RedJessi

Today's dose is a bit lengthy - but I think well worth it. It's from one of my most favorite books - the Tao of Pooh. As in Winnie the Pooh, yes. An excerpt from The Tao of Pooh by Benjamin Hoff "You see, Pooh," I said, "a lot of people don't seem to know what Taoism is..." "Yes?" said Pooh, blinking his eyes." So that's what this chapter is for - to explain things a bit." "Oh, I see," said Pooh. "And the easiest way to do that would be for us to go to China for a moment." "What?" said Pooh, his eyes wide open in amazement. "Right now?' "Of course. All we need to do is, lean back, relax, and there we are." "Oh, I see," said Pooh. Let's imagine that we have walked down a narrow street in a large Chinese city and have found a small shop that sells scrolls painted in the classic manner. We go inside and ask to be shown something allegorical - something humorous, perhaps, but with some sort of Timeless Meaning. The shopkeeper smiles. "I have just the thing,", he tells us. "A copy of The Vinegar Tasters!" He leads us to a large table and unrolls the scroll, placing it down for us to examine. "Excuse me - I must attend to something for a moment," he says, and goes into the back of the shop, leaving us alone with the painting. Although we can see that this is a fairly recent version, we know that the original was painted long ago; just when is uncertain. But by now, the theme of the painting is well known. We see three men standing around a vat of vinegar. Each has dipped his finger into the vinegar and has tasted it. The expression on each man's face shows his individual reaction. Since the painting is allegorical, we are to understand that these are no ordinary vinegar tasters, but are instead representatives of the "Three Teachings" of China, and that the vinegar they are sampling represents the Essence of Life. The three masters are K'ung Fu-tse (Confucius), Buddha, and Lao-tse, author of the oldest existing book of Taoism. The first has a sour look on his face, the second wears a bitter expression, but the third man is smiling. To Kung Fu-tse (kung FOOdsuh), life seemed rather sour. He believed that the present was out step with the past, and that the government of man on earth was out of harmony with the Way of Heaven, the government of the universe. Therefore, he emphasized reverence for the Ancestors, as well as for the ancient rituals and ceremonies in which the emperor, as the Son of Heaven, acted as intermediary between limitless heaven and limited earth. Under Confucianism, the use of precisely measured court music, prescribed steps, actions, and phrases all added up to an extremely complex system of rituals, each used for a particular purpose at a particular time. A saying was recorded about K'ung Fu-tse: "If the mat was not straight, the Master would not sit." This ought to give an indication of the extent to which things were carried out under Confucianism. To Buddha, the second figure in the painting, life on earth was bitter, filled with attachments and desires that led to suffering. The world was seen as a setter of traps, a generator of illusions, a revolving wheel of pain for all creatures. In order to find peace, the Buddhist considered it necessary to transcend "the world of dust" and reach Nirvana, literally a state of "no wind." Although the essentially optimistic attitude of the Chinese altered Buddhism considerably after it was brought in from its native India, the devout Buddhist often saw the way to Nirvana interrupted all the same by the bitter wind of everyday existence. To Lao-tse (LAOdsuh), the harmony that naturally existed between heaven and earth from the very beginning could be found by anyone at any time, but not by following the rules of the Confucianists. As he stated in his Tao To Ching (DAO DEH JEENG), the "Tao Virtue Book," earth was in essence a reflection of heaven, run by the same laws - not by the laws of men. These laws affected not only the spinning of distant planets, but the activities of the birds in the forest and the fish in the sea. According to Lao-tse, the more man interfered with the natural balance produced and governed by the universal laws, the further away the harmony retreated into the distance. The more forcing, the more trouble. Whether heavy or light, wet or dry, fast or slow, everything had its own nature already within it, which could not be violated without causing difficulties. When abstract and arbitrary rules were imposed from the outside, struggle was inevitable. Only then did life become sour. To Lao-tse, the world was not a setter of traps but a teacher of valuable lessons. Its lessons needed to be learned, just as its laws needed to be followed; then all would go well. Rather than turn away from "the world of dust," Lao-tse advised others to "join the dust of the world." What he saw operating behind everything in heaven and earth he called Tao (DAO), "the Way." A basic principle of Lao-tse's teaching was that this Way of the Universe could not be adequately described in words, and that it would be insulting both to its unlimited power and to the intelligent human mind to attempt to do so. Still, its nature could be understood, and those who cared the most about it, and the life from which it was inseparable, understood it best. Over the centuries Lao-tse's classic teachings were developed and divided into philosophical, monastic, and folk religious forms. All of these could be included under the general heading of Taoism. But the basic Taoism that we are concerned with here is simply a particular way of appreciating, learning from, and working with whatever happens in everyday life. From the Taoist point of view, the natural result of this harmonious way of living is happiness. You might say that happy serenity is the most noticeable characteristic of the Taoist personality, and a subtle sense of humor is apparent even in the most profound Taoist writings, such as the twenty-five-hundred-year-old Tao Te Ching. In the writings of Taoism's second major writer, Chuang-tse (JUANGdsuh), quiet laughter seems to bubble up like water from a fountain. "But what does that have to do with vinegar?' asked Pooh. "I thought I had explained that," I said. "I don't think so," said Pooh. "Well, then, I'll explain it now." "That's good." said Pooh. In the painting, why is Lao-tse smiling? After all, that vinegar that represents life must certainly have an unpleasant taste, as the expressions on the faces of the other two men indicate. But, through working in harmony with life's circumstances, Taoist understanding changes what others may perceive as negative into something positive. From the Taoist point of view, sourness and bitterness come from the interfering and unappreciative mind. Life itself, when understood and utilized for what it is, is sweet. That is the message of The Vinegar Tasters. "Sweet? You mean like honey?" asked Pooh. "Well, maybe not that sweet," I said. "That would be overdoing it a bit." "Are we still supposed to be in China?" Pooh asked cautiously. "No, we're through explaining and now we're back at the writing table." "Oh." "Well, we're just in time for something to eat," he added, wandering over to the kitchen cupboard.

