Taoist Guy

[Unidian]

Alright, I'm the Taoist Guy. Ask me questions, ridicule me, praise me, ignore me, or do whatever you want to do. But expect nothing, and be prepared for anything.

[Dan Rowden]

Ok, so what is uppermost in your value hierarchy, and, why?


Dan Rowden

[Unidian]

Virtue (Te).

This is of course not the nonsense that is usually meant by that term, but the natural, authentic virtue Lao Tzu described. It is essentially an understanding of Nature and and a willingness to set aside delusion in light of that understanding. It is knowing what Reality is and how to deal with it honestly. It is what the Lao Tzu, the Chuang Tzu, and various other sources point to.

Why? Because there is nothing else to value when the truth is realized.

The reason I didn't say "Tao" is that according to Lao, "value hierarchies" arise only when Tao is forgotten. Tao is not and cannot be part of a value hierarchy. Te is the best you can do within that framework.

[hsandman]

Virtue (Te).

This is of course not the nonsense that is usually meant by that term, but the natural, authentic virtue Lao Tzu described. It is essentially an understanding of Nature and and a willingness to set aside delusion in light of that understanding. It is knowing what Reality is and how to deal with it honestly. It is what the Lao Tzu, the Chuang Tzu, and various other sources point to.

Why? Because there is nothing else to value when the truth is realized.

The reason I didn't say "Tao" is that according to Lao, "value hierarchies" arise only when Tao is forgotten. Tao is not and cannot be part of a value hierarchy. Te is the best you can do within that framework.

Few questions actualy.

Even thou I agree with

" Because there is nothing else to value when the truth is realized."

I am compelled to ask:

1) Do you belive that caling/being yourself a follower of something (tao, lao, budda ,shmao) helps you belive that "your" theories are correct ones?(they are not yours realy thou, are they?)
From your comment

"This is of course not the nonsense that is usually meant by that term, but the natural, authentic virtue Lao Tzu described. "

then i can surmise that you have encountered

nonsense that is usually meant by that term

? How would i recognise one? can you give a sample of "the nonsonse"? I also can guess then that you havent added the "lao" between "the" and "guy" just to fit in (where ever it might be that religion helps you fit in) or am i wrong there? :P

The interesting part of it is something that i have myself just reacently discovered

It is essentially an understanding of Nature and and a willingness to set aside delusion in light of that understanding. It is knowing what Reality is and how to deal with it honestly.

From thinking about the adage "Ignorance is bliss" and some of the posts where people try to reach the truth trough reason, ,but will only go so far.

2)Is it easier when someone else tells you what is correct and what is not? I guess it is or else you would not call yourself "the shmao" guy. how is that for a flame? now your turn.

[Unidian]

1) Do you belive that caling/being yourself a follower of something (tao, lao, budda ,shmao) helps you belive that "your" theories are correct ones?(they are not yours realy thou, are they?)

Most of my ideas happen to be consistent with Taoism. Therefore, it is convenient to use the term "Taoist."

How would i recognise one? can you give a sample of "the nonsonse"?

Most of these questions, which attempt to dismiss labels while focusing on them, are examples of such "nonsense." Labels are a matter of convenience. They are not important in and of themselves, except to the sort of people who feel that "having no label" makes them superior. That type of person generally spends a lot of time focusing on the issue of labels.

From thinking about the adage "Ignorance is bliss" and some of the posts where people try to reach the truth trough reason, ,but will only go so far.

And yet, you reasoned all of this out, right? So far, I have never seen anyone successfully attack logic and reason without employing that which they are attacking. The only way to avoid this hypocrisy is silence.

Is it easier when someone else tells you what is correct and what is not? I guess it is or else you would not call yourself "the shmao" guy. how is that for a flame? now your turn.

As a flame, it's a poor one. You ignore the possibility that someone might develop their own ideas and find them consistent with an existing framework. That is what happened to me, and it is why I am referring to myself as Taoist (for the purposes of this thread).

[LooF]

what is not what it is?

[Pye]

Unidian, the Taoist Guy, I have a question for you please. Correct at will any characterization of mine that goes amiss.

My reading of Lao Tzu reveals the original state of the world as virtuous, and hence everything that comes from/in it as belonging to virtue as well. This would include as well the human being. In this sense, I assume Lao Tzu to mean that we are not born deluded (and unvirtuous), but rather made that way by all things in the world that go against this original Way (Ado, striving, aggression, overhandling, [laws, rules, etc.] - inattentiveness in general to the already-flowing nature of things, already flowing in virtue). If we were to be more attentive to the Way of things, we could shed the appliqued delusions and recover our original virtue.

How does this compare for you with the beliefs that hold that we are born deluded? Are we looking at two completely different notions of the original state of human beings? -- one that suggests we are not ready-equipt with the truth of things, and one that says we are?

Ta.

[Unidian]

Yes, that is exactly so. The idea that we are born deluded and evil traces back largely to the Western doctrine of "original sin." It has its basis in supernaturalism, to which Taoism (a thoroughly naturalistic position) is diametrically opposed.

For the supernaturalist, the supremacy of God means that Nature is in a devalued, corrupted, "fallen" state, and to the extent that man identifies with Nature or is unaware of his supernatural "soul," he shares this state. The child, of course, has no awareness of the soul or the supernatural, and as such must be educated out his "orginal sin" state and led to salvation - which invariably comes through accepting one supernaturalistic doctrine or another.

Taoism takes the opposite approach. Supernaturalism is rejected in favor of a naturalistic monism. Nature is man's whole creator and home, and man is ultimately not separate from it. As such, the natural way of things must be trusted, for to mistrust Nature is to mistrust oneself. For Lao Tzu, we are not born deluded or divorced from virtue, we become such through acceptance of the world's false doctrines, as you suggest. As in most Eastern philosophies, a return to the truth in Taoism is a matter of ceasing to cling to these delusions.

Thanks for your question. I'm hoping others will also add some intelligent questions/comments. The opportunity to answer them is why I am playing "Taoist Guy" for the moment. Next week, I may play "Zen Guy" or something else entirely. :)

[Pye]

Taoist Guy, don't disappear just yet! You seem to possess some genuine understanding when you say things like the following, and so I think you could be of value to refining my own comprehension:

The reason I didn't say "Tao" is that according to Lao, "value hierarchies" arise only when Tao is forgotten. Tao is not and cannot be part of a value hierarchy. Te is the best you can do within that framework [emphasis mine].

