Bit by Bit - Chapter 17, Part 7

Trey Smith

"Therefore the Great Man in his actions will not harm others, but he makes no show of benevolence or charity. He will not move for the sake of profit, but he does not despise the porter at the gate. He will not wrangle for goods or wealth, but he makes no show of refusing or relinquishing them. He will not enlist the help of others in his work, but he makes no show of being self-supporting, and he does not despise the greedy and base. His actions differ from those of the mob, but he makes no show of uniqueness or eccentricity. He is content to stay behind with the crowd, but he does not despise those who run forward to flatter and fawn. All the titles and stipends of the age are not enough to stir him to exertion; all its penalties and censures are not enough to make him feel shame. He knows that no line can be drawn between right and wrong, no border can be fixed between great and small. I have heard it said, `The Man of the Way wins no fame, the highest virtue wins no gain, the Great Man has no self.' To the most perfect degree, he goes along with what has been allotted to him."
~ Burton Watson translation ~

There are no great men or women, in this sense. The construction of the ego will not allow it. The closest we come to this ideal is as newborns or the very old just before death.

To view the Index page for this series, go here.

One If By Land, Two If By Sea

Trey Smith

I am sure that most of our American readers are familiar with Paul Revere's Midnight Ride. As the story goes, Revere was to inform the sexton of a church in the Concord, Massachusetts area as to whether British troops were coming by land or sea (actually, the Charles River). The sexton was then to shine one or two lanterns to alert the citizens in the neighboring town of Charlestown. Revere was then to ride through the countryside warning friendly colonists along the way.

I mention this historic tale in reference to something currently in the news. Democratic Senators Ron Wyden (OR) and Mark Udall (CO) are being hailed by some because they have tried to warn citizens for years that something wasn't kosher about the NSA's various surveillance programs.

In my book, neither warrants being called a hero. Their so-called "warnings" were always vague and never included anything specific. When faced with protecting classified secrets versus defending the US Constitution, both chose the former. Even though both men indicated that they believed the US Constitution was being violated, neither showed the courage nor fortitude to stand up tall to tell the American people what the hell was going on. No, such courage was shown by Edward Snowden, not them!

Since Wyden has taken the lead on this issue, I thought I would illustrate this situation by replacing Paul Revere with him. Thus, that historic event might have gone something like this.

When Ron Wyden received the secret information from operatives, he decided to change plans. He went to the church of the sexton and stood up in the bell tower and yelled over and over again, "Somebody is coming. Somebody is coming." After a while, he attracted the attention of some area townspeople who came to the church to ask him some questions.

Wyden: Somebody is coming! Somebody is coming!

Person #1: Are the British troops coming?

Wyden: I didn't say it was the British. All I said is "someone."

Person #2: Okay, so who IS this someone?

Wyden: I am not at liberty to divulge that information.

Person #2: What do you mean by that?

Wyden: I mean, I can't tell you.

Person #3: Can you at least tell us if it is friend or foe?

Wyden: It is one or the other.

Person #1: What good is it to know if "somebody is coming" if you won't tell us who it is?

Wyden: Look, I'd really like to tell you, but I just can't.

Person #4: Can't you give us a little hint?

Wyden: Hmm. I can tell you that the someone who is coming is not currently here. Satisfied?

Person #3: What kind of answer is that! Of course, the people who are coming aren't here. If they were already here, then they wouldn't be coming!

Person #1: Can you tell us why they are coming?

Wyden: Sorry, but I can't tell you that either.

Person #2: Great! Somebody -- whose identity we don't know -- is coming and we don't know why this unknown somebody is coming.

Wyden: True, but you do know that somebody IS coming.

Person #1: Is this coming imminent, like tomorrow, or is it more like a few days from now?

Wyden: It could be in a few hours...or it could be next month.

Person #3: Well, which is it?

Wyden: I'm not at liberty to say.

Person #4: Could you at least tell us if this somebody is coming by land or water?

Wyden: I think it's one or the other, but it could be both.

Person #5: Alright. Let me see if I have this straight. Some unknown person or persons who are not here now is/are coming. You won't tell us when this somebody is coming. You won't tell us why this somebody is coming and you won't tell us how this somebody is coming. All you will tell is that somebody is coming.

Wyden: Yes! You've got it. I just wanted to warn you all that somebody is coming, so you wouldn't be caught off guard.

