. You will note that there is absolutely no wreckage of a 767. Also, the hole in the pentagon is much too small for a 767 to have been flown through it. Witnesses described the aircraft as having very small wings. It was not a commercial airplane that hit the pentagon, it was most likely a small cruise missile probably having a very small detonation charge on it. Once again, a military type aircraft.

It is well known that in the 1940?s the military did testing on unsuspecting populations in New Mexico and other places to see the effects of nuclear radiation on people. The same was done using some military personnel. And yet for some reason we all tend to think, oh that was then, our government wouldn?t do that now. Well, they do and they did. There have been house resolutions making it perfectly legal for the military to do chemical and biological testing on small portions of the population with or without their consent or their awareness. Our ?shadow? government used the 911 tragedy (as described in the report submitted by Tashij,) in order to get the population to accept greater control over the population, and to limit our freedoms, and get us to accept the national id card.

If anyone cares to do a search on NESARA (National Economic Recovery and Stabilization act), I?d be curious to know what your impressions are. There is just a ton of information out there about this alleged house resolution, bill, that may or may not have been passed, and all kinds of theories as to the why and the outcome of it. I won?t say anything more, you can look at it and come to your own conclusions.

Gene

[martin]

No windows? Look:

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/786/2662.jpg

[candid]

I have no disrespect for S. Marshall for his prediction, whatsoever. He is a man, after all. Great men and women take risks, and sometimes their calculations are imperfect, or misguided. It also goes to show that no matter how much we learn and grow, no-one knows everything, even a master of I Ching.

At the risk of getting plummeted here with tomatoes, I ask that everyone remain hopeful about the future.

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/zen2.gif

[martin]

If you like tomatoes I can give you one, Candid, but I will not throw tomatoes at you. You deserve to be showered with flowers. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

You wrote earlier "I don?t believe Yi answers a question directly about the outcome."
I think it did in this case. Some of the answers were difficult to interpret perhaps, but others were not.
I was not completely sure when I wrote about the answer that Soshin got - thank you for your compliment Soshin, you are a lovely man http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif.
But the answers that I received when I asked the Yi myself (I mentioned them in a later post) left little room for doubt. And the answer that SM got .. yes, he obviously is a man and men (and women) tend to get a bit sleepy late at night. But that answer was clear, very clear. Bush will win! Have no doubt about it, to cite .. Bush.

With all this foreknowledge in the back of my mind watching this thing unfold on TV was a strange experience. The Dutch commentators all believed that Kerry would win! And then came the exit poles. Kerry ahead!
I couldn't believe my ears and eyes. Could the Yi be so wrong? Could I be so wrong? Later I heard that Bush said, when he saw the exit poles, "I'm surprised!". This was clearly not what _his_ diviners had told him. (Do you think that these people don't use oracles? Of course they do!)
And then, while the commentators on Dutch TV - very learned people - where going to great lengths about WHY Kerry would win the tide began to turn. It was like watching a movie for the second or third time, while these commentators saw it for the first time. I knew how it would end, they didn't.
Weird!

[micheline]

Yes.....I second your request, Candid...Let's be hopeful...
Thanks everybody for a great bunch of comments which I have enjoyed reading.
I dont think any of the Yi throws were "wrong"...in retrospect, we can see what was being pointed at..
and Anon, who got 1.5 re: kerry.......you shouldnt "dare" or toy with the Yi, first of all, but if you were serious in your questioning, consider that maybe Kerry won by losing.......it is not a job I would want, would you?

[gene]

Hold the phones folks, just looked at cnn.com and it says Kerry is not conceding Ohio. Don't know how up to date the news is. Let's see what happens.

Gene

[gene]

My apologies, this news was posted at 8:45 AM. Don't know why it is still on their site.

Gene

[candid]

Anon,

If you?re going to quote off web pages, at least choose an interesting one.

text description (http://www.missionislam.com/nwo/illuminati.htm)

[candid]

Demitra,

There?s nothing wrong with your writing (or your tennis) that I can tell. I?ve enjoyed our recent discussions especially, very much. I sincerely wish you all the very best.

I?m exceedingly weary of the Anon option here, and I?ve previously stated my reasons clearly enough. Especially when they dish it out so easily but are so incredibly thin-skinned to a retort, direct, rude or otherwise.

The best of luck to the new guard. Friends here know where to reach me.

Candid

[val]

Demitra,

I'm only human so I make mistakes. And I've made a mistake reading your post. I sincerely apologize. I assumed you were attributing that statement in quotes to me. But when I re-read and THINK about what you wrote, I see my mistake. It's an unfortunate juxtaposition of words, yes, but you didn't say "Val said." And it was definitely inappropriate for me to assume you meant "Val said." I am very very sorry. I hope you will forgive me.

I know only too well the dangers of hurrying through posts and making my point as succinct as possible because of time constraints. My intent is so often misunderstood when I do that... so I should really know better. I do hope you'll forgive me.

Love,

Val

[jeanystar]

Demitra,
If you let some silly a##hole deter you from putting out a book, you are not being the woman I know you are...and I dont even know you that well. You write so well, the world needs your talent, your fire , your warmth, and your insights. AND your sensitivity. YOu have remarkable talent. who said that "all great people are misunderstood" ? Yes, you will be misunderstood at times, yes.but that is no reason to stop writing, sharing, teaching, helping, hoping, expressing and BEING who you are. It is just part of the landscape. DON"T YOU EVER GIVE UP. love jeannie

[jeanystar]

the silly "blank-blank" in my last post here was meant for "anonymous", not anyone else....but in reality, I dont want to call anyone that name..I apologize! J

[gene]

Demitra

We've been through this before, and you came back. There is no need to stop writing a book. You can write very well, and you have a lot to offer. Any author, no matter how well intentioned, is going to sooner or later receive criticism, well meaning or not, from a lot of people. It is part of being on this planet.

Now, admittedly, I haven't seen all the posts, and the ins and outs of this whole situation. But no matter what, there are people here that think very highly of you, and want you on the board.

You know very well us first house Neptunians are always being misperceived, misunderstood, and often villified, it's just part of the program. The universe is a consciousness, that consciousness tests us sometimes, to see what we are made of. I think you are made of steel. In a good sense, anyway.

I'll email you soon.
Gene

[val]

Demi

I didn't get an email from you. You don't have your email address in your profile, and there's something I want to tell you. Geesh I hope you peek in.

I have to tell you what I was thinking about your posts. You write really really well. You write so well that for awhile I was sure you were an author, and I was suspecting you might be Dan Brown. So I went searching for excerpts of his work to compare to your style. The styles didn't really match or differ that much, and I was still in the dark. But then I noticed the British/Canadian/Australian spelling in one of your posts, and I knew you weren't Dan Brown. But I knew you were as good a writer as he is if not better, and one his novels, "The DaVinci Code," is being made into a movie. I still suspected you were an author up to the conversation with Martin.

Yeah, you have anger sometimes. So what. We all do. You certainly do express it well in writing. It's so controlled... channeled. That's something not many of us can do. I absolutely LOVED the "wagging finger" thing. Oh God that was gooooood. Killer... *grin* You also have strong psychological awareness. Ever think about a suspense thriller kind of thing? Maybe it would be a good thing if you DID forget about this forum... if you focused on a novel or something. Our loss yeah, but only temporarily... only until your book hits the stores. I want to know when it does if it does.

Gene,

When you email Demi, would you please ask her to email me too. I do so want to apologize and tell her how much I admire her talent.

Thanks.

Love,

Val

[gene]

Val

I'll let her know you are trying to contact her. I have to think for a while what all I am going to say...however, Demitra and I are in pretty regular contact anyway. And knowing Demitra, I suspect she is still reading these posts, even if she is not writing right now.