Next question: If the original human is in alignment with Te(h), tell me if I interpret this scenario correctly: A child is given a shiny toy. It now does not appear that his or her original nature is to share this toy with the other children at all. The problem here is not the child, but the shiny toy.

And, when you have time, I wonder if you are willing to wander onto the (highly charged) territory of yin and yang and make your statement as to whether you agree that the general movement of the world aligns itself with the yin qualities, and that the yang is reserved for the exceptions. ("Know the white, but keep to the black" . . . "the softest of things overrides the hardest" . . etc.)

[Lennyrizzo]

This ever happen to you.....Someone says something you know is really really wrong but you just don't know how to crack it to him without pissing him off? Or making him despise you? Or sending him reaching for his Zanax?
You damn well know that if he's ever going to beleive you, going to actually consider the possibility you may be dead-right for a while anyways, enough as much to permit some sense to be recognized as such, well you know he's going to have to do the unthinkable, that is he's going to have to abandon for a while his tightly held however mistaken truths, he's going to have to entertain the incredible possibility that he may have to toss out his life's work!, which is something only a superman could do, something YOU yourself would never, ever do.
Then you hesitate, and wonder is it worth it, until finally you go ahead and throw caution to the wind, spill your guts, and hope for the improbable best.
Has it ever happened to YOU?
To me, all the time...........

Yes, that is exactly so. The idea that we are born deluded and evil traces back largely to the Western doctrine of "original sin." It has its basis in supernaturalism, to which Taoism (a thoroughly naturalistic position) is diametrically opposed.

Ok, so a baby of one day, or one minute, or for that matter 10 minutes before actual birth, this baby is enlightened? I mean wiser than his older sister who by age 7 has almost certainly been deluded by the world?

For the supernaturalist, the supremacy of God means that Nature is in a devalued, corrupted, "fallen" state, and to the extent that man identifies with Nature or is unaware of his supernatural "soul," he shares this state. The child, of course, has no awareness of the soul or the supernatural, and as such must be educated out his "orginal sin" state and led to salvation - which invariably comes through accepting one supernaturalistic doctrine or another.

Ok, you mean religious freaks right? What do they, or what they beleive, have to do with whether or not you were better off spiritually the day you were born?

Taoism takes the opposite approach. Supernaturalism is rejected in favor of a naturalistic monism. Nature is man's whole creator and home, and man is ultimately not separate from it.

Ok, so are you suggesting we are taught that we're separate from Nature? And that that is the/a problem? Does this mean babies/undeluded kids understand they are not separate from Nature? What does that mean to such a little one? I mean, can't they see they are physically separate from the world around them? In what way do they regard themselves, initially that is, as unseparated from Nature? The same for cows, is that what you said?

As such, the natural way of things must be trusted, for to mistrust Nature is to mistrust oneself.

This is an interesting concept to me, Mr Nat (may i call you?). What springs up in my mind is-- what does it mean to trust in this fashion? Would you provide an example of how i may be mistrusting the natural way in my everyday life?

For Lao Tzu, we are not born deluded or divorced from virtue, we become such through acceptance of the world's false doctrines, as you suggest. As in most Eastern philosophies, a return to the truth in Taoism is a matter of ceasing to cling to these delusions.

My goodness! You really seem to be saying that little shit that was farted out today in the hospital is wiser than millions of deluded adults! Is that right? That quarter-pint is more virtuous than me? And cows are too? Im not joking at all, im serious, but are you?

Thanks for your question. I'm hoping others will also add some intelligent questions/comments. The opportunity to answer them is why I am playing "Taoist Guy" for the moment.

And thanks for the chance to ask!
So, what do you call it, when one is not separated, not believing the lies, returned to truth, etc., what do you call it? Does wise apply? How about enlightened? What do you call the one who is never deluded (for whatever reason)? Is he also enlightened? A sage? A buddha?
What do these terms mean to you in your natural monoism, "wise, enlightened, sage,etc"
Isn't there anything learned, spiritually speaking, besides unlearning lies we accepted taught after birth?
Does your philosophy teach that things are real and should be enjoyed and indulged in? What if there's a scarcity of lovely girls and too many men want to bone them? Or a scarcity of pacifiers and too many babies want to suck them? How would they maintain virtue here?

Can hardly wait to hear from you!

[Unidian]

Some interesting questions. I'll see what I can do to address them from a Taoist perspective, and/or my own perspective.

Next question: If the original human is in alignment with Te(h), tell me if I interpret this scenario correctly: A child is given a shiny toy. It now does not appear that his or her original nature is to share this toy with the other children at all. The problem here is not the child, but the shiny toy.

I'm not sure the question is well-formed. First, we would have to establish that a child wanting to keep a shiny toy to himself is in fact a "problem." This seems like natural behavior for a child, which they will eventually abandon if taught properly (but not if taught delusional thinking, such as "greed is good," etc). What I am saying here is that it is natural for children to think only of themselves, and to grow out of this as they mature. But the selfishness of the child and the unselfishness of the mature adult are natural - although the latter can seem difficult to believe in a deluded society.

But let's suppose for a moment that we overlook all of this and choose to view the child's desire to avoid sharing the toy as a problem. In this scenario, does the trouble lie with the child or the shiny toy? I think you are overlooking a third possible source of the problem - the giver of the shiny toy. Lao-Tzu says:

...If we don't see desirable things, we can't be confused.

Therefore, a wise person manages others by emptying their hearts and filling their bellies,
By weakening their desires and improving their physical conditions...

-Lao-Tzu verse 3, my adaptation

I would submit that if we don't want a child to behave selfishly with a shiny toy, perhaps we shouldn't give him a shiny toy. I'm not advocating the deprivation of children, of course - simply pointing out that your question overlooks a third potential source of responsibility for the child's behavior.

And, when you have time, I wonder if you are willing to wander onto the (highly charged) territory of yin and yang and make your statement as to whether you agree that the general movement of the world aligns itself with the yin qualities, and that the yang is reserved for the exceptions. ("Know the white, but keep to the black" . . . "the softest of things overrides the hardest" . . etc.)

No, I don't think Lao-Tzu's statements to that effect say anything about the world. Rather, they are admonitions to the sage to understand the nature of aggression, force, and violence, but avoid employing them.

Nature itself is a dynamic interplay of "yin" and "yang" qualities, the creative tension of which is responsible for the myriad forms of the world (the "ten thousand things," in Taoist terms). Naturally, this is not a description of actual physical laws, but of distinctions made by consciousness. The law of identity (A=A) contains within itself this "universal dialectic" or yin/yang distinction, insofar as A is A and not everything else which distinguishes A from Not-A.