The townspeople decided that Wyden had consumed too much ale. They dispersed and went back to their homes. When the British troops showed up the next day, everyone was caught off guard. The rebellious colonist leaders were put in the stockade and the rebellion never recovered. Many generations later -- in 2012 -- one of Wyden's descendants was elected to the House of Commons as a representative of the North American British Colonies.

I Ching: Hexagram 39 - The Lines, Part 2

Six in the second place means:
The King's servant is beset by obstruction upon obstruction,
But it is not his own fault.

Ordinarily it is best to go around an obstacle and try to overcome it along the line of least resistance. But there is one instance in which a man must go out to meet the trouble, even though difficulty piles upon difficulty: this is when the path of duty leads directly to it-in other words, when he cannot act of his own volition but is duty bound to go and seek out danger in the service of a higher cause. Then he may do it without compunction, because it is not through any fault of his that he is putting himself in this difficult situation.

Translator of this version of the I Ching is Richard Wilhelm. If you missed any posts in this series, please utilize the I Ching label below.

Not-One Is Also One X (Revisited)

Scott Bradley

Original post date: May 14, 2010

Continuing with the discussion from Zhuangzi, Chapter 6...

Hence they were one with what they liked and one with what they disliked, one when they were one and one when they were not one. When one they were of Heaven’s party, when not one they were of man’s party. Someone in whom neither Heaven nor man is victor over the other, this is what is meant by the True Man.

Thus reads the closing summation of Zhuangzi’s treatment in this chapter of the relationship between the Heavenly and the Human. Unfortunately, the meaning is somewhat obscure as evinced by the diversity of renderings in the various translations consulted and by Dr. Ziporyn’s offering of five different possible readings. Therefore, rather than selecting one rendering over another or attempting to explain its meaning in detail, I will attempt to get at the gist of what Zhuangzi seems to be saying. In this, the commentaries of others more qualified may help.

Fung Yu-Lan quotes Guo Xiang’s commentary on this passage: “The true man unifies nature and man, and equalizes all things. To him, there is no mutual opposition in all things. There is no mutual conquest of nature and man.”

A.C. Graham, in a note immediately following this passage, writes: “At the end of Chapter 5, Chuang-tzu took the side of Heaven against man; here he tries to resolve the dichotomy. . . . The reformulation at the end attacks the dichotomy with the paradox that the sage remains fundamentally one with things whether he is being united with them by Heaven or is dividing himself off as a thinking man.”

I cannot pretend that I find these comments particularly helpful, but they do bring one aspect to the fore, namely, that there are three agents involved here: Heaven, the sage, and others. All things are one under Heaven. Humans consciously diverge from this oneness, though the oneness persists in any case. The sage acts as intermediary and, experiencing both the non-oneness of humanity and the oneness of Heaven, brings the two into a greater oneness.

In a personal note on Guo’s comment, Fung Yu-Lan writes: “This is what Chuang Tzu called ‘taking two courses at once,’ as mentioned in the second chapter.” This, I think, gets very close to what Zhuangzi had in mind here. What Dr. Ziporyn translates as Walking Two Roads is a concept central to Zhuangzi’s thinking and he has, I think, applied it here so as to tentatively reconcile Reality and Humanity.

You can check out Scott's writings on Zhuangzi here.

TYT - Non-Violent Keystone XL Protestors Labeled 'Terrorists'

I Ching: Hexagram 39 - The Lines, Part 1

Six at the beginning means:
Going leads to obstructions,
Coming meets with praise.

When one encounters an obstruction, the important thing is to reflect on how best to deal with it. When threatened with danger, one should not strive blindly to go ahead, for this only leads to complications. The correct thing is, on the contrary, to retreat for the time being, not in order to give up the struggle but to await the right moment for action.

Translator of this version of the I Ching is Richard Wilhelm. If you missed any posts in this series, please utilize the I Ching label below.

The Logic of Illogic is...?

Trey Smith

Mike Spindell, a regular guest blogger on Jonathan Turley's blog, likens Edward Snowden's disclosure of top secret NSA documents to a proverbial Catch-22. Here is how Spindell encapsulates the paradoxical insanity of the US government's position.

So the logic of this situation is this:

A. We profess to be a country governed by the Constitution and ultimately by the people through the electoral process.

B. To be able to exercise our rights as citizens, via the electoral process, we need information on the major issues of how our government is operating.

C. To “protect us” from our “enemies” we need intelligence agencies gathering information to discern threats to our country and this “gathering” must include information on all of our citizens.

D. The operations of these intelligence agencies must be cloaked in secrecy to keep our “enemies” from knowing what we know.

E. Only a very few of our elected representatives are allowed information on the operations of our intelligence community as putative oversight.

F. These intelligence representatives are precluded by secrecy laws from disclosing what they learn to their legislative colleagues.

G. If they can’t disclose any intelligence information that they find disturbing, then in effect they have no oversight ability over the Intelligence Establishment since they can’t get legislation to counter it.

H. Without oversight the Intelligence Agencies can do as they please.

I. Therefore when it comes to Intelligence the American people are unable to exercise their rights as citizens via informed votes in the electoral process.

Adding to this illogical mishmash, President Obama has said that he "welcomes a debate" on issues we would not have had a reason to debate if not for their disclosure! While repeating his welcoming debate mantra, he concurrently has shown that he doesn't want to talk about it in any sort of substantive way because...it's secret and it can't remain secret if we talk about it!

If you haven't had the pleasure of watching the movie, Catch-22, I have included a small video snippet below that illustrates the utterly insane logic highlighted throughout the film. Pay special attention to the last minute of the clip where Major Major explains how people are to "see" him in his office. If you are able to obtain the film and watch it in its entirety, you will have a good feel as to what is going on in our nation's capitol today!

Afternoon Matinee: Protest - 1913 Massacre

Performed by Woody Guthrie

Take a trip with me in 1913,

To Calumet, Michigan, in the copper country.

I will take you to a place called Italian Hall,

Where the miners are having their big Christmas ball.

I will take you in a door and up a high stairs,

Singing and dancing is heard everywhere,

I will let you shake hands with the people you see,

And watch the kids dance around the big Christmas tree.

You ask about work and you ask about pay,

They'll tell you they make less than a dollar a day,

Working the copper claims, risking their lives,

So it's fun to spend Christmas with children and wives.

There's talking and laughing and songs in the air,

And the spirit of Christmas is there everywhere,

Before you know it you're friends with us all,

And you're dancing around and around in the hall.

Well a little girl sits down by the Christmas tree lights,

To play the piano so you gotta keep quiet,

To hear all this fun you would not realize,

That the copper boss' thug men are milling outside.

The copper boss' thugs stuck their heads in the door,

One of them yelled and he screamed, "there's a fire,"

A lady she hollered, "there's no such a thing.

Keep on with your party, there's no such thing."

A few people rushed and it was only a few,

"It's just the thugs and the scabs fooling you,"

A man grabbed his daughter and carried her down,

But the thugs held the door and he could not get out.

And then others followed, a hundred or more,

But most everybody remained on the floor,

The gun thugs they laughed at their murderous joke,

While the children were smothered on the stairs by the door.

Such a terrible sight I never did see,

We carried our children back up to their tree,

The scabs outside still laughed at their spree,

And the children that died there were seventy-three.

The piano played a slow funeral tune,

And the town was lit up by a cold Christmas moon,

The parents they cried and the miners they moaned,

"See what your greed for money has done."

~ from Lyric Wiki ~

Real Life Tao - Psst! Do You Want To Know a Secret?

Trey Smith

The Terrorists already knew, and have long known, that the US government is doing everything possible to surveil their telephonic and internet communications. The Chinese have long known, and have repeatedly said, that the US is hacking into both their governmental and civilian systems (just as the Chinese are doing to the US). The Russians have long known that the US and UK try to intercept the conversations of their leaders just as the Russians do to the US and the UK.

They haven't learned anything from these disclosures that they didn't already well know. The people who have learned things they didn't already know are American citizens who have no connection to terrorism or foreign intelligence, as well as hundreds of millions of citizens around the world about whom the same is true. What they have learned is that the vast bulk of this surveillance apparatus is directed not at the Chinese or Russian governments or the Terrorists, but at them.

And that is precisely why the US government is so furious and will bring its full weight to bear against these disclosures. What has been "harmed" is not the national security of the US but the ability of its political leaders to work against their own citizens and citizens around the world in the dark, with zero transparency or real accountability. If anything is a crime, it's that secret, unaccountable and deceitful behavior: not the shining of light on it.
~ from On the Espionage Act Charges Against Edward Snowden by Glenn Greenwald ~

Aah yes. Another post on this general topic. I continue to write on this subject because it underscores a glaring difference between the manner the US government conducts itself and Taoist philosophy -- this is a Taoist blog, ya know!

As we slowly wend our way through the Zhuangzi, many of the snippets point toward a completely different way of governance. For the purposes of this post, however, allow me to direct your attention back to the Tao Te Ching. Like his philosophic counterpart, Laozi recommends an entirely different course of action.

If the sage would guide the people, he must serve with humility.
If he would lead them, he must follow behind.
In this way when the sage rules, the people will not feel oppressed;
When he stands before them, they will not be harmed.
The whole world will support him and will not tire of him.
from Verse 66

I have three treasures which I hold and keep.
The first is mercy; the second is economy;
The third is daring not to be ahead of others.
From mercy comes courage; from economy comes generosity;
From humility comes leadership.

Nowadays men shun mercy, but try to be brave;
They abandon economy, but try to be generous;
They do not believe in humility, but always try to be first.
from Verse 67

For the most part -- there ARE a few exceptions to the general rule -- governing through secrecy is the antithesis of humility. The humble leader does not try to hide behind an impenetrable wall of secrets. If you feel you cannot share basic information with your own citizens, then you are behaving in an arrogant manner. You are putting yourself and your interests first. You are doing so in such a way that underscores that you think you are better than everyone else.

Just look at our everyday lives. In most instances, we keep secrets from others because we are ashamed of the truth and we don't want others to know what we really are thinking or up to. For example, the cheating spouse doesn't want his/her partner to know that he/she is having sexual relations with another person. The cheating spouse wants to enjoy their jollies without confrontation from their committed partner.

When a government secretly spies on its own citizens -- people not suspected of any wrongdoing -- it behaves like a cheating spouse. It wants to reap information (and control) without a confrontation from the people being spied upon.

Throughout the writing of the Taoist sages, it is strongly suggested that leaders should model the thought and behavior they want their citizens to emulate. Does this mean that the US government wants its citizens to be cunning, secretive and deceitful?

This post is part of a series. For an introduction, go here.

Bit by Bit - Chapter 17, Part 6

Trey Smith

The Lord of the River said, "Men who debate such matters these days all claim that the minutest thing has no form and the largest thing cannot be encompassed. Is this a true statement?"

Jo of the North Sea said, "If from the standpoint of the minute we look at what is large, we cannot see to the end. If from the standpoint of what is large we look at what is minute, we cannot distinguish it clearly. The minute is the smallest of the small, the gigantic is the largest of the large, and it is therefore convenient to distinguish between them. But this is merely a matter of circumstance. Before we can speak of coarse or fine, however, there must be some form. If a thing has no form, then numbers cannot express its dimensions, and if it cannot be encompassed, then numbers cannot express its size. We can use words to talk about the coarseness of things and we can use our minds to visualize the fineness of things. But what words cannot describe and the mind cannot succeed in visualizing - this has nothing to do with coarseness or fineness.
~ Burton Watson translation ~

In the overall scheme of things, the distinctions we spend our entire lives noting are, possibly, nothing more than illusions. In death, might we all be the same?

To view the Index page for this series, go here.

Misunderstanding the Tally

Trey Smith

For those familiar with the Christian religion, most of us know about the Day of Judgment. As the story goes, when we reach the Pearly Gates, we are greeted by Saint Peter who takes us before God. In a sort of celestial court hearing, the charges -- our sins -- are laid out against us. We may get to rebut the charges by trying to show all the good we did in our lives on earth. In the end, God passes judgment and our ticket is punched either for heaven or hell.

By and large, Christians think they know what goes into the tally, but what if they have it all wrong? What if the criteria is altogether different from what religious authorities would have them believe? It might go something like this.

Bob Johnson, having recently died, is waiting outside of the Pearly Gates. Peter approaches him.

Peter: Okay Bob, you're up next. Before you go in, I want to go over the ground rules.
Bob: (nervously) Do I look okay?
Peter: What? Oh yeah, you look fine. Rule #1: Look at me at all times. Do not look at God. If you even as much as try to catch the briefest of glimpses of the almighty, the hearing is over and you will be sent straight to hell. I can't stress this point enough.
Bob: Not even a little peek?
Peter: NO!! You want to burn in the eternal cauldron?
Bob: Of course not.
Peter: Then follow Rule #1 without exception. Rule #2: Don't even think about lying. Don't fudge or hem and haw. When he asks you a question, answer it truthfully. If you so much as cut the tiniest corner in the truth department, he will know it. Just the slightest fib and the hearing is over. You will be sent straight to hell.
Bob: Totally truthful. Scout's honor.
Peter: Rule #3: Don't be argumentative. Don't forget that you are dealing with the omnipotent almighty.
Bob: Can I ask questions?
Peter: Yes, but not argumentative ones. Also, don't ask too many questions. He sometimes views that as being argumentative.
Bob: Anything else?
Peter: Yes, Rule #4 is butter him up without seeming like a brown noser. He's got a huge ego and he likes it when people fawn all over him. But you must be careful. If he thinks you're simply trying to score brownie points, he gets ticked off. Trust me, you don't want him ticked off at you.
Bob: I'll try to keep these four rules in mind.

They walk through a door into a celestial courtroom. Bob is told to kneel before the bench with his hands folded in front of him.

Peter: Heavenly Father, I present to you Bob Johnson.
God: Hi, Bob. Do you have anything you wish to say on your behalf before we get this ball rolling?
Bob: Yes, oh merciful Heavenly Father.
God: Well, spit it out. We don't have all day.
Bob: Heavenly Father, I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior. I have loved him with all my heart, all my mind and all my soul. I regularly attended church and took counsel from my ministers. I prayed fervently before every meal and each night before bed. I beg your forgiveness for my sins...which are many.
God: None of that is germane to this hearing, but thanks for sharing.
Bob: I also tithed a minimum of 10% of my annual net earnings to my local church and almost always added more to the weekly collection plate. I also made hefty donations for church missions.
God: Still not germane, but this your time to say whatever you want.
Bob: Not germane? I don't understand.
God: Well, it has nothing to do with my judgment as to whether you warrant a ticket to heaven or hell. I base that decision on far more important criteria.
Bob: Like what?
God: How many non-humans have you carelessly killed during your lifetime?
Bob: Excuse me. I don't understand the question.
God: What's not to understand? The question is very straightforward.
Bob: What exactly do you mean? Mosquitoes? Bed bugs? Rodents? Elk?
God: Yes. All of those meet the definition of non-human. So, how many non-humans have you carelessly killed during your lifetime?
Bob: Hell if I know!
Peter: Hey, watch your language. Remember what I told you before we came in here?
Bob: Sorry. But what kind of question is that?
God: Are you questioning ME?
Bob: I simply don't understand this inane question. What does it have to do with salvation?
God: How can you be "saved" if you don't understand that all things are connected through me?
Bob: In the Book of Genesis, it is written that humans have dominion over all other creatures. Those are your words.
God: I was misquoted a bit, but that's not that important right now. Dominion simply means you have control or power over something else. You can choose for it to be positive and loving dominion or, as you have chosen, negative and hateful dominion.
Bob: I simply did what I was taught by the church fathers. How was I to know they were giving me bum advice?
God: Because the answer is written in everyone's heart. If you had bothered to look, you would have found it.
Bob: Look, I'm sorry. What do you want from me? I'll repent right now, if you like.
God: Too late. You had that chance every moment of your life.
Bob: What does this mean?
God: You, my son, are going to h-e-l-l.
Bob: Then I want to file an appeal!
Peter: There are no appeals in this court. Bailiff, escort Mr. Johnson to the fiery furnace.
God: Let's break for lunch. I'm starved.

I Ching: Hexagram 39 - The Image

Water on the mountain:
The image of OBSTRUCTION.
Thus the superior man turns his attention to himself
And molds his character.

Difficulties and obstructions throw a man back upon himself. While the inferior man seeks to put the blame on other persons, bewailing his fate, the superior man seeks the error within himself, and through this introspection the external obstacle becomes for him an occasion for inner enrichment and education.

Translator of this version of the I Ching is Richard Wilhelm. If you missed any posts in this series, please utilize the I Ching label below.

Not-One Is Also One IX (Revisited)

Scott Bradley

Original post date: May 13, 2010

Continuing with the discussion from Zhuangzi, Chapter 6...

Would it matter if what I call the Heavenly turned out to be what I call the Human and vice-versa? It would only if I were dependent on my understanding consciousness and took what it understands as fully formed and my teacher.

If, on the other hand, I took what the understanding does understand to nurture what it does not understand, I would be free to experientially explore this conscious existence beyond the boundaries of understanding. Moreover, both Nature and the Human would be naturally, that is, spontaneously, expressed in me, and this has nothing to do with understanding the process at all. Indeed, I think this is the true import of the coupling here of Genuine Knowledge with the Genuine Human Being. Genuine Knowledge is, in fact, not knowledge at all — it is the expression of Reality in life. The Genuine Human Being is someone who lives the life and need not and could not talk the talk. The Genuine Human Being does not know what is Nature in him and what is the human; he just lives naturally and their relationship is naturally expressed therein.

Thus, Zhuangzi fills our goblet with positive knowledge and then tips it all out lest we think words and ideas can express Reality or how best to harmonize with it. And this is his deepest purpose in having given us the ‘knowledge’ in the first place. But is that all there is to it, or is there something more? Have we not ‘learned’ anything else? We have. We have followed his finger to the moon, learned not to take the finger for the moon, and now we have an inkling of how it would be to genuinely know it.

And what do we mean by a ‘Genuine Human Being’? (Ziporyn)

We will not follow Zhuangzi’s description in detail but only touch upon that which best informs us regarding the relation of the Human and Reality.

Such was their way that their understanding was able, in its very demise, to ascend through the remotest vistas of the Course. This refers back to the opening statement where we are told that to know what the Human does is to understand the role of the ‘understanding consciousness’, namely, to find its limits and, through that limitation, nurture what is beyond its understanding. These hypothetical sages of old were able to transcend the muddle of transient concepts and experience Reality directly.

The Genuine Human Beings of old understood nothing about delighting in being alive or hating death. . . . They neither forgot where they came from nor asked where they would go. Receiving it, they delighted in it. Forgetting about it, they gave it back. This is what it means not to use the mind to push away the Course, not to use the Human to try to help the Heavenly.

As stated above, the most conspicuous givens of Reality from the Human perspective are life and death, and reconciliation with these givens is the most fundamental demonstration of knowing what man (ought to) do. What the Human “ought to do” is not take the mind as teacher, not use the mind to push away the Course, not to use the Human to try and help the Heavenly.

To use the Human to try and help the Heavenly would be to not stop at what the understanding does not know, but rather to go beyond the limits of understanding, using the understanding consciousness to formulate speculative belief systems which amount to a denial of the fundamental given of not-knowing, an incipient rejection of what is most fundamental about life and death, namely their inscrutability. Similarly, to take the tentative statement under consideration as definitive, objective truth would be to fail to live by what it teaches.

Ultimately, what is implied here is total acceptance of the reality that one knows nothing of his origins or destination(s) and this is manifest in an apparent indifference to both. But this indifference has only to do with what lies beyond the actual experience of life, not the experience itself. This explains the apparent contradiction between understanding nothing about delighting in being alive or hating death and receiving it, they delighted in it. It is not that the Genuine Human Being does not delight in life, but that he does not delight in life in contrast to hating death. He likewise delights in death. Indeed, he delights in and celebrates all the givens of his existence.

The Genuine Human Beings of old seemed to do whatever was called for but were not partisan to any one course. This line sums up a long paragraph in which the spontaneous activity of the sage is demonstrated. He acts sagaciously, but is not a sage; acts humanely, but is not humane; likewise, he is neither a worthy man, an exemplary man, nor a steadfast knight though the world might wish to describe him as such.

He lives in spontaneity and thus his actions cannot be understood in objective terms as if the application of principle or truth. In effect, he fulfills the teaching of the opening statement without cognitively adhering to it. The Genuine Human Being has Genuine Knowledge which, it turns out, is really no knowledge at all but the spontaneous realization of what knowledge attempts to know.

You can check out Scott's writings on Zhuangzi here.

TYT - The Strongest High School Kid In The Country

I Ching: Hexagram 39 - The Judgment

OBSTRUCTION. The southwest furthers.
The northeast does not further.
It furthers one to see the great man.
Perseverance brings good fortune.

The southwest is the region of retreat, the northeast that of advance. Here an individual is confronted by obstacles that cannot be overcome directly. In such a situation it is wise to pause in view of the danger and to retreat. However, this is merely a preparation for overcoming the obstructions. One must join forces with friends of like mind and put himself under the leadership of a man equal to the situation: then one will succeed in removing the obstacles. This requires the will to persevere just when one apparently must do something that leads away from his goal. This unswerving inner purpose brings good fortune in the end. An obstruction that lasts only for a time is useful for self–development. This is the value of adversity.

Translator of this version of the I Ching is Richard Wilhelm. If you missed any posts in this series, please utilize the I Ching label below.

The Most Misappropriated Word in Use in America

Trey Smith

A representative for the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation told a group of concerned citizens that complaining about water quality could be considered an “act of terrorism,” The Tennessean reports.

Sherwin Smith, deputy director of TDEC’s Division of Water Resources, made the claim during a meeting with residents of Maury County, Tennessee. Organized by State Rep. Sheila Butt, R-Columbia, the gathering sought to address complaints by residents that area water was making their children sick. In audio obtained by The Tennessean, Smith can be heard equating water quality complaints, an act of citizenry, with DHS-defined acts of terrorism:

We take water quality very seriously. Very, very seriously … But you need to make sure that when you make water quality complaints you have a basis, because federally, if there’s no water quality issues, that can be considered under Homeland Security an act of terrorism.

~ from Tennessee Official Says Complaining About Water Quality Could Be Considered 'Act of Terrorism' by Steven Hsieh ~

Terrorism. It used to have somewhat of an objective definition. If you look in the dictionary, you will find definitions like the following:

• The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
• a method of government or of resisting government involving domination or coercion by various forms of intimidation, as bombing or kidnapping.
• the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

How in the world could ANYBODY equate complaining about water quality with intimidation, coercion and violence? That's absolutely bonkers!

But this Tennessee official is not alone.  In Canada and the US, some authorities are labeling those who protest the Keystone XL Pipeline as terrorists.  There were suggestions by some that the majority of peaceful Occupy protesters were terrorists.  At one time during Dubya's administration, Quaker organizations -- the poster children for nonviolence -- were being investigated as potential terrorists.

That's right.  One of the most pacifistic groups in the nation -- whose members routinely refuse military service -- were being looked at as potential purveyors of violence!

What once had a rather specific meaning has been turned into a nebulous word that can mean almost anything that government officials want it to mean at any given moment.  More often than not, they employ it against people who dissent against their machinations, policies and laws.  If you stand in their way against corporate dominance or federal criminality, there is a really good chance that they will slap the terrorist label on you.

The sad irony is that US government itself has become the largest terrorist organization in the world!  It's general modus operandi is the threat or use of force and violence against Muslims throughout the world and many of its own citizens domestically.  This is done to intimidate, coerce and instill fear in anyone who opposes US elite hegemony.  

Just because US officials constantly misappropriate the world terrorism to buttress their political designs does not mean that the rest of us must accept their disjointed use of the word.  The next time President Obama or some other official uses the word, terrorist (or terrorism), ask yourself a question:  Does the person or group referenced use violence or the threat thereof to instill fear in civilians to advance a political agenda or ideology?

If the answer is no, then you should reject the perceived emotive response that comes with use of that word.  Put another way, stop allowing them to manipulate you at will.

Afternoon Matinee: Protest - Recipe for Hate

Performed by Bad Religion

Can't you feel it, can't you see

The promise of prosperity?

It's overwhelming you and me

It afflicts us like a disease

Ubiquitous, compelling too

We cling to you like crazy glue

And inject such a potent seed

It's best for all humanity

The spread of culture, the sword of progress

The vector of suffrage, a warm and septic breeze

The pomp and elation, the duty and vocation

The blood of the hybrid, it's just a recipe

Reliving our ancestry

The frightful lack of harmony

Our forefathers who led the way

Their victims are still here today

Now it's time to erase

The story of our bogus fate

Our history as it's portrayed

Is just a recipe for hate

A recipe for hate

The spread of culture, the sword of progress

The vector of suffrage, a warm and septic breeze

The pomp and elation, the duty and vocation

The blood of the hybrid, it's just a recipe

~ from Lyric Wiki ~

Attempting to Protect Your Online Privacy Is a Trigger for Investigation

Trey Smith

While I use several privacy and security add-ons in my Firefox web browser, I don't encrypt my emails in Thunderbird. To be perfectly frank, the reason I have not utilized encryption to date is that I don't understand it very well, though I've been reading up on it lately. Recently, I learned something that blows my mind. One of the triggers the NSA uses to decide whether or not an individual's email should be retained for further investigation is if the email messages themselves are encrypted. (Ooh, it's "legal" because the FISA Court says so!)

Think about that for a moment. The very act of attempting to protect your privacy from being intercepted by third parties and/or hackers is now a reason for suspicion by government-contracted spies!

What are you hiding?

Well, maybe I don't want to take the chance that someone might copy my credit card, bank account or social security number. Maybe I'm sharing some personal information about myself that I don't want unscrupulous individuals to exploit. Maybe it's nothing more than a private message that I don't want broadcast all over the internet. There are oodles of legitimate reasons I might want to encrypt the emails I send.

But in today's big dragnet world, legitimate reasons don't matter. The moment you encrypt something, you are drawing a large target on your back.

It would seem we must now pick between two poisons. Either we can choose to encrypt our email communiques which will provide the NSA with a "legal" reason to add our names to the list of "suspected terrorists" OR we can choose not to encrypt our emails and open ourselves up to be easier prey for third party intercepts and hackers.

Some choice!

Bit by Bit - Chapter 17, Part 5

Trey Smith

"Well then," said the Lord of the River, "if I recognize the hugeness of heaven and earth and the smallness of the tip of a hair, will that do?"

"No indeed!" said Jo of the North Sea. "There is no end to the weighing of things, no stop to time, no constancy to the division of lots, no fixed rule to beginning and end. Therefore great wisdom observes both far and near, and for that reason recognizes small without considering it paltry, recognizes large without considering it unwieldy, for it knows that there is no end to the weighing of things. It has a clear understanding of past and present, and for that reason it spends a long time without finding it tedious, a short time without fretting at its shortness, for it knows that time has no stop. It perceives the nature of fullness and emptiness, and for that reason it does not delight if it acquires something nor worry if it loses it, for it knows that there is no constancy to the division of lots. It comprehends the Level Road, and for that reason it does not rejoice in life nor look on death as a calamity, for it knows that no fixed rule can be assigned to beginning and end.

"Calculate what man knows and it cannot compare to what he does not know. Calculate the time he is alive and it cannot compare to the time before he was born. Yet man takes something so small and tries to exhaust the dimensions of something so large! Hence he is muddled and confused and can never get anywhere. Looking at it this way, how do we know that the tip of a hair can be singled out as the measure of the smallest thing possible? Or how do we know that heaven and earth can fully encompass the dimensions of the largest thing possible?"
~ Burton Watson translation ~

Everything is bigger or smaller, brighter or dimmer, lighter or heavier than something else. Put another way, everything in our lives is relative -- relative to a myriad of things.

To view the Index page for this series, go here.

Technically, We Aren't "Fibbing"

Trey Smith

You've got to hand it to the publisher and editors at The Guardian. Despite the fact that both the US and British governments are none too pleased with their exposes about the NSA and GCHQ, they keep publishing them. On Friday, they dropped another bombshell.

Britain's spy agency GCHQ has secretly gained access to the network of cables which carry the world's phone calls and internet traffic and has started to process vast streams of sensitive personal information which it is sharing with its American partner, the National Security Agency (NSA).

The sheer scale of the agency's ambition is reflected in the titles of its two principal components: Mastering the Internet and Global Telecoms Exploitation, aimed at scooping up as much online and telephone traffic as possible. This is all being carried out without any form of public acknowledgment or debate.

One key innovation has been GCHQ's ability to tap into and store huge volumes of data drawn from fibre-optic cables for up to 30 days so that it can be sifted and analysed. That operation, codenamed Tempora, has been running for some 18 months.

GCHQ and the NSA are consequently able to access and process vast quantities of communications between entirely innocent people, as well as targeted suspects.

This includes recordings of phone calls, the content of email messages, entries on Facebook and the history of any internet user's access to websites – all of which is deemed legal, even though the warrant system was supposed to limit interception to a specified range of targets.

The existence of the programme has been disclosed in documents shown to the Guardian by the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden as part of his attempt to expose what he has called "the largest programme of suspicionless surveillance in human history".

You see how this is set up? Though the two national spy agencies are working together and sharing information, each can go testify before their country's legislative bodies and deny certain aspects of these programs because, technically, it's the other guys who have the chief responsibility for x or y.

For example, President Obama can tell the American people with a straight face that "we" are not listening in to your telephone conversations. GCHQ might be, but "we" aren't. Of course, this does not mean that the NSA cannot access the information contained in our telephone conversations -- they damn well can and do. It simply means that the original intercept of those conversations is being done by the Brits.

And how many phone conversations are the Brits intercepting? Oh, something like 600 million per day! They have to do this because, as everybody knows, there are at least 600 million potential terrorists and we certainly don't want one to slip by!

So, there you have it. The two nations who hold themselves up high as the beacons of democracy and freedom have been secretly denying democracy and freedom to their own citizens as well as almost everyone else in the world. That's just peachy, ain't it?