Thanks for your many in-depth replies. They were read and appreciated. — 0 thru 9

Your welcome! I love such topics.

However…

But unfortunately, when you write things like you did in the second half of your post…
I don’t feel like responding. But I will because I feel compelled to explain since I started this thread, and feel a little responsibility about it. Otherwise, I’d might just go my way without much comment. — 0 thru 9

Ah hopefully we are addressing the issues. Critique is part of why I post as well.

This for example:

No, do not denigrate war.

War is a synonym for change. War is morally acceptable. I lose a lot of people there and I am fine with that. Wisdom is universally denigrated.

Growth comes from suffering only. The wise wisely inflict necessary suffering upon the unwise to give them opportunities to grow. If you walk through a field on a sunny day without a care in your heart, you are making cosmic war on the creatures that live in that field. Your obliviousness to this truth is all that makes you careless. Peace is the greatest delusion there is. War is fine. Loss is fine. These are not immoral in and of themselves. They are consequences. Consequentialism is a lie. Morality is all deontological. Intent is what matters. The direction and strength of choice is what matters.
— Chet Hawkins

You cannot escape change/war. Peace is a delusional immoral aim. To maintain proper balance war is required morally. You may prefer to call this struggle or effort, and that is fine. War is the real name. I do not shy from naming something what it really is. I accept war and prefer it. I do not mean unnecessary violence which many people would foolishly demand is the real definition of war.
— Chet Hawkins

When I read this, I feel disappointed and somewhat queasy. You have some provocative ideas that I found challenging and difficult, and I enjoyed those. The quoted comments from you crosses some kind of line for me though. And they taint everything else you’ve written, in some way. — 0 thru 9

That is sad and interesting. Hopefully, you explain WHY your line was crossed. I cannot work on vague notions.

Sorry if this sounds offensive… But to be extremely honest or blunt, those comments seem (to me) dangerous, delusional and preachy. — 0 thru 9

OK, but that does not say why they sound that way.

I suppose the idea that the colloquial definition for war is dangerous and all bad or mostly bad. It's why I took pains to link war to the idea of change only, which I do believe. I am not saying that violent war is not mostly bad, but there can be morally necessary violent war. That is really a key takeaway. You cannot defend yourself, your nation, your group of people who choose a proper moral ideology, without violent war as a threat to would be enemies.

The other key mitigation in my opinion is this. Wisdom only comes through suffering. That is a tautology. In every way, most moral agents do not believe in wisdom until they have suffered some along each path of possible suffering, loss or longing for a virtue that is now in a low state.

So, if wisdom comes through suffering only, in some cases the goal of the wise must be to increase suffering. Then the question is how in each case, relative to the virtues.

So, there is resonance. Resonance is the way in which moral strength helps us earn wisdom without much suffering. We have a relative strength and enacting it resonates with objective good in such a way that the reflection upon the moral agent, the feeling is hard to call suffering. Because we are not perfect though our expression is always not perfect, so, there is suffering always. This is why, even amid strength, it is still a tautology that wisdom only comes through suffering.

The real question is where is the line drawn. That is the line between necessary and unnecessary suffering. We could all easily agree that most warfare, heck even most civilizations regular peaceful living, produces a ton of unnecessary suffering. So, my point there is that we as a society have to get much much better at understanding where that line is, for real.

The final example of the need for war exists in every virtue, but, the basic one is this: You are part of a moral society, relatively to the others around you. They are weaker on some virtues by a great deal, each of your neighbor countries or cultures. We are not naming names nor are we suggesting that this is a real world thing at the moment. All similarities between countries past and present, fictional and real, are unintended. Your country faces a dilemma. The immoral expression is rising, different and seen as such in each of the neighboring countries. Many of them have resources you need and they are tired of your (proper) moral proselytizing. Your existence is a challenge to their immoral ways, and frankly their existence is a challenge to your moral ways. I understand it's not a simple case like that. Some of your country's people are immoral as well, and some of theirs moral, but we are talking about sanctioned inertia as law and cultural practice for each country.

The properly moral country has a moral duty to make war on neighboring nations before they can become powerful enough to overwhelm what is of great value. Competition to weaken the immorality is also wise in other ways than war, before the last step of war must be taken. And of course it could be that the more moral country was always greatly lesser in power. And then it must bide its time, building quietly with less bravado, until it has the strength to project. But the virtue of challenge, of external action, what might be called the basic truth of war, is possibly moral. Like all virtues that virtue has both good and bad expressions. The early stages of challenge are writings and rhetoric and the mere presence of the good example for others to see and feel as a neighboring country.

But moral choice is hard, the hardest thing there is. It is understandable that most will fail and although most will also still be able to admit in some way that they are acting immorally and therefore we properly offer them time and relative peace to earn their wisdom without us having to step in, there are also those that double down on stupid. They oppress their people more, and for worse reasons. They do not adhere to any balance between order and chaos as the good. Instead they immorally conflate order with the good (so many examples in fact and fiction). Some even take the stranger step of conflating chaos with the good (so many examples). So, since moral choice is hard and there are even some that would support diversity of belief to include and embrace immorality, the more moral nation must sometimes morally declare war.

It seem to assume that you have an absolute vantage point or a ‘God’s eye view’. — 0 thru 9

Well, the short answer is yes. 'You are me and I am you', the Unity Principle, also states that 'You are God and God is you'. Humility though is a virtue and part of proper moral aims. But so is admitting truth, accepting the responsibility of moral agency. Finally, there is no better approach than to admit you are a part of what is God. That is indeed what offers you infinite choice, really. There is finally no other reason you have it.

If you deny the God in yourself, then you deny what is moral, you deny perfection as a concept. I am not saying it's not a slippery slope. All proper approaches to morality are of course slippery slopes. Morality is the single hardest thing there is. All of it fits. Again part of what is good, is humility and perseverance. But if we are too lazy to take right action, to stand and fight immorality, to challenge it, then that is a moral failure.

To such an extent that I would be greatly surprised if anyone in this forum would agree with them in any way. — 0 thru 9

Well that one sentence is a HUGE, GIANT leap from any other thing you have said.

Still, I welcome all critique. I am offering up my wisdom or lack thereof as something to be tested indeed.

If you lived in Gaza or Ukraine, I might think you really understood the consequences of your statements. — 0 thru 9

Consequentialism is a lie. Deontological intent is superior morally in every way. I know that my intent is good, the best I can make it. I admit that my choices can and will lead to failure. I am not perfect. I will reform new intents and try again. But the goal is to earn wisdom and help other's earn it, and my definition of wisdom only includes the balance that makes it good. Some will describe wisdom in a way that includes only their favorite or easy virtues and in doing so they lack balance and they are immoral (wrong). All weakness, all that is incorrect, is immoral in some way. Accuracy is a part of perfection and morality and it is objective, not subjective at all.

(To repeat: your many other comments were cool, even if I didn’t agree or even understand them completely). — 0 thru 9

Hey, as mentioned, it's intended to the good. I see that you are as well. Any slight, I hope either way, is forgiven and let's then say why it was made.

I took the time to discuss the idea more carefully now. Either you are probably a little more moved, or, you will now think you were more right to object and ask for clarification. There are still more examples I can give to show the concept. Here is one:

Students suffer the learning process. They are properly tested. Testing is suffering, ask almost all students. The ones that think it is easy are not being challenged enough. All testing should be variable to the student's capabilities. That is a test for the system, if you follow. This suffering is required to earn the wisdom of awareness. In many cases this wisdom is refused, or refused in part. The wise society though wisely chooses to inflict this suffering on others in order that they might have a scheduled opportunity to earn a certain set of wisdom. Likewise proper parents will schedule and enact suffering upon their children so that these children may have a controlled opportunity to discuss and show and earn their wisdom. The only question is when does that suffering become unnecessary?

And the more desire side thinking you have the more you will lean towards the immoral position that ANY suffering and ALL suffering is unnecessary. That is mere Hedonism, and it is immoral. Likewise the more fear side thinking you have the more you will lean towards the immoral position that any and all suffering is necessary. Due to the nature of perfection, this is more correct, finally, than the desire side opinion is. Does this mean wisdom should be imbalanced? No. The trick with that revelation is that as time progresses the state from which a choice is made should be improving. And the greater challenges of any and all suffering become more and more required in order to achieve greater balance (to evolve). Likewise, when a moral agent's state is truly in decline we take a softer approach to allow them rest and resonance in order that they themselves say they are ready for a new challenge (and they always will). The escape for those who cannot muster the will to fight again is only one thing, finally, death. Choose.

To be fair, I’ll read your response to this, and take it into consideration. But you seem like you’ve made up your mind about many things, so I’m not expecting a retraction. Like you, I’ve been pondering these issues for many years, so I am probably ‘set in my ways’ about certain things as well. — 0 thru 9

Indeed. No retraction at all.

But, I did explain again for more clarity. My challenges are often met with your response. I am well used to it. At parties I am always the guy who says the provocative things. But I am not doing it for myself (only). You are me and I am you. It worries me greatly that the balance and genuine happiness I feel regularly is not a lot felt out there in the world. All that unnecessary suffering needs a challenger to call it out. C'est la vie! C'est la guerre!