Gene

[martin]

Hmm, I was not too sure about it till now but it seems that the world really keeps turning while I am sleeping. A lot has happened since I last visited this forum.

Dear Demitra, others have said it already, there is nothing wrong with your writing skills. On the contrary, you are indeed very talented and I hope that you will write that book. It may very well become a classic.
As we all know, accidents like this happen all the time on the internet. It is very easy to misinterpret the intent of a post and read a tone in it that was not intended. Especially when nothing is known about a poster and his or her background.
The most recent anonymous post was a one liner that sounded mean in your ears. But was it mean?
I have reread that post several times and I must say that I really don't know, I have no clue.
It's possible that the poster wanted to insult you, it's also possible that he or she had friendly intentions and simply wanted to point out something that might be helpful. I have no idea.

I have also reread all the earlier posts, from where it all began, the first encounter of you and Candid. If you say that there was no hostile intent on your side I believe you, but I do hear something in your words that reminds me of pictures of Indians in war colors, with tomahawks and all that http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif.
Now, as you know, I'm not entirely unfamiliar with your horoscope and I wonder, could this be somehow related to the position of your moon?
I don't know if Candid was as much into stories about Indians as I was when I was a child, but he apparently also saw a tomahawk or a similar weapon that seemed to be aimed at his head. And he responded with what could be qualified as an indecent proposal ...
A few posts later I became really fed up with this whole thing and said something very indecent. Sorry for that outburst, but you know now that it was not meant for you.
You surely have spine and a lot of guts. You are very courageous. Concerning that other attribute that was supposedly missing, well, it's clear that I got the gender wrong, isn't it?
ROTFL, sorry, I hope that you can also laugh about it now. In retrospect it's all so comical.

Where was I? Tomahawks, courage, moon .. warrior moon. Behind that a very sensitive human being. This combination of fighting spirit and sensitivity is beautiful. But the problem is, I think, that people who perceive your warrior side sometimes strike back at you and do not realize how sensitive you are and how deeply they can hurt you.
Well, I don't want to say too much about this on a public forum. We can talk about it through private email, if you like. My email address is in my profile.
I hope that you are still reading this forum and that you will soon be back in your full glory.

And by all means, write that book!

Love,
Martin

[sparhawk]

Hi all, I just received a request from Demitra to forward a message for her to the board. Small request, indeed.

Here it goes:

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

I've read the supportive postings that have so far been put up and I appreciate everyone's attempts at making me feel better but nothing at this point is going to change anything. I am questioning everything about myself today. I just don't feel very confident about my ability to communicate my intentions, considering how misread I've consistently been on this board of late. But thanks just the same. Truly. Maybe all your nice words will have more sway over me sometime in the future.

The thing is, sometimes the decisions we make about how to treat and talk to others, failed communications and email delivery failures aside, we have to accept that there are no do-overs. Any mistakes made are final, permanent and unalterable. Yesterday's meltdown was just such an end-of-the-line thing. Everything that was clear and certain yesterday morning has flown out the window and I don't see any traces of my life left. None. Maybe in the long-run I will see that this was a good thing - we'll see.

I don't want Val to think this is her fault because the misunderstanding, though it was a surprising blow, it wasn't in and of itself the thing that did me in. It's only abject and deliberate meanness that can do that. I myself knew that I had not meant Val any harm and I would make her see that. So, no, no, the misunderstanding with Val was not the thing that caused this tide to turn.

It was that last anonymous hostility missile with the intent to pierce me with its "proof" of the presence of my "supposedly" tremendous hostility levels, THAT was the last straw on this camels back. And though Martin is only trying to be "fair", he is being fair to someone who's sole use of the anonymity feature was to hurt me and nothing more than that - you know, the old "hit and run" maneuver.

What Martin, and perhaps the rest of you too, have failed to notice about that very short message, is that Anonymous deliberately printed my name and "exposed" me. I know that pretty much everyone by that point knew that it was me under there, but that isn't the point, not the point at all. This person chose to name me openly after Martin himself very clearly indicated that had he wanted to harm me he would have exposed me. Remember that? And so I have no doubt that the intent was to to harm me, plain and simple. Anon, for your information, that is hostility, not anything I've ever done on this board.

I've used the anonymous feature more than a few times in the past 6 months for different reasons. I've learned a lot about how people work from this experience. In anycase, first I went around helping others, then I asked for help a few times for myself, and I've also horsed around harmlessly setting up birthday parties for other people's enjoyment. But I have never done a hit and run, never! That's just pure hatred run amok and I just don't have that kind of s*it rotting inside me to do that kind of thing, ever.

To Anonymous : your anger and your resentments are a poison in your system. You think that smacking other people over the head with your internal suffering is going to relieve you of your own pain, and maybe it does in the short-term, but it will always come back and you will have to do it again and again. All this does is add more pain, confusion and negativity to the atmosphere of humanity and you yourself are no more ahead than before not to mention that you are dragging the rest of us back too.

Though reincarnation is a fact, without an effort to elevate and purify yourself spiritually at this time of our planetary purification stage (because we are indeed moving into a very different area of space) you will be too "heavy" to make it through to the more highly refined regions we are entering into. Those who cannot keep up will be in a manner of speaking "recycled" back into the lower levels of the next animal kingdom. So, you will reincarnate to be sure, but not with the rest of your class. Think about that the next time you have a choice between offering a flower in empathy and understanding, or sticking a sword in someone's back.
.....................
<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

Luis

[val]

Gene,

Thank you very much. You are a kind gentleman.

Demi,

You point is well taken about the last anonymous exposing you. I honestly had no idea yet who you were when I posted about the quote I thought you were attributing to me. That's why I mentioned being misquoted in both public and private. I had no idea if you were someone I'd communicated with about astrology in email or not. If it had been in email that still would have been a misquote because that is not why I choose not to have a sign.

If I were to tell my little story, many might be shocked and just might learn a lesson about THINKING they know what's in another's mind. It's a long story that involved many years and a lot of money spent on a rather open-minded study of possibilities. My chooses are for me and no one else. I made a conscious decision for myself... not for anyone else. So I'm keeping my little story to myself. I respect everyone else's choice to either believe 100%, disbelief 100%, search in an unknowing way or cease to invest in a search (for whatever reason) while keeping the door open to possibilities... or close the door... or whatever.

I would gladly have given all my ephemerises and many other books on astrology to you if I had known you the many years ago that I decided to chuck my sign and disperse my library... because I know you would have appreciated them. Well maybe I might have given a few each to you, Martin and Gene. Who knows... *shrugs shoulders* Really... who really knows?

With love, respect and admiration,

Val

[gene]

Boy, I could sure use some astrology books right now. I had left about 40 of them at an ex girlfriends house for safekeeping, so to speak. Well, her next door neighbor didn't like her complaining about his loud music at 3 am so he burnt her house down last weekend. I lost maybe $500 worth of books, my old computer, a phone system I had left her, a microwave, and several other things. Fortunately, it was only the astrology books, not the other books. I have everything else right now with me.

Gene

[gene]

Oh, she and her little dog did get out safely, but just barely in time, the trailer went up fast.

Gene

[val]

Gene,

I'm so sorry for your loss. I'm happy to hear no lives were lost.

Is her neighbor in jail now? I hope.

Love,

Val

[demitramn]

only here briefly to respond to some comments and questions that Dij presented and then i will keep my word and disappear from this board. warning: some of you may "see" weapons, tomahawks perhaps, between the lines. i won't change my style of speaking to suit anyone here and so you have been warned..