For more about the "universal dialectic" concept and its relation to yin/yang. please refer to my essay here:

http://naturyl.humanists.net/diamon.html

This ever happen to you.....Someone says something you know is really really wrong but you just don't know how to crack it to him without pissing him off? Or making him despise you? Or sending him reaching for his Zanax?
You damn well know that if he's ever going to beleive you, going to actually consider the possibility you may be dead-right for a while anyways, enough as much to permit some sense to be recognized as such, well you know he's going to have to do the unthinkable, that is he's going to have to abandon for a while his tightly held however mistaken truths, he's going to have to entertain the incredible possibility that he may have to toss out his life's work!, which is something only a superman could do, something YOU yourself would never, ever do.
Then you hesitate, and wonder is it worth it, until finally you go ahead and throw caution to the wind, spill your guts, and hope for the improbable best.
Has it ever happened to YOU?
To me, all the time...........

Yes, it has happened to me.

Ok, so a baby of one day, or one minute, or for that matter 10 minutes before actual birth, this baby is enlightened? I mean wiser than his older sister who by age 7 has almost certainly been deluded by the world?

No. That would be plainly silly. Babies do not have wisdom or "enlightenment." What they do have is an (as yet) unimpeded potential for wisdom. While the 7 year old sister has more wisdom than the infant simply due to the infant having none at all, it's likely that she has less overall potential for wisdom. The distinction is subtle but important.

The more deluded beliefs we acquire, the less our overall potential for wisdom (in most cases). The exception to this, of course, is found in those who become tired of being deluded and decide to drastically reverse course. For most people, sadly, this is not the case. The more deluded they become, the more firmly stuck in delusion they tend to be.

Ok, you mean religious freaks right? What do they, or what they beleive, have to do with whether or not you were better off spiritually the day you were born?

I'm not sure what you mean by the question, but the influence of delusional beliefs is felt throughout our society. As children, most of us are heavily bombarded with false information. This does have an effect on all of us.

Ok, so are you suggesting we are taught that we're separate from Nature? And that that is the/a problem? Does this mean babies/undeluded kids understand they are not separate from Nature? What does that mean to such a little one? I mean, can't they see they are physically separate from the world around them? In what way do they regard themselves, initially that is, as unseparated from Nature? The same for cows, is that what you said?

Infants have no conscious awareness that they are separate from Nature. They are able to make distinctions, but they cannot yet develop a conceptual overlay of thought which allows them to make decisions on the basis of the idea that they are separate from Nature - decisions deluded adults make such as polluting the environment, exploiting others, etc.

This is an interesting concept to me, Mr Nat (may i call you?). What springs up in my mind is-- what does it mean to trust in this fashion? Would you provide an example of how i may be mistrusting the natural way in my everyday life?

Do you mow your yard frequently? Do you use chemicals on the lawn? Just an everyday sort of example, there are hundreds of similar ones.

My goodness! You really seem to be saying that little shit that was farted out today in the hospital is wiser than millions of deluded adults! Is that right?

No. As I explained above, it is a matter of the potential for wisdom. The infant, not yet deluded, has unimpeded potential, while the typical deluded adult has little. If the infant is raised free of false beliefs, it will naturally become wise, whereas the deluded adult will probably remain deluded.

And thanks for the chance to ask!
So, what do you call it, when one is not separated, not believing the lies, returned to truth, etc., what do you call it? Does wise apply? How about enlightened? What do you call the one who is never deluded (for whatever reason)? Is he also enlightened? A sage? A buddha?

Any of these terms is fine. Personally, I prefer the simplicity of "wise person." It lacks the religious and/or "boasting" baggage of "sage," "enlightened," "buddha," etc.

What do these terms mean to you in your natural monoism, "wise, enlightened, sage,etc"

For me, they denote freedom - liberation from false beliefs and delusions. To be wise is to be free from these things. It is not so much an affirmative state as a lack - a lack of delusion.

Isn't there anything learned, spiritually speaking, besides unlearning lies we accepted taught after birth?

Not particularly, no. Lao-Tzu says:

In the pursuit of learning, every day something is acquired.
In the pursuit of Dao, every day something is dropped.

-Tao Te Ching, verse 48

Does your philosophy teach that things are real and should be enjoyed and indulged in? What if there's a scarcity of lovely girls and too many men want to bone them? Or a scarcity of pacifiers and too many babies want to suck them? How would they maintain virtue here?

Things should be enjoyed, but not necessarily "indulged in." Taoism teaches that it is best to keep our desires moderate. If there is a scarcity of lovely girls, perhaps we should take up gardening instead. :)

[Lennyrizzo]

Thanks for the prompt response, Natural dude. I'll have a look and post back.

What I am saying here is that it is natural for children to think only of themselves, and to grow out of this as they mature. But the selfishness of the child and the unselfishness of the mature adult are natural - although the latter can seem difficult to believe in a deluded society.

It appears you're equating wisdom or wiseness with maturity.

As to what is and is not "natural", I don't know by what criteria you judge things to be natural.

Let me ask, if this child above were instead unselfish (by some freak accident of nature) this would be UN-natural, right? Or is everything natural, both selfish and unselfish children and adults?
Personally, I don't see anything un-natural about any combination Nature decides to spit out.

You say the child grows out of thinking only for himself and that this is again, natural. How does this come about? Are others essential? Or can it happen without the teaching and/or example of others? Can we say something un-natural happened if he doesn't grow out of it?
Again we arrive at the question of your criteria for 'natural'.

In a sense isn't everything natural?

Quote:
Ok, so a baby of one day, or one minute, or for that matter 10 minutes before actual birth, this baby is enlightened? I mean wiser than his older sister who by age 7 has almost certainly been deluded by the world?


No. That would be plainly silly. Babies do not have wisdom or "enlightenment." What they do have is an (as yet) unimpeded potential for wisdom. While the 7 year old sister has more wisdom than the infant simply due to the infant having none at all, it's likely that she has less overall potential for wisdom. The distinction is subtle but important.

Yes, I follow you.
How did she acquire this wisdom? Please define wisdom used in this way.

The more deluded beliefs we acquire, the less our overall potential for wisdom (in most cases). The exception to this, of course, is found in those who become tired of being deluded and decide to drastically reverse course. For most people, sadly, this is not the case. The more deluded they become, the more firmly stuck in delusion they tend to be.

