Daoism / Taoism


Off-Topic Discussions

251 to 300 of 326 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Dominance

Sun shines in the center of the sky.
All things turn their faces toward the light.

Spoiler:
All things in this life depend on direction. In our world, all is oriented toward the sun : The planets revolve around it, the seasons depend upon it, and our very concept of night and day is tied to the sun's rising and setting. The sun is the dominant element in our lives.
In all other areas of our actions, we cannot avoid making arrangements that have a center or orientation. Our lives require composition, just as the solar system has a relationship and structure. Yet all structure and orientation is essentially arbitrary. We take the sun as the center of our world because of our vantage point. To someone standing in another galaxy, our sun is nothing more than another point in limitless space. There is no absolute standard by which to truly call something the center. Therefore, all arrangements and all compositions, all determinations of a dominant element are relative, subjective, and provisional.

There is no center except for that in our own consciousness. When we look at the sun and the arrangement of the planets, we must also include ourselves as observers. How else is there the determination of what is being seen? Consciousness is part of the phenomenon. We are the center, and there is no absolute measure.

Everything is connected, but we are the center. Interesting. I see a lot of duality again. Interesting that I just posted in the Patriotism thread about community and the individual.

Yesterday I was telling someone that agents are very rarely loyal to the cause as they are to themselves. Sure, if the cause is well aligned to the agent, there is a stronger bond.

You know, thinking about this and how it may related to RPGs, I think I have hit on something that frustrates me a great deal. Many people play their characters for the player's benefit (some idea of 'winning') where I try to play my character for the character's benefit (being true to the character from the character's perspective). Now granted, I obviously have some benefit I get out of this. Why else would I care about staying true to some made up entity that only exists in my imagination? But I think it speaks to the different approaches.

The Exchange

CourtFool wrote:

Dominance

Sun shines in the center of the sky.
All things turn their faces toward the light.

** spoiler omitted **

Everything is connected, but we are the center. Interesting. I see a lot of duality again. Interesting that I just posted in the Patriotism thread about community and the individual.

Yesterday I was telling someone that agents are very rarely loyal to the cause as they are to themselves. Sure, if the cause is well aligned to the agent, there is a stronger bond.

You know, thinking about this and how it may related to RPGs, I think I have hit on something that frustrates me a great deal. Many people play their characters for the player's benefit (some idea of 'winning') where I try to...

Third approach, play the character for the games benefit. The enjoyment of all playing.


CourtFool wrote:
…and is it possible that wanting to be an author but never actually writing anything to be published has made me exactly who I am 'supposed' to be?

You say you want to be an author, but if you don't actually write anything, then it's a lie; for all practical purposes you don't want to be an author.


CourtFool wrote:


You know, thinking about this and how it may related to RPGs, I think I have hit on something that frustrates me a great deal. Many people play their characters for the player's benefit (some idea of 'winning') where I try to play my character for the character's benefit (being true to the character from the character's perspective). Now granted, I obviously have some benefit I get out of this. Why else would I care about staying true to some made up entity that only exists in my imagination? But I think it speaks to the different approaches.

I play one-on-ones with a friend sort of like that, usually with each of us running one for the other. They tend to fizzle out when we get interested in something else or just tired of 'em, but we know that going in so it's not a big deal. Lots of time spent exploring the psyches of PCs, their interactions with societies, and all of that. Since the genre's pretty congenial to solo play, we usually do superheroes but at times it's been stuff like Werewolf or Vampire. Neither of us seems to have really hit on an understanding of the latter two games that works well for the other, though. Once or twice we've just set genre entirely aside and played house to see what comes of it.

We're between PCs with him, but my current one is a cosmic-powered Superman sort who has more or less taken the role of Superman as an inspiration to superheroics in the world. He's bright, shiny, nice, everything about him designed to appeal to and be something that humanity could look up to and aspire to be like. He has a somewhat dorky human fake identity that he uses to have time off with his reporter girlfriend and her son.

He's the advance agent for a militaristic alien empire planning to conquer Earth through cultural assimilation that leads up to an engineered first contact where swearing fealty to the alien war machine seems like the next obvious step on a wonderful path of planetary self-improvement. The empire genetically engineered him to be a kind of super human inspiring awe and all that. His personality is tweaked towards it. He wants to be Superman. He likes being Superman. But when the time comes, if humanity isn't willing to accept its new role as a subservient species in a regimented society, then his job is to pitch the rock into the sun.

