HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » What happened to the art ...

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 12:07 PM

What happened to the art of moderation?

In caring for others and serving heaven,
There is nothing like using restraint.
Restraint begins with giving up one's own ideas.
This depends on Virtue gathered in the past.
If there is a good store of Virtue, then nothing is impossible.
If nothing is impossible, then there are no limits.
If a man knows no limits, then he is fit to be a ruler.
The mother principle of ruling holds good for a long time.
This is called having deep roots and a firm foundation,
The Tao of long life and eternal vision.

- Tao Te Ching by Lao Tsu

70 replies, 6285 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 70 replies Author Time Post
Reply What happened to the art of moderation? (Original post)
Cary Jul 2012 OP
ananda Jul 2012 #1
zipplewrath Jul 2012 #2
Cary Jul 2012 #3
zipplewrath Jul 2012 #22
Cary Jul 2012 #24
Cary Jul 2012 #26
Romulox Jul 2012 #29
Cary Jul 2012 #32
Romulox Jul 2012 #34
Cary Jul 2012 #38
Romulox Jul 2012 #40
Cary Jul 2012 #44
Romulox Jul 2012 #47
Cary Jul 2012 #53
Romulox Jul 2012 #61
Cary Jul 2012 #64
zipplewrath Jul 2012 #63
Cary Jul 2012 #65
zipplewrath Jul 2012 #68
Cary Jul 2012 #70
patrice Jul 2012 #52
Cary Jul 2012 #54
patrice Jul 2012 #57
Cary Jul 2012 #59
patrice Jul 2012 #58
Romulox Jul 2012 #4
Cary Jul 2012 #5
Romulox Jul 2012 #7
Cary Jul 2012 #8
Romulox Jul 2012 #10
Cary Jul 2012 #11
Romulox Jul 2012 #18
Cary Jul 2012 #21
Romulox Jul 2012 #30
Cary Jul 2012 #33
Romulox Jul 2012 #36
Cary Jul 2012 #39
Romulox Jul 2012 #42
Cary Jul 2012 #50
Romulox Jul 2012 #62
Cary Jul 2012 #66
librechik Jul 2012 #6
snooper2 Jul 2012 #9
Igel Jul 2012 #12
Cary Jul 2012 #14
TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #25
Cary Jul 2012 #27
Tierra_y_Libertad Jul 2012 #13
Cary Jul 2012 #16
Tom Ripley Jul 2012 #15
Cary Jul 2012 #17
Brickbat Jul 2012 #19
Cary Jul 2012 #20
Romulox Jul 2012 #31
Cary Jul 2012 #35
Romulox Jul 2012 #37
Cary Jul 2012 #41
Romulox Jul 2012 #43
Cary Jul 2012 #48
Romulox Jul 2012 #60
Cary Jul 2012 #67
Romulox Jul 2012 #45
Cary Jul 2012 #49
SidDithers Jul 2012 #23
hootinholler Jul 2012 #28
Romulox Jul 2012 #46
Cary Jul 2012 #51
Arctic Dave Jul 2012 #55
Cary Jul 2012 #56
randome Jul 2012 #69

Response to Cary (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 12:17 PM

1. ...

I'm sure this goes for all humans, not just "a man" or "he."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 12:18 PM

2. It doesn't work?

Moderation is no more virtuious that extremism. Not enough medical treatment isn't "better than nothing" if the outcome is still the same. Having a "moderate" income isn't usefull if it isn't a "living wage".

Averaging good and bad doesn't necessarily produce "good enough". Compromising right with wrong doesn't necessarily produce "acceptable". Quite the opposite it can merely dress up wrong in the appearance of "right".

Moderation only works when balancing two good, but imperfect, things. You blend them together to leverage their strengths, and minimize their short comings. A balanced diet doesn't mean balancing fruit and arsenic. It means balancing fruit, vegetables, proteins, starches, etc. Man cannot live by bread alone, but bread is still useful, when moderated as part of a larger diet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #2)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 12:35 PM

3. But...

Too much medical treatment is worse if the outcome is the same.

We live in an age of plenty and there is absolutely no good reason why a moderate income shouldn't be a decent living (better than a living wage).

No one is talking about averaging good and bad, or being good enough. That is baby splitting and that has nothing whatsoever to do with moderation.