OK. What would you say is the single-most important fact/ability to realize/get in order to turn things around? I'm going to guess the answer is-- to be able to distinguish that which is natural from that which isn't.
???

Quote:
Ok, you mean religious freaks right? What do they, or what they beleive, have to do with whether or not you were better off spiritually the day you were born?


I'm not sure what you mean by the question, but the influence of delusional beliefs is felt throughout our society. As children, most of us are heavily bombarded with false information. This does have an effect on all of us.

I meant people influenced by religion, but it appears you do not distinguish between false info about religious/spiritual matters such as "There is a personal God that controls our lives" and false info concerning more worldly matters such as "we must cut the grass to be good citizens." Are these all regarded as un-natural?

Natural guy, allow me to clip it here, the second half of my response is forthcoming.
:)

[Lennyrizzo]

Quote:
Ok, so are you suggesting we are taught that we're separate from Nature? And that that is the/a problem? Does this mean babies/undeluded kids understand they are not separate from Nature? What does that mean to such a little one? I mean, can't they see they are physically separate from the world around them? In what way do they regard themselves, initially that is, as unseparated from Nature? The same for cows, is that what you said?


Infants have no conscious awareness that they are separate from Nature. They are able to make distinctions, but they cannot yet develop a conceptual overlay of thought which allows them to make decisions on the basis of the idea that they are separate from Nature - decisions deluded adults make such as polluting the environment, exploiting others, etc.

OK. But just so i understand you right, let me re-post some questions. I want to do this because my 7 or so questions here were primarily aimed at the business of un-separation, whereas your response dealt with the business of awareness of separation.

* Ok, so are you suggesting we are taught that we're separate from Nature? And that that is the/a problem?

Does this mean babies/undeluded kids understand they are not separate from Nature?

What does that mean to such a little one? I mean, can't they see they are physically separate from the world around them? In what way do they regard themselves, initially that is, as unseparated from Nature?

The same for cows, is that what you said?

Quote:
This is an interesting concept to me, Mr Nat (may i call you?). What springs up in my mind is-- what does it mean to trust in this fashion? Would you provide an example of how i may be mistrusting the natural way in my everyday life?


Do you mow your yard frequently? Do you use chemicals on the lawn? Just an everyday sort of example, there are hundreds of similar ones.

Yes. I can really appreciate that.
Certainly if there were more people in the world who aligned themselves with your philosophy of life this would be a much finer world we live in, indeed.

Quote:
My goodness! You really seem to be saying that little shit that was farted out today in the hospital is wiser than millions of deluded adults! Is that right?


No. As I explained above, it is a matter of the potential for wisdom. The infant, not yet deluded, has unimpeded potential, while the typical deluded adult has little. If the infant is raised free of false beliefs, it will naturally become wise, whereas the deluded adult will probably remain deluded.

Am I to understand that is all that's required to produce a wise child, that no un-false beliefs or true facts need be taught into children at all, rather let them learn naturally without formal instruction, just don't expose them to anything false? Presumably this would mean that children of deaf/silent wise parents could become everymuchas wise as children with normal parents, all else being equal.

Quote:
Isn't there anything learned, spiritually speaking, besides unlearning lies we accepted taught after birth?


Not particularly, no. Lao-Tzu says:

In the pursuit of learning, every day something is acquired.
In the pursuit of Dao, every day something is dropped.

-Tao Te Ching, verse 48

What about learning how to drop things? If we don't instruct about this, how does the child figure it out?

Quote:
Does your philosophy teach that things are real and should be enjoyed and indulged in? What if there's a scarcity of lovely girls and too many men want to bone them? Or a scarcity of pacifiers and too many babies want to suck them? How would they maintain virtue here?

Things should be enjoyed, but not necessarily "indulged in." Taoism teaches that it is best to keep our desires moderate. If there is a scarcity of lovely girls, perhaps we should take up gardening instead. :)

I can appreciate joking about this, however, we live in a world where the attainment of sex is at the bottom of nearly everything that ultimately makes the world the sometimes ugly place that it is. If sex were suddenly unimportant our world would change dramatically, to say the least. Your fight with delusions and un-natural living would go from hopeless to winable.
That's why i mention it, not to get a laugh. I just don't see how the way of life you promote can effectively deal with this, and perhaps you don't either judging from your response.

[Unidian]

It appears you're equating wisdom or wiseness with maturity.

In a sense, yes - for me, true maturity is identical with a wise perspective. Accordingly, most people are not truly mature - whether 15 or 55, they are basically obsessed with chasing after new and better toys, being the president of the "club" (company), having a better treehouse or go-kart (house and car), etc. Delusional living is essentially childish. It fails to transcend the concerns of immaturity.

As to what is and is not "natural", I don't know by what criteria you judge things to be natural.

Ultimately, everything is natural, but this makes sense only from the monistic perspective, where distinctions are seen as illusory. That is why I qualify my monism with the "dialectical" prefix - I recognize that there is also a "conventional" level at which we can make useful distinctions between that which accords with the natural way and that which resists it. This "conventional" level is where terms like "natural" and "unnatural" make sense, at least provisionally.

Interestingly, certain forms of Mahayana Buddhism also recognize this distinction, using the terms samvriti (conventional reality) and paramartha (ultimate reality) to describe the basic dialectic. The distinction itself, of course, is samvriti, applicable only in conventional discussion. Accordingly, when I use terms like "natural" and "unnatural," please understand that I (and Lao-Tzu) are using them only provisionally, in an attempt to use distinctions to point to the indistinct.

Let me ask, if this child above were instead unselfish (by some freak accident of nature) this would be UN-natural, right? Or is everything natural, both selfish and unselfish children and adults?
Personally, I don't see anything un-natural about any combination Nature decides to spit out.

I've addressed the issue of "naturalness" above, so I'll focus only on the specific matter of the hypothetical child.

An unselfish child would be an anomaly in Nature and therefore "unnatural" (in the conventional, provisional sense mentioned above). Such a child would not be consistent with the "natural way" in the sense of "the way things typically go in Nature." It helps to remember that in Taoism, the "natural way" is not a strictly defined law. Instead, it is simply a description of "the way things tend to be." Children do not tend to be unselfish.

You say the child grows out of thinking only for himself and that this is again, natural. How does this come about? Are others essential? Or can it happen without the teaching and/or example of others? Can we say something un-natural happened if he doesn't grow out of it?
Again we arrive at the question of your criteria for 'natural'.

