XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   liaM  wrote:   
   > 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...   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
   Yep, it looks like there's a definite need for a good mental cleansing,   
   anybody pay the gas bill on them ovens?   
      
   Who's handing out the "burn a fake today!" bumper stickers?   
      
   Lemme know when the event occurs, it'll be interesting to watch a group   
   self-immolation, just for educational purposes.   
      
   --   
   email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)