Dij, i hope to god that when i'm "old" (as you claim to be in your profile) that wallowing in the muck at other people's expense won't be the highlite of my day http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif that being said, <BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

And the third thing, a question (and please don't be offended) did you say that thing about giving up writing for effect, sympathy or just to cause plot to thicken?<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE> at the time, i can't say that i was thinking too clearly. i was experiencing a melt-down, a burnout. i consciously intended none of the above, yet i believe i managed to accomplish all three. pretty amazing considering i was consciously intending nothing.

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

(I'd rather believe the former than what appears to be a very smart and talented person being also a bit of a drama queen<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE> why? smart and talented people aren't human too? doesn't the potential for drama live inside us all? and spill out when we recognize that our best efforts are mocked if not just plain overlooked? (rhetorical = not meant to be answered)


<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

I just read it. Oh boo hoo hoo. I am sorry lady, that's how it seems to me.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE> well, i'm certainly glad that there are other people in my life i can depend on for comfort and support otherwise i'd really be out of luck, wouldn't i? (once again, rhetorical)

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

Now, I know what it's like when you get started of on CAndid, and he presses every button GOD intended and goes and breaks off the ones for patience so all a person can do is steam though the ears and maybe shake a fist at the computer and all, but who in their right mind allows some comment to unhinge them to the point of questioning themselves to the degree you seem to imply you are questioning yourself.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE> Candid has two distinctive traits, domineering and obstinate, and the only way to deal with him is give him back more of the same. it would not be true to say that i can't handle him, but having to put up this front of candid-style-defensiveness just to dance with him (figuratively speaking but needs to be said as so many here are literal-minded) can wear on anyone, even me.

And as far as my ability to write goes: another set of poorly arranged words on my part - what i meant was, if no one understands what i'm saying, if everyone reads into my words something i did not intend, why am i going to the trouble to say it in a book? why bother at all?

however, the more i consider it, the more i realize my frustration had to do with this board, more than my work on my book. i can see now, that i was struggling with the trouble i've gone to in speaking on this board. as of my burnout night, i see that there is no value left in speaking here, at least for me. though i can be most tolerant, i have no patience for all the proud posturing required to hang-out here. of course, those of you who are still gaining something from being here will stoutly defend your decision for remaining but it doesn't change the fact that speaking here requires a certain falseness, otherwise you quickly acquire a "label" and are treated accordingly. the fact is, there is more time spent discussing the VALUE of topics, than actually discussing THE topics. there is more time spent on discussing the flaws in HOW so-and-so said what they said, than addressing the actual topic of discussion.

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

your last words: "sticking a sword in someone's back"
way overdramatic. waaaaaaaaay<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE> i guess i need to spell it out for you. this is my way of defining the difference between empathizing with someone and wanting to get your digs in. we call this applying m-e-t-a-p-h-o-r. no disrespect intended - but then, i've been labeled here and so someone is bound to read disrespect and hostility in my spelling it out for you.

<BLOCKQUOTE>....................................</BLOCKQUOTE>
my final words must go out to the biggest pain in the butt i've ever had the good fortune (you heard right) to cross my path. mirroring you as been very enlightening, thank you.

Candid, <BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

My main point was very simply that these are not new theories. That wasn?t based on my ignorance. That was based on fact.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE> too bad you couldn't have said THIS, just like this, the first time. too bad you felt compelled to shove a frog up the backside first. things might've turned out very differently - but then some people here wouldn't have been entertained ...

[dij]

Lady D!!

well..all things considered....you're prolly better off spending your time and energy on your book and not on this board - more so if you don't enjoy being here as you said.

glad you posted - I never noticed that thing about people here being labelled and discussion centering on how instead of why...etc..but no wonder, I don't actually hang around here too often. I'll pay closer attention to that.

wishing you lots of cuddles and comforters

----
Hey Luis - you flippin' started it with all dem insinuations of naughtiness and whatsits. Apologies to da Misus an' young'uns

[sparhawk]

Then again, I may stand corrected... One never knows where the frog may jump next... http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/howmuch.gif

Martin, good mannered naughtiness is the spice of life... Doesn't have to mean anything other than some extra flavor added to one's words. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

L

[dij]

you mean Dij, not Martin, right?

coz, last I checked, me and Martin weren't the same person. ;)

[martin]

Roger that, Luis.
By the way, I hope that that poor frog has jumped out of the danger zone now. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

[candid]

Well, I NEVER! *humph* *piss* *moan* whine*

Actually, Demitra, you?re partly correct. I am an alpha male. I guess you have a little trouble with those types. But anyone here who has been around for any period of time also knows that I am compassionate, gentle, persuasive (oops, is that domineering?) and genuine. Add also at times: arrogant, smug, conceited, indifferent.

That said, I greatly admire strong women. I admire strength, period.

Nice return. Good conviction.

[val]

Luis...

Your good mannered naughtiness with Demitra has added life and a good deal of entertainment value to this board.

But don't think I'm not giving you all the credit and get a big head. I'm only giving you half. I love the way she volleys the naughtiness right back into your court. She does it so well. She has a talent for innocent flirting that I envy.

I hope there's more of that fun stuff to come.

Love,

Val

[pakua]

I have to agree to some extent with Demitra.

I'm a newcomer here, but I've read lots of back threads in my effort to learn Yi, and I was shocked and amazed that several times people have "forced out" other people who had valuable and interesting things to say. What a loss of resources.

I am particularly surprised because here there is a wonderful tool to use, and yet it appears it's not being used when needed, by the very people who know the most about it.

[tashij]

another map

http://sensoryoverload.typepad.com/sensory_overload/2004/11/free_states_vs_.html

[candid]

Pakua,

Pardon. I've been here quite awhile and I've yet to witness anyone "forced out".

If I leave this community, is it because I was forced out through someone?s words or actions? That would be a pretty weak excuse. People makes decisions as to what's best for them at a given time. "Times change, and with them their demands."

There have been a few that have regretfully left. My idea of who was most valuable probably won?t match those you have in mind. But to me, they were vital members who gave of themselves consistently. Not the ?flash in the pan? types ? both new and experts - but the real heroes who have committed themselves to this community. Most of those left long ago, and I miss them greatly. But no one forced them out.

I admit, that like Demitra, I am very tired of the effort it takes to continue on here. In a real time environment, anonymous voices don?t just come out of the wall, challenging legitimate identities with personally critical remarks. That?s not how the real world operates. But it is here. That doesn?t exactly make for an unbiased and level playing field. But this is my choice to make. No one is forcing me to do anything.

Candid

[sparhawk]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

you mean Dij, not Martin, right? <!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oops, yes. Geeze! I can even get people with actual names straight... http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

L

[sparhawk]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

I hope there's more of that fun stuff to come. <!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you know... There is a void now in the forum. To paraphrase Joey Tribbiani: "howya doin'? http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

L

[candid]

Jeff.. thanks.

[val]

Luis...

Are you one of the 115,000 Americans who went to the Canadian immigration website the day after the election?

"We started last year getting a lot of calls from Americans dissatisfied with the way the country is going," Kischer says. "Then after the election, it's been crazy up here. The Canadian immigration Web site had 115,000 hits the day after the election -- from the U.S. alone. We usually only get 20,000 hits."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/11/15/canadian.welcome.ap/index.html

Love,

Val

[bradford_h]

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/786/2822.jpg

[sparhawk]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

Are you one of the 115,000 Americans who went to the Canadian immigration website the day after the election?<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, but it goes to show a very common feeling... Woohoo!! Four more years of joy!! And boots, bullets, bastardization of international law and slow suppression of civil rights... I've always been convinced that the people of any democratic country has the government that they most deserve. What's happening is a good example of where otherwise good dharma becomes collective karma. I've no doubts Bush was the rightful winner by popular vote but it makes me wonder where the people that chose him is headed, taking everybody else along with them...