Got the MRI approved. SUCK IT AETNA! I go next monday.

If we listened to our intellect, we'd never have a love affair. We'd never have a friendship. We'd never go into business, because we'd be cynical. Well, that's nonsense. You've got to jump off cliffs all the time and build your wings on the way down. ~ Ray Bradbury

The latest: The physician who reviewed my claim and denied the medical necessity of the thoracic MRI to view my spinal canal and determine where my nerve problems are: Dr. Michael Bishop, OBGYN. *head desk*

I am honored this was the thread you chose!

Uh, actually I live in Melbourne, a couple hours north. :) -- Hurricane I will happily attempt to divert the path away from my house toward your own if you wish!

Sterling - I really like that as well! I had never heard it before you used it in the other Twill thread but it makes good sense and keeps things even handed. What are some of the ways the distinction is made in spoken word?

Bright - thanks for that! I really liked the analogy and all the little quotes

In a rare moment, Mission demurs. It's kind of a private thing, I guess. Perhaps we can discuss it in between you poking me with a stick to keep me awake at PiP during gate duty on Friday night. (Plus that will give me time to find the article and remember exactly how the instructions went.) And now I look forward to poking you with a stick even more!

Oh s#+^! So now I'm suddenly sane? I honestly don't know you well enough AT ALL to make that statement either.... *serious look* *serious look* *serious look* *serious look* *sage nod* *serious look* *serious look* *serious look* *serious look*

It is a hub where some pirate reenactors and some pirate enthusiasts and some pirate aficionados come to trade ideas. It is a community. But it is not the only community. In fact, I'm often surprised by the other pirate communities I find out there. Some of them right under my own nose, geographically speaking. Yes, but I was referring to the pub, and the impact of such language here for the most part. Sure, that would spill over into other groups as systems overlap, especially at events. And it would certainly have an impact on people who might be interested in joining but have an overwhelmingly negative first experience at such events or on the pub. But as far as the community I was intending to refer to, Pub is it. So, are you saying that you think dividing groups is a better solution than trying to find ways to peacefully co-exist or try to cross cultures, so to speak, to expand (knowledge, horizons, membership, understanding, what have you)? Given that, what do you see as your choices? I am not sure I follow you. Why do I need to make a choice concerning my point of view?