The war is also a synonym for existence itself. The trillions of interactions that happen across your body in any moment are war. The balance that maintains that war properly must continue. There is no effective long term respite from war.

In a nutshell, your quoted statements really go directly against the purpose of this thread, maybe unintentionally. One may say in response that I’m being a woke snowflake who can’t handle another view, or can’t handle unvarnished ‘wisdom’. But that is not really the case. — 0 thru 9

It may not be the case, but it is partially so. That is to say my ideas challenge your comfort with something. It could be your position and you are of course challenging mine then. But let's see how you respond to this post so we will know.

My statements are not, as I understand them, against this thread. They point out the weakness of yin/yang as a model. They explain why it cannot be successfully used without great modification. The effective issue is that chaos and order ARE NOT the good. Order is often conflated with good, and chaos with evil. But those conflations are immoral. What is really needed most is the balancing force of anger. Anger is the only thing that seeks balance. And the peace types get it wrong. The sin of anger is laziness, seeking peace. The moral duty of anger is to seek war. War is right action. It is change. The intent is what is critical. Intend to cause enough suffering to allow for wisdom to be earned and intend not to cause unnecessary suffering.

The dual model does not work, because reality is a three part system, not two. But the balance is the hardest of the three part aims, and anger is first denigrated because of that. So our delusion began and we started it with the duality, the yin/yang, and all such dual systems. I have hard physical evidence that my model is vastly superior to any two part system I have ever heard of. But as mentioned in another thread (esoteric). Hegel got this. Dichotomy that takes a thesis and antithesis (fear and desire) and forces them together (war/anger) into synthesis, does describe reality. We all sort-of know that the left and the right wing are both useful. What is not usually accepted at any time in history is that they must be in perfect balance. Further that there is the third force pushing back and thus bending the egregiousness of both extremes into a new aim, perfection.

If I don’t respond further, good luck to you in all ways. :pray: :flower: — 0 thru 9

All good! Thanks for your comments!

Suffering is required to stay wise as well as to become wise. The wise seek out greater and greater means of challenging themselves to suffer more exquisitely than others. They could not be wise otherwise.
— Chet Hawkins
Perhaps it's the subversion of the ego then that brings about clarity. If not just by mental will but also by physical action on the self. — substantivalism

Well, this word subversion is problematic. How far do you go with it? To go so far that the Unity Principle is denied in its furthest interpretation, 'You are God, and God is you!' is dangerous. That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We are it, the chooser, the speaker. We know of none greater than ourselves in moral agency. Yes, we properly respect all other moral agents, the animals, the planet, all atoms even; but humility can be taken too far. When we deny the infinity of choice within ourselves, we fail morally.

So, instead say, it's the balancing of the ego, with the id and superego; or the balancing of fear with anger and desire that brings clarity.

And yes, balance resonates to body from thought and vice versa.

The real problem is now that people think this is prosperity. It will take much monger before the stubborn realize the pain they are in on a daily basis despite oxycontin, porn, cheap whiskey, and other 'easy' addictions.
— Chet Hawkins
Perhaps the lesson to be learned then is to see the signs and pity those that fall for them. Their actions require us, gifted with greater awareness, to suffer for them as they themselves do not know to do so for themselves. Our inaction deserves recognition as the mental parasite it is. As does our personal hypocrisy which, if it cannot be extinguished, should be beaten back. — substantivalism

Well, now! Look at you, willing to beat back hypocrisy? I agree!

I agree as well that society must morally suffer the widest range of free will to its members. There is no choice for society as infinite choice is a tautology in the universe. I could say some very provocative things here, but I will demur for the moment to see how my responses in this thread are handled.

Pity is one good response. Challenge is another.

These days judgement is seen as negative, can you believe it? It is our moral duty to judge literally everything. Desire side chaos thinking, pro-freedom in all ways, even immoral ways, hates to be judged. 'Judgy much!?' is a low-brow epithet often heard these days from the left. A true listing of virtues (and Scotsmen) is needed as a temporary non-conclusion, a state of being, for society, for all human societies together.

Agreed that inaction is merely lazy, implied by your statements.

But the fear side tendency is to go too far, punishment. Punishment is immoral. That one is the one that leaves right side (fear) thinkers reeling, in the same way that when I say war is morally required the left pitches a fit.

Punishment is already included by objective morality. And morality is not punishing you. You are! The chooser is the only one with the power to punish. They punish themselves. But remember, you are me and I am you. So, any evil act in all the universe punishes us all. That is harmonics, out of resonance with the perfect good.

So the right tends to want to punish. But no, the proper moral path is judgment, teaching, and better guardrails until a new moral choice path is established. The greatest freedom must be maintained during this process. As an example the movie 'The Last Samurai' shows the main character kept for winter as prisoner by the feudal Japanese. They do not imprison him. They have a older Samurai, armed escort him around. That is a better way than prison is. Free will and freedom are more respected.

Also right side thinkers have trouble with privacy. Since you are me and I am you, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. But we still act to allow for free will, for little choices unseen. This is the same as allowing freedom in the above example. But, as you can see, and if you can think at all, as you can then realize for sure; if the private home is sacred, then that is where immorality will seed itself. It's obvious.

So, wisdom makes all sides to any argument uncomfortable. It seems to cause suffering by being true. But it is wisdom that is causal. It is (your) choice, always.

Well, this word subversion is problematic. How far do you go with it? — Chet Hawkins

You know, this is something I thought about frequently a good while ago. The answer is still rather indeterminate but my circumstances have always seemed to mitigate against such an extensive investigation.

We are it, the chooser, the speaker. We know of none greater than ourselves in moral agency. Yes, we properly respect all other moral agents, the animals, the planet, all atoms even; but humility can be taken too far. When we deny the infinity of choice within ourselves, we fail morally. — Chet Hawkins

Humility as forced upon me (ticked into me) or by my own hand? Perhaps much of the former has overflowed but the latter requires further improvement.

So, instead say, it's the balancing of the ego, with the id and superego; or the balancing of fear with anger and desire that brings clarity. — Chet Hawkins

I feel that perhaps you have to bring about that state of affairs continually. To have it swing back from a violent perturbation. To embody. . . bear witness. . . mentally to what one is capable of despite our proclivities that we've inherited from modernity. What wrath we can bring about so that we can feel the moment with which to grant ourselves a caring hand to pull us away. To see what lust we possess and grow disgusted at the impulsive drives that arise.

The more extreme the perturbation the more chaotic and beautiful the fall to the minimum is. Put into difficult circumstances it scrambles to find justifications. . . reasons. . . grounding. . . to launch oneself off again. Creativity makes its appearance with open arms for all.

Punishment is already included by objective morality. And morality is not punishing you. You are! The chooser is the only one with the power to punish. They punish themselves. But remember, you are me and I am you. So, any evil act in all the universe punishes us all. That is harmonics, out of resonance with the perfect good. — Chet Hawkins

Without abandoning those intuitions I possess I either have my head painfully throb for the evil others conduct or I see myself as a part of it and somewhat capable. In the end such a punishment shouldn't end if I'm to remain consistent and sane.

Why are we told and taught and trained to hate the Yin?

Taught to hate the Yin within by repression and judgment.
To hate the Yin around us by seeing it as lesser, while exploiting it.

For a common example, a young boy who is light-skinned (white) is told (implicitly, perhaps explicitly… dominator culture is hypocritical and likes to disguise its toxic nature) to hate the ‘lesser’ female, and to avoid being anything similar to that.
To be a ‘girl, fag, sissy, wimp’ (or other terrible slurs) is considered the lowest level, even possibly evil or to be possessed.

We are even taught to hate childhood, in a way. Because being a baby is being immature and stupid.
We are taught to hate ‘minorities’ because they are supposedly (at least partially) ‘primitive and animal’.

Hate is fear, and fear is judging all in order to put oneself on the elite pinnacle of humanity.
But this judgment is against parts of ourselves, no matter who we are, and this causes self-hatred.

Trying to be strong can be good, but labeling half of creation as lesser or evil cannot help but lead to suffering and tragedy.
In our ‘badass culture’, we try to become a monster, in order to avoid being a victim. — 0 thru 9

I would stay away from equating Yin to the feminine, and Yang to the masculine. It's understandable that one would be tempted into doing so, but I think this "man vs. woman" dichotomy is a symptom of western pathologies and not necessarily relevant for the concept of Yin-Yang.

In Taoist thought, both are critical components of every facet of life.


Yang represents creation and action, Yin represents rest and renewal. One cannot exist without the other and vice versa.

Out of balance Yang exhausts itself, and out of balance Yin becomes stagnant.


A solid argument can be made to the effect that our society is critically out of balance in terms of Yang, and is indeed exhausting itself. One clear indication of this is the increasing rates at which young people suffer burnouts and psychological problems.


However, just because it is imbalanced in terms of Yang, does not mean that there cannot be Yin imbalance too.

For example, I have seen the emotion of fear being mentioned here a couple of times as being overly present in our civilization. Roughly speaking, I think this is true. Consider the copious amounts of "fear porn" in the media, increases in anxiety-related disorders, etc.