Luis

[val]

I don't have to immigrate. I live in Baja Canada...

<CENTER>http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/786/2826.gif</CENTER>
Love,

Val

[sparhawk]

So you want to renounce your citizenship, eh? http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif Here are your options: http://harpers.org/ElectingToLeave.html

Forget it! I worked to hard to get mine to throw it out the window... I would vote them out, though... http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

Luis

[sparhawk]

Sorry everybody dot com (http://sorryeverybody.com/)

Click the picture... Mine should be there after it is approved... http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

Luis

[candid]

Thanks, God. Look forward to our chat!

[pakua]

" Some would think liberal-Bush-hating is a prerequisite to using and understand the I Ching and the way of Tao, or Buddhism, or any other enlightenment path. Nonsense. "

Candid, I had to read your sentence a few times before I could understand it, and even now I'm not sure I'm understanding it properly.

When I analayze it, it sounds as if you're saying, some of us on this forum think that we need to hate Bush in order for us to progress on the path to enlightenment. I'm glad you recognize that that would be nonsense. But perhaps you were just being sarcastic.

I don't know who you're thinking of, but it seems to me that if I was the intended target, it would be kind of insulting. I think most of us here are sincerely on one path or another, and to be told something like that is denigrating.

On the other hand, maybe you just meant to remind people that they should strive for balance in their views, or something like that. It's hard to tell because of the tone.

[martin]

As far as I can tell there is indeed a correlation between a "left" political orientation and an inclination toward spirituality. Spirituality outside the box of traditional Christianity, that is. Traditional Christians (including the "reborn") tend to be right wing.
Again, as far as I can tell. I didn't research this. Shame on me .. anyway, "left" and "right" are vague (outdated?) concepts and judging from the taste Candid's statement is not entirely free from polemic pepper. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/wink.gif
But basically, yes, there is a correlation, I think ...

[candid]

Pakua,

There was no "tone" whatsoever. I stated it as a mere observation. You are familiar with the term ? projection?

"Some" refers to those who visit this site out of curiosity, and also to members who are less vocal about their own political ideologies. These include persons of different political persuasions, including (believe it or not) conservatives, moderates, independents, etc. When such a person sees the consistently inane Bush hating crap that goes on here, it's likely they'll prejudge the entire community as a closed society of liberals. It is evident, at least to myself, that if one takes a stand that is in anyway distinctly non-liberal, they are treated as the enemy. One only needs see the hostility Val has demonstrated to understand what I'm saying. However, not all are so outspoken. Many more just put such a one on mental ignore; even when such a one tries to engage them in simple non-political matters. Factionalism by any other name is a still a discriminatory clique. And it is these same people who moan and whine about unfair discrimination, which of course is Bush's fault too.

Can you understand how "some" would choose to go their way and not bother to join or participate in such a community as this? No doubt, that would make a few here happy, but it doesn't make it right.

Candid

[candid]

Martin, that is so unfair. Granted, most who are interested in the more esoteric wings of spirituality lean toward the left. But to automatically assume that anything other is synonymous with Christian fundamentalism is really living within your own closed mind. Is this any less dogmatic than a "right-winged Christian fundamentalist??

Polemic pepper? Why? Because I state what isn't popular here? So did Socrates, Jesus and Gandhi. What's your point?

[hilary]

Hm... I'd have thought it was more 'normal' in Europe to associate Christianity with the left? Or maybe that's just the Church of England, whose representatives often make liberal noises.

I can't remember the details, but there was a news story when I was small about Margaret Thatcher giving a talk to some gathering of church leader) (maybe Scottish ones?), and being presented afterwards with helpful leaflets about Christian ethics. That's the kind of thing I mean.

[sparhawk]

Candid, you are just jealous... With Kerry gone and Republican control of both the Senate and the House you have nothing good to pick your teeth with. Nobody to focus some healthy "bashing". On the other hand, hey!, Bush-Bashing IS what we on the other side are left with. We have foder for fun and grief for years to come. So, eat your heart out!! http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif LOL

For the informed "United Liberals" of this forum, here are some links... http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif


Interesting article. On Bush hating (http://interestingtimes.typepad.com/interesting_times/2004/08/on_bushhating.html)

All Hat No Cattle (http://www.allhatnocattle.net/)

Bush Hating resources (http://politicalhumor.about.com/cs/antibush/)

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/786/2881.jpg

Luis

PS: BTW, I agree with Martin's assessment. There is a pattern of liberal thinking among people that leans towards spiritual pursuits. Conservatives have more of a tendency towards fundamentalist thinking (i.e. Christian, Muslim, or whatever)

[sparhawk]

BTW, I stress the word "PATTERN". It does not mean there are no exceptions. I would certainly recognize one such an exception in you, Candid. If you see yourself as a Conservative, that is.

Luis

[candid]

Hilary, I believe your observation is correct, even today, even within our current time, and even in the US. There are several denominations which are equally divided in their political census.

I feel that the entire Christian faith is too often lumped into one mindless ball of human distinction. I personally know Christians who are warm and deeply compassionate human beings. And they are not shallow by virtue of their faith. Yet they are often automatically categorized as gun-toting, bible-thumping, knuckle-dragging sub-humans, by those who see through the crack of a door.

[candid]

Luis, see what assumptions you?ve made? It?s obvious you have never heard me confront ?the right? with equal conviction, and a plea for equanimity.

[martin]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

But to automatically assume that anything other is synonymous with Christian fundamentalism ..<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey! I didn't say that! I talked in terms of correlations. It's a statistical thing. A (significant) correlation between A and B only means that A and B go together more often than could be expected based on mere chance. It doesn't mean that they always go together. It's only a tendency. For example, according to the medics there is a correlation between smoking and heart diseases. Yet many smokers don't have problems with their heart and many people who have a heart disease don't smoke.

No polemic pepper? Well, sorry, must have been my projection then. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif
And popular, unpopular, I don't care, please speak!

[sparhawk]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

It?s obvious you have never heard me confront ?the right? with equal conviction, and a plea for equanimity.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alas, Candid, you are correct... You must be saving the best for last... http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

Yet they are often automatically categorized as gun-toting, bible-thumping, knuckle-dragging sub-humans,<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm a Christian. Apostolic Roman Catholic, to be specific. Of course, a very liberal one at that (for example I defend a woman's right to choose what to do with their bodies, from tatoos to piercing to whatever they carry in their spare room). It goes to show that within the flock there are many shades of grey.

My issue is, of course, not with the warm and compassionate ones. It is with those that you can see and prove that are "gun-toting, bible-thumping, knuckle-dragging sub-humans".

Luis

[martin]

I agree Hilary, there is a "left" current in European Christianity. Or at least, there was.
My impression is that this current was quite strong in the seventies and eighties and that it has become much weaker since then.
But as I already said, "left" and "right" are vague terms. And, yes Candid, what is "Christian"?

[candid]

Luis, sorry to disappoint you. There is no best for last. This is the position I've held for several years, consistantly. I've been classified as a neo- conservative for not buying in wholesale to what you call "United Liberals" of this forum, and elsewhere. There are fewer cases, though no less accurate, where I've been called a left wing liberal, by the extreme right. In fact, it's ironic that my interest in I Ching is sometimes sited as defining my liberalism. Which is also nonsense.

[candid]

Martin, what is a Taoist? A Buddhist? A Muslim? A Jew? Can you define a person by their concept of God so easily? I can't.

