XPost: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy   
   From: julianlzb87@gmail.com   
      
   On 30/08/2016 15:37, liaM wrote:   
   > On 8/30/2016 8:31 AM, Julian wrote:   
   >> On 30/08/2016 01:55, 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.   
   >>>>>>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)