In the Chinese Five Elements (Wuxing) fear is the emotion most closely related with the element Water, which is considered the most Yin of all elements, coming forth from the element of Metal, which is also a Yin element.


Yin-yang and Wuxing are cycles, not two-sided scales. Imbalances in one element can create, perpetuate or strengthen imbalances in the other. Everything is in communication and constant flux.


I just wanted to pull some things apart here, since it seems to me the thread is leaning towards a faulty interpretation of Yin-yang and related concepts, as it attempts to reinforce the western male/female dichotomy.

Something I may not have gotten across in my initial comment is that Nietzsche definitely felt the world was heavily lopsided towards the Apollonian (masculine) over the Dionysian (feminine). The two don't exactly equate to being "male and female" though. So whatever gut feeling you're getting about this notion, I'd say, run with it, thats your intuition leading you down the path towards the edge of what is known, towards that precipice where one builds their own bridge to a new world to share with others. To new vistas. — Vaskane

Thanks! Much appreciated! :smile:

I think Nietzsche nails it, especially as a description of his time.
And it largely carries forward to this day, even as radically different as the world is compared to a hundred plus years ago.

I’d say the Apollonian aspect of knowledge is of course a wonderful thing.

But in our culture, it seems to be placed far above other equally necessary parts of the human experience.
I theorize that this is at least partially because it enables the discovery of the principles that allow powerful weapons to be built, and the worldly power that comes from that.
That is the primary motivation (so to speak) when it comes to civilizational knowledge and information.
An example of this is the origin and creation of the internet for military purposes.

The opposite (but reinforcing) civilization trend is murkier to describe, but I’d say it is a bias against simplicity, sharing, not consuming, and well… against happiness itself.
Happy people are satisfied in a deep way, and will probably not feel the need to buy things and consume mass quantities.
A person who is afraid, in pain, confused, competitive, envious, anxious etc is an ideal consumer.

If one were to see many ‘strangers’ going around lovingly and unselfconsciously hugging one another, and asking if they are feeling well, that would be a sign that something in our culture has dramatically changed.
The fact that that statement sounds humorous shows how ingrained these habits are, even in those who are trying to see beyond them.

:flower:

Is our civilization unbalanced? — 0 thru 9

Our? As in human civilisation? Perhaps Danish civilisation is balanced, being free and developed. But the world in a broad sense surely is not.

Thanks for your reply. Most appreciated. I hope to respond more fully later. :smile:

Our? As in human civilisation? Perhaps Danish civilisation is balanced, being free and developed. But the world in a broad sense surely is not. — Lionino

Thanks. Yes, civilization as a whole…
But any pockets of sanity in a sea of upheaval is definitely a good thing, like an oasis in the desert.

Mmmm… cheese danish… :yum:

Our? As in human civilisation? Perhaps Danish civilisation is balanced, being free and developed. But the world in a broad sense surely is not. — Lionino

If we are not perfect, there is more balance to be had. If we are not maximized, there is more balance to be had.

Well, this word subversion is problematic. How far do you go with it?
— Chet Hawkins
You know, this is something I thought about frequently a good while ago. The answer is still rather indeterminate but my circumstances have always seemed to mitigate against such an extensive investigation. — substantivalism

Ha ha! Well, I get it. That means 'real life' distracts you from the important questions. And, people aren't wearing enough hats!

We are it, the chooser, the speaker. We know of none greater than ourselves in moral agency. Yes, we properly respect all other moral agents, the animals, the planet, all atoms even; but humility can be taken too far. When we deny the infinity of choice within ourselves, we fail morally.
— Chet Hawkins
Humility as forced upon me (ticked into me) or by my own hand? Perhaps much of the former has overflowed but the latter requires further improvement. — substantivalism

Yes, that's the final truth in everyone's case. Of course get on a philosophy site and start going on and on about objective morality and improving more and more to approach perfection and morality being the hardest thing there is, and one wonders, is it worth it? How many converts to truth will there be? Comforting lies has a much longer line to the booth than truth does.

So, instead say, it's the balancing of the ego, with the id and superego; or the balancing of fear with anger and desire that brings clarity.
— Chet Hawkins
I feel that perhaps you have to bring about that state of affairs continually. To have it swing back from a violent perturbation. To embody. . . bear witness. . . mentally to what one is capable of despite our proclivities that we've inherited from modernity. What wrath we can bring about so that we can feel the moment with which to grant ourselves a caring hand to pull us away. To see what lust we possess and grow disgusted at the impulsive drives that arise. — substantivalism

You're quite poetic.

Being 'in it' alive, and balanced feels like being a scaled down version of the Hulk. Raw, unprotected nerve endings, suffering experience, in all its beautiful agony. It actually is poetry in motion, in being, but its not surprising that most of us remain mostly unconscious of the effects, good and bad. The effort is too great. It's just like the choice, finally, to die. The effort is too great to choose otherwise. You do see some though that have an iron will at least, even amid bleak bed-ridden life support. Aberration? Maybe. The only thing I can think of is the internal world must still be rich and fulfilling in some way. Otherwise it's just a powerful circuit. Like the sun, it keeps on burning.

The more extreme the perturbation the more chaotic and beautiful the fall to the minimum is. Put into difficult circumstances it scrambles to find justifications. . . reasons. . . grounding. . . to launch oneself off again. Creativity makes its appearance with open arms for all. — substantivalism

I mean the cycle is real, the oscillation. And it does seem that the swing is wider, corresponding roughly to moral agency. But that is worrying. Anyone, even a child, can tell, ... if the swing is getting wider it's similar to the universe accelerating in expansion. That makes no sense. It will end itself. Unless we can reliably narrow the oscillation by choice, en masse, we may have discovered the real reason for the Fermi Paradox.

Punishment is already included by objective morality. And morality is not punishing you. You are! The chooser is the only one with the power to punish. They punish themselves. But remember, you are me and I am you. So, any evil act in all the universe punishes us all. That is harmonics, out of resonance with the perfect good.
— Chet Hawkins
Without abandoning those intuitions I possess I either have my head painfully throb for the evil others conduct or I see myself as a part of it and somewhat capable. In the end such a punishment shouldn't end if I'm to remain consistent and sane. — substantivalism

I get that also. We are too exhausted to put in more effort to contain others' immorality. Locking them up seems like the only non-tiring option. But, it is not. And it causes more troubles, more immorality. It is not as efficient as a modern alternative to the old Samurai would be. Robots will help immensely. Everyone has an escort robot. Ha ha! Is that free? I think it could be. But will/would it be? Doubtful.

Only the shadow knows!

Thanks for your elaborations. That helps a little understanding your thinking. I still disagree, but I’m going to withhold going any further with the general ‘war’ topic here and now.

It is definitely a ripe topic, and I’ll admit I haven’t heard anything exactly like your position before.

Perhaps if you wanted to, you could start a new thread about it (war, morality, etc). That could be interesting. I’d definitely follow it, and probably participate. And I’d be curious about the general response from others. You don’t seem like you are rattled by disagreement, and that is a noble quality. It’s difficult sometimes not to take disagreement as an attack on one’s core beliefs, sending one into ‘attack mode’. I admire that you can remain polite under stress.

Anyway, thanks and carry on! :flower: :victory:

I would stay away from equating Yin to the feminine, and Yang to the masculine. It's understandable that one would be tempted into doing so, but I think this "man vs. woman" dichotomy is a symptom of western pathologies and not necessarily relevant for the concept of Yin-Yang.

In Taoist thought, both are critical components of every facet of life.


Yang represents creation and action, Yin represents rest and renewal. One cannot exist without the other and vice versa.

Out of balance Yang exhausts itself, and out of balance Yin becomes stagnant.


A solid argument can be made to the effect that our society is critically out of balance in terms of Yang, and is indeed exhausting itself. One clear indication of this is the increasing rates at which young people suffer burnouts and psychological problems.


However, just because it is imbalanced in terms of Yang, does not mean that there cannot be Yin imbalance too.

For example, I have seen the emotion of fear being mentioned here a couple of times as being overly present in our civilization. Roughly speaking, I think this is true. Consider the copious amounts of "fear porn" in the media, increases in anxiety-related disorders, etc.

In the Chinese Five Elements (Wuxing) fear is the emotion most closely related with the element Water, which is considered the most Yin of all elements, coming forth from the element of Metal, which is also a Yin element.


Yin-yang and Wuxing are cycles, not two-sided scales. Imbalances in one element can create, perpetuate or strengthen imbalances in the other. Everything is in communication and constant flux.


I just wanted to pull some things apart here, since it seems to me the thread is leaning towards a faulty interpretation of Yin-yang and related concepts, as it attempts to reinforce the western male/female dichotomy. — Tzeentch

Thanks very much for your response. That puts the thread into a fuller context of the origins of the Yin-Yang idea.

I definitely do not want to “reinforce the western male/female dichotomy”! Quite the opposite.

Thanks again. :smile: :up:

That would simply lead to the current imbalance. This is why Jung talks about embracing your "shadow." To help with maintaining personal equilibrium. — Vaskane

:up: Thanks. Yes, I’d agree with that.