[martin]

I can't even define myself and why should I?
My spiritual background is Sufism, am I a Sufi?
Nowadays I feel very much at home in the world of Zen. But I never practised Zen. Am I a Zen Buddhist?
Go figure! http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

[sparhawk]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

In fact, it's ironic that my interest in I Ching is sometimes sited as defining my liberalism.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aha!! There you go. That was the point I was trying to make on perceptions. Thank you! http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

Your question to Martin: <BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

Can you define a person by their concept of God so easily?<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think anybody can when it comes to individuals. For a bigger statistical set there is a word that gives an accurate approximation:

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

Main Entry: dog&middot;ma
Pronunciation: 'dog-m&amp;, 'd&auml;g-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog&middot;ma&middot;ta /-m&amp;-t&amp;/
Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem -- more at DECENT
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

Luis

PS: the moment we start being called "Yijingists" I'm leaving this forum. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

[martin]

To be a cat or not to be a cat, that is not the question, said the cat.
The question is, are you a mouse or are you not a mouse?

[sparhawk]

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/786/2883.jpg

[candid]

Luis,

"Aha!! There you go. That was the point I was trying to make on perceptions. Thank you!"

You're welcome. It also makes my point: Both sides are prejudiced.

[sparhawk]

Ah, the "P" word... So true. It has a bigger scope than mere liberal/conservative antics...

[sparhawk]

I was just reading "Wonkette" (http://www.wonkette.com/) and found this article on a link:

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

SCRIBE GETS TO THE POINT

December 2, 2004 -- BILIOUS Brit writer Christopher Hitchens has been asked to lecture U.S. military offi cers-in-training at West Point. The Vanity Fair columnist, a reformed leftist who backed George Bush's re-election and who now sup ports the war on terror, will be speaking at the famed military academy on the subject of "Iraq, Afghanistan and democracy in both places," he tells PAGE SIX. Hitchens, who attacks the likes of Bill Clinton, Mar tha Stewart, Michael Moore, Mel Gib son and Mayor Bloomberg in his new book, "Love, Poverty and War," says he was very surprised by the invitation. "I thought, 'Surely the U.S. military can't be in that much trouble,' " he quips. "Is it a great country, or what? Actually, I think it's an honor, especially now. This is the next generation of American offi cers." Hitchens says the academy of fered him a "nominal" fee for the lec ture, which he has asked to be donated to a fund for soldiers' widows and orphans.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, pay attention to the nice of choice of words: "reformed leftist" Akin to what? Reformed alcoholic? Reformed gambler? Reformed drug adict? A "prodigal son" coming back to the flock?

Luis

[candid]

Since I posted to this thread yesterday, I've received 3 virus infected emails. A rarity. All were trapped or deleted, thankfully. Upon tracing the domain origin of these malicious mailings, only this site appeared: http://pacificcoast.net/~wh/Index.html Just a coincidence, I guess. Uh huh. Hence, my email will be removed from my profile. That's a shame because the free private readings I've been doing for former Anons here will no longer be available to them.

[pakua]

""Some" refers to those who visit this site out of curiosity, and also to members who are less vocal about their own political ideologies"

Ahh, a third possibility I hadn't even considered. If I understand you correctly now, you're trying to protect the forum, so that "others" don't get the wrong impression of us.

But you see, if you're going to make such a negative remark, and then be vague about your intended audience, it leaves things wide open to be mis-interpreted and mis-understood.

"You are familiar with the term ? projection? "

I suppose you don't think there's any tone here either. The way you say this, it's like you're talking down to me. I use this phraseology when I'm trying to make someone look stupid.

"Polemic pepper? Why? Because I state what isn't popular here?"

I doubt anyone here cares about what is popular or not. Most of the people here are intelligent and tolerant. After all, they study a weird thing called IC!!!

The issue is how one says it, not so much what it is.

[candid]

Ah, yes, the intent over content reasoning. When you can't argue the content, attack the intent, which you're really not qualified to do, Pakua.

[candid]

Anyway, no point continuing in this thread. It'll only go in circles.

Peace,

Candid

[martin]

Still wondering about what the Yi was saying, 1 to 7.
1, wonderful hexagram but it lacks receptivity. It doesn't listen.
7, the army, the masses, mass psychology?
The mass mind - easy to hypnotize, thoughts are replaced by slogans and simplistic labels, and it's WE against THEM.
What is behind it? The desire to belong, probably - the I feels isolated and wants to dissolve in a WE.
It there was no THEM, no common enemy, it would be perfect, WE are all ONE.
As it is, the common enemy is still needed, not for us Yijingists of course, but for the masses, for THEM ..

Where are you, aliens? Please attack us, we need you ...

[pakua]

Candid,

Attack? That's too strong a word. I didn't intend an attack.

Just relating how your words make me feel - sometimes they make my spirit soar, and other times they create dis-harmony and hurt.

(and don't go quoting 61.3 to me) http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[candid]

Pakua, it seems you have selective compassion. Why have you not criticized others here who's views you share, who's words were hurtful to me? Have I sent virus infected emails to anyone here because I disagree with their views? Have I lashed out, or shouted obscenities to anyone here?

I have no idea what you're referring to concerning 61.3. I've notice you've posted a 61, all lines changing, question elsewhere. Perhaps this is what you see in what I've said? Isn't that projection?

[candid]

Martin, what is the context of 1-7? I scrolled back but couldn't find it mentioned previously.

However, here's a note I've written into my own 1.6:
?What is one opinion compared with the rest? It is still just one opinion, flying high like an arrogant dragon.?

[pakua]

Candid,

re 61.3 I got this line this past summer (with my girlfriend), and I felt it so strongly, that it still seems fresh in my mind. It has to do with being dependent on others, not having a stable enough centre. I recognise that in myself. Your words affect me strongly, as I mentioned above, so I thought of the earlier 61.3 situation.

The 61 question in the other thread is another matter altogether.

As to me criticizing others, give it time http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif
(I have lots of Virgo, I can't help it)

The times I pointed out to you when I felt you were creating dis-harmony, it seemed to me that you initiated it, (eg the frog comment?) and then people responded in the same vein. Once harmony is disturbed, it takes some effort to get it back.

Perhaps, as one of the elder statesmen here, and also because of your skill with words, you don't realize the strong effect you have?

[candid]

Pakua,

Perhaps I don't realize it. But does that mean I should not speak what I believe to be right? Must I temper my words to the extent that they become palatable pabulum so as not to rock the boat? If my ideas are different from the mass, does that mean I shouldn't speak them? Must I walk on egg shells while others crush my own ideals underfoot? That's not how I am, for better or worse. I believe that being true to one's own principles and nature is what Yi teaches, and it is something I will never relinquish to pander to popular opinion. If that makes me an arrogant dragon, then that's what I am.

[martin]

1-7 came up here (http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/786/2882.html?1102007254#POST24801), Candid.

[sparhawk]

<CENTER><FONT SIZE="+2"><FONT COLOR="ff0000">Watch out!!!</FONT></FONT></CENTER>

<CENTER>http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/786/2885.gif</CENTER>

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

If that makes me an arrogant dragon, then that's what I am.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never arrogant! No se&ntilde;or. More like:

<CENTER>http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/786/2886.gif</CENTER>

LOL


Signed,

The Cat

<CENTER>http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/786/2887.jpg</CENTER>

[rinda]

TEAPOT thinking, (as in tempest in a ...)

"Those
Evil
Awful
People
Over
There"


Rinda

[candid]

Martin, oh, I gotcha now. Thanks. 1 is severe energy. The lines: energy rises to extreme. 7, gather forces and prepare to work. A teapot battle. Perfect!

