Inventing Twitter has become the worst thing I ever did in my life, and perhaps why I have felt such a strong social obligation to try and do something about it. — ernest meyer

Completely agree. Good point. I guess this is one of the worst inventions in our modern times. As you said, we have to do something because Twitter only knows agitate the masses causing them be so violent. Also this social media spread a lot of disinformation and fake news, this big issue here is that the people actually believe on it! I am so disappointed in my generation. It looks like there is not criteria and the new Cosmos or truth is Twitter.
But theses fatal issues are around the globe not only in USA.

I actually don't know much about Spain, and I am sorry to hear it is a problem there too. — ernest meyer

I lost all the hope in my own country and the citizens. I currently having a crisis of national identity.

Europeans don't have a problem with accepting the authority of scientists. — ernest meyer

Hmm... no. Here in Europe (I am from Spain) people give zero respect and acceptance to scientists. It is all about politics and money. We still waiting for Sputnik vaccine but the European Medicine Agency doesn’t want to. According to this context, you, in USA, are more free than us...

So I'm moving to Europe as soon as I can — ernest meyer

Depends a lot of the country. If you go to the north-European countries (we call them the eagles of Europe) or Nordic ones it is fine and acceptable because they still have civilisation. But please don’t make the stupid error of coming to Mediterranean countries just for the good weather. We are probably going to disappoint you. If you consider come to my backwards ass country you have to keep in mind that you will have less freedom than in USA. Trust I been in both countries and I know what I am talking about. Mediterranean/south Europe are not paradise.

Do you think we turn to falsehoods only because we are unprepared or scared to face the truths? — FlaccidDoor

Completely. They are always making up their reality just to confront themselves because the world outside is not for them or they do not want it. Sometimes, I defended this situation depending in someone circumstances but in the long run could be really dangerous if someone only live in a fantasy
As I already said with you previously, it is better to live the reality as it is. Doesn’t matter how painful or disastrous could be. I remember in my school back in the day, I used to build a fake fantasy imagining myself a life I completely will never get. When I started accepting this reality everything turned out perfectly.

They are all manifestations of fear. — James Riley

Not necessarily. Pessimism or nihilism can be connected to the feeling of not having hope about what the future holds but this context doesn’t make me have fear.

And that could very well be why it is you (the rational mind) that is beside yourself, mad, suffering from a grave (no pun intended) mental disease. That is not intended as an insult, any more than a rational mind might charge that breeding is insane, given the circumstances. However, maybe our circumstances are a result of the rational mind. — James Riley

I didn’t understand it as a insult. I really liked it and is a good explanation :100: :up:

And that there are only two feelings in life: Love and Fear. All other feelings are manifestations of one of those two. — James Riley

I don’t see the correlation between love and fear with feelings as uncertainty, pessimism, nihilism, etc... I guess love or fear are just emotions and depend about who is the person. You put as example your son. You had a lot of emotions about it. But they don’t come from love itself but the birth of your boy.
I don’t have kids yet neither a relationship. These two factors are supposed to be connected with love... this is why I don’t want them to exist.

Love doesn’t exist... also sacrifice whatever because of love is quite infantile.

love is a grave mental disease - Plato.

Love is a madness - Sócrates

Perhaps something like metaethics? I say metaethics because it does not seem to me to present practical actions or particular actions but rather attitudes and such. — BroAlex

Interesting. It is a very good point of view. I think fits what TTC actually means or at least the meaning.
What I pretended to do is defend that clearly TTC is so away of religion mysticism or whatever dogma because it is about (most of the verses) of self, thus, individual or individualism thinking. It is a way of put in practice some attitudes as you explained that not necessarily are connected with God...

I think calling the Tao "ultimate reality" is a reasonable interpretation. — T Clark

:up: :100:

Is Taoism a form of mysticism? — T Clark

No, completely not. As you shared with us, mysticism is another religious doctrine or way of living. Taoism is philosophy and self realisation. TTC is a tool where we can develop our knowledge and satisfaction in life without any kind of subterfuge. When Lao-Tzu wrote TTC he was explaining the Principle or the Tao. This a criteria that goes further than “God” or any type of mysticism because it doesn’t explain it like it is over us but how wisely we should take it.
I shared with you and @Amity @Possibility a lot of verses from TTC but I guess a good example of showing that is not mysticism is the following one:
Verse XI

Thirty spokes join in one hub
In its emptiness, there is the function of a vehicle
Mix clay to create a container
In its emptiness, there is the function of a container
Cut open doors and windows to create a room
In its emptiness, there is the function of a room
Therefore, that which exists is used to create benefit
That which is empty is used to create functionality

It is about emptiness, functionality, spaces, etc... all examples which are opposite of mysticism.

