April 17, 2006

• Huh?
• I think the poster thinks the links are worthy of comment, but does not himself or herself feel up to the task. However, he or she trusts that there are those here who will comment appropriately, having read the links. I think we're onto something here--all the feeling of smartness and careful thinking, with none of the fuss! Hey, check it out: Peanut Butter defined.. On the arrival at peanut butter sandwiches. One is lost for comment but feels sure others will apply the appropriate. See? It's just that easy! I kid because I love. And because I'm a bastard.
• "All the other religions make claim to special divine revelation or they have requisite "holy" books" And without broad, sweeping generalizations too! Hmmm...Philosophical Taoism doesn't make that claim (quite the opposite in fact) and doesn't have any holy books, for one. I know Zen Buddism really doesn't. There are others.(But lots of folks seem to get stuck when it comes to non-theistic thought.) I like reading strike the root occasionally. I can't say I can support arguments such as "Where would the world be if it wasn’t for hate?" which involve the term "kosher plutocrats" et.al. It's absurd to the point of hilarity. Sounds like Robert Johnson is pissed that the folks at megahitsdirect.com don’t share his viewpoint. So? It’s their site. They could say they don’t like the letter “d” to appear in any words on their site because it’s hate speech or whatever. Rationality doesn’t enter into it. But summoning the gnomes of zurich conspiracy as a defense doesn’t lend credence that your position is any more rational.
• ...don't get me started on peanut butter.
• Kosher Plutocrat, P.I. Catch it, this fall on FOX!
• I looked at megahitsdirect.com via archive.org ... it's been off the net for a while now. I didn't understand the "one is lost for comment", uh, comment. If one posts something wouldn't one have some reason in mind for posting it and thus, the seed for a comment? And we'd like very much to know that reason, oh yes.
• Deism Defined... Ummm...so? I learned this in high school. If it's a discussion you want, say so in the initial post. Commit to a side, even if it's bass-ackwards wrong.
• One suspects that the poster finds the linked material highly intriguing for one reason or another. One also opines that the poster, whilst not so extroverted as to hazard an opinion upon the subject thereof, still feels that the linked material must needs be worthy of much commentary by other more vocal participants, thus providing the impetus for lively discussion, in the fond hope of contributing to the atmosphere of conviviality in a muted, non-attention-seeking manner. Or so one suspects.
• This thread is but a pale reflection of one of my most favorite threads EVAR. Its only deficiency is that it actually possesses a link. Just kidding around, jeraboam.
• Philosophical Taoism doesn't... have any holy books... I'm in sympathy with your general point, Smedleyman, but I'd be interested to know whether you consider the Tao Te Ching not philosophical, not Taoist, not holy, or not a book. ;)
• Is the Tao Te Ching the holy book of Taoism? Would be news to me....
• Ahhh, peanut butter! One had supposed the subtlety of mind one has learned to appreciate in the denizens of Monkey Filter would recognise one's humble caution in venturing an opinion from those who's opionion, it is felt, has greater merit than one's own. One is not disappointed! **genuflects** One must add that one has great appreciation for bastards and kidders-around.
• Every opionion of mine is worth eleven dollars!
• Is the Tao Te Ching the holy book of Taoism? Are bears catholic?
• St. Ursula?
• Yes?
• “I'd be interested to know whether you consider the Tao Te Ching not philosophical, not Taoist, not holy, or not a book” Even purely religious taoism is not belief centered and there is no creed - how can writings on it be considered “holy”? A book - or a litany rather than the literal bound paper with words on it - presumes a doctrine - which there isn’t. (The way which can be uttered, is not the eternal Way. The name which can be named, is not the eternal Name.) Whether the Tao Te Ching is Taoist or not is a tough one. For the same reasons: whatever you may say about the tao, will always fall short of reality. Can a book be taoist? Can writing? I don’t think so. I think Lao Tsu would agree the teaching is not in the book or words themselves. And there are other books. Is the philosophy based on the texts? Sure. But any philosophical school is a dynamic from Lyotard to Shopenhauer. ‘Holiness’ doesn’t enter into it. Indeed one might argue that detachment and Shunyata (emptiness, non-permenance, etc.) are directly contrary to ‘holiness.’ The whole ‘Theosis’ thing just isn’t happening. The Tao is beyond all distinctions of form and transcends symbolic ideology. There can’t be a ‘holy.’ It's one of those dumb questions people should un-ask. But yeah, it’s what’s read and there are plenty of people who get really attached to that and try to show off how they are SOOO much more into it than anyone else. But that happens in everything, rock bands, etc. Fan boys are everywhere, not just comic shops or animae conventions. There’s a pretty good Zen story about a guy who recieves a set of scrolls from his teacher. The teacher had recieved them from his teacher, and that one from his teacher and so on and so on back. Very ancient scrolls. And so the teacher passed them on to his student who promptly threw them into a fire. The teacher yelled “What are you doing!?” And the student yelled back “What are you saying!?” (see the teacher didn’t get the irony of not being attached to scrolls that tell you not to be attached to stuff). But again, fan boys.
• Excellent. Thanks Smedleyman.
• Whether the Tao Te Ching is Taoist or not is a tough one. Only in the realm of reality, obviously.
• “Only in the realm of reality, obviously.” Because obviously Nietzche = “Beyond Good and Evil” which = meta-ethics. Because a work pertains to a subject does not mean it embodies it.
• ...or makes sense or truth of it, a la The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion or whatever that silly book was called.
• Wait, what? Sorry, I was eating cheese doodles. Couldn't hear.