The art of compromise is definitely related to moderation. There is very little in life that is either right or wrong. Almost everything is somewhere in between. The idea that you can have a perpetual battle between right and wrong is ludicrous and utterly irrational.

No one is proposing a diet of arsenic. Moderation is simply the elimination of excess. You seem to be putting in an excessive effort here to make the value that is moderation something less simple than it really is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 02:20 PM

22. Probably need a better word

Moderation can imply "less than complete". There are times when "going all in" is appropriate. As you suggest, "too much" can be as bad as "too little". Moderation, they way you want to apply it, really means "the right amount". When fighting a fire, that means "all you need plus just a bit more". It does no good to not put out the fire, so that may mean and "immoderate" amount.

Moderation can suggest "less than all" and that isn't necessarily a good choice. Half an effort, twice, doesn't always equal a full effort.

Moderation, the word, tends to suggest something different than "the right amount", even though I think you mean them to say the same thing. You want it to be part of the treo of "excessive, just right, and too little". To many, it is part of the treo of "all, some, a little".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #22)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 02:27 PM

24. Actually,

I don't think you understand the Tao philosophy that I quoted. If you did you wouldn't be fighting the concept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #22)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 02:38 PM

26. I will try to explain this to you, but it can take years to master

I have been studying Tai Chi for about 10 years now. I would not claim to be a master.

"In caring for others and serving heaven,
There is nothing like using restraint.
Restraint begins with giving up one's own ideas."

There are 3 really important aspects of Tai Chi: 1) Relaxation; 2) structure; 3) all movement starts at the balls of the feet.

Relaxation isn't just taking a deep breath and telling yourself that you're relaxed. It is "restraint." It is "giving up one's own ideas." Some of your body is no longer yours. The rest of it is yours only to the lowest point where you can maintain your structure.

Not sure you can understand this, but it does take a long time to master and paradox is that by "giving up" you actually gain more control. By relaxing (up until the point you strike) you actually gain more speed.


"This depends on Virtue gathered in the past.
If there is a good store of Virtue, then nothing is impossible.
If nothing is impossible, then there are no limits."

When you are in a real fight you don't use choreographed movement. No one is going to allow you to manipulate them the way the forms suggest. When you are in a real fight you use the store of Virtue you have gained from you practice and you fight in the spirit of Tai Chi. If you do this nothing is impossible.


"If a man knows no limits, then he is fit to be a ruler.
The mother principle of ruling holds good for a long time.
This is called having deep roots and a firm foundation,
The Tao of long life and eternal vision."

No limits. Sure, we have our underlying philosophy but as with the forms in Tai Chi and even in pushing hands (an intermediate exercise) we do not adhere rigidly to the training. We fight in the spirit and we allow the opponent their own rigidity.

I'm sure I haven't explained this well. Sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #26)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:06 PM

29. The Tao Te Ching isn't a martial arts manual!

And furthermore, consider this passage from the Chuang-tzu:

"Of old Yao and Shun abdicated (in favor of worthy successors) and the rule was maintained, while Kuei (Prince of Yen) abdicated (in favor of Tsechih) and the latter failed. T'ang and Wu got the empire by fighting, while by fighting, Po Kung lost it. From this it may be seen that the value of abdicating or fighting, of acting like Yao or like Chieh, varies according to time, and may not be regarded as a constant principle. "A battering-ram can knock down a wall, but it cannot repair a breach. Different things are differently applied. Ch'ichi and Hualiu (famous horses) could travel 1,000 li in one day, but for catching rats they were not equal to a wild cat. Different animals possess different aptitudes. An owl can catch fleas at night, and see the tip of a hair, but if it comes out in the daytime it can open wide its eyes and yet fail to see a mountain. Different creatures are differently constituted.

"Thus, those who say that they would have right without its correlate, wrong; or good government without its correlate, misrule, do not apprehend the great principles of the universe, nor the nature of all creation. One might as well talk of the existence of Heaven without that of Earth, or of the negative principle without the positive, which is clearly impossible. Yet people keep on discussing it without stop; such people must be either fools or knaves.

http://www.vl-site.org/taoism/cz-text2.html


"Relaxation isn't just taking a deep breath and telling yourself that you're relaxed. It is "restraint." It is "giving up one's own ideas."