The pursuit or achievement of personal communion with or joining with God (or some other form of the divine or ultimate truth) — T Clark

I searched and found the same definition at RAE Misticismo. Real Academia Española

Reality is something that depends on us. Inside this complex paradigm we build our lives between truths and lies. I guess you cannot extract reality itself just to compare it with false or the absence of reality because we could end up in a strange circle of if in my world does not exist then is a lie.

In this way, a lie is just a slider that measure how close we are to the truth. — maytham naei

Interesting quote :up:

The moral law involves the "illegally irrelevant" distinction between good and evil. Just what a positivist would maintain. — Ciceronianus the White

I think these concepts are ambiguous but not irrelevant. It is like a metaphor of what is supposed to be good or bad acts. How to act like a formidable citizen.
Sometimes is difficult to encourage these situations. I guess in private law (civil) is easier because nobody can make an agreement which is against the law, moral and public order (Art. 1255 Código Civil. https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1889-4763)

We have to spread duties through laws because sadly human behaviour tend to be immoral. Here the problem, I guess, doesn't come from laws neither courts or jurists but ambitious politicians.
This is why I guess that we need to put necessarily moralism inner laws to reinforce the development of ethical/moral issues. But, the big problem here is that most of the cases governments need to directly buy it because they are afraid of how the law can go against them.

For example: If I steal your property is clearly an immoral act, even is not needed a law to say so. But, a backwards ignorant disturbed citizen like me does so. Then, this is why law is there to reinforce moral actions and protect the good citizens at courts.
Then, laws are a good mechanism the problem is the people or politicians.

what is the mechanism by which that connection is made? — Isaac

The progressive development of natural law into judicial moralism. Thus, the purpose of searching with jurisprudence the most morality solution to the law dilemmas.

No, we can neither expect nor demand respect for the law just because it has been promulgated, regardless of its content. What matters is not respect for this or that (often accidental) decision of the majority in a parliament or of a judge. Rather, what matters is respect for the moral law, which may or may not coincide with the positive law and which involves the legally irrelevant distinction between good and evil.

Leszek Kołakowski (1927-2009), "Crime and Punishment," Is God Happy? Selected Essays [Basic Books, 2013, p.236]

Lex mala, lex nulla -- A bad law is no law.

The law has nothing to do with morality...

isn't that obvious? — Banno

No. It is not. I guess law is literally the reinforcement of morality...


Men do not make laws. They do but discover them. Laws must be justified by something more than the will of the majority. They must rest on the eternal foundation of righteousness. That state is most fortunate in its form of government which has the aptest instruments for the discovery of law. [to the Massachusetts State Senate, January 7, 1914; boldface added]

An unjust law is no law at all" ["Letter from a Birmingham Jail," 1963; Lex injusta non est lex].

is it intelligent. — Don Wade

I think we can interpret those AI are intelligent because they have a very developed algorithm. They learn a lot of us and then keep our data to act more precisely the next time you asked them something.
So with these patterns I guess we can argue they are intelligent.

can we know that we aren't believing in falsehoods? Can the liars you mention, be believing in falsehoods that they misinterpret as truths? — FlaccidDoor

They are literally believing in falsehoods but they do not want interpret it as truths because probably this will so painful for them soy they rather live and believe in falsehoods.
If we can or not that actually we believe or not in falsehoods depends on us... and our sense of reality. I guess the key here is to find an equilibrium

This is just contradictory. You cannot put in one phrase truths and lies because they are supposed to be opposite

Doesn't that imply that if a falsehood can be believed in, then the truth no longer is needed? — FlaccidDoor

Probably, but falsehood is not connected with believe in due to are contradictory. I guess that truth and beliefs can be a good opposition against lies. Nevertheless, is upon every individuals of how they want to acknowledge it. There are a lot of people who literally live as liars and only lying. I think this is even an illness and they need psychological help

I think truth is not about philosophy but judicial moralism. If I am not wrong, philosophy was always there (apart from many criteria) to ensure and follow happiness. Truth can be just another path to get it but not the only one. You are asking why truth is useless because sometimes we need to lie... I guess this is why is important because we need to reinforce the good values despite sometimes we are not good enough.
You can see this clearly in judicial system or moralism. Truth is essential to believe in. Without it this power branch of the state collapse.
The truth will make you free...

