XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: cuddly@mindless.com   
      
   On 10/27/2016 8:47 PM, brian mitchell wrote:   
   > Tang Huyen wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >> If one tests others on the basis (on the ground) of one's   
   >> norms and standards, which may or may not be shared   
   >> by those to whom one directs one's testing, then one   
   >> obviously stands one's ground in flinging the tests at   
   >> them. If one merely takes the norms and standards as   
   >> proclaimed in self-stated, no uncertain terms and   
   >> without disclaimers by some others and applies them   
   >> back to their authors, one does not stand one's ground   
   >> in criticising them, but stands their ground in criticising   
   >> them, in closed circle, in their own freely and voluntarily   
   >> declaimed norms and standards. In a sense, one merely   
   >> tries to raise their consciousness (as feminists used to   
   >> say half a century ago) to themselves about their living   
   >> up to their own norms and standards, or not. One is not   
   >> trying to shake them (up or away) from their own norms   
   >> and standards, even less to destroy them, rather one   
   >> tries to stage a self-confrontation from their own side to   
   >> help them see themselves in front of their own norms   
   >> and standards, without injecting one's own norms and   
   >> standards into the sandbox. One merely holds up a   
   >> mirror to help them see themselves in front of their own   
   >> norms and standards, without mixing oneself in the   
   >> affair. If they want not to be so tested, they can quit   
   >> proffering their norms and standards, or add   
   >> disclaimers, or simply live up to them, in self-righteous   
   >> justice and dignity, to avoid any appearance of   
   >> hypocrisy, much less any reality of it.   
   >>   
   >> The mind can be devilishly clever in devising ways to   
   >> defend and protect itself, but it can also be ruthlessly   
   >> honest to itself and open to itself, without need for   
   >> external help. In both cases, it can be tested as to its   
   >> sincerity. We here on Usenet are limited to mere words   
   >> on the screen, but they can yet be quite effective in   
   >> smoking out the poseurs, fakers and charlatans. A few   
   >> words will do.   
   >   
   > Enough talk already! Let's see some good, old-fashioned, red-blooded   
   > smoking out of the poseurs, fakers and charlatans.   
   >   
      
      
   And don't forget to smoke out voyeurs (and their close cousins,   
   the exhibitionists)   
      
   Seems to me we have one big fat one lurking behind his own words   
   here above...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)