In theory the bonds he's forming with his human family are feeding back on him, making the Superman mask more real than the planet-burning space Nazi that's supposed to be underneath, but we haven't gotten far enough to really know yet. :)


Hill Giant wrote:
You say you want to be an author, but if you don't actually write anything, then it's a lie; for all practical purposes you don't want to be an author.

Are you suggesting desire only exists in concert with action? 'cause then I can tell my wife I do not want to sleep with Anne Hathaway.

Samnell wrote:
I play one-on-ones with a friend sort of like that, usually with each of us running one for the other.

That is exactly the kind of soap opera drama I enjoy. Notice the desire to be an author and related play style?

Don't get me wrong. I enjoy hack-n-slash too. But I get my fix of that from video games. I do not have to organize a group and the graphics and sound is much better. Not to mention rules are all handled in the back ground so I can focus on killing things.


CourtFool wrote:


That is exactly the kind of soap opera drama I enjoy. Notice the desire to be an author and related play style?

The novel/game line is one we've hit many times, and we've had to give up on some ideas that more or less require an author to make happen.

Aside City of Heroes, I play very little in the way of video games (my PS2 was a huge waste of money) and when I do I'm more likely to play something like Civilization or a historical simulation than a more first person killfest, which I suppose probably increases my interest in seeing blood fly in D&D. :)

As of last night I'm trying to get together a Werewolf game for my friend. I really like the setting picked but now I've got to give it the requisite supernatural glosses and think of things for him to do.


CourtFool wrote:
Are you suggesting desire only exists in concert with action? 'cause then I can tell my wife I do not want to sleep with Anne Hathaway.

I would also include anticipatory action. While I can say from experience, if you want to be a writer, write; if you want to be a surgeon I don't recommend you start by cutting people open. Going to medical school is sufficient proof of desire.

To the specific point: Have you made advances to Ms. Hathaway? Which is to say, there is difference between fantasizing about and actually wanting something (as anyone on these forums should know).


So…is it possible that having a fantasy to be an author but never actually writing anything to be published has made me exactly who I am 'supposed' to be?


CourtFool wrote:
So…is it possible that having a fantasy to be an author but never actually writing anything to be published has made me exactly who I am 'supposed' to be?

From a certain perspective, yes.

An action which is not practical on the surface may be practical in other areas. Fantasizing about being a wizard won't help you cast spells, but it might improve your math skills, resource management, etc. Thinking about writing can certainly help you as a GM, and it may even have applications in whatever it is you actually do for a living. As to the practical applications of fantasizing about Anne Hathaway, uh, I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.


I believe my original point was that I felt pressured to 'do something with my life'. Something more 'substantial' than having a job and raising my child. I do not know where that pressure came from and I question its legitimacy.

The pressure is what led me to fantasize about becoming an author. I would leave my mark on the world by putting my thoughts in a book that could be read by later generations. Of course considering the nature of the Internet, I may have accomplished that anyway.


CourtFool wrote:
I believe my original point was that I felt pressured to 'do something with my life'. Something more 'substantial' than having a job and raising my child.

Wait, being an author is more 'substantial' than getting a decent job and having children?! Could you tell that to my mother? :-)


Success in this country is measured by the horse-power of your sports car. Or did someone forget to tell you? :)

The Exchange

Airbending is based on the Ba Gua style of martial arts, (also known as "circle walking" or "Eight Trigram Palm",) along with a small hint of Hsing Yi, (also known as "mind heart boxing".)

Waterbending is based on a style of Tai Chi Chuan (specifically the Yang style).

Earthbending is generally based on the Hung Gar style of Kung Fu, which features heavily rooted stances and strong kicks and punches that evoke the mass and power of earth. The martial art is based on the movements of animals, including the tiger, which is utilized when initiating hard blows, and the crane, which is used to land gently back on the Earth. There are exceptions to this rule - the blind Earthbender, Toph's, style is based on Southern Praying Mantis Kung Fu.

Firebending moves are based mainly on the style of Northern Shaolin kung fu, but with a few techniques from Northern Seven Star Praying Mantis.


self-compassion


Marking this for later.


