XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   {:-])))  wrote:   
   > noname wrote:   
   >> Tang wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> The DDJ is written for rulers and would-be   
   >>> rulers.   
   >>   
   >> Not the way I read it.  I read it to be highly esoteric, with very subtle   
   >> differentiations that force the gross to one set of conclusions and lead   
   >> the more subtle to a different set of conclusions.  The mundane reader will   
   >> see it as written for rulers and would-be rulers.  Seeing the other ground,   
   >> there is nothing to see because everything is background, and its   
   >> usefulness to the genuine seeker of the truth about Reality becomes   
   >> visible.   
   >   
   > Sometimes I see would-be or young rulers   
   > as learning to be a measure of their own lives.   
   >   
   > If not the definite article, the.   
   >   
   >>> To exclude some spheres a priori   
   >>> from the reach of the sage is to limit his   
   >>> freedom, a very anti-Daoist thingie.   
   >>   
   >> The sage is no more nor less limited than anyone else; the difference is   
   >> that he knows it and takes it seriously.   
   >   
   > As does she. Unless she is at play.   
   >   
   > Then, it's a bit of a different story-line.   
   >   
      
   I apologize to any women out there who object to my use of gender-specific   
   pronouns, but imo the English language just isn't very gender-neutral.  I   
   just use "his" because I'm a "him" and that language works; anybody who   
   gets tied up in "but i'm not a HE" is going to need to find someone else to   
   read because all the gender-neutral wordings leave me saying that   
   politically-correct wording is a hazard which threatens one's ability to   
   express what is politically-incorrect.   
      
   > Maybe Hillary is a hilarious sage or Sage,   
   > in her heart of hearts and knows a thing or three.   
   >   
   > Bill said she is Way smarter than him.   
   > And that's saying sum Ting.   
   >   
   > Cuz he was, what was it, a Roads dude.   
   >   
   > - ming ke ming, fei chang ming -   
   >   
      
   Hilary is more of the same.  The same has led nations to a mess.  Trump is   
   not the same.  Many fear what he might stand for.  I'm of the opinion that   
   "most folks" are fed up with the same, but are too owned by what the same   
   has brought to be able to step toward what is not the same.  Fears tend to   
   hold to themselves.   
      
   The US is no more free of an "aristocratic nobility" than countries that   
   have "Lords" and a recognized nobility, the difference being that the US   
   nobility is a nobility defined by the number of commas in one's supposed   
   "worth".  Instead of being passed to descendants by merit of blood, through   
   family lines, American "nobility" is passed through inheritance, but it's   
   the same elitism in different clothing.   
      
   Trump's error imo is that his expressed position is to reduce inheritance   
   taxes.  That means the wealthy nobility would retain familial wealth.  If   
   inheritance were taken into account, and if someone wanted a nation of true   
   equity between all citizens, inheritance tax would be 100-percent, nobody   
   would inherit the monies that are themselves the continuance of familial   
   "nobility" in the US.  All inherited funds would go to the country to   
   provide the things that people need, and the children of the American   
   Nobility would have no further free-starts that are unavailable to others.   
   Maybe Joe Average Jr would be able to go to MIT instead of the half-assed   
   local junior-college that teaches people how to be appliance repairmen, and   
   Jill Average Jr could attend medical school instead of JC and become a   
   doctor instead of a nurse's assistant.   
      
   But such a thing would require actual faith in a system that has already   
   and repeatedly shown itself to be untrustworthy.  That's the thing about   
   the Clinton clique, they are imo untrustworthy.  A "Hilary Bobbit" might be   
   a better candidate than Hilary Clinton, who has shown her values in the   
   past.   
      
   If inheritance tax was 100% the wealthy would find other means, gifts to   
   children, third-party trusts or foundations, to use the wording of the laws   
   to vex the spirit in which the laws were written.  The world's problems   
   would continue to slide below the surface and their mechanisms would work   
   largely as they do now.   
      
   The wealthy cannot trust the system they have built to maintain their own   
   wealth.  The poor despise them.   
   The situation is irresolvable; events will no doubt intervene to resolve   
   them, one way or another.  To say that "heaven will intervene" would invite   
   misunderstanding; suffice it to say that shit always happens as it must.   
      
   I have no hope whatsoever for any improvement in the American Nightmare if   
   Clinton is elected, the handcuffs America lives in will simply tighten and   
   further reduce the freedom which is even now barely a ghost.  If Trump is   
   elected, I figure either things will get better or they will get worse; if   
   they get bad enough people might play the "enough is enough" song.  Or,   
   not.   
      
   Not my problem to solve; things work out.   
      
   --   
   email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)