Jung’s concept of anima and animus (the female and male within everyone, in a nutshell) has been around a long time. But it’s still quite radical.

And the far-Right conservatives would probably wish to ban and burn it. Which is not surprising, but is rather depressing. It’s like they are stuck in the movie Pleasantville.

Brenee Brown also has some excellent ideas that I found useful for myself across the corpus of her work. — Vaskane

I’ll look into those books. Thanks!

Perhaps if you wanted to, you could start a new thread about it (war, morality, etc). That could be interesting. I’d definitely follow it, and probably participate. — 0 thru 9

@Chet Hawkins

And actually by coincidence of timing, this might be a good time for someone to start a philosophical thread about war, since the specific threads about Ukraine, Gaza, etc are now in the Lounge.

Just an idea… :chin:

And actually by coincidence of timing, this might be a good time for someone to start a philosophical thread about war, since the specific threads about Ukraine, Gaza, etc are now in the Lounge. — 0 thru 9

Well, I tried to be clear. My philosophical definition of war is closer to change than what people will commonly or colloquially recognize as war.

To many and most, war is only some crazy, violent, nation versus nation thing that is often about money or resources one way or another.

My caution is that war is really only change. And suffering itself is indeed the only path to wisdom. Change involving suffering cannot be simply deemed immoral as most people would tend to do in my opinion.

Writers are probably well versed now in/on the concept of the 5 conflicts and I think 'they' have added AI as the 6th conflict, although AI to me is just another chooser, e.g. man v man and not a new category.

All of these conflicts to me are 'war' or 'change' or 'struggle', etc.

If you want to say, 'no Chet, I prefer that the term war always means foolish or unnecessary conflict!' , then there is no point in me bringing up my term shifting.

But my caution is why I bother. If we denigrate war in general, and people also tend to denigrate anger in general, completely misunderstanding its purpose in the grand scheme of things, we also then cannot attain balance and morality and wisdom are thrown out the window. Fear side and desire side aphorisms that are anti-wisdom are then taken as wisdom and humanity all loses. It is better to understand that conflict is morally required and the wise seek out struggle and suffering to test themselves in every way. One less potato chip is war. Challenging your neighbor to stop their dog from barking endlessly is war. Doubting God is war. Posting on a philosophy site is war. Occupying space and having mass is war.

Again, if you wish to split terms on these differing matters you risk misunderstanding the nature of reality itself.

{It's the same with fear actually. The colloquial definition is not useful really. If you insist on the limits of weakly defined terms and or colloquial common nonsense (which I deem to be similar) there is no saving you from misunderstanding. Of course, all of this is said tongue in cheek, my opinion, stated firmly as belief. I do tend to mention almost every time what my changes are from the standard colloquial terms. But I do feel those terms, the old emotional terms, are correct to use for better understanding}

But my caution is why I bother. If we denigrate war in general, and people also tend to denigrate anger in general, completely misunderstanding its purpose in the grand scheme of things, we also then cannot attain balance and morality and wisdom are thrown out the window. Fear side and desire side aphorisms that are anti-wisdom are then taken as wisdom and humanity all loses. It is better to understand that conflict is morally required and the wise seek out struggle and suffering to test themselves in every way. One less potato chip is war. Challenging your neighbor to stop their dog from barking endlessly is war. Doubting God is war. Posting on a philosophy site is war. Occupying space and having mass is war. — Chet Hawkins

Ok thanks for the further explanation.
I may have been unsure when you were using rhetorical devices (metaphors, analogies, hyperbole, polemic, etc) and when you were using words literally and by usual definition.
Rhetorical devices are cool, and I usually love some creativity to people’s writing, and I usually ‘get’ subtle nuances, so I’m a little disappointed in myself if I missed these subtleties.

Now I understand that you paint with a fine brush, I’ll try to read more carefully! :nerd:

That said…

“One less potato chip is war”? Hmm…
I believe our language has been devalued by lies, politics, advertising, and such.
But that may be straining the word ‘war’. But ok, you made the point.

In Arabic, jihad is usually translated as ‘struggle’, meaning the struggle and effort towards God.
Only in certain cases does it refer to actual warfare on infidels.
Not sure where I’m going with that, it just reminded me of that.

I hope to respond more later.

Thanks again for your posts and efforts! :smile:

In Arabic, jihad is usually translated as ‘struggle’, meaning the struggle and effort towards God.
Only in certain cases does it refer to actual warfare on infidels.
Not sure where I’m going with that, it just reminded me of that. — 0 thru 9

Then, yes, 'jihad'! I agree. The struggle towards God. Exactly!

I hope to respond more later.

Thanks again for your posts and efforts! :smile: — 0 thru 9

No worries. And you're welcome. Thank you for offering me a chance for clarity.

Sometimes people just misunderstand me despite my painstaking efforts at clarity and ... yes ... spreading my beliefs. But then I just declare jihad! Seriously though, the way to be is jihad by the definition given. And I would change the term 'God' for 'the good'.

Ha ha! Well, I get it. That means 'real life' distracts you from the important questions. And, people aren't wearing enough hats! — Chet Hawkins

I wouldn't exactly say that only 'real life' does so. I've also felt. . . impeded. . . by the idle speculations of others here and elsewhere.

Yes, that's the final truth in everyone's case. Of course get on a philosophy site and start going on and on about objective morality and improving more and more to approach perfection and morality being the hardest thing there is, and one wonders, is it worth it? How many converts to truth will there be? Comforting lies has a much longer line to the booth than truth does. — Chet Hawkins

To call it truth is to commit such a mischievous intuition entrance to the armory of a philosophical dominator.

I get that also. We are too exhausted to put in more effort to contain others' immorality. — Chet Hawkins

What spirit I have is exhausted, period. I want such motivations, intuitions, or moral imperatives to cease their chants regardless of my actions. . . or lack thereof. I just want it to simply end. They only bring me heartache and immediate awareness of how I should view my apathy/indifference as mental hypocrisy.

Ha ha! Well, I get it. That means 'real life' distracts you from the important questions. And, people aren't wearing enough hats!
— Chet Hawkins
I wouldn't exactly say that only 'real life' does so. I've also felt. . . impeded. . . by the idle speculations of others here and elsewhere. — substantivalism

Well, that was kind-of my point. 'Real life' is quoted because that is delusional. Real life unquoted is non-delusional amid real experience. Real life includes speculations, idle and otherwise, that do absolutely have impact upon us, whether we wish them to or not.

What is in the mind's eye of the others is unified with us, as an objective truth. There is no final escape from that trouble. Perfection-aiming involves first admitting that this trouble is part of objective truth, and then striving with effort to overcome the many delusions that tempt us from the great happy resonance with truth.

I would like to ask directly to make sure you are not being simply coy and poking fun back at me, 'Do you mean (solely or mostly) me, when you call out idle speculations?' {is that a tongue in cheek dig?}

Yes, that's the final truth in everyone's case. Of course get on a philosophy site and start going on and on about objective morality and improving more and more to approach perfection and morality being the hardest thing there is, and one wonders, is it worth it? How many converts to truth will there be? Comforting lies has a much longer line to the booth than truth does.
— Chet Hawkins
To call it truth is to commit such a mischievous intuition entrance to the armory of a philosophical dominator. — substantivalism

You might have to demystify that sentence for me.

Again, I sense a kind of dig at me. But, I am often a bit paranoid. So, I try to err on the side of letting slights go unanswered which has, I hope, an effect that means ... hey this Chet guy gave me side-eye so he saw my angle, but he let it pass. I guess that does not affect his position. His idea(s) remain stable despite assault. What does that mean?

Philosophical dominators with committed and mischievous intuition are fun! Right? {I had a cat once, ughhh} That is especially true if the foil is openly accepted and also humble (really) in that truth-seeking remains the final goal however haphazardly we approach it. When one mounts a soapbox or posts on such a site, one is not free of intents, no, and none of those intents are perfect. But, such a proselytizer is either wearing better angle wings than most, or not. Is there a clear assertion of yea or nay in that regard?

I get that also. We are too exhausted to put in more effort to contain others' immorality.
— Chet Hawkins
What spirit I have is exhausted, period. I want such motivations, intuitions, or moral imperatives to cease their chants regardless of my actions. . . or lack thereof. I just want it to simply end. They only bring me heartache and immediate awareness of how I should view my apathy/indifference as mental hypocrisy. — substantivalism

Well, correct me if I am wrong. But, you seem to be maligning your suffering state while at the same time actually admitting that it, your chosen state, is at least slightly wrong. Is that a correct assessment of what you were saying here. If so, then I can relax a bit that you are not finding me any more offensive than your own choices are.

When starting this thread, I considered emphasizing the Tao Te Ching, but went with the possibly easier-to-grasp symbol of Yin and Yang.

But this says what I try to say so gracefully and concisely:

Can you coax your mind from its wandering
and keep to the original oneness?
Can you let your body become
supple as a newborn child's?
Can you cleanse your inner vision
until you see nothing but the light?
Can you love people and lead them
without imposing your will?
Can you deal with the most vital matters
by letting events take their course?
Can you step back from your own mind
and thus understand all things?