The more prohibitions you make,
the poorer people will be.
The more weapons you possess,
the greater the chaos in your country.
The more knowledge that is acquired,
the stranger the world will become.
The more laws that you make,
the greater the number of criminals.

The first several times I read the last sentence, I thought it absurd. Coming at it with a binary perspective, which I do with alarming frequency, it seemed to suggest we should have no laws.

I just had an 'aha' moment, realizing that is not at all what it is saying. It is saying do not have too many laws. Hey Libertarians, are you paying attention here?

It makes a lot more sense now. We need laws, but if you create such a web of law, you turn everyone into a criminal. It keeps Sebastian employed, but I am not sure that is a good thing.


Ah, but what constitutes a good law? That depends on the kind of society we want to live in.


Samnell wrote:
Ah, but what constitutes a good law?

The same things that constitute 'good'.

When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.


CourtFool wrote:
Samnell wrote:
Ah, but what constitutes a good law?

The same things that constitute 'good'.

When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not.


Samnell wrote:
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not.

Yes. Thus is the way of the tao. :)

I agree with you in so much as it becomes a matter of defining 'good'. I am sure we can agree that killing without reason and taking things that do not belong to us are generally 'bad'. Still, there are even exceptions to that.

I am stumped. How do we define 'good'?


CourtFool wrote:
Samnell wrote:
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not.

Yes. Thus is the way of the tao. :)

I agree with you in so much as it becomes a matter of defining 'good'. I am sure we can agree that killing without reason and taking things that do not belong to us are generally 'bad'. Still, there are even exceptions to that.

I am stumped. How do we define 'good'?

That last one's a doozy.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
That last one's a doozy.

Kind of what Lao Tzu was getting at…wasn't it?


CourtFool wrote:


I agree with you in so much as it becomes a matter of defining 'good'. I am sure we can agree that killing without reason and taking things that do not belong to us are generally 'bad'. Still, there are even exceptions to that.

Yeah. I used to argue years ago that a non-violent breaking in and stealing needed medicines from a pharmacy was morally justifiable if you couldn't afford them and was stunned how many people thought that great misery and death were preferable to the pharmacist losing a sale or two. Obviously these medicines don't belong to you. They belong to the pharmacist. But your needs are radically different with respect to them and the competition between the two harms cannot be more one-sided.

Quote:


I am stumped. How do we define 'good'?

Should we define it, or should we retire the word and try to be much less ambiguous by referring to concrete, real world states? I'm by no means a close follower of Yudkowsky's, and sometimes he slips into some annoying philosophy habits I find unhelpful in the extreme, but I think he's got a point here.

Of course the contrary is that if we have to unpack every word in exhaustive detail, we're not going to be able to have much in the way of conversation.


Just posting out loud…

That which produces the least discomfort to self and others? Then 'discomfort' becomes our bottleneck, huh?

Hrmmm.


What makes a "good" law?

Well, what kind of criminal are you?


Evil Lincoln wrote:

What makes a "good" law?

Well, what kind of criminal are you?

Criminal: A creator of 4e?

Angry Mob: Burn him!

The Exchange

Good


CourtFool wrote:
That which produces the least discomfort to self and others?

Remember "I, Robot," or the 1e efreeti's wish granting. All human discomfort could be ended forever if all humans could somehow be painlessly wiped out instantaneously. Would that end therefore be morally correct?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
CourtFool wrote:
That which produces the least discomfort to self and others?
Remember "I, Robot," or the 1e efreeti's wish granting. All human discomfort could be ended forever if all humans could somehow be painlessly wiped out instantaneously. Would that end therefore be morally correct?

Yes, without a doubt.

Once you nasty peopleses are out of the way, the Anklebiter clans will reign triumphant and bring about our own special brand of socialism based on communal property ownership, free love and massive ingestion of cannabis sativa.

Die, human scum, die!

EDIT: On second thought, I'm not sure the wiping out should be painless.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
CourtFool wrote:
That which produces the least discomfort to self and others?
Remember "I, Robot," or the 1e efreeti's wish granting. All human discomfort could be ended forever if all humans could somehow be painlessly wiped out instantaneously. Would that end therefore be morally correct?

I'm very comfortable with that. I'm not certain that it would always be the most morally correct of all possible options (what would be?), but it seems pretty sound to me as long as its painless and instantaneous. We wouldn't even know it happened.


