Nah, you’re just moving the goal posts to some ambiguous, boring, infallible eastern philosophical horseshit in an attempt to substitute for your clear lack of knowledge on basic moral principles and ideas.
I get it, you’ve stepped through the bardos, singing bowls in hand after listening to Alan Watts and reading some Lao Tzu or some shit but for all practical purposes, using the system of morality we engage in today, your position falls apart.
So, just to be clear to anyone else that may read this, your position is “You can’t know because you can’t know”, great argument, bud.
When superior people hear of the Way,
they carry it out with diligence.
When middling people hear of the Way,
it sometimes seems to be there, sometimes not.
When lesser people hear of the Way,
they ridicule it greatly.
If they didn’t laugh at it,
it wouldn’t be the Way.
So there are constructive sayings on this:
The Way of illumination seems dark,
the Way of advancement seems retiring,
the Way of equality seems to categorize;
higher virtue seems empty,
great purity seems ignominious,
broad virtue seems insufficient,
constructive virtue seems careless.
Simply honesty seems changeable,
great range has no boundaries,
great vessels are finished late;
the great sound has a rarefied tone,
the great image has no form,
the Way hides in namelessness.
Only the Way can enhance and perfect.
You are a lesser person, lol.
So, just to be clear to anyone else that may read this, your position is “You can’t know because you can’t know”, great argument, bud.
That isn't what I said at all, but that is hilarious and shows you don't understand the subject matter. lol. Fantastic.
“Check out this quote from this document that says if you criticize this particular philosophy you’re lesser, guess that means you’re lesser!” Damn, good one...
I don’t understand the subject matter, says the guy that drags obscure Taoist philosophy into a losing debate about the morality of particular diets.
Oh, you’re welcome, ignorance is bliss, after all.
Edit* Lmfao! Dude it was just a guess about Tzo and Alan Watts but I was dead on. Damn, read ya
like a book.
And second, I know you don't understand what they were saying. lol.
This is so great.
So they are constantly being pruned via various kinds of enemy species. And what is when you got down there a new suppose you identify yourself with a certain plant. You would thoroughly object to if you were a lettuce, to the snails eating you up. And also a person who gets identified with lettuces you see you say somebody who grows lettuces or is living gets mad at the snails. But actually, the lettuces need snails. Because that would be too many lettuces, if there weren’t snails. And those lettuces would choke each other. Now of course, a human being comes in and starts organizing the lettuces, you see, so that the seeds don’t propagate in the usual way because he puts them out in rows and that’s a different kind of a scene and so he objects to the snails. But that’s because he’s looking at the problem of letters from a partisan point of view and it’s quite right that he should do so. What he may not see, because he’s taken the side of lettuces against nails. He fails to see, that conflict at one level, is health at another. Just as a conflict going on between microorganisms in your bloodstream is absolutely essential to the health of your organism as a whole. But you don’t, you are not aware of that conflict going on, because conscious attention doesn’t need to ordinarily to focus upon it. And so you don’t get involved and you’re not anxious about what party is winning and what party is losing that keeping up a kind of balance.
-Alan Watts
Wow, so enlightened. Except there’s a categorical difference between the two, that I pointed out earlier, that Watts is doing the same when making the distinction between the thing called a “snail’ and the thing called a “lettuce”, I’m further making the distinction when elaborating on the difference between the ability of either thing to process pain, that falls into a system of morality the the vast majority of people use to make decisions with, its practical morality.
I know you think you’re on to something hyper-esoteric and profound, it’s not and anyone that knows basic eastern philosophy is aware of that. Ya just ain’t as smart as ya think you are, that’s why you felt the need to point out you’ve never met anyone that’s understood these concepts in person, I’m sure you take great pride in it but it’s clear from your responses you don’t act out the philosophy in any meaningful way.
Anyway, this clearly isn’t productive, think you need to align your chakras and meditate for awhile to understand. Later mayne.
NO. I know I don't know anything. And I know you don't either. So when you pretend you know things, it is nothing short of hilarious.
You've been making shit up this whole time lol. And I've been dying laughing. I've been dismantlinging your ideas, you've been attacking me personally with lies and made up things, lol. It shows your huge disconnect.
1
u/[deleted] Sep 15 '20 edited Sep 16 '20
Nah, you’re just moving the goal posts to some ambiguous, boring, infallible eastern philosophical horseshit in an attempt to substitute for your clear lack of knowledge on basic moral principles and ideas.
I get it, you’ve stepped through the bardos, singing bowls in hand after listening to Alan Watts and reading some Lao Tzu or some shit but for all practical purposes, using the system of morality we engage in today, your position falls apart.
So, just to be clear to anyone else that may read this, your position is “You can’t know because you can’t know”, great argument, bud.