Giving birth and nourishing,
having without possessing,
acting with no expectations,
leading and not trying to control:
this is the supreme virtue.

Tao Te Ching, verse 10

It is like the tip of the spear, very compact, but it hints at meditation, yoga, your life’s purpose, love, and detachment.
And letting go of accumulating possessions and information.

When one wants to accept the path, the many details and tips can be looked up elsewhere.
If our civilization followed these ideas, my imagination struggles to see and can’t explain…

But I think it’d be radically different, and infinitely better.

It is like the tip of the spear, very compact, but it hints at meditation, yoga, your life’s purpose, love, and detachment.
And letting go of accumulating possessions and information.

When one wants to accept the path, the many details and tips can be looked up elsewhere.
If our civilization followed these ideas, my imagination struggles to see and can’t explain…

But I think it’d be radically different, and infinitely better. — 0 thru 9

I enjoy the sentiment and the balance that any worthy model evokes within us to help us cope and understand reality.

In the end, by my model, you are aiming at the being portion, the anger portion, as a consequence. This is great in the sense that it stresses the third force, the consequence, of that model, yin/yang. What worries me is that the details and information and delusional hurdles along that path are required and cannot in any way be circumvented, despite the 'fond' desire that they could be.

One must 'suffer' though them and then hold that suffering present in one's balance to be and maintain wise action.

Thanks for your reply…

I know, I know… the inevitable objection to such idealistic thoughts.
Thanks for not putting it in the usual way, such as “that’s not the REAL world blah blah… ”
(So I’m not disagreeing with you, rather I’m disagreeing with (and trying to smash) the inner recording tape loop playing incessantly inside of my mind, though not in my mind alone).

But the ‘real world’ consists of a ‘given’ and a ‘possibility’, brute facts and choice.

Let me emphasize the quote I gave, and how the translation of the first part is written almost as a challenge.
“CAN YOU love people and lead them without imposing your will?” etc…

It hints that there is much we do have control over.

We live a mortal life in an evolving planet, with some things we can’t change.
There will be plenty of suffering and opportunities for growth without adding to them.
(Crisis-opportunities as the Chinese say).
But we have such powers of choice built into us, even before taking into account technology.

It is tempting to think ‘we are civilized, these problems are how civilization works… exactly like it is now, there’s no going back… we are civilized, these problems are how civilization works… ”

This reasonable-sounding lullaby works well for the owners of the global Machine.
We march to their tune by day, and lull ourselves to sleep telling ourselves that there is no other way to be ‘civilized’ but the way we were taught, the way it is now (give or take some window dressing).

Worrying too much about the world's problems is a trap, in my view. As you rightly say, we don't have control over it anyway, and dreamers who worry about humanity tend to have giant blind spots when it comes to themselves. (It almost becomes an excuse not to confront one's own faults)

By focusing on developing oneself positively, and conducting oneself in accordance to sensible principles one becomes the most positive force one possibly can be.

I personally find this a very empowering approach, echoed in many philosophies and even coming full-circle back to Nietzsche in a strange way.

I would like to ask directly to make sure you are not being simply coy and poking fun back at me, 'Do you mean (solely or mostly) me, when you call out idle speculations?' {is that a tongue in cheek dig?} — Chet Hawkins

I mean everyone here including myself.

You might have to demystify that sentence for me. — Chet Hawkins

Any term you or me use is polluted by colloquial meanings and socially present biases. To call something "truth" without further elaboration on what that means or how to methodologically showcase something as such. . . and the limitations of these strategies. . . leaves you open to having your speculations be handled as a hammer by others against 'dissidents'. Whether that is your intention or not.

When it comes to philosophical speculation we are left with a handful of attitudes with which to motivate philosophical progress on. Pyrrhonean skeptics who seek to passively take a back seat or actively seek for balancing the arguments for as much as against a specific position. Pragmatic fictionalists who see it as merely make believe in a cosmic mental game to play out depending on the accepted rule set. That or become a supremacist. . . what I called a philosophical dominator. . . or it could also be called a dogmatist/fundamentalist. A position, that despite the immediately negative connotations, isn't meant to be seen as purely negative. However, the word "truth" can be used rather loose in a political sense comparable more to a sociological tool to immediately discredit the viewpoints of others to the benefit a given philosophical dominator.

Until there is an admittance that such a word is merely to portray your high sense of confidence or you later present an elaborate theory of truth I hope you don't fault me for my own idle speculations.

Well, correct me if I am wrong. But, you seem to be maligning your suffering state while at the same time actually admitting that it, your chosen state, is at least slightly wrong. Is that a correct assessment of what you were saying here. If so, then I can relax a bit that you are not finding me any more offensive than your own choices are. — Chet Hawkins

At least in principle I'd consider the opinions of another as their own without emotive objection and unless I have sufficient basis, besides idle discussion, to point out perceived flaws it always seem to be more psychological projection on my part than anything else.

I rarely believe I have sufficient basis. . .

As to 'maligning [my] suffering state', similar to what I've stated before something about taking a position to its breaking point and then realizing the solution with which to gain balance again seems rather appealing. . . but not until a sufficient back reaction sets me free. More so at the moment in principle, not so much in practice. In practice, it may mean that once such a principle has served its purpose it may go into hibernation.

I would like to ask directly to make sure you are not being simply coy and poking fun back at me, 'Do you mean (solely or mostly) me, when you call out idle speculations?' {is that a tongue in cheek dig?}
— Chet Hawkins
I mean everyone here including myself. — substantivalism

Yes, ok, a balanced critique, levelled at all. I agree.

You might have to demystify that sentence for me.
— Chet Hawkins
Any term you or me use is polluted by colloquial meanings and socially present biases. To call something "truth" without further elaboration on what that means or how to methodologically showcase something as such. . . and the limitations of these strategies. . . leaves you open to having your speculations be handled as a hammer by others against 'dissidents'. Whether that is your intention or not. — substantivalism

Yes, well, hammery or hammerish. I am fairly ... confident ... in my statements for some tastes yes, not necessarily implying you. I speak to truth as I understand it, which is not necessarily the same thing, yet, as truth as I might want it, if you follow.

The truth I know is one that requires of all moral agents an uncompromising and infinite amount of effort. The aim of perfection is a complete lack of laziness, cowardice, and self-indulgence specifically; those three being the only cardinal sins or immoral aims from which all others are derived. This can sound like belief and it is but not only that. I do maintain that, in demonstrable ways these assertions match reality in remarkable ways; repeatable, understandable.

When it comes to philosophical speculation we are left with a handful of attitudes with which to motivate philosophical progress on. Pyrrhonean skeptics who seek to passively take a back seat or actively seek for balancing the arguments for as much as against a specific position. Pragmatic fictionalists who see it as merely make believe in a cosmic mental game to play out depending on the accepted rule set. That or become a supremacist. . . what I called a philosophical dominator. . . or it could also be called a dogmatist/fundamentalist. A position, that despite the immediately negative connotations, isn't meant to be seen as purely negative. — substantivalism

I find those three to be a likely match for fear, desire, and anger. As such your separations of the approaches is agreeable and predictable.

I would say though that anger is different in one way to the other two emotions. I admit freely that this difference can be overstated and that is not my intent. Still, the single point in time of the eternal now is the scope of anger. In that singularity, it differs from the possibly delusional gulf or scope of the past (fear) and the future (desire). Also, anger is the neutral force, rejecting the other two as its primary role. The denial/acceptance of fear and the denial/acceptance of desire literally cause what most call 'reality' to exist. The tension of emotive interaction is actually a better description of reality than 'reality'. Again 'reality' as I use it is what most would call reality, incorrectly. There is nothing but emotion in existence.

However, the word "truth" can be used rather loose in a political sense comparable more to a sociological tool to immediately discredit the viewpoints of others to the benefit a given philosophical dominator. — substantivalism

I do engage in forceful discretization of ideas that I believe I have useful and strong arguments against. I will deign to offer those arguments as fully as I can. But, agreed that, at the end of the day, there is no final proof, only belief.

Until there is an admittance that such a word is merely to portray your high sense of confidence or you later present an elaborate theory of truth I hope you don't fault me for my own idle speculations. — substantivalism

Well, the admittance of my confidence is there fully. That is all any of us have. So, I have no choice but to allow free will in others, expressing it egregiously and properly myself. And actually although I do not fault anyone their right to express their ideas on what truth is or might be, I would nonetheless fault their reasoning as needed where it does not agree with reality, which I would find reasonable from them towards my model in turn, e.g. 'to be fair' {Letterkenny}.

Well, correct me if I am wrong. But, you seem to be maligning your suffering state while at the same time actually admitting that it, your chosen state, is at least slightly wrong. Is that a correct assessment of what you were saying here. If so, then I can relax a bit that you are not finding me any more offensive than your own choices are.
— Chet Hawkins
At least in principle I'd consider the opinions of another as their own without emotive objection and unless I have sufficient basis, besides idle discussion, to point out perceived flaws it always seem to be more psychological projection on my part than anything else. — substantivalism

The which is a ... rather observant and uninvolved approach, the path of fear. Do you agree? I might say I find the 'get on the field and participate' advice of Joseph Campbell more to my taste, but it's no surprise I'm an anger type.