If the child is not exposed to false beliefs and delusion, his own rationality will eventually convince him of the necessity to abandon extreme selfishness. He will deduce that life runs more smoothly for himself and others when the needs of others are taken into consideration. He will require nothing but an undeluded observation of life to reach this entirely rational conclusion.

That so few actually do reach such a conclusion is strong evidence of how strongly we are all exposed to the kinds of delusional beliefs which glorify selfishness. Ever watch TV?

Yes, I follow you.
How did she acquire this wisdom? Please define wisdom used in this way.

Some degree of wisdom (absence of delusion) is possessed by almost all adults. Sadly, many are so thoroughly deluded that there is precious little room for wisdom. The mind is jam-packed with false beliefs, and there is little or no emptiness (lack of false beliefs) left. Our culture does this to us - flooding us with a nearly constant stream of crap from an early age. We are dragged to church for a good dose of nonsense, exposed to raging rivers of "well-intentioned" delusional thought from family and friends, and planted in front of the glass babysitter (TV) for an even bigger load of falseness - all of which children are particularly ill-equipped to resist.

"God will burn you in hell if you are bad! People have immortal souls which aren't part of Nature! Wealth and beauty equal happiness! Employment gives life meaning! Having a nicer house than your neighbor makes you better than him! Jesus will help you get a new car! People get what they deserve!"

It goes on and on, and almost all of us have plenty of experience with it.

OK. What would you say is the single-most important fact/ability to realize/get in order to turn things around? I'm going to guess the answer is-- to be able to distinguish that which is natural from that which isn't.

Not quite. It's more important to be able to distinguish what is true from what isn't. In order to do that, we need to have an understanding of what truth really is - but happily, I think we all have such an intuitive understanding. Using my own terminology, truth is what is logical, apparent, and intersubjectively corroborable. This means that if it is not illogical to believe that the sun rises in the east, and a wide variety of people observe that it does in fact appear to do so, we may safely consider it true that the sun does rise in the east.

In other words, the object which we distinguish and label as "the sun" presents an appearance relating to the matter in question - in this case, it appears to rise in the east, and many people are able to make this observation independently. So the fact of its easterly rising is apparent and intersubjectively corroborable. There is also no logical problem with its doing so - that is to say, there is not some other fact which would contradict the idea that the sun rises in the east. So, we can say that this fact is established as true.

On the other hand, let's say that someone saw an object they described as a "square circle." That something is presenting an appearance is not in question. However, there is a logical problem with the basic premise - circles cannot be squares. Therefore, it cannot be true that one has seen a square circle. In order to obtain a true statement, we would need to make a different distinction - such as "I saw a new kind of shape" or some such. While this might be true, to say that this new shape is a square circle is clearly not.

Intuitively, I think we all understand this definition of truth or something similar. When someone says "I saw a purple dragon," we know that it is unlikely anything has actually presented an appearance, even though there is nothing inherently illogical about purple dragons. The evidence (based on intersubjective experience) suggests that it was hallucinated, made up, or mislabeled, because purple dragons are not apparent in reality. Alternatively, when someone calls and proclaims "I just won the lottery," logic (and specifically statistical analysis) tells us that this is not likely, even though an appearance is being presented of this person winning the lottery. We assume it is a joke, so we laugh.

Anyone is welcome to comment on this definition of truth, because frankly, I just made it up on the spot and am throwing into the waters to be tested. It is not a feature of Taoism, but rather my own interpretation of how truth might be determined, given that the ability to discriminate between truth and delusion is of paramount importance.

I meant people influenced by religion, but it appears you do not distinguish between false info about religious/spiritual matters such as "There is a personal God that controls our lives" and false info concerning more worldly matters such as "we must cut the grass to be good citizens." Are these all regarded as un-natural?

They are all delusional, and all delusion is ultimately damaging to the society and the members thereof. Some beliefs are worse than others, of course, but ideally, we would be able to recognize and drop them all.

Ok, so are you suggesting we are taught that we're separate from Nature? And that that is the/a problem?

Yes, I am suggesting that, and clearly it is a problem. When we believe that we are ontologically separate from nature (and other people), we are basically free to selfishly abuse and exploit to our heart's content, to no one's advantage but our own. Capitalism is essentially based on this principle, BTW - Adam Smith thought that having everybody looking out for #1 would be best for all concerned. While this has managed some pragmatic success within an essentially supernaturalistic society, a truly naturalistic society would be compelled to re-examine it in light of the idea that we cannot consider only ourselves when we no longer have any strong sense of inherent individuality (ego).

Does this mean babies/undeluded kids understand they are not separate from Nature?

What does that mean to such a little one? I mean, can't they see they are physically separate from the world around them? In what way do they regard themselves, initially that is, as unseparated from Nature?

Babies "understand" nothing. Neither the idea that they are separate nor the idea that they are non-separate occurs to them. Rather, they naturally interact with the world as if they were not separate. An infant has difficulty distinguishing between the greater environment and itself. As we mature, we learn to make such distinctions - but the undeluded perspective recognizes them as essentially "distinctions of convenience" rather than inherent facts.

In other words, for the undeluded mind, a tree is not really separate from nature as a whole in any absolute sense, it simply presents a certain appearance which makes it useful to treat it as if it were separate within certain contexts. To chop down a tree, we first need to isolate "the tree" from "the rest of Nature" (A=A/tree=tree). This is how consciousness makes distinctions in order to get things done in the physical world. Without this ability to distinguish, complex biological organisms could not survive and evolve - but this doesn't mean we have to believe that our distinctions are inherently valid. Instead, we can choose to see them simply as tools - as a pragmatic matter of functioning.

Yes. I can really appreciate that.
Certainly if there were more people in the world who aligned themselves with your philosophy of life this would be a much finer world we live in, indeed.

I believe so, and that is why I say these things. We can all help make a positive difference, however small, simply by introducing these ideas to the public discourse.

Am I to understand that is all that's required to produce a wise child, that no un-false beliefs or true facts need be taught into children at all, rather let them learn naturally without formal instruction, just don't expose them to anything false?

Essentially, yes. In normal (non-organically-damaged) human beings, all that is required to live successfully will develop naturally, given that the physical necessities (food, clothing, shelter, etc) are provided. If one wants to know how to program computers, there are certainly schools for that, but one does not need training to think truthfully. It happens naturally in the absence of delusive influences. Witness Hui-neng, a celebrated Zen master, who became enlightened with no teacher, no instruction, and no prior experience except that to be had in an ordinary life.