Let's remember that this "restraint" is also an idea. It will have to be let go of, as well...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #29)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:14 PM

32. No one said the Tao was a martial arts manual

Tai Chi is both a martial art and a philosophy and yet even Tai Chi Chuan is not necessarily about fighting. But you cannot gain all of the benefits without studying the martial aspects. You cannot find your jin without the martial aspects. That doesn't mean you should go out and look for an actual fight.

I didn't actually expect you to understand and, as I said, I didn't explain it very well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #32)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:18 PM

34. I don't agree. Any evidence that Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu practiced Tai Chi? Did they mention it?

I didn't actually expect you to understand and, as I said, I didn't explain it very well.


You are arrogant! What makes you think you are introducing these concepts for the first time to someone who quotes from the Chuang-tzu?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #34)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:30 PM

38. Do you have any evidence that they were actual persons?

Of course you don't. They could be entirely mythical as far as you know.

And as far as my understanding of you, you too could be mythical as far as I am concerned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #38)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:35 PM

40. What difference does it make? Neither of Taoism's seminal texts mention Tai Chi. It must therefore

be extraneous to the core teachings, at best.

It's similar to Jesus Christ and homosexuality. Maybe Jesus cared a great deal about homosexuality...but why didn't he mention it, then?

"And as far as my understanding of you, you too could be mythical as far as I am concerned."

Do yourself a favor and read the Chuang-tzu. It will help you more than all the kung fu in Shaolin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #40)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:38 PM

44. Nice non-sequitur

The relationship between Tai Chi and the Tao is not in any way like the relationship between Jesus Christ and homosexuality. How odd that you would make such a comment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #44)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:42 PM

47. The analogy is that neither teacher mentioned these things, while their so-called "followers" obsess

You need EVERYTHING spelled out so literally. It's tedious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #47)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 06:01 PM

53. Your comparison sucks, Lox

You clearly don't know anything about Tai Chi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #53)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 08:24 PM

61. If Tai Chi was crucial to understanding the Tao, Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu would've practiced it. QED.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #61)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:43 PM

64. There you go again.

No one said anything about Tai Chi being crucial to anything.

Obviously you're not up to a serious discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #26)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 08:43 PM

63. having flashbacks

I had this exact conversation with someone about 12 years ago on USENET. They had a similar explanation that it was my weakness that caused my misunderstanding of their depth of awareness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #63)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:47 PM

65. Your ignorance 12 years ago is nothing to be ashamed of.

Your inability to do something about it over the past 12 years is a different story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #65)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 05:51 PM

68. Your confidence is interesting

Especially considering your self professed weakness at explaining clearly. A Nobel prize winner in physics said if you can't explain it, you don't really understand it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #68)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 12:41 PM

70. The fact that I don't believe I can explain it well to you doesn't mean...

I can't explain it well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #2)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:59 PM

52. It "doesn't work" in the manner that you expect/require/demand that it does. And

how could it possibly work anyway if, because you have pre-determined that it will not work, you do not apply it.

'It' has not happened does not mean that 'it' cannot happen. It means that conditions/variables may require re-consideration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #52)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 06:05 PM

54. Patrice, it is happening

What do you suppose my erstwhile opponents are really saying here? I think it's pretty clear I hit a nerve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #54)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 06:49 PM

57. There's LOTS of stuff that goes on on this board, much of it fueled by our assumptions about one

other, which are, in turn, based upon lack of direct experience of the speaker and the spoken-about + disinformation and/or lacking information.

There's a strong absolutist sub-set here that wants everyone to yield to the proposition that any and all centrism/moderation/compromise is evil. I can understand their concerns about controlled conflict when half of the current dyad is so weak as to not be an appropriate partner for the other, but I also think more than 2 things are possible in any process and whether centrism/moderation/compromise is evil or not is determined by the specific terms and conditions of the interaction between the factors; some terms weaken, some strengthen and we'll never identify which is which if we don't engage in that process, if we always pre-judge it as evil. That judgement is the effect of weakness. It's also what the opposition does and is one of our major critiques of them. AUTHENTIC engagement results in strength. This is one reason why I am more than just a bit suspicious about SOME (definitely not all) over-simplification going on on this board and the loud and consistent drumbeat of hate for centrism/moderation/compromise. It's as though people don't understand how to be both strong and to integrate with different others too. It's ironic that that makes us weak, not strong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #57)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 07:29 PM

59. The proof is in the pudding

Where exactly is the radical left? What power do they have to affect change?