I rarely believe I have sufficient basis. . . — substantivalism

Your acumen does not seem wanting at all. The world benefits from people of high ability stating firmly their beliefs. 'Let truth and falsehood grapple! Truth is strong!' - Milton (has a point)

As to 'maligning [my] suffering state', similar to what I've stated before something about taking a position to its breaking point and then realizing the solution with which to gain balance again seems rather appealing. . . but not until a sufficient back reaction sets me free. More so at the moment in principle, not so much in practice. In practice, it may mean that once such a principle has served its purpose it may go into hibernation. — substantivalism

The sleeper must awaken! - Frank Herbert

Rest is acceptable but it seems to me more and more as moral agency increases and time passes more and more heightened (maximized) balanced states are required. This means rest must become more efficient (shorter in duration with a limit of zero). What do you think?

↪Chet Hawkins
Thanks for your reply…

I know, I know… the inevitable objection to such idealistic thoughts.
Thanks for not putting it in the usual way, such as “that’s not the REAL world blah blah… ” — 0 thru 9

I am very well aware of the Pragmatic side, fear side failure of the cop-out saying of 'this is the REAL world' or 'we are only human'. I do not use that pathetic excuse. ;)

(So I’m not disagreeing with you, rather I’m disagreeing with (and trying to smash) the inner recording tape loop playing incessantly inside of my mind, though not in my mind alone). — 0 thru 9

And that discipline is the right one, of wisdom. And the fact that you call it out is rehearsing the good, rather than the other way of excusing and thus rehearsing evil. I can only hope I do not sound condescending when I commiserate. I do the same thing. For so long I wondered, 'is this self chiding voice in me self-defeating?' Now I have lived with it long enough to cherish its insistence, in it's small, fragile, yet eternal and unrelenting voice.

But the ‘real world’ consists of a ‘given’ and a ‘possibility’, brute facts and choice. — 0 thru 9

Oh no! The inevitable backslide to the 'we're only human' position. Nooooooo!

Let me emphasize the quote I gave, and how the translation of the first part is written almost as a challenge.
“CAN YOU love people and lead them without imposing your will?” etc… — 0 thru 9

No. You cannot.

Action is required of the moral. Inaction is mere laziness the sin of anger. This is why for example enneatype 8 and 1 are more regularly thrashed and anger is denigrated than the enneatype 9 laziness and calm is. Most people would rather be around someone who patients waits for them to 'get it' than to be around those that actively challenge or instruct them to change. But most people are horribly immorally weak in that preference.

Every immoral tendency in EVERY way is indeed just immoral until you admit there is objective moral truth. When you do so, when you admit that and believe it properly, there is a change. Suddenly there is a RIGHT way to do the previously immoral thing. There is no exception to this being the only exception in all cases. This is the infinite nature of all wisdom, all truth. It is the juxtaposition that evil will try to call out to discredit the good. The good, objective aim, is the hardest thing you can do. Any and every excuse will divert you from it. And if all directions are wrong except perfection and perfection is unattainable, then how easy is it for any immoral aim to suggest that the good direction is just as suspect of being wrong. But good is ok with that and yet seemingly remains the good, perfect in isolation.

Example: Being impatient in the pursuit of the good is wise. Being impatient in any other way is unwise. This juxtaposition is horrific for the unwise and they will deny it and let it rankle them.

Example: Condescension is unwise. But condescension must include immoral intent. The same attitude exists morally and is called, 'Teaching'. 'Mansplaining' is another example of this. If one is more concerned with the source of an action or advice than its intent, one is immoral.

Example: Gaslighting is unwise. But gaslighting must include immoral intent. The same attitude exists morally and is called, 'Counseling'. If one is more concerned with justifying one's actual insanity than addressing it, one will call counseling, gaslighting immorally.

There is no way to properly address these issues without an admission that morality is objective. Once one understands that, believes it, one can earn wisdom and grow. Until that baseline admission is made progress at all is much less certain, haphazard at best.

It hints that there is much we do have control over. — 0 thru 9

Control is an odd choice of words here. In isolation especially this sentence is problematic.

We have 'control' over one thing, choice, intent. Any other control is delusional. So what do you mean?

We live a mortal life in an evolving planet, with some things we can’t change. — 0 thru 9

That is not relevant.

The choice to try to change what is immoral to what is moral is the only relevant thing. Thus your statement, granted in isolation, is immoral. We can indeed in time change all in any way desired. There is however always one exception properly to every such moral statement. What is good is objective and cannot be changed. See how that works?

There will be plenty of suffering and opportunities for growth without adding to them.
(Crisis-opportunities as the Chinese say). — 0 thru 9

Intent to the good is always and only wise and good. Consequences are not relevant except to inform formation of future intents. The sword of Damocles is involved in the formation of intents. Are you honest about including past consequences into your new intents? You do know.

The good wisely inflict necessary suffering on the everyone as everyone is slightly unwise. Adding wise suffering is always wise, as a tautology. Excuses abound. They are only that and not wise.

But we have such powers of choice built into us, even before taking into account technology. — 0 thru 9

I agree. Choice is infinite. But the difficulty of right choice is state dependent in the sense for example that some people can easily hurdle some goals and others can do it, for sure, without exception, but not nearly so easily. The blind can see, they just refuse to. The difficult is too much. They deny in part their connection to all, their oneness with all, and refuse to see only because of the difficulty involved. This is hard to agree with like all real wisdom, and yet remains a tautology.

Slavery is certainly choice. The slave is choosing to be a slave. That one will really get people going. I mean, are we to remain timid on subject matter when discussing universal truths? I think not. If there is a person so possessed of rare understanding that they must needs call out dangerous and divisive truths in every situation, what is the label we properly apply to that person? Is the one-eyed man king in the land of the blind? Is she? Really? What is the probability?

It is tempting to think ‘we are civilized, these problems are how civilization works… exactly like it is now, there’s no going back… we are civilized, these problems are how civilization works… ”

This reasonable-sounding lullaby works well for the owners of the global Machine.
We march to their tune by day, and lull ourselves to sleep telling ourselves that there is no other way to be ‘civilized’ but the way we were taught, the way it is now (give or take some window dressing). — 0 thru 9

This is nothing but order. Order is not the good. That conflation is tiresome to me but I realize that so many people, even Jordan Peterson sometimes, labor under its tiresome yolk. Cattle think and that's casting aspersions on some fairly independent minded bovine exemplars I and my border collie have encountered. Resistance is NEVER futile. The Borg are idiots.

But the ‘real world’ consists of a ‘given’ and a ‘possibility’, brute facts and choice.
— 0 thru 9
Oh no! The inevitable backslide to the 'we're only human' position. Nooooooo! — Chet Hawkins

What position? Sorry, I’m not sure what you mean here. Please expand on this.

I meant simply that (as a very general statement) we have possessions, talents, family, etc and there are many possibilities what to do with that ‘raw material’.

Let me emphasize the quote I gave, and how the translation of the first part is written almost as a challenge.
“CAN YOU love people and lead them without imposing your will?” etc…
— 0 thru 9
No. You cannot.

Action is required of the moral. Inaction is mere laziness the sin of anger. This is why for example enneatype 8 and 1 are more regularly thrashed and anger is denigrated than the enneatype 9 laziness and calm is. Most people would rather be around someone who patients waits for them to 'get it' than to be around those that actively challenge or instruct them to change. But most people are horribly immorally weak in that preference. — Chet Hawkins

Then I regret to say (and hope that I’m mistaken) that you reject (or possibly that you are overlooking) the teaching of the Tao, which (in this small quote) advises to be like a patient nurturing parent towards one you wish to share knowledge / wisdom with.

This is opposed to claiming some knowledge (which may be presumptuous) and forcing it upon someone (which is very authoritative and domineering).

This usually leads to a battle of wills, instead of surrounding a person with some piece of ‘truth’, but letting them open to it… or not.
You can lead a horse to water, after that it is their choice to be nourished or not.

To claim wisdom and the right to force it on someone reminds me of the extreme music teacher in the movie Whiplash, if you have seen it. (Please understand that I’m NOT saying that your words are as extreme as the teacher in that movie! Not comparing here. I’m simply against too much force in teaching or leading. Even when one is full of valuable knowledge! Especially then).

That which is loud and hot and demanding is too Yang, and will burn itself out.
Which is fine in nature, but who intentionally wants to burn out quickly? (not me, anymore).

Example: Gaslighting is unwise. But gaslighting must include immoral intent. The same attitude exists morally and is called, 'Counseling'. If one is more concerned with justifying one's actual insanity than addressing it, one will call counseling, gaslighting immorally. — Chet Hawkins

I don’t know what definition of ‘gaslighting’ you are using here, but it doesn’t have much in common with anything I’ve heard. Gaslighting is psychological abuse, not counseling.

From Webster:

gaslighting: psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator

I think you are saying that the intention defines the morality of an action?
Like murder is wrong, but killing somebody who is attempting to kill others is justified?
If so, then I’d agree in principle.