So, I'm curious if you see a connection between the two, and, if so, what is the bridge? — duckrabbit19

There is a connection but just in behaviour. We are agree here that natural law comes first and then positive law. Nevertheless, they are connected because of structuralism. Thus, necessarily all the aspects in human nature needs to be performed in the system with a development.
Natural law is there and supposedly always been but we, citizens, transformed it to conventional law just to secure the application.

As much as systems enable, free, and empower us, they disable, enslave, and weaken us. — TheMadFool

:up: :100:



The best system is the education. We have to empower, develop and emphasised this issue. The future completely depends on it. I guess it is the worthy and necessary one.

I find it’s like a written piece of music. The notes are presented in a formal structure, and each note, bar, melody and movement has a certain quality that is laid out for the musician in the text. But each musician interprets it in their own way, and is under no obligation to even follow the formal structure precisely.

Interesting interpretation. I guess this happens with the most of the art that are so complex and abstract. When a piece of work can be interpreted furthermore than the original structure tend to pass a lot of generations or centuries because it can be interpreted depending in the era and social circumstances.
Nevertheless, we also have to keep in mind the original one.

The concept of anxiety by Søne Kierkegaard.

I checked it again and I see that, sadly, the opened text for translation or subtitles is not available. So I do not know how to help

Mandarin:
Tao Te Ching - Full Edition with Cartoon 中国国学-老子Laozi 道德经-动漫版全 dào dé jīnɡ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSk8yZaZRaA — Amity

It started with the story/legend of Tu-Fu! Pretty good. I liked it. I don’t know what it says but it is so interesting and beautiful lol.

Tao Te Ching - Read by Wayne Dyer with Music & Nature Sounds (Binaural Beats) 1hr 5 mins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73_Voet2fnc
I like it. Gentle sounds.
From Comment below the video:
You don't need to start with the beginning. You can literally play this from any point in the video and still gain something. I have a special liking for the second half which covers leadership and governance. — Amity

Thanks for sharing this links. Appreciated. :100:

Wow that’s so cool the machine thinking and acting cleverly than the human :100:

Basically, the tesseract (4D) is to a cube (3D) as the cube is to a square (2D), as the square is to a line (1D), and as the line is to a point. — Possibility

I understand it now. I really like your metaphor and it reminds me the cascade one but yours is more technical and specific. So I guess it is pretty to use too.
Well, inside TTC we can use as many as metaphors we could imagine because it is a really free interpretation poem.

I googled. First thing that came up was from wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract — Amity

Thanks I misspelled previously this is why a random tech word appeared.

Thanks :up:
I will try to resist the temptation to go on an Easter egg hunt. That's over — Amity

You are welcome :up:
I don’t think it is an Easter Egg because I guess it is just a random phrase by the author who translated. I start losing credibility in the book I have...

Personally, I understand the structure as more of a dimensional relation - like rendering a tessaract, but the metaphor is maybe not so pretty. — Possibility

This one sounds so interesting but I don’t get it because I don’t understand what is a tessaract. When I search in internet appears this: Tesseract is an optical character recognition engine for various operating systems. It is free software, released under the Apache License.Originally developed by Hewlett-Packard as proprietary software in the 1980s, it was released as open source in 2005 and development has been sponsored by Google since 2006

I guess I am in the wrong way because that is literally tech :rofl:

How interesting is that !
Can you copy the whole verse out to show where it appears in context ? — Amity

Look, here appears in my book. It is Spanish. But you can see it is in different context or probably he is saying goodbye because it is in parentheses... and then is when the verse starts. I refer the first paragraph, when the parentheses ends.

I was thinking not only of the material rungs but also the spaces between the rungs.
The rungs need the flow of space as well as the strength of the joints.
If the rungs are wide enough, they can hold more than one aspect of a type.
We are multifaceted beings - connected in space - — Amity

This point is so interesting! I didn’t notice it as this way. Now, as you explained the space between the rugs I see it differently too. It could be more complex ladder metaphor because somehow It passes to my mind the act of “climbing” and then, I thought that every paragraph was different p. But now, it is more clear about the space example or metaphor.

He presents the separate sayings as separate. He prefers real incongruity to contrived cohesiveness. — Amity

Yes. Agreed. Tao used to put this criteria to explain balance or equilibrium, etc...