CourtFool wrote:

Just posting out loud…

That which produces the least discomfort to self and others? Then 'discomfort' becomes our bottleneck, huh?

Hrmmm.

Sort of riffing off Kirth's ethical extinction suggestion, perhaps we should specify the living. You and I don't truck with the dead still having selves that could experience discomfort, except when we're gaming, but many do. As I posted just previous, I don't mind the instantaneous, painless extinction of humanity. But if it's important to avoid it we can always add that qualifier and thus rule it out.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
CourtFool wrote:
That which produces the least discomfort to self and others?
Remember "I, Robot," or the 1e efreeti's wish granting. All human discomfort could be ended forever if all humans could somehow be painlessly wiped out instantaneously. Would that end therefore be morally correct?

If it came immediately after they finished airing a series finale for Deadwood, I'd be okay with it.


That which produces the most comfort for self and others? If comfortable life > comfortable (or painless) death we can fix Kirth's proposition.


CourtFool wrote:
That which produces the most comfort for self and others? If comfortable life > comfortable (or painless) death we can fix Kirth's proposition.

Nope, because you still run into Steve Harris' observation: what if you had a bazillion people who all had lives barely worth living: the total amount of living comfort would still be greater than in a world of 10 people who were all extremely comfortable. (See The Moral Landscape.)

Or what about a trillion people, all kept permanently drugged?

Also, I prefer Harris' "well being" to the term "comfort," because the latter leads me to dissatisfaction, ennui, and ultimately evil acts simply to break free from the stifling conditions. At some level, people need challenges to overcome, not just narcotizing comfort.


Kirth Gersen wrote:


Or what about a trillion people, all kept permanently drugged?

That still sounds good to me. I don't see any meaningful difference between a drug high we get through pharmaceuticals made in factories and any of the drug highs we get from pharmaceuticals made in our skulls, except that the former are generally more efficient and reliable.

Unpacking it, if we're permanently high we're never coming down so there's no withdrawal to worry about. There's no craving. Any pain is drugged away. Sounds a lot like Nirvana.

Of course you'd need magical drugs no one ever develops a tolerance to and magical technology to keep us all on a constant, uniform supply.


Samnell wrote:

...if we're permanently high we're never coming down so there's no withdrawal to worry about. There's no craving. Any pain is drugged away. Sounds a lot like Nirvana.

Of course you'd need magical drugs no one ever develops a tolerance to and magical technology to keep us all on a constant, uniform supply.

You can kiss the ring,

but you can never touch the crown
I smoked a million Swisher blunts
and I ain't never coming down!

--Doodlebug Anklebiter, Rapper Laureate of Galt


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Also, I prefer Harris' "well being" to the term "comfort," because the latter leads me to dissatisfaction, ennui, and ultimately evil acts simply to break free from the stifling conditions. At some level, people need challenges to overcome, not just narcotizing comfort.

Hill Giant's "life I am happy with" vs. happy life?

Your assertion that we need challenges to overcome seems to agree with the concept that you need 'bad' for 'good' to exist.

So is the aim an equilibrium? Not a straight line through mediocrity, but valleys and peaks?

The Exchange

Good, versus evil! The stand to vanquish evil!
Man can only live one way, that place right in the middle.

Anthrax - Among the Living


Kaidan: a Japanese Ghost Story setting, thus far doesn't really have Taoism built in, but there are Buddhist elements in it, but not Buddhism per se.

In Buddhism, seeking the path to enlightenment is the goal. But enlightenment from what? To Buddhists those who do not achieve enlightenment are caught up in the Wheel of Life or Sorrowful World. To modern Buddhists these are different states of mind, however originally the Wheel of Life is a doomed cycle of reincarnations, consisting of the planar realms of Heaven, Asuras, Human, Animal, Hungry Ghost and Hell.

It is the Wheel of Life that is the basis for Kaidan state religion.

In Kaidan, the social castes each exist in its own 'planar region', though all coexist in the prime material plane. The nobility reside in "Heaven", the Samurai reside in "Asuras", the Commoners reside in "Human", the Yokai (animal based shape changes; ie: Tengu, Henge, Kappa) reside in "Animal", Hinin caste (merchants, criminals and the tainted occupations) reside in "Hungry Ghost", and the Oni (cursed beings) reside in Jigoku (Hell; actually one of the levels of the Abyss).