The good wisely inflict necessary suffering on the everyone as everyone is slightly unwise. Adding wise suffering is always wise, as a tautology. Excuses abound. They are only that and not wise. — Chet Hawkins

Slavery is certainly choice. The slave is choosing to be a slave. That one will really get people going. I mean, are we to remain timid on subject matter when discussing universal truths? I think not. If there is a person so possessed of rare understanding that they must needs call out dangerous and divisive truths in every situation, what is the label we properly apply to that person? Is the one-eyed man king in the land of the blind? Is she? Really? What is the probability? — Chet Hawkins

Ok. But you are making sweeping absolute statements again (like in previous posts about ‘war’).
And the meaning of them depends on some irony or insight or knowledge that I’m just not seeing being demonstrated or shown… rhetorical devices aside.

I know about ‘crazy wisdom’ being contrary and provocative while making a point.
That’s been done successfully, though it’s tricky.
But I’m not seeing the wisdom here, sorry.
These type of statements just sounds like blunt assertions with some bold attitude, which I’m not inclined to respect or even respond to further.
In my view, a ‘steamroller approach’ isn’t working, and I think you make better points elsewhere in your response.

It is tempting to think ‘we are civilized, these problems are how civilization works… exactly like it is now, there’s no going back… we are civilized, these problems are how civilization works… ”

This reasonable-sounding lullaby works well for the owners of the global Machine.
We march to their tune by day, and lull ourselves to sleep telling ourselves that there is no other way to be ‘civilized’ but the way we were taught, the way it is now (give or take some window dressing).
— 0 thru 9
This is nothing but order. Order is not the good. That conflation is tiresome to me but I realize that so many people, even Jordan Peterson sometimes, labor under its tiresome yolk. Cattle think and that's casting aspersions on some fairly independent minded bovine exemplars I and my border collie have encountered. Resistance is NEVER futile. The Borg are idiots. — Chet Hawkins

I think we actually may be agreeing here, but I might have been a little unclear in my initial wording.
I’m saying RESIST the way we are taught, with regards to the idea that the powerful must know what they are doing, and therefore are worthy of following.
To QUESTION everything, and not be lead by appearances and moved by displays of physical or financial power.

(So I’m not disagreeing with you, rather I’m disagreeing with (and trying to smash) the inner recording tape loop playing incessantly inside of my mind, though not in my mind alone).
— 0 thru 9
And that discipline is the right one, of wisdom. And the fact that you call it out is rehearsing the good, rather than the other way of excusing and thus rehearsing evil. I can only hope I do not sound condescending when I commiserate. I do the same thing. For so long I wondered, 'is this self chiding voice in me self-defeating?' Now I have lived with it long enough to cherish its insistence, in it's small, fragile, yet eternal and unrelenting voice. — Chet Hawkins

We agree again here, I think. (Feel free to disagree lol).

My statement here was like what I wrote above about “resisting and questioning”.
Question our teaching, keep what seems worthy, discard the unworthy teachings, and keep investigating that which one is still unsure of.

Any find our inner guidance, conscience, moral compass… (however one describes it).

(Oh yes… and actually FOLLOW what the conscience advises one to do. I’m still working on doing that one consistently). :smile:

But the ‘real world’ consists of a ‘given’ and a ‘possibility’, brute facts and choice.
— 0 thru 9
Oh no! The inevitable backslide to the 'we're only human' position. Nooooooo!
— Chet Hawkins

What position? Sorry, I’m not sure what you mean here. Please expand on this.

I meant simply that (as a very general statement) we have possessions, talents, family, etc and there are many possibilities what to do with that ‘raw material’. — 0 thru 9

Yes you are right. I maybe misunderstood your comment there thinking you were making the Pragmatic, 'Sorry there idealist guy, this is the real world with real people, and real people fail so we let them' type of statement which is really only an excuse. But you were saying from a given state there is (insert clarification here) choice. I agree and my clarification would be this insertion: 'infinitely available but by degrees harder and harder to choose ...'. The meaning of which includes the real world comment a Pragmatist would offer but without making any excuses.

I think we were saying the same thing depending on your insert.

Let me emphasize the quote I gave, and how the translation of the first part is written almost as a challenge.
“CAN YOU love people and lead them without imposing your will?” etc…
— 0 thru 9
No. You cannot.

Action is required of the moral. Inaction is mere laziness the sin of anger. This is why for example enneatype 8 and 1 are more regularly thrashed and anger is denigrated than the enneatype 9 laziness and calm is. Most people would rather be around someone who patients waits for them to 'get it' than to be around those that actively challenge or instruct them to change. But most people are horribly immorally weak in that preference.
— Chet Hawkins

Then I regret to say (and hope that I’m mistaken) that you reject (or possibly that you are overlooking) the teaching of the Tao, which (in this small quote) advises to be like a patient nurturing parent towards one you wish to share knowledge / wisdom with. — 0 thru 9

So I do not reject that ... way. I do embrace it, but, the teaching part, the assertive declarative part is not the soft part. The do it and be judged part is the soft part. Granted, you cannot detect my demeanor in text. I come off mostly calm and humorous in person, but can lean towards forceful and assertive as indeed I am an anger type person and not a enneatype 9 (which would absolutely fit Tao as you describe if you can scrape them off the couch to get them to do something).

Asian philosophy to me is very Enneatype 9 in almost all ways. I find that an extremely limited point of view. Wisdom should encompass all possible teachers including a challenging 8 like me and a righteous 1 like so many teachers are. Further, Asian teachings in general express a deep and abiding mistrust of desire, which they pretty much view as the only emotion causing issues in many ways. I am not a general expert on it but I have read a lot of the widely known stuff. That's just my current take on it. If you have an Asian source you would recommend, I would be interested. It is a goal of mine to soften my language because I want to reach more people, but not so badly I will detract from the poignant nature of truth in my message.

This is opposed to claiming some knowledge (which may be presumptuous) and forcing it upon someone (which is very authoritative and domineering). — 0 thru 9

Yes, well, it can be a leaning of mine. I do try to soften it, but natural tendencies being what they are ... I probably fail often enough.

This usually leads to a battle of wills, instead of surrounding a person with some piece of ‘truth’, but letting them open to it… or not.
You can lead a horse to water, after that it is their choice to be nourished or not. — 0 thru 9

Yes, well, granted in that sense. As mentioned the 'do it' part is much less assertive from me.

To claim wisdom and the right to force it on someone reminds me of the extreme music teacher in the movie Whiplash, if you have seen it. (Please understand that I’m NOT saying that your words are as extreme as the teacher in that movie! Not comparing here. I’m simply against too much force in teaching or leading. Even when one is full of valuable knowledge! Especially then). — 0 thru 9

Well I prefer confident professionals to dithering or quiet types. In my experience it works better. I do not mean overbearing but assertive, yes. It's the same to me as a bridge maker. Do you make good bridges? Do you know what you are doing? ' 'Absolutely! I've studied the relevant science and I take great pride in going beyond specifications! I invest time and energy in understanding and using the materials like no one else I know. I do not invest as much time in flashy decor but rather in long lasting bridges that are engineered for flexible strength.' That by comparison with a bridge guy that is soft and quiet and says things like, 'Try it and see' or 'I've never had any complaints' is better to me. The latter type terrifies me with their lack of forthright and assertive candor.

This fits with my model as well. This may sound like exactly the kind of presumptuous assertion you do not prefer, but, anger is inherently the most honest of the three primal emotions. It is by its nature more interested in balance. And it is usually assertive to some degree. This brutality as a tendency is why it is often called 'brutal' honesty. That is no accident. And I prefer no accidents in my bridges and my wisdom. Too much?

That which is loud and hot and demanding is too Yang, and will burn itself out.
Which is fine in nature, but who intentionally wants to burn out quickly? (not me, anymore). — 0 thru 9

Yes imbalance anger burns up as Yang teaches. But balanced anger and anger is about balance in general does not do this and also broadcasts confidence and serenity. The mixture is delicate and I admit I sometimes rub my audiences the wrong way. But anger is supposed to run over expressed desire and fear the wrong way. Anger stand to their forces, bending them by force back into proper moral alignment. That is why war can be wise in come cases.

Example: Gaslighting is unwise. But gaslighting must include immoral intent. The same attitude exists morally and is called, 'Counseling'. If one is more concerned with justifying one's actual insanity than addressing it, one will call counseling, gaslighting immorally.
— Chet Hawkins

I don’t know what definition of ‘gaslighting’ you are using here, but it doesn’t have much in common with anything I’ve heard. Gaslighting is psychological abuse, not counseling.

From Webster:
gaslighting: psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one's emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator — 0 thru 9

So the modern community on fb and other social media is chock full of many people, but mostly left wing and desire oriented types, that use gaslighting and condescension and mansplaining all the time, improperly. I gave these examples because of that. I have had extensive debates on each of the terms in many forums because people tend to use them improperly. Further the point being made was that the negative intent is required to use the term properly and therefore some attempt must be made to judge the speaker's intent. When you simply see people saying 'because a man did it it's mansplaining', and then things like 'he told me I was acting too emotionally all the time, so I'm done with that condescending gas-lighter!" you then have great sympathy for the targets of such nonsense.