For example, what are your thoughts on the recent debate regarding which metaphor is more useful or helpful - the ladder or the cascade ? — Amity

To be honest, I choose the cascade method because for me it is more useful. Probably because I saw explained it in the video you shared with me so I literally see TTC as cascade since that day. Ladder could be more difficult because steps could mean one phrase or verse are above or higher to another but I do not see it as that way. Also, I remember the conversation of Lao-Tzu with Tu-Fu. Here is when Lao explained that TTC, as water, flows over us during our lives. I guess this is why cascade metaphor is more accurate.

Is that why you picked out the final verse ? — Amity

To be honest I picked the final verse because there is a strange phrase (supposedly from Lao-Tzu) that I wanted to share but I don’t know their origin neither if it is verified. The phrase literally says: I have finished. Perhaps, you will find my discourse so rough, not subtle neither wisely.

This phrase randomly appears in my version but surprisingly I do not see it along internet so I don’t know if it is true at all...

What is sometimes called fallibilism — StreetlightX

Interesting. I want to read and check more about it. Thanks for sharing the link :cheer:

I would say judicial positivism.
"You call one of them, I presume, a virtue and the other a vice?" "Of course." "Justice the virtue and injustice the vice?"

Plato, The Republic, 348c, Plato V, Republic I, Books I-V, translated by Paul Shorey, Loeb Classical Library

I guess you could like check out this table of Freisan school about moralism and ethics (Key Distinctions for Value Theories.)



[img]http://

I have consistently found beliefs not backed by observation to be not reliable, so there is no contradiction. — John Chlebek

I guess your friend or mate was right in this sentence. I would sound quite empiricist but literally how can you have such beliefs when yo don’t even have a back to explain it. There are persons, atheists or whatever, that is not sufficient for them just say “I believe in it because I have faith” when it could sound even empty of content.
I guess difficult context as religion is upon the individual of each person who is free to think if it is a sufficient backed belief or not.

This quote of Wayfarer is interesting and I like it :100:

That would be empiricism, broadly speaking.

What you're getting at is close to the problem that emerged for verificationism. Verificationism was associated with positivism and the Vienna Circle during the mid 20th century. A J Ayer's Language Truth and Logic was a very influential book written on these principles, published 1936. It is a very tightly written and argued book. But the problems with positivism became evident over time, very much along the lines that you suggest - that verificationism is not itself an empirically verifiable principle. (Mind you putting it in these highly condensed and bald terms doesn't do justice to the scope of the debates about the subject). — Wayfarer

Seek a fairer game. Most are rigged with traps for honest people. — Zophie

Good quote :up: :100:

Why pick the arduous and painful paradigm when there are in principle an infinite number of hypotheses that can support any given observation? — Zophie

Could be but in the long run or most of the times the paradigm of pain tend to be in the most of the cases.

), is it at all worth rationalizing one's being? — Aryamoy Mitra

Despite the fact as you good explained previously that is painful rationalising one’s being, I guess it is worthy because at least we are more open minded. I rather live in a serious pain in my mind/awareness when I acquire then sense about myself.
It is true that all of those who never thought about this fact tend to be more happy because they do not think about all of the issues. Nevertheless, I guess it is worst living in a blind life than painful real one.
But this is just my thought...

Verse LXXXI (last one)


True words are not beautiful
Beautiful words are not true
Those who are good do not debate
Those who debate are not good.
Those who know are not broad of knowledge
Those who are broad of knowledge do not know
Sages do not accumulate
The more they assist others, the more they possess
The more they give to others, the more they gain
The Tao of heaven
Benefits and does not harm
The Tao of sages
Assists and does not contend

My own thoughts: modesty and kindness are the key words in this verse. If we put emphasis in how they want put a balance in the first phrases, we can clearly see how he promotes the development for all those who are not showing off their skills to others, because we should share our knowledge to others not because how wise we are but with our sense of humility. For this reason, the Tao says: Those who are good do not debate Those who debate are not good. Those who know are not broad of knowledge Those who are broad of knowledge do not know
Kindness because Tao goes for the principle of respecting every individual not making him feeling less than the Tao himself. This is why says: The Tao of heaven. Benefits and does not harm. The Tao of sages. Assists and does not contend

Derek Lin's interpretation says about this verse:
Sages have no need to accumulate worldly knowledge or goods, because they find contentment and abundance in helping and giving. The more they render assistance, the more fulfillment they possess; the more they give to people, the more blessings and wisdom they acquire.
Sages recognize that the positive, uplifting Tao of heaven benefits all living things and does not harm them. In emulating this, sages also seek to benefit others by helping them, and refrain from harming them with contention.