Deluded people, of course, are entirely different. They may require all sorts of books, lessons, gurus, teachers, thinking, and "soul-searching" in order to make progress. This is because they must be taught how to drop all of the baggage they are saddled with. Theirs is a long climb out of a deep hole.

What about learning how to drop things? If we don't instruct about this, how does the child figure it out?

If the child hasn't been exposed to delusion, what is there to drop?

I can appreciate joking about this, however, we live in a world where the attainment of sex is at the bottom of nearly everything that ultimately makes the world the sometimes ugly place that it is. If sex were suddenly unimportant our world would change dramatically, to say the least. Your fight with delusions and un-natural living would go from hopeless to winable.
That's why i mention it, not to get a laugh. I just don't see how the way of life you promote can effectively deal with this, and perhaps you don't either judging from your response.

To be honest, this is a big problem, and you are quite right to highlight it. In Buddhist terminology, there are concepts called the "animal realm" and the "human realm" (among others). The simple answer to your question is that people firmly within the grasp of the "lower realms" are not ready for spiritual instruction. They must first experience the "human realm" at least part of the time. They must have a taste of what it means to be human (to transcend the animal nature) in order to even begin accepting spiritual truths.

A question for all of us is how we encourage the creation of a truly human society. I am doing my own small part to address that question through my own writings, and I hope more and more others will begin will do the same as time goes on.

Thanks for your questions. :)

[Lennyrizzo]

Natural, I'll split things again, such a long post, and my system is liable to crash with the next power blip then i'll lose it all.
Already just glancing at your first responses I sense a problem. Hopefully i can articulate this effectively.

Quote:
It appears you're equating wisdom or wiseness with maturity.


In a sense, yes - for me, true maturity is identical with a wise perspective. Accordingly, most people are not truly mature - whether 15 or 55, they are basically obsessed with chasing after new and better toys, being the president of the "club" (company), having a better treehouse or go-kart (house and car), etc. Delusional living is essentially childish. It fails to transcend the concerns of immaturity.

Yes.

Quote:
As to what is and is not "natural", I don't know by what criteria you judge things to be natural.


Ultimately, everything is natural, but this makes sense only from the monistic perspective, where distinctions are seen as illusory. That is why I qualify my monism with the "dialectical" prefix - I recognize that there is also a "conventional" level at which we can make useful distinctions between that which accords with the natural way and that which resists it. This "conventional" level is where terms like "natural" and "unnatural" make sense, at least provisionally.

Sure.

Interestingly, certain forms of Mahayana Buddhism also recognize this distinction, using the terms samvriti (conventional reality) and paramartha (ultimate reality) to describe the basic dialectic. The distinction itself, of course, is samvriti, applicable only in conventional discussion. Accordingly, when I use terms like "natural" and "unnatural," please understand that I (and Lao-Tzu) are using them only provisionally, in an attempt to use distinctions to point to the indistinct.

ok.
What comes to mind is-- Who's to say, then, what accords and what resists the natural way? It's got to be up to each individual. Certainly culture does influence it too. There is no set of ideas and actions applicable to all. With all this in mind, the natural way(s) seems so diluted, immaginary, something impossible to base a philosophy of life on.

Quote:
Let me ask, if this child above were instead unselfish (by some freak accident of nature) this would be UN-natural, right? Or is everything natural, both selfish and unselfish children and adults?
Personally, I don't see anything un-natural about any combination Nature decides to spit out.


I've addressed the issue of "naturalness" above, so I'll focus only on the specific matter of the hypothetical child.

An unselfish child would be an anomaly in Nature and therefore "unnatural" (in the conventional, provisional sense mentioned above).

To be fair you ought to say "according to me an unselfish child would be unnatural".
Keep in mind if such a one was born his ethics would then exceed that of those following the, eh, your natural way. He would have a huge head-start!

Such a child would not be consistent with the "natural way" in the sense of "the way things typically go in Nature." It helps to remember that in Taoism, the "natural way" is not a strictly defined law. Instead, it is simply a description of "the way things tend to be." Children do not tend to be unselfish.

But if our world someday rather-quickly evolved such that most kids were born unselfish, then suddenly what was unnatural becomes natural. Keep in mind during this period of transition our world (call it new-world) would still be as lawless, the adults these children see would still be bad examples of how to be as you described. But now selfish babies would be regarded as the unnatural exception. What are we to do with them?

Besides, Nature isn't just planet Earth. For all we know our planet, our world may be the exception (selfishly born babies). It's possible most inteligent life in the Unverse is more advanced than we are and actually born unselfish.

All this, of course, could apply to many aspects and not just the selfishness or not of children. I don't know about you, but I reckon that would be one very confusing time to be be around!

Quote:
You say the child grows out of thinking only for himself and that this is again, natural. How does this come about? Are others essential? Or can it happen without the teaching and/or example of others? Can we say something un-natural happened if he doesn't grow out of it?
Again we arrive at the question of your criteria for 'natural'.


If the child is not exposed to false beliefs and delusion, his own rationality will eventually convince him of the necessity to abandon extreme selfishness.

You seem like a very intelligent fellow. Read what you wrote here and then try to recall who it was that brain-washed you.

He will deduce that life runs more smoothly for himself and others when the needs of others are taken into consideration. He will require nothing but an undeluded observation of life to reach this entirely rational conclusion.

Sure, life would run more smoothly for others, but he may work out that if he were to zap some of these others out of existence, as an older baby vulture does to it's smaller sibling, he himself may enjoy an even smoother more wonderful life. Then he would learn the value of selfishness, if you ask me. Soon he would come up with all kinds of rational, yet currently unnatural reasons to throw his will and his weight around.
This should be as clear as a bell.

Quote:
Yes, I follow you.
How did she acquire this wisdom? Please define wisdom used in this way.


Some degree of wisdom (absence of delusion) is possessed by almost all adults.

No, no. You cannot define wisdom that way. Remember, in your scheme the newborn is not yet wise yet lacks deluded imprinting.
Try again.

Sadly, many are so thoroughly deluded that there is precious little room for wisdom. The mind is jam-packed with false beliefs, and there is little or no emptiness (lack of false beliefs) left. Our culture does this to us - flooding us with a nearly constant stream of crap from an early age. We are dragged to church for a good dose of nonsense, exposed to raging rivers of "well-intentioned" delusional thought from family and friends, and planted in front of the glass babysitter (TV) for an even bigger load of falseness - all of which children are particularly ill-equipped to resist.