I think you are saying that the intention defines the morality of an action?
Like murder is wrong, but killing somebody who is attempting to kill others is justified?
If so, then I’d agree in principle. — 0 thru 9

Yes, and murder is a great word example. The word murder is basically defined as immoral killing. The implication of that is that indeed there is moral killing. And I agree.

The good wisely inflict necessary suffering on the everyone as everyone is slightly unwise. Adding wise suffering is always wise, as a tautology. Excuses abound. They are only that and not wise.
— Chet Hawkins

Slavery is certainly choice. The slave is choosing to be a slave. That one will really get people going. I mean, are we to remain timid on subject matter when discussing universal truths? I think not. If there is a person so possessed of rare understanding that they must needs call out dangerous and divisive truths in every situation, what is the label we properly apply to that person? Is the one-eyed man king in the land of the blind? Is she? Really? What is the probability?
— Chet Hawkins

Ok. But you are making sweeping absolute statements again (like in previous posts about ‘war’).
And the meaning of them depends on some irony or insight or knowledge that I’m just not seeing being demonstrated or shown… rhetorical devices aside. — 0 thru 9

It was shown. I will show it again. Choice is infinite. Done. Shown. The point is that choice is all we have and the infinite nature of choice makes blame easy. Everyone is to blame for everything. We are trapped in any state only because we lack the will, the wherewithal to change the state. But infinite choice is a guaranteed law of reality that means we are indeed to blame for any state.

Since you are me and I am you is also a truth, even if someone else caused the state you are still to blame. It makes truth easy to navigate if you believe it. Accepting blame is empowering and reaffirming in all cases. That does not mean you dwell on it or wallow in blame like foolish heroes in every story that thing everything is their fault and will not stop walling in guilt about it uselessly. That is not wise, even though it is wise to accept blame.

I know about ‘crazy wisdom’ being contrary and provocative while making a point.
That’s been done successfully, though it’s tricky. — 0 thru 9

It is tricky! I think I do fairly well. But you are helping by making solid critiques. Thank you.

But I’m not seeing the wisdom here, sorry.
These type of statements just sounds like blunt assertions with some bold attitude, which I’m not inclined to respect or even respond to further. — 0 thru 9

Ah, well, sorry. I tried to clarify again. It's very possible I am not the best writing spout of wisdom for you then.

In my view, a ‘steamroller approach’ isn’t working, and I think you make better points elsewhere in your response. — 0 thru 9

I do not think I'd go that far in characterizing my approach. But confidence can seem too much to some.

It is tempting to think ‘we are civilized, these problems are how civilization works… exactly like it is now, there’s no going back… we are civilized, these problems are how civilization works… ”

This reasonable-sounding lullaby works well for the owners of the global Machine.
We march to their tune by day, and lull ourselves to sleep telling ourselves that there is no other way to be ‘civilized’ but the way we were taught, the way it is now (give or take some window dressing).
— 0 thru 9
This is nothing but order. Order is not the good. That conflation is tiresome to me but I realize that so many people, even Jordan Peterson sometimes, labor under its tiresome yolk. Cattle think and that's casting aspersions on some fairly independent minded bovine exemplars I and my border collie have encountered. Resistance is NEVER futile. The Borg are idiots.
— Chet Hawkins

I think we actually may be agreeing here, but I might have been a little unclear in my initial wording.
I’m saying RESIST the way we are taught, with regards to the idea that the powerful must know what they are doing, and therefore are worthy of following.
To QUESTION everything, and not be lead by appearances and moved by displays of physical or financial power.

(So I’m not disagreeing with you, rather I’m disagreeing with (and trying to smash) the inner recording tape loop playing incessantly inside of my mind, though not in my mind alone).
- 0 thru 9 — 0 thru 9

Oh yeah, sorry. I should have been clearer that we agreed on that one. I just instead stated my parallel and supportive argument and maybe you thought I was disagreeing because I sounded confident about it. I was disagreeing alright, but with the same thing you disagreed to.

And that discipline is the right one, of wisdom. And the fact that you call it out is rehearsing the good, rather than the other way of excusing and thus rehearsing evil. I can only hope I do not sound condescending when I commiserate. I do the same thing. For so long I wondered, 'is this self chiding voice in me self-defeating?' Now I have lived with it long enough to cherish its insistence, in it's small, fragile, yet eternal and unrelenting voice.
— Chet Hawkins

We agree again here, I think. (Feel free to disagree lol).

My statement here was like what I wrote above about “resisting and questioning”.
Question our teaching, keep what seems worthy, discard the unworthy teachings, and keep investigating that which one is still unsure of.

Any find our inner guidance, conscience, moral compass… (however one describes it).
(Oh yes… and actually FOLLOW what the conscience advises one to do. I’m still working on doing that one consistently). :smile: — 0 thru 9

Yes the sword of Damocles is a hard thing to pretend to adhere to. As in let consequences inform your new intents and then pretend that the sword is there. Ignore it at your peril! The sword is your moral compass from an angry threatening point of view. Maybe you prefer the cosmic tickler of Damocles!

Excellent responses to my questions, comments, and critique.
(And the word ‘criticism’ sounds better in French, oui? :cool: )

I probably won’t be able to respond in-depth until tomorrow perhaps, but I appreciate the thoughtful and (very thorough) posts. :smile: :up:

Upon ruminating on the subject a little more, I think I have come up with a basic idea of how to capture "western" society's ailments in terms of Yinyang and Taoist thought.

There are, or so it seems to me, multiple imbalances.

_______________________________________

In terms of Yang, it appears to me western society is exhausting itself. It reminds me of how the Soviet Union eventually collapsed under its own weight, because the system was simply not sustainable.

As the period of western dominance nears its end, western societies have to continually ask more of its citizens in order to stay competitive with other systems. People must produce more, and rest less.

The event horizon for this system shrinks, becoming more and more based on the short-term while sacrificing it's long-term health. Where in the past people would have been thinking about how we can create a system that will continue to work decades into the future, now people are instead worried about how we keep the system from total collapse for another year.

This, obviously, cannot last forever, and even though the system continues to try and spur people on to work harder and be more 'productive', it will reach the limit of what the people can tolerate.

We are reaching that critical point, as more and more young people are suffering burnout and related psychological problems, even though the socialist structures of many western societies actually look to the younger generations to carry the old. They are the ones who are most exposed to, lets say, 'productivity propaganda' through social media and platforms like YouTube.

__________________________________________

But a Yang imbalance alone is not enough to critically imbalance a system, because if the Yin elements were in balance, those who ran into problems like burnout would be able to rest and restore themselves, and return healthily to society, or perhaps even return stronger.

In other words, there would be a self-correcting mechanism that looks a bit like:

Imbalanced Yang state > Overexertion > Burnout > Balanced Yin state > Rest & Reflection > Renewed Yang state.

A balanced Yin would ensure that not only can people return back into society stronger and with better insight, but also would propel the system as a whole to reflect upon itself and detect the unbalanced Yang state, and repair it.

___________________________________________

This doesn't happen, because the Yin is also imbalanced.

A typical Yin imbalance manifests itself not only as stagnation, but also as indecisiveness, worry, anxiety, overthink, fearfulness, etc. - creating a 'freeze' response.

This is often times associated with too much intellective thinking, which is something that in western society can be linked to an overly scientific world view; I have referred to in the past as the 'mechanistic' world view. (Which is a term I have gotten from Flemish professor Mattias Desmet)

It is essentially an almost religious faith in the power of science, rationality and reason, which has slowly but surely expelled from western society the spiritual, intuitive and emotional dimensions, all of which are important for balanced Yin.

Paradoxically it is also in the process of expelling reason and rationality (which isn't surprising, considering this fundamentally fearful state we are in), since despite the fact that science is showing us that many things are not explainable in rational terms, we still cling to science for the answer to all our problems.

Also note that fear and anxiety cause us to look for security - we will demand clear cut answers to difficult questions, usually (wrong-headedly) looking for them in places that cannot provide it, like science, governments, media, etc.

_____________________________________________

As we can see, it is not so easy to figure out where this cycle of imbalance starts or ends - perhaps it does neither - but a Taoist would probably first look at the Yin imbalance, since Yin is the root of all. Without the conservation of energy, there could be no action.

Therefore I would link the imbalance in western society primarily to a system of thought that has ran its course - the mechanistic world view ("man as machine"). The idolization of science has worked for a while, and now it no longer does, and must be replaced by something new - probably a synthesis of the previous science-based system with older (or new?), philosphically based systems that are more spiritual / intuitive (religious?) in nature.

My expectation is that this will be a slow and painful process, due to the degree to which this world view is rooted in every facet of our system.

Science and religion have been at each other's throat for centuries, and now we must conclude that both are needed for a balanced society, because it's becoming clear (at least to me) that a society that leans too much to either side will critically imbalance itself in one way or another.

Note that science can be seen as associated with the Chinese element of Metal, and religion/spirituality can be associated with the Chinese element of Water. Both are Yin.

Both are associated with deep thought, however the Metal element is more rational, while the Water element is more intuitive and creative. Hence the idea of a Yin imbalance.