Between you and me, I sometimes wonder at what sort of good we could do if we put all of this energy into something that would benefit mankind. You don't see benefit in what we do? Because I actually do. Check the winkie emoticon. But yeah, sometimes I do wonder. But I'm a wondering kind of guy. Sometimes when wondering I come to the same conclusion you just did. Sometimes I don't. Oh, emoticons. So open to interpretation! My interpretation was that it was like saying "natch" at the end of your statement, not an a tongue-in-cheek aside.

Well, let me start by going back to your original words that prompted me to suggest the matter: From there, my suggestion that this was a projection came from the fact that the thread is titled "Why I don't post in Twill" and not "Why I don't like Twill". So, you equating them as being synonymous statements made me think that perhaps you were taking your own emotional reaction to the reasons why people were not comfortable posting here and personalizing them (ie, feeling personally attacked via feeling that the hobby you feel passionate about was being attacked), which then caused you project an emotional state (dislike of Twill due to feeling like it was an attack) onto their meaning due to your own dislike of the feeling that the whole thread was already engendering. In the most classical definition (and please keep in mind, this is not what I am trying to say you absolutely were doing, as I honestly don't know you well enough AT ALL to make such a statement, but I am merely describing why I made the initial query) your dislike of the discussion in general caused you to ascribe a dislike of Twill onto those who initiated the discussion. Thus, you changed the statement "I don't post because..." into "I don't like Twill because..." In truth, I believe this perfectly proves that you are honestly trying to understand a different point of view, as normal social function theorizes that if we cannot ascribe our own feelings onto others than we cannot ever understand them. Unfortunately, when we labor under such projections erroneously, we can run into difficulties as well.

Between you and me, I sometimes wonder at what sort of good we could do if we put all of this energy into something that would benefit mankind. You don't see benefit in what we do? Because I actually do. We give the spectators something to do on weekends that is an interesting diversion from the norm at least. That can act as a safety mechanism, operating as a release valve for pent up frustration, allowing for different morays and norms of behavior that allow for people to conform to normal societal constraints the rest of the time. Is that a benefit to ALL mankind? Perhaps not, but you never know how far reaching the effects can be. A butterfly flaps its wings in Nepal and we get a hurricane in Palm Beach.

Really? How would you define the pub is not a community? And what positives do you see in dividing the groups? No problem - thank you for clarifying! Sentiment can be accurately equated to at least some degree with a feeling. However you are still assuming that I had expectations - as you state they would be colored by my feelings. In point of fact, I had no real expectations for any outcome - good or bad. In light of your last questions, let me attempt to clarify. I came to the discussion with the sentiment (or point of view) that the shorthand used in the community - on both sides of PCness - was potentially damaging and divisive, and even more so since an internet forum subtracts all the metacommunication that informs face-to-face communication. I still hold that point of view.

Sounds like an interesting story, if you want to share?

Thank you!! and then Thus, I am confused. As I said, projection does not at all level statements as objective fact. It is nearly the exact opposite. They would appear exactly as you are portraying your words- as personal projective, or blanketed in humor - to remove any threatening connotations that might bring about further inspection and result in damage to the ego. It's a pretty evolved self-defense mechanism, in reality. So, your words that if you "tried to foist these observations on you as objective fact" they would "rise to the level of projecting" is inaccurate in regards to the psychological definition of the mechanism. And how's that working out so far for you? *lol* Also, thank you for not resorting to "farbs" and "pollywood pirates" in your response to Mission - proving that it is possible to be factual and accurate without resorting to name calling. Well done!

BWahaHAha!! You, sir, are pure and unadulterated eeevvvvviiiiillll!

"Due to a lack of tactfulness on her part" YES! That is what I am trying to point out. AGAIN, I am not implying malicious intent, but attempting to show how exactly such lack of tact is harmful to the community overall. You can be passionate and compassionate at the same time. Now, what was the "..." alluding to, because I don't think I understand. No, as I said, I came with a particular sentiment. Which has nothing to do with expectation. A sentiment is defined as a singular point of view. It has nothing to do with expectations - which are suppositions at best or assumptions at worst.