Moving between the castes cannot be achieved in one's lifetime. Your social position is based on your accumulated karma both negative and positive (a score keeping track of one's deeds in life - lawful or chaotic.) Since there is no Raise Dead, Reincarnation nor Resurrection in Kaidan (at least not by those spells), when PC Death occurs, following a 7 day burial rites period, your karma score is tallied, and you roll a d20, modified by certain Oracle (miko) spells to your eventual caste designation, and you are forcibly reincarnated.

As stated, reincarnation occurs, but in a rather perverse way. A table includes the possible outcomes for reincarnation: rebirth in a new born (essentially making your an NPC) only occurs 1% of the time, with a 5% chance of being sentenced to Jigoku (hell, also making one an NPC). Because of the violent nature of most PC death, the most likely outcome of reincarnation is that your spirit is forced into the body of an adult with character levels of appropriate caste in a possession attempt. If successful, the former inhabiting spirit is forced out, and your soul wakes up in the new body. The forced out spirit then may reincarnate to one of the possible ways, including posssession of another body - an endless cycle.

In a very real sense, one multiclasses across multiple lifetimes in Kaidan in a never ending cycle. This is the afterlife of Kaidan.

To the empire of Kaidan, seeking enlightenment is considered a heresy. (Needless to say, Kaidan is a dark fantasy setting.) Because achieving enlightenment would mean leaving the Wheel of Life, hence leaving the social castes, while the empire wants to maintain status quo. The Wheel of Life in Kaidan is an evil machine driven by living souls.

As an aside, the state religion is called Zaoism (phonetically a conjunction of Zen and Tao), though it is really its own thing.

I would like to introduce Taoism into Kaidan as well, especially through the Onmyoji Wizard/Jugondo Sorcerer as the arcane science behind spellcasting - using the Taoist 5 elements.

GP


Homer Simpson wrote:
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
Philip J. Fry wrote:
Poor Bender, you're seeing things. You've been drinking too much, or too little, I forget how it works with you. Anyway, you haven't drunk exactly the right amount.

Now replace alcohol with suffering (or really any human experience) and you've got Taoism.


The supreme good is like water,
which benefits all of creation
without trying to compete with it.
It gathers in unpopular places.
Thus it is like the Tao.

The first time I read this, the first thing I thought about was Jesus. He liked to hang out with lepers, prostitutes and tax collectors. Is he quoted as saying 'the meek shall inherit the Earth' or is that from somewhere else in the Bible?

The Exchange

CourtFool wrote:

The supreme good is like water,

which benefits all of creation
without trying to compete with it.
It gathers in unpopular places.
Thus it is like the Tao.

The first time I read this, the first thing I thought about was Jesus. He liked to hang out with lepers, prostitutes and tax collectors. Is he quoted as saying 'the meek shall inherit the Earth' or is that from somewhere else in the Bible?

It is part of the beatitudes. The 8 beatitudes can be found in Matthew 5:3-12 during the Sermon on the Mount.

Blessed are:
the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (5:3)
they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. (5:4)
the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. (5:5)
they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. (5:6)
the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (5:7)
the pure in heart: for they shall see God. (5:8)
the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (5:9)
they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (5:10)

Read all of Matthew to read it in context.


If you overly esteem talented individuals,
people will become overly competitive.
If you overvalue possessions,
people will begin to steal.

Do not display your treasures
or people will become envious.

The Master leads by
emptying people's minds,
filling their bellies,
weakening their ambitions,
and making them become strong.
Preferring simplicity and freedom from desires,
avoiding the pitfalls of knowledge and wrong action.

For those who practice not-doing,
everything will fall into place.

Who among you fears emptiness?

The first couple of times I read this, I missed the 'overly' part. I wondered where the incentive was for anyone to display any talent. But that 'overly' makes a big different for me. I think we overly esteem Hollywood. A good movie can make you think. A good movie can make you feel. A good actor can do so as well. But we have replaced the nobility of previous centuries with celebrity. Did we not think it worth dying for to distance ourselves from false gods before?

This is not to say we should not esteem talent at all. Perspective.

And the consumerism of this country is certainly questionable. We overvalue possessions.