Luis, you hit it square on with the affectionate dragon. My "tone" is not how it's perceived most of the time here, at all. It amazes me to see things projected behind my words that simply do not exist. I've been everything from a passive aggressive to an arrogant dragon. But in reality, I just have a dry way of presenting certain things. But I hug a lot and laugh a lot too. I save my licks for discrete others though, and they're not knights. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

[candid]

I suppose I need more grace; and frankly, I find that very annoying in itself: that anyone has to put on a face in order to be liked. Confucius, as you know, was big on face. I wonder if he ever went through a period of being too honest with people? Life has no face but that which is natural and real. It's not an especially kind face either. Sometimes it's mean and ugly, in fact. But that doesn't make life mean or ugly. It just appears that way sometimes.

[jeanystar]

The risk of being wholly onesself is that others may:
misunderstand,
get put off,
get offended,
love your honesty,
strike out at you,
see you as eccentric, mean, ugly...blah blah blah

If you are a salesman, it makes sense to put on the face that will win friends and influence people. If you are wrting on a discussion board, maybe its all a matter of what you are willing to bare, as well as bear from others.

One thing i feel though is that the voices on this board who take care to be consistently kind and good-mannered are very appreciated. KIndness is a supreme virtue. Is that a "face" they put on, or is it them being real? Could be both. BUt I like it, either way.

I am not saying I have ever heard you as unkind, Candid. YOu are unabashedly you. That is a also admirable.

[candid]

Jeanystar, you're right.

When you persevere with great effort to let down so that "it" can "see" out, that also lets down so that external elements can find their way in. Having gone through a recent milestone 49, the new skin is thinner than I'd realized. It has to be to see out from the unborn thing. What I didn't reckon with was how much more of what is outside would be allowed in. I'm pretty amazed at how affected I am by all this. I will work on that.

I had hoped to make a simple point. I've made it before, and I think that's what gets people so ticked off. I don't give my time and energy to this forum for anything other than exchange among those who share interest in the I Ching. The very last thing I want to see here is partisan politics, regardless what ?room? it?s in. I assumed, correctly or incorrectly, that at least a few others felt the same way but were just too timid to say so, especially in light of the militancy that's guards this unholy topic here. Aren?t there enough political boards to voice opinions about these things, out there? I resent it being here. That?s the naked truth.

Thanks for your understanding response. Very appreciated.

Candid

[martin]

Candid, I don't understand, where are those people that got 'ticked off'? Don't know what that means exactly, irritated? In this thread only Val expressed irritation, as far as I remember.
Are you perhaps referring to something that happened in the past?

[candid]

Martin, it isn't important, and I really don't wish to go on about the personal aspect of this. I've already bared my soul enough. Is there something you can say to my point?

[rinda]

Dragons are amongst my very favorite folk...

Rinda

[martin]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

Is there something you can say to my point?<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think you have made several points, Candid.
Bush is not a demon, walking on eggs, arrogance, the face of Confucius, the tone of a post and how it's perceived, ...
But it's all somehow related. One can project nearly everything on a post as well as on mr. president. Mr. president is a projection screen that is walking on eggs all the time. Sounds complicated? It probably is ..
Posters - some try to be as sincere as they can be and to come across as 'themselves', others are deliberately creating an internet personality that has very little to do with what they are in real life. Still others are somewhere in between these two extremes.

As you might have guessed, I belong to one of the extreme poles, yes, I "am" an internet personality, quite consistent (always more or less the same face) but still a complete fake. You should also try it. It's great fun. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

[sparhawk]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

I "am" an internet personality, quite consistent (always more or less the same face) but still a complete fake.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, God!!! Not you Martin! I can't take it anymore!

Man, you can't do that to the rest of us. Who's going to take me seriously now when I offer passionately wild sex?? http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

[candid]

I give up.

[dij]

hey Candid, I like you as you are. I might disagree with your opinions on occasion but I really like and appreciate you in your many faceted ways. It would be awfully dull without you. You just have to accept the ..uh..how do you say....yin of your yang? well, something like that

[candid]

Thanks Dij, appreciate that. I'm learnin'.

[pakua]

Candid,

No, to all your questions. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

I didn't mean you should do any of the things the way you asked them. It reminds me of when I was in a counselling situation a few years back, and the fellow suggested to me, I should express myself in such a way that my wife would be able to feel safe in responding to me, so that she wouldn't react so negatively. I then said to him almost verbatim all the things you just said to me above. At the time, I thought something about why should I change myself to suit her? Looking back at myself now, I think the truth is, I just didn't want to. I think now if I had felt more loving or kind, I would have wanted to. Even from simply a practical point of view, I would have gotten more of what I wanted.

I think now, I could have changed the words and expressions (not always, but certainly more often) so they wouldn't evoke defensiveness, or anger, or whatever. (And of course, if I had been smart enough to make use of IC before responding emotionally myself, that would have been good). I think that's one of the positive aspects of communicating in a text forum as this - one can check in to see what's happening if one feels an emotional response, before one posts. Good for practising, which isn't often possible in the "real" world.

Maybe it's just me, but I see one of the main uses of IC as maintaining harmony. To say what you want and be who you are, but in a way that maintains harmony, both within and without.

I'm reminded of what Demitra said in her last post, something like "if you had only said it like that the first time". But then, I can say that about myself millions of times too.

[candid]

Pakua, just to make sure you understand, my tone isn't angry or upset. I'm just being a bit facetious here to illustrate a point.

What if I were to say to you, Pakua, I think you are going too far out of your way to be polite and always appear like a ?nice guy?. I think it matters too much to you what people think of you and your manners. I think you're too concerned about being liked. Try speaking more from your gut level without the sugar coating. I think you equate being nice with being a superior man, and I think you would be a more effective communicator if you made these personality adjustments.

a) Do I really have the right to tell you how I think you should act and speak?
b) Am I qualified to modify your personality and presentation here?
c) Am I qualified to psychoanalyze you and your intent?

Do you see what I?m saying? I am who I am. I don?t expect everyone to like me or my ways. I?m not always right. I?m not here to win anyone?s approval. But this is the way I am. Sure, I can improve myself. We all can. I doubt there?s anyone here who is more self-examining or self-correcting than I am. I know for sure that I am more forgiving than many, especially more than some of my critics.

Be true to yourself. I will do the same.

Peace,
Candid

[pakua]

Candid,

To respond to your second part first, although you make good points, remember that the situation developed first, and then I commented on the situation, and it progressed in a logical fashion from there. But that's probably enough on that topic.

Your other thought about being "nice" or not, and the superior man, is interesting. How do you read the difference between 50.5 and 50.6?

I had been thinking that a big difference between 50.5 and 50.6, is that when 50.6 speaks, it is with jade, in other words, he's kinder and gentler ("nicer") than 50.5. 50.3 gets the timing wrong, and is too forceful.

It seems to me that the superior man is nicer than other men, not the "nice guy" that you mentioned, but a really really Nice Guy.

Who wants to hear "you idiot, smarten up and get a grip". Not very "nice" http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

I know that sometimes the Master smacks the student, but I think those are the exceptions, and he probably knows what he's doing, whereas the rest of us don't.

[candid]

LOL! I don't know. If someone I trusted, and who actually knew me said, "you idiot, smarten up and get a grip", when it applied, I'd thank him for his candor. That's the difference between us, Pakua. My superior man isn't your superior man. You don?t follow mine and I don?t follow yours.

Wonderful! An I Ching question/topic!

To me,

50.5 is about functionality. There's nothing superfluous or ornamental. It is real and it is pure.

50.6 adds to this an appearance which is pleasing and inviting to the eyes of men. This makes it also pleasing to the gods.

Both are acceptable offerings in the eyes of the gods. And remember, what is admired by one is uncomely to another. Some people prefer function over form.

For me, 5 is for people. 6 is reserved for deity.

[candid]

Think of it this way. The church grounds-keeper works to have the church ready for Sunday worship. The priest conducts the mass in his impressive robes. Which of the two serves their God and parish more?