Yes I think you have said a lot in a few sentences and unlike Lox you understand the Tao.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #54)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 06:55 PM

58. And, yes, authentic engagement does very much require restraint. It's just too bad that so many

mistakenly assume that means surrender of all that you are, when, in fact, it means discovery of all that you REALLY are.

Sat nam!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 12:38 PM

4. That's an intriguing passage, but I don't think it speaks to *political* "moderation".

"Political moderation" is just another word for rightwing corporate-backed "centrism".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #4)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 12:43 PM

5. Corporate backed centrism is not a Virtue n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #5)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 12:46 PM

7. Right. But that's what "political moderation" means. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #7)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 12:49 PM

8. By whose definition?

Not by mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #8)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 12:55 PM

10. Reality (the last 30 years of history, more precisely.) nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #10)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 01:09 PM

11. So you're allowing "conservatives" to define your terms?

I refuse to do that. I won't even allow them to rightly call themselves conservative, because in reality they aren't conservative. So like hell I'm going to allow those anti-intellectual assholes to define moderation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #11)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 01:51 PM

18. "Triangulation" was the euphemism used by Bill Clinton and Dick Morris. Are they "conservatives"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #18)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 02:07 PM

21. I think you and I may be talking past each other n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #21)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:06 PM

30. Not at all. You are being rigid! "Restraint begins with giving up one's own ideas." nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #30)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:16 PM

33. In this context that would mean giving up the idea that you matter

If I actually possessed that idea, of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #33)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:21 PM

36. You can seek exceptions if you wish: "To follow a one-sided opinion is to diverge from Tao." nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #36)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:33 PM

39. You're arguing for a one-sided opinion, arent you?

I have kind of lost track of your point, if you actually had one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #39)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:36 PM

42. It will be another 10 years, at least. Read Chuang-tzu; become a student first, THEN a sage! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #42)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:53 PM

50. I don't plan to stop learning, ever

Nor do I plan to be a sage. That's your issue and your problem, not mine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #50)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 08:27 PM

62. It's clear you're not an expert on the Taoist classics. That's all that need be said. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #62)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:48 PM

66. How would you know? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 12:44 PM

6. burned out by the cudgel of conformity n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 12:55 PM

9. We were all brainwashed by Marilyn Manson




&feature=relmfu


or wait, was it Gary Lee & Showdown that did it LOL





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 01:21 PM

12. Anonymity.

Peer pressure in a mixed group produces a kind of centrism. It's true in brain-storming groups, it's usually true in classrooms, it's true in politics.

It's one reason presidential candidates tend to get pushed to the center if they think there's a change of a broad-based majority. It's why things designed by committee tend to be uninspired and lackluster.

The US is big enough and connected enough apart for pretty much everybody to have at least one anonymous persona. In anonymous groups the extremes tend to win. They're usually the loudest, and usually the most "pure" in distinguishing that group from others. Nobody wants to be kicked out, so the extremist view, the purist view, wins and sets the tone.

This is true when it comes to political journals, academic disciplines, and, above all, on-line discussion groups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #12)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 01:36 PM

14. Where do you get the idea that things designed by committee tend to be uninspired and lackluster?

Apparently centrism is the ideal or practice of navigating a neutral, middle ground between left and right. In other words the center finds a balance between egalitarianism (the left) and social hierarchy (the right).

How does this relate to the art of moderation as stated in the Tao? I don't see anything there about baby splitting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #12)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 02:35 PM

25. I see no evidence whatsoever that peer groups generally come up with corporate friendly to

corporate subjugated policies, police state responses, or imperial solutions, or undemocratic policies counter balanced by not being bigots.

I have yet to see any other real world applicable definition for "centrists" who I do not conflate with moderates because "centrists" are almost always zealots for their global corporate bullshit. Moderates are hard to pigeon hole on beliefs and policy preferences because there is a yin and yang going on, they seek a balance and have a variety of mixes of values. "Centrists" are quite predictable with most of the variance being accounted for on how socially conservative they are. There is no such thing as an economically leftist "centrist" but a moderate may well be economically left.

