XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: julianlzb87@gmail.com   
      
   On 30/08/2016 05:08, liaM wrote:   
   > On 8/30/2016 1:55 AM, liaM wrote:   
   >> Am 8/29/2016 11:43 PM, schrieb Julian:   
   >>> On 29/08/2016 22:18, liaM wrote:   
   >>>> On 8/29/2016 6:10 PM, Wilson wrote:   
   >>>>> On 8/29/2016 7:10 AM, liaM wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 8/29/2016 11:31 AM, noname wrote:   
   >>>>>>> {:-])))  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.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> "THings work out"- have already worked out in the worse best way   
   >>>>>> retrospectively.  With levels of consciousness in view, here's hope   
   >>>>>> when elected, the Clintons (Bernie helping), wake themselves up from   
   >>>>>> the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)