"God will burn you in hell if you are bad! People have immortal souls which aren't part of Nature! Wealth and beauty equal happiness! Employment gives life meaning! Having a nicer house than your neighbor makes you better than him! Jesus will help you get a new car! People get what they deserve!"

It goes on and on, and almost all of us have plenty of experience with it.

Don't remind me! It's a wonder I haven't already killed myself!

[David Quinn]

I still have a lot of problems with your discourse, Naturyl (or Unidian, as you now call yourself). I think your understanding is improving, but there are still large areas which need addressing.

But first, Lao Tzu is itching to say a couple of things:

Alright, I'm the Taoist Guy. Ask me questions, ridicule me, praise me, ignore me, or do whatever you want to do. But expect nothing, and be prepared for anything.

He who is self-righteous is not respected.
He who boasts achieves nothing.
He who brags will not endure.
According to followers of the Tao,
"These are extra and unnecessary luggage."
They do not bring happiness.
Therefore followers of the Tao avoid them.

- Lao Tzu

The reason I didn't say "Tao" is that according to Lao, "value hierarchies" arise only when Tao is forgotten. Tao is not and cannot be part of a value hierarchy.

The greatest virtue is to follow the Tao and the Tao alone.

- Lao Tzu

For Lao Tzu, we are not born deluded or divorced from virtue, we become such through acceptance of the world's false doctrines, as you suggest.

If we define virtue, as Lao Tzu does, as "following the Tao and the Tao alone", then it is clear that infants are even more removed from virtue than adults are. They are completely incapable of recognizing what the Tao is, let alone following it.

You've mentioned that they have more potential for virtue than adults do, but I'm not sure if this means anything. Yes, it's true to say that infants haven't yet been corrupted by our deluded society, but we do know they will be corrupted by society in the future. Infants don't have the power to stop this. So, in effect, it's not really true to say that they have more potential. They are in the same boat as the corrupted adults around them.

Nothing is hard and fixed in these sorts of issues. For example, if a society were to develop certain drugs and technologies that could remove a lot of the corruption in adults and return them to a more innocent and child-like state of mind, the adults of that society would suddenly be regarded as having more potential for virtue than infants. Even now, adults could be said to have more potential for virtue on account that their minds are far more conceptually developed and, as conscious, willing beings, they are in their prime.

Ultimately, everything is natural, but this makes sense only from the monistic perspective, where distinctions are seen as illusory. That is why I qualify my monism with the "dialectical" prefix - I recognize that there is also a "conventional" level at which we can make useful distinctions between that which accords with the natural way and that which resists it. This "conventional" level is where terms like "natural" and "unnatural" make sense, at least provisionally.

Interestingly, certain forms of Mahayana Buddhism also recognize this distinction, using the terms samvriti (conventional reality) and paramartha (ultimate reality) to describe the basic dialectic. The distinction itself, of course, is samvriti, applicable only in conventional discussion. Accordingly, when I use terms like "natural" and "unnatural," please understand that I (and Lao-Tzu) are using them only provisionally, in an attempt to use distinctions to point to the indistinct.

That's all well and good, but I don't think you are being consistent with this principle. For example, you write:

LR: Would you provide an example of how i may be mistrusting the natural way in my everyday life?

U: Do you mow your yard frequently? Do you use chemicals on the lawn? Just an everyday sort of example, there are hundreds of similar ones.

Why is mowing the lawn and using chemicals violating the natural way?

You seem to be arbitrarily equating your own values (e.g. a clean, unkempt, chemical-free environment) with the the "natural way", and deriding all other opposing values as "unnatural". This despite the fact that you acknowledge elsewhere that, ultimately, everything is natural.

The only way you can justify making such an arbitrary division is if it succeeds in helping people become more aware of the nature of Reality, or at least stimulates their minds a little bit in that direction. I'm not sure how speaking against mowing the lawn and the use of chemicals, and describing them as "unnatural", achieves this. I think you are doing the unforgiveable and placing your own petty emotional attachments on a pedestal and linking them with the highest wisdom.

LR: So, what do you call it, when one is not separated, not believing the lies, returned to truth, etc., what do you call it? Does wise apply? How about enlightened? What do you call the one who is never deluded (for whatever reason)? Is he also enlightened? A sage? A buddha?

U: Any of these terms is fine. Personally, I prefer the simplicity of "wise person." It lacks the religious and/or "boasting" baggage of "sage," "enlightened," "buddha," etc.

Why do you call yourself "Taoist Guy", then, and speak of Taoism advocating this and advocating that?

It's more important to be able to distinguish what is true from what isn't. In order to do that, we need to have an understanding of what truth really is - but happily, I think we all have such an intuitive understanding. Using my own terminology, truth is what is both logical and apparent. This means that if it is not illogical to believe that the sun rises in the east, and one observes that it does in fact seem to do so, we may safely consider it true that the sun does rise in the east.

In other words, the object which we distinguish and label as "the sun" presents an appearance relating to the matter in question - in this case, it appears to rise in the east. So the fact of its easterly rising is apparent. There is also no logical problem with its doing so - that is to say, there is not some other fact which would contradict the idea that the sun rises in the east. So, we can say that this fact is established as true.

On the other hand, let's say that someone saw an object they described as a "square circle." That something is presenting an appearance is not in question. However, there is a logical problem with the basic premise - circles cannot be squares. Therefore, it cannot be true that one has seen a square circle. In order to obtain a true statement, we would need to make a different distinction - such as "I saw a new kind of shape" or some such. While this might be true, to say that this new shape is a square circle is clearly not.

Intuitively, I think we all understand this definition of truth or something similar. When someone says "I saw a purple dragon," we know that it is unlikely anything has actually presented an appearance, even though there is nothing inherently illogical about purple dragons. The evidence suggests that it was hallucinated, made up, or mislabeled, because purple dragons are not apparent in reality. Alternatively, when some calls and proclaims "I just won the lottery," logic (and specifically statistical analysis) tells us that this is not likely, even though an appearance is being presented of this person winning the lottery. We assume it is a joke, so we laugh.

Anyone is welcome to comment on this definition of truth, because frankly, I just made it up on the spot and am throwing into the waters to be tested. It is not a feature of Taoism, but rather my own interpretation of how truth might be determined, given that the ability to discriminate between truth and delusion is of paramount importance.