[dij]

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif


You guys aren't trying to make thin man and fat man wear the same robe, are you?

(figuratively speaking, I hasten to add)

[candid]

Some believe in Superman, Dij.

[martin]

This begins to sound like a conversation between somebody who believes in hierarchy (Pakua: the superior man, the Master and the rest of us) and somebody who does not believe in it or less so (Candid: "which of the two serves their God and parish more?").

[martin]

Yeah Candid. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

[candid]

Superior Man. What a loaded word. I'm not an authenticator of ancient Chinese anything, but I'm certain that word isn't intended at it's often interpreted today. High and low, yes. High and low are measurable on about any level of thought. ?This serves me better than that.? Yes. Some things are more helpful to living happily.

But to be fair, if it is someone's nature during a particular part of their life to strive for perfection, it is helpful to hold to a hierarchy. It provides a measuring stick to record their progress.

I personally believe that at some point the stick is no longer useful, because the manner of growth is not linearly divided. To even try and measure defeats the entire premise of liberation.

[bradford_h]

I don't know how many times this has to be said,
but nobody seems to be capable of hearing it:

The term Superior Man does not occur in the Yijing.
This is just a really Stupid translation of Junzi.
Jun means Noble. Zi means Young Person or Child,
and an endearment like the Japanese suffix -San.
Eventually, but centuries later in Kongzi's time, it meant Sir.
The word for Superior is Shang. Common is Xiao.
Inferior is Fei. Man is Ren.

[candid]

Thanks, Brad. It just sounds better coming from you. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

[bradford_h]

Maybe a whole chorus will get through.

And I'm not at all opposed to the concept of superior people. We desperately need humans evolving much further, into something vastly superior to us.
And as a philosphy major, my favorite of all was Nietzsche, so I devoured everything he wrote on the Ubermensch at least twice.
But if the authors of the Yi had meant to say Superior Man, they would have written Shang Ren, not Junzi.
In the Da Xiang especially, where the term is most often used, the words are directed to the impressionable "Young Nobles" consulting the Yi for its ethical insruction (didn't say moral).
The Junzi was someone with great potential to do good in the world, given the capability to heed good advice.

[candid]

Nietzsche, now there was a polite, congenial and accommodating fellow.

[martin]

Ah yes, Junzi - noble child, young noble. That sounds much better.

[bradford_h]

And best of all it gives the young feller lots of room to grow.

[heylise]

There are two terms in the Yi, on is the Junzi, the noble one. Brad is right about zi meaning young, but I remember a TV series, 'Are you being served', in a warehouse called The Grace Brothers. Now and then young mister Grace came in, looking like a tiny brittle ages old fossil, but he was 'young mister Grace', until the end of his days.
I think the zi has a similar meaning. The chief or emperor, or the father of the family, or the leader of the army, has a son who continues his leadership, a heir. This son has the responsibility to continue in the spirit of the father, as good, and possibly even better. He has to keep the inheritance intact or expand it, and to look after all involved. He cannot follow his own pleasures, he has a higher duty. So zi has most of all its meaning of seed, son, offspring.
zi n. son; child; offspring, (hist.) master (title of respect), person, seed, egg, viscount, copper coin; copper, first of the 12 Earthly Branches, cartridge, female dragonfly, adj. young; tender; small, m. (for bundle/hank/etc.) pr. (wr.) you

Then there is the Da Ren, the big man. Superior, great, many different translations, but da is simply big. So he can just as well be your 6 foot neighbor, and the Yi advises you to see him, when the other neighbor threatens to beat you up. He is the one who is good at something, but that can be very different things. Wise, strong, clever, dexterous. Big does not necessarily mean big size, when you lost your key and you need someone who can climb in through the toilet window, then your 'daren' might be your small agile child. And in order to solve a problem, or summon your courage, or conquer your selfishness, your DaRen has his seat in your own head, certainly when there is nobody around who can help you.

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/786/2898.gif
ShiJing 189, verse 7
The chief diviner will divine them.
The bears and grisly bears,
Are the auspicious intimations of sons.
The cobras and [other] serpents,
Are the auspicious intimations of daughters.

Here DaRen is translated as 'chief diviner'.

In the Yi the Junzi is the one who works on himself. He examines himself, he changes like a leopard, he has determination, he walks in the rain. The Da Ren does not change or anything else, he just is Da Ren. You have to find him.

LiSe

[heylise]

In hex.36.5: Jizi, prince Ji. When he had to hide his brightness he was already a venerable old gentleman, one of the advisors of the emperor.

LiSe

[candid]

LiSe, this is a really interesting view, in that you present a distinction between that which is measurable/comparable (Da Ren) and that which is always changing (Junzi). It seems the Junzi would use the Da Ren as a means to grow, express, protect or actualize, much as a man would use a ladder to change a light bulb, or a weapon to defend.

[lindsay]

Yes, this is very helpful. While we have our experts looking in -- Brad and LiSe -- I wonder if they would care to comment on Xiao Ren, "little man". Sometimes it is translated as simply the "common" or "ordinary" person, but other times translators indicate it refers to "petty" or "mean" or generally rude, ignorant, and stupid people. Not to contradict LiSe, of course, but I think there may be a value judgment in the Yi between the Da or "big" man and the Xiao or "small" man. It is not impossible that - from the viewpoint of the Yi's authors - common or ordinary people were slightly contemptible. It is not difficult to find elsewhere in the Yi assumptions based on the hierarchy of class. So while the junzi was doubtless a noble fellow, he got that way by being born to the right parents in the right family. I'm not at all sure the Yi is a proletarian document, comrades! What do you think?

[lindsay]

Yes, here it is in Chapter 10 in the lost commentary of Linzi: "One daren is worth twelve xiaoren, but a junzi is way better than a whole flock of darens."

[lindsay]

Oh, this too: I have observed that Nietzsche is quite popular with people who - in some small, modest way, of course - see a bit of themselves in the ubermensch. He's not a bestseller among the underdogs.

[pakua]

"Which of the two serves their God and parish more? "

It's not really the right question. They both serve according to their own ability.

Who has the capacity to serve a wider group of people? Who will be listened to with more depth and understanding? Who will influence other lives more, for the better?

Assuming a "good" sagely priest, and a "good" sagely groundskeeper, I suspect the former, simply because he's more in tune and can communicate better. (assuming the priest is 50.6 in your example, and the groundskeeper is 50.5)

[sparhawk]

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

"One daren is worth twelve xiaoren, but a junzi is way better than a whole flock of darens."<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very funny, Lindsay. http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

I like LiSe's interpretation of Junzi. It speaks of learning, legacy and passing the torch to the next worthy disciple.

In any case, IMHO, we are running around in circles here, trying to figure out the intention of the original writers of the Yi text. We are not only trying to translate Chinese to English, we trying to alphabetize imagery. Why are there so many art critics with so many different takes on any given art piece, specially when the artist is long gone to ask about his inspiration?? Sometimes, even if the artist is still alive it is difficult and irritating for him to explain himself something that should be obvious for somebody with a pair of eyes and brain in between. I'm sure LiSe knows a bit about what I'm saying http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif. The point is, something very important will be lost in the translation... The solution that works for me is to see the Yi as art and keep intuitively abstracting those concepts. Mere reasoning does not work for me. It must feel right within the context of a question posed to the Yi. But, that's me, of course...

Luis

[lindsay]

Sorry, Luis, but I'm not asking anyone to fly in the thin air of abstract reason here. God forbid we should use our neocortexes! What I am suggesting is a little historical contextualization. LiSe seems to be very big on this with her etymological speculations, but it might be useful to review the history of Zhou society before getting too fuzzy-wuzzy about the ethical nobility of the junzi.