I've often paraphrased that verse when I was taking security-themed classes for my degree.

My chosen wording was "nobody robs an empty vault."


I like that.

The Exchange

CourtFool wrote:


Who among you fears emptiness?

The first couple of times I read this, I missed the 'overly' part. I wondered where the incentive was for anyone to display any talent. But that 'overly' makes a big different for me. I think we overly esteem Hollywood. A good movie can make you think. A good movie can make you feel. A good actor can do so as well. But we have replaced the nobility of previous centuries with celebrity. Did we not think it worth dying for to distance ourselves from false gods before?

This is not to say we should not esteem talent at all. Perspective.

And the consumerism of this country is certainly questionable. We overvalue possessions.

Fear, no.

Every generation has the same issue, some form of commercialism or idolatry, some "demon" which invades the system and corrupts the "soul" of the people. Sometimes, fought against, sometimes embraced.


CourtFool wrote:
And the consumerism of this country is certainly questionable. We overvalue possessions.

I don't know. I think there's a dangerous puritan strain in American culture that insists pleasure itself is suspect that often tries to dress itself up in anti-consumerist language. There's nothing wrong with treating yourself well, rewarding yourself with a little retail therapy, or anything like that as long as you're not hurting anyone.

What is the proper value of a possession? I mean my books are very dear to me but I'm not going to flay my mother alive for them. I suspect by the time possession-seeking and possession-valuing gets to where one should be concerned, we've already gotten close enough to sociopathy that the distinction is fairly academic. Someone that's going to club you and rip the latest must-have toy out of your hands clearly has problems independent of their interest in the product.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samnell wrote:
CourtFool wrote:
And the consumerism of this country is certainly questionable. We overvalue possessions.

I don't know. I think there's a dangerous puritan strain in American culture that insists pleasure itself is suspect that often tries to dress itself up in anti-consumerist language. There's nothing wrong with treating yourself well, rewarding yourself with a little retail therapy, or anything like that as long as you're not hurting anyone.

What is the proper value of a possession? I mean my books are very dear to me but I'm not going to flay my mother alive for them. I suspect by the time possession-seeking and possession-valuing gets to where one should be concerned, we've already gotten close enough to sociopathy that the distinction is fairly academic. Someone that's going to club you and rip the latest must-have toy out of your hands clearly has problems independent of their interest in the product.

I think (and I cannot be certain), CourtFool is referring to our tendency to judge others based on their possessions. I know I am personally fed up with having my life choices impugned by others because they feel I have the potential to earn more money. I will be happy when I make enough money to support myself, and I don't really care to make more. For some people, this makes me less of a person, and that's demented.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
Samnell wrote:
CourtFool wrote:
And the consumerism of this country is certainly questionable. We overvalue possessions.

I don't know. I think there's a dangerous puritan strain in American culture that insists pleasure itself is suspect that often tries to dress itself up in anti-consumerist language. There's nothing wrong with treating yourself well, rewarding yourself with a little retail therapy, or anything like that as long as you're not hurting anyone.

What is the proper value of a possession? I mean my books are very dear to me but I'm not going to flay my mother alive for them. I suspect by the time possession-seeking and possession-valuing gets to where one should be concerned, we've already gotten close enough to sociopathy that the distinction is fairly academic. Someone that's going to club you and rip the latest must-have toy out of your hands clearly has problems independent of their interest in the product.

I think (and I cannot be certain), CourtFool is referring to our tendency to judge others based on their possessions. I know I am personally fed up with having my life choices impugned by others because they feel I have the potential to earn more money. I will be happy when I make enough money to support myself, and I don't really care to make more. For some people, this makes me less of a person, and that's demented.

Ah I see. I was looking at the invocation of consumerism as reflecting self-assessment based on material acquisitions.


Keeping up with the Joneses does seem a bit misguided. And I think it can become detrimental before it reaches sociopath level. I am not saying there is anything wrong with a 50 inch flat screen t.v. I am not even saying there is anything wrong with wanting to buy a 50 inch flat screen t.v. Only that it needs some perspective.

I also think the US may have elevated capitalism to a dangerous level. It seems the current theme to blame the poor for their poorness. I see a distinct lack of empathy and compassion.

251 to 300 of 326 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Daoism / Taoism All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.