So, you hold to this belief that "farb" and "pollywood" could not possibly be construed to be "divisive and hurtful"? Yet again, this is not about asking question, answering questions, or the debate of PCness in general. This is not about assuming malicious intent on the part of the speaker. But this is about the manner and language sometimes employed and asking that you at least consider the harm caused therein. Which, sadly, no one seems willing to do. You can be right and state facts without being insulting or needing to resort to name calling, can't you? Or is grace and tact the true lost art? Believe me, I have more than tough hide. Nothing said on this forum has increased my blood pressure, caused me a moment of personal distress or changed my opinion or possible enjoyment of the activities in which I participate and I will continue to do so. But don't you think it is a bit counter productive to say that you want to educate people, keep old ways of life preserved, and honor our history - and then in the same breath say that you have to have a thick skin in order to be a part of it? Henry VIII's "Rough Wooing" technique is out of place for the GoAP, isn't it?

Quartermaster, I apologize for not being more clear on this matter, but I was speaking of projection in a psychological sense, which does not at all level statements as objective fact. In actuality, projection is often the exact opposite, as the person who is (most often unconsciously) utilizing it is often attempting to remove the threatening nature of any inquiry into the truth. It is fundamental mechanism of self preservation and is also one of the most acute, entrenched and subtle psychological processes. annnnd, this no longer makes sense since you deleted your post, but I am going to leave it anyway, in case anyone else misunderstood my meaning.

Being Polite Sidney Harris I walked with a friend to the newsstand the other night, and he bought a paper, thanking the owner politely. The owner, however, did not even acknowledge it. "A sullen fellow, isn't he?" I commented as we walked away. "Oh, he's that way every night," shrugged my friend. "Then why do you continue being so polite to him?" I asked. And my friend replied, "Why should I let him determine how I'm going to act?"

True, but I believe there is a difference between refuting someone's research and what basically amounts to name calling. But, how did she get the reputation of being a "notorious thread counter"? In my previous example, I don;t believe it is necessarily an error to worry about being criticized from a group of people who have a history of criticizing. Vintagesailor - I've seen much the same, agreed. Hawkyns - Again, as I have previously stated, my concern has absolutely nothing with the pursuit of information, with academic debates on topics - even vigorous and argumentative debates - with the desire to recreate or preserve skills and knowledge or anything else of that stripe. It is the divisive and hurtful language that is used towards those who don't pursue to the same degree - which goes both ways. If this were a thread in the other side of the forum about "stitch nazis" (you have no idea how much I cringe every time I type that example. Seriously. I work in a Jewish organization and often have contact with holocaust survivors - that phrase is beyond contempt to me) I would be saying the exact same things - and probably even more stridently since I find the term so deeply offensive. It is the inability to even consider how your language is hurtful - opting instead to take me to task to having the opinion. And really, at this point I think I am losing all hope at that opinion even being heard. Lady Bower - I started with pretty much the same sentiment. Good luck.

I was once at an event with a notorious thread counter. Said notorious thread counter and I were talking, and this is what she said, "you know, people always think I'm going to go over their crap with a fine-toothed comb and be critical of them at events. The truth is, I'm so busy going over my own stuff that I don't have time to be concerned with how anyone else looks at an event, even if I wanted to." I think people worry too much. Certainly people worry too much about what they believe other people may think. Perhaps that is true. It is certainly not outside the realm of possibility that I, and the others who have stated they don't feel comfortable posting in Twill are projecting personal insecurities or assuming worst case scenarios with a mistaken belief that events are arenas of critical audience. Then again, some people have posted here, stating that despite their love of PCness, despite their desire to strive to be as authentic as possible, despite how confident they feel that their portrayal is close as they can get with their current knowledge (which they have no intention of not further refining) and despite the fact that they read these threads to be more informed - they don't post here either. That says something to me. Doesn't it speak to you? Further, while I appreciate your anecdote, I am not sure it applies - as I stated above, there are critical terms in evidence in Twill. Those terms set a precedent for the possible expectation of criticism.