[candid]

Pakua, if this idea of good and bad satisfies your need for superiority, then I'm happy you are satisfied. Just try to appreciate that it's too limited and narrow for me to exist fully in.

[rinda]

Pak, I think the point is that they are interdependent... To try to say which is superior may be a category error.

Rinda

[bradford_h]

Hey Lindsay-
Before we get into this, would you mind terribly reposting the start of this topic (12-7, "yes, this s very helpful...) on its own thread? Maybe "The Common Man"
I think it's one of the most important topics that's been opened in a while and it deserves its own thread for future reference. Meanwhile I'll be jotting some abstract reasoning down.

[sparhawk]

Got ya, Lindsay. It certainly helps. Actually, what I had in mind was what you just said in another thread (something that I agree with):

<BLOCKQUOTE><HR SIZE=0><!-Quote-!><FONT SIZE=1>Quote:</FONT>

Finally, in the last few years, Westerners are saying serious and important things about the Yi in plain language. The Yi has become so compelling for us that we can discuss it without always referring to some other frame of reference, without dressing it up in borrowed clothes. Finally it is no longer necessary to justify studying the Yi by deriving every scientific, religious, and philosophic idea and principle from it.<!-/Quote-!><HR SIZE=0></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's more like it...

L

[sparhawk]

I second Brad on that topic! Good observation, Lindsay.

L

[candid]

Seconds appreciating Lindsay's idea, and beginning a new thread on the Common Man.

[candid]

oops, thirds the idea http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/paperbag.gif

[sparhawk]

Computer lag, Candid... http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/biggrin.gif

[pakua]

Candid, I don't really know where you're coming from now.

I meant the term "good" in the sense of both people who were good in their roles, so that we were working on a level playing field ie not comparing a stupid priest and a wise groundskeeper

I didn't say or imply anything about good and bad in the sense of moral or ethic (as far as I know)


Rinda, I don't think I meant either was superior. I said, who had more capacity or influence? I suppose you may be right, that implies superiority. I think I just meant, the one (priest) has more value for more others.

But, doesn't Yi look more favourably on 50.6, compared to 50.5?

[candid]

Pakua,

"doesn't Yi look more favorably on 50.6, compared to 50.5?"

I don't believe Yi looks more favorably upon one child than the other. One may have more access. That's the only difference.

[candid]

Pakua, let me clarify what I think you may have interpreted as some kind of ?put down?. First, a put down is only perceived when one is concerned about their status as being superior or inferior. If you live where you are these are not equations to even be concerned with. Using a linear means to determine your self-worth leads to all sorts of difficulties to be reckoned with. Questions such as: Am I good enough? Am I worthy of...? How do I compare with...? What is my status among...? arise through comparisons which are completely relative in scope.

When you draw an analogy of 50.5 and 50.6, and then use them to measure the value between two people, you completely miss the context of these lines. No one is either one line or the other. Everyone passes through each at some time or another. Even when comparing the principles, leaving out the persons in question, you delineate value based not upon a natural cyclic process, but upon how good or bad the line is, therefore how good or bad you are at a given time.

When you are traveling to a destination and reference your road map, and you see that you are on a road leading you off course, do you say ?this is an inferior path?? Do you call yourself an inferior navigator? Or, do you simply make the most effective course correction, and move on toward your destination? Furthermore, if someone else takes a different road to get to the same destination; say the more scenic route that takes an additional three hours to arrive, would you compare the two routes in terms of superior or inferior? Or do they simply each accomplish the journey according to what meets the traveler?s individual criteria for a satisfying trip?

The only time such comparisons are useful is in competition, where you desire a particular result, based on you being better than your opponent or competitor. This could be in a foot race or in a battle for your life. Outside this relative sphere such comparisons are meaningless.

[pakua]

Candid,

I take your point, but can't putdowns also occur when one is not in the correct place, and also for no reason at all?

I do agree that the worth of the two persons involved, from a human point of view, is certainly equal. The peasant certainly has as much value as the emperor. They each do what they can.

My point was in the value of what each can contribute. A priest can help thousands more than the groundskeeper, just like (it seems to me) 50.6 has more potential to effect greater results than 50.5. Why does 50.6 have great good fortune, but not 50.5?

When you say, Yi looks favourably on all her children, are you saying all lines have an intrinsic equality? What about a line that shows imbalance, misfortune, being in the wrong place, lack of this or that, etc? Let's not use the word "bad", but it's not correct either. Even Yi says, this line does not further.

"how good or bad the line is, therefore how good or bad you are at a given time. "

I don't conciously use the terms good and bad, I would prefer to say appropriate or inappropriate. But still, if I'm in the wrong place at the wrong time, usually negative feelings come up, whether I call it bad or just inappropriate. And of course, I still sometimes think I'm a lousy navigator - too busy watching the scenery http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/clipart/happy.gif

[pakua]

Candid,

"I don't believe Yi looks more favorably upon one child than the other. One may have more access. That's the only difference. "

And what did you mean by "more access"? Did you mean being more in tune with Tao? That would be why there's more good fortune?

[candid]

Pakua, imo:

Access isn't always achieved from the top. Nor is it always achieved through sincerity. Access is having the right key to fit into the right lock, which is determined by the time. Every received line holds the key to understanding the answer to your question. It's just a matter of fitting it into the lock. Better access is being prepared to process the answer accurately. That requires an uncompromising willingness to see things as they actually are. This brings good fortune.

And as for good fortune, if being close to Tao is what one desires at a given time, then yes, it would be seen as fortunate. But it could also be a great disappointment if one wanted something other, such as status or a shiny new car. In this case, 50.6 would illustrate a corrective measure, not a pat on the back of approval.

[pakua]

Candid,

"the right key to fit into the right lock, which is determined by the time."

It certainly seems as if the time is everything. If the time is right, and you hold the key, you can do anything - even if it's something nefarious? Bush seems to have done the right thing at the right time. But then, so did Hitler, for a while.

"willingness to see things as they actually are. "

I am completely willing - it's just these damn illusions that get in the way sometimes! And then, sometimes my eyes don't work so well.

"In this case, 50.6 would illustrate a corrective measure, not a pat on the back of approval. "

Hmm, nothing can be taken at face value. That changes my outlook. I'll need to think more about that.

[candid]

Pakua,

I think you've got what I'm trying to say. Though you know I'm not fond of political analogies, yours works. Good and evil, what tales they tell. And which was right, and for whom? Can I judge? Will I fight if called? These are ancient questions.

On illusions. I understand what you mean, and prefer to call mine 'my myth'. The reason is that even the word "illusion" creates an adversarial relationship with it: the good/bad syndrome. Myth, on the other hand, is an alliance with these phantoms. It gives them a rightful place to exist, creatively. More shaman approach than Bodhisattva, if there really is a difference.

I think some things are better when taken at face value. One of those is the face of someone who seems to oppose you. What we read into that face is usually our own shadow. Not always, but usually.

And, you are right of course. The supreme is at the top of 50. What is pure? hmm

By way of candid confession, let me offer the following:

The Yi seems to take us through various rites of passage, and one of them is the ?good guy phase". It's a result of a heart wanting to do good, and judging good by sincerity and accommodation. I believe Yi honors that, to a degree. But at some point we have to shake off all expectations of ourselves, give us some extra room to unfold. It's possible someone near us will get whacked in the face by a misguided flap of our new wings. If we spend that energy apologizing for it, we miss spreading them as wide as they will go. Eventually, wisdom is spawned through memory and experience, and we can withhold our expansiveness so as not to easily offend. I?m still learning that part.

I?ve enjoyed this exchange with you.

Candid

[pakua]

Candid, thanks, me too.

"...shake off all expectations of ourselves, give us some extra room to unfold"

you Taoist, you!