Without fail, "centrist" are at least center-right on economics and almost as often the same on use of military force.

The use of the word "centrist" in present context is a deception and part of one that has been going a while, which is that "centrist" and moderate are the same and indeed an effort to make moderates agree with "centrists" via framing all else as extremism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #25)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 02:42 PM

27. "Moderates are hard to pigeonhole on beliefs and policy preferences because there is a yin and yang"

Very well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 01:26 PM

13. "Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." - Tom Paine

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #13)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 01:48 PM

16. Tom was not a moderate, to be sure

But he also was never a political leader. He apparently wasn't even allowed to sign the Declaration of Independence even though there is a good chance that he actually wrote it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 01:43 PM

15. Epictetus is dead to me

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Ripley (Reply #15)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 01:51 PM

17. I doubt that Epictetus knew Lao Tsu n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 01:53 PM

19. Now it's sent to a jury and they can decide if it meets community standards or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brickbat (Reply #19)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 02:05 PM

20. ????

I am at a complete loss as to why a discussion of moderate values would violate any community standards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #20)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:08 PM

31. They're playing at puns--as in "FORUM MODERATION". DU3 has done away with it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #31)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:21 PM

35. You're saying they're humorless?

I surmised that they were obtuse. I guess I was wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #35)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:24 PM

37. No. They were making a "pun" (a play on words.) They were referring to MESSAGE BOARD MODERATION

(which means the practice of enforcing the rules of conduct on internet message boards, like DU), rather than to...well, whatever it is you're trying to tell us.

Is that 100% unambiguously clear?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #37)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:36 PM

41. I'm doing a rather nice job of mocking you.

Too bad you're not bright enough to appreciate it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #41)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:38 PM

43. To what end? I attempted to discuss politics and Taoism with you, but you just started acting out?

I don't get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #43)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:50 PM

48. Please...

You left any effort at a real discussion behind about a dozen posts ago. What I do or don't know about Taoism and Tai Chi may or may not be correct. My Taiwanese Sifu, who also happens to be fully tenured professor at Northwestern University, put it to me this way:

If you took 10 Japanese people they would choose one leader, follow him, and proclaim him to be the best; and if you took 10 Chinese people they would choose 5 leaders and each would proclaim his leader to be the best.

As we all know there are a lot of Chinese people so there are lots and lots of variations of Chinese philosophy out there. It took me a long time to find this particular Sifu. There are a lot of Tai Chi teachers out there teaching all kinds of things, and then there's quigong and about 50 different other martial arts styles.

My Sifu teaches traditional Yang and Chen Tai Chi along with Yin Fu and Cheng Bagua, Hsing-Yi, Wu Dang, and an overlay his Master refers to as Pre-heaven Power. He has his lineage, and mine, posted at the front of the school and it is all connected and intertwined with the Taoist cosmology in ways that I cannot even begin to relate to you.

I said you wouldn't get it. You admit you don't. You ought not to let it bother you so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #48)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 08:24 PM

60. Nonsense. Most of this is a defensive smokescreen for the fact you don't know Chuang-tzu.

He's the most important teacher of Taoism. You HAVE to read him, if you are interested in the subject. It's not really a matter of opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #60)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 09:51 PM

67. Nonsense. Most of your schtick is an amateurish, third rate ego play.

And clearly yours is not the way of the Tao.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Reply #41)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:38 PM

45. Also, if you are "mocking me" by talking nonsense, what are you doing with the rest of your posts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #45)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:52 PM

49. Nothing I have said is nonsense

You allow yourself to be mocked by the truth, so why shouldn't I oblige?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 02:23 PM

23. It was replaced with the art of Hosting...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #23)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 02:44 PM

28. And MIRTing

Just saying.

All things in moderation, including moderation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:39 PM

46. What a *strange* sort of train-wreck... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #46)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 05:54 PM

51. Not really.

You're desperation is quite pedestrian.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Original post)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 06:13 PM

55. It got out of control? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arctic Dave (Reply #55)

Tue Jul 10, 2012, 06:14 PM

56. "Control"?

Who wants "control?"

Anyway the Taoist thing is about the paradox I spoke of earlier. You actually gain more control by letting go of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cary (Original post)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 05:57 PM

69. All things in moderation.

 

Including moderation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread