Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [stoics] Eckhart Tolle Quote

Expand Messages
  • Steve Stoker
    ....Interesting perspective, Richard.   And Stoic thought was an amalgam, also. I can t find any pure anything anywhere. All is built upon previous
    Message 1 of 57 , Jan 17, 2013
      ....Interesting perspective, Richard.
      And Stoic thought was an amalgam, also. I can't find any "pure" anything anywhere. All
      is built upon previous ideas/concepts/beliefs. Stoicism could not have been except for earlier
      non-Stoic thinkers. Same with everything, though.
      ....so it seems to me, anyway.

      From: Richard <pmsrxw@...>
      To: Stoics <stoics@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:57 AM
      Subject: Re: [stoics] Eckhart Tolle Quote

      Not even exactly cheap words, by the way. But it's good to know that Epictetus' words are cashable in some way, stacked on a long shelf of indisputable references, ready to be mixed up in a big bowl and boiled as many times as deep-frozen (though the new age soup is better served tepid).


      I'm not sure of this point.  If a Modern Christian theologian quotes Buddha, so what? And what if an ancient Chrisitan Theologian quotes Stoicism?

      Quite curious.  Is Tolle today somehow more rich and powerful than was Marcus Aurelius was in his day?  So  If we question Tolle, why not question Marcus Aurelius? And if we accept MA then why not ET?

      At any rate the fellow renamed himself after Meister Echkart. I'm guessing that he sees himself as more of a mystic than as a philosopher. 

      And from what I read, Epictetus ran a "successful" school.  Cato was a leading bigshot in Rome. Zeno of Citium studied under different masters and amalgamated their teachings. 

      Long Live and Flourish,


      Yahoo! Groups Links

      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

      <*> Your email settings:
          Individual Email | Traditional

      <*> To change settings online go to:
          (Yahoo! ID required)

      <*> To change settings via email:

      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

    • Scott Rhodes
      Noam doesn t always look good to me but sometimes yes. Anyway I have a feeling both sides of this discussion thread could find something to like in this.
      Message 57 of 57 , Jan 21, 2013
        Noam doesn't always look good to me but sometimes yes. Anyway I have a feeling both sides of this discussion thread could find something to like in this. 

        Um do you want me to defend the banks who are in league with the government, having to take no losses, brcause their connections help them being bailed out with tax payers money? I am not inclined to do that: not an advocste for crony capitalism, at all. If these banks werent in league with the state all would be different, and the bad ones would cease to exist.

        Having said that this is getting away from stoicism a bit... Much, and.we are not going to convince each other because our fundamental outlook is different. Of course that does not mean we cannot both be stoics: we merely come to different political conclusions, while sharing I presume the basic idea that virtue is the only go

        On Jan 21, 2013 4:00 PM, "Guillaume Andrieu" <subtenante@...> wrote:

        My dear friend Michael,

        Absolutely not. I do not assume that the only way to put money back into the economy is to pay taxes. I just provide a counter example to the statement that you gave, and a counter example that weighs 60 billions euros every year. Since in France, it's the state who is the first investor for local entrepreneurs (through local councils), maybe how much people pay as taxes has an impact on investment after all. Can you please tell me who is the first investor in the Netherlands ?

        Besides, it's strange that you say that banks fund local entrepreneurs. I thought that they didn't anymore so much. 

        But I thought that we just were on the border of recession. It means that countries in Europe have not ceased to create more and more GPI for the last 30 years and more. How come now there is no credit for the local entrepreneurs ? Can you explain that to me ?


        On 21 January 2013 14:11, Michael van der Galien <mpfvandergalien@...> wrote:

        That's just a strange reasoning. You seem to assume that the only way to put money into the economy is by… giving it to the government (who'll put you in jail if you don't - or at least are caught). That of course isn't true. The banks use it to fund local entrepreneurs. The bankers buy products. The person investing it, in say stocks, invests in those companies, thereby producing more jobs, and so on. 

        Furthermore, even if a person would sit on top of his money, well, that's none of your concern is it, since it isn't yours to start with. 

        Of course on a personal level you could encourage them to do something else with the money, but once you involve the government, you're trespassing into very dangerous territory indeed.

        On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Guillaume Andrieu <subtenante@...> wrote:

        My dear friend Michael,

        I am sorry to disagree, since you yourself argued that people earning a lot of money did put it back in the economy. I was forced to inform you that, of course illegally, people in France evade 60 billions worth of collectible taxes every year in Swiss banks. Now I'm interested to know what kind of economy do the Swiss banks finance. Surely it's not the local little entrepreneurs. (Or maybe sometimes yes, a local entrepreneur whose company is profitable but lacks investment, a bank or hedge fund may come and buy enough shares to take control, lay off people, suck up to 20% profit for a few years and then shut down the enterprise.) 

        Please tell me which kind of economy you would put your money into if you had, say, just a little million euros to spend every year. I'd be glad to know what you would do with it. I'd be glad to know also ho much you'd put on the side, and where.

        But you want to avoid the topic of tax-evasion that costs France around 100 times the cost of petty tax cheating by the average Martin that you denounced a few mesages ago. Alright. I'm glad that in the Netherlands you don't have this problem of fraud by the rich !

        Let's leave taxes for another moment, but I'll have a lot of questions to ask about that too.


        On 21 January 2013 13:14, Michael van der Galien <mpfvandergalien@...> wrote:

        Are they simply using the law legally or are they breaking the law? There is a difference between paynig less within the framework of the law and breaking it. Also youre changing the subject, I might as well point to the many people who do little jobs but dont report them to the tax agency, for example. All of that doesnt take away from the main point.

        As an aside, you can also end up debating the morality of taxes ('be generous or I will point a gun to your head and send you to prison'), but that is an entirely different conversation.

        In any case, some people dodging taxes has nothing to do with earning money in a legally correct way, it is merely an ill perceived diversion.

        Michael van der Galien
        Managing Editor De Dagelijkse Standaard
        Izmir, Turkey
        Web: http://www.dagelijksestandaard.nl

        Email: mpfvandergalien@...
        Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/MichaelvdGalien

        Ἄριστος τρόπος τοῦ ἀμύνεσθαι τὸ μὴ ἐξομοιοῦσθαι.
        The best way to protect yourself from them is not to imitate them.
        Le meilleur moyen de se défendre : ne pas leur ressembler.
                            -- Marcus Aurelius, VI-6

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.