Truth is not a feature of Taoism? Are you saying that it doesn't matter whether or not Lao Tzu spoke the truth when he composed the Tao Te Ching?

In any case, your definition of truth (i,e. what is both logical and apparent) doesn't seem to address the issue of the apparent possibly being an hallucination. For example, the sun rising in the east could well be an hallucination, in which case we would be entering into a falsehood if we believed we knew for sure that the sun really was rising in the east, or indeed that there really was a sun.

-

[Lennyrizzo]

Quote:
Yes, I follow you.
How did she acquire this wisdom? Please define wisdom used in this way.


Some degree of wisdom (absence of delusion) is possessed by almost all adults. Sadly, many are so thoroughly deluded that there is precious little room for wisdom. The mind is jam-packed with false beliefs, and there is little or no emptiness (lack of false beliefs) left. Our culture does this to us - flooding us with a nearly constant stream of crap from an early age. We are dragged to church for a good dose of nonsense, exposed to raging rivers of "well-intentioned" delusional thought from family and friends, and planted in front of the glass babysitter (TV) for an even bigger load of falseness - all of which children are particularly ill-equipped to resist.

Right, but How did she acquire this wisdom?

Quote:
OK. What would you say is the single-most important fact/ability to realize/get in order to turn things around? I'm going to guess the answer is-- to be able to distinguish that which is natural from that which isn't.


Not quite. It's more important to be able to distinguish what is true from what isn't. In order to do that, we need to have an understanding of what truth really is - but happily, I think we all have such an intuitive understanding. Using my own terminology, truth is what is logical, apparent, and intersubjectively corroborable. This means that if it is not illogical to believe that the sun rises in the east, and a wide variety of people observe that it does in fact appear to do so, we may safely consider it true that the sun does rise in the east.

Ok, but i think you may agree this is not infallible, that as unlikely the possibility is, it's possible all these people are wrong, or everyone is hallucinating, or that others are merely images and not real as yourself.
Would you agree what you call truth here will always be opinion and cannot be infallibly absolutely correct without possibility of error?

The point i am attempting to make is-- these truths are provisional, not beautifully absolute as is THE TRUTH. Sages speak about the Truth, not truths that may or may not be permanantly true.

I implore you to seek and to find the Truth. Then only will you taste the purest liberation, then only will you know what your heros knew.

Quote:
What about learning how to drop things? If we don't instruct about this, how does the child figure it out?


If the child hasn't been exposed to delusion, what is there to drop?

Well, he would have to drop all the false conclusions that he has reached from the moment he first heard his mothers' heartbeat. He would have to drop his old eyes and replace them with wise ones, so he could see what there is to see within and beyond the apparent.

[Lennyrizzo]

You just couldn't stay out of it, could you Quinn!
Haven't you any self-control? Give someone else a chance, why dont you.
I doubt the dude has 5 hands.

If you had been paying attention when Nat first signed on, and not twiddling with your twonger,.....

Oh, nevermind! At least stay out of our discussion, for christs sake.

[Lennyrizzo]

To be honest, this is a big problem, and you are quite right to highlight it. In Buddhist terminology, there are concepts called the "animal realm" and the "human realm" (among others). The simple answer to your question is that people firmly within the grasp of the "lower realms" are not ready for spiritual instruction. They must first experience the "human realm" at least part of the time. They must have a taste of what it means to be human (to transcend the animal nature) in order to even begin accepting spiritual truths.

A question for all of us is how we encourage the creation of a truly human society. I am doing my own small part to address that question through my own writings, and I hope more and more others will begin will do the same as

To be honest, I didn't expect you to mention spiritual instruction and spiritual truths.

Along these lines, the big difference between your beliefs and mine is-- I am positively certain that all children and people must learn how to view their world truthfully, whereas you think only the misled must be re-aligned.
No, sadly you are wrong my friend. Every one of us has a tall climb to Reality, there are no exceptions.
I wish you were right, i wish it were that easy. but it is not.
Every fiber of our being resists the transformation that stands like mount Olympus before us. It is a slow, long transformation.
I agree that a young child with a good head on his or her shoulders living in a sane world could indeed make some exceptional progress, his brain being pristine as it is. But we are not in a sane world.
Our world, our culture, our parents, are not alone to blame for our misjudgements. God, Nature is always and ultimately to blame.
For Nature cares not whether we succeed or fail, but nevertheless reveals Itself only to the very few (un)lucky ones. Someday this may change, someday perhaps many will become acquainted with Her. But as it is
we all have much work ahead of us if we would know, children and adults alike. I know because I have been there, and am there, always.

You have a good start, a good platform from which to leap. At first you may only manage to kiss Her feet, but keep at it and the promises of the sages will certainly one day come true. You have a good start, don't stop there, leap out of this world into the World. A World where you become that which you yearn to know. That is the reward of the faithful.
How can you be satisfied with less?

[David Quinn]

Lennyrizzo wrote:

You just couldn't stay out of it, could you Quinn!
Haven't you any self-control? Give someone else a chance, why dont you.
I doubt the dude has 5 hands.

If you had been paying attention when Nat first signed on, and not twiddling with your twonger,.....

Oh, nevermind! At least stay out of our discussion, for christs sake.

It's a public board, and this thread is a public discussion. I'm free to do as I please.

If you're worried about the number of hands Nat has, you could make your posts a lot shorter and your points more succinct. Poor Nat is having to answer the same point over and over. Have some compassion for the guy.

-

[Unidian]

Wow, tons of stuff to address. This will necessitate a much higher level of brevity. Oh well, that's alright. Lao-Tzu says:

"More words are worth less" (Verse 5)

Lenny,

What comes to mind is-- Who's to say, then, what accords and what resists the natural way? It's got to be up to each individual. Certainly culture does influence it too. There is no set of ideas and actions applicable to all. With all this in mind, the natural way(s) seems so diluted, immaginary, something impossible to base a philosophy of life on.

Sure, it's somewhat subjective. But we also have works like The Tao Te Ching which point to the natural way. Are they worthless?

To be fair you ought to say "according to me an unselfish child would be unnatural".

I disagree. Do you know many unselfish children? I'd wager not.

Keep in mind if such a one was born his ethics would then exceed that of those following the, eh, your natural way. He would have a huge head-start!

Perhaps. And if that were so, there ought to be a record of it. As you suggest, such a child would be noteworthy indeed. And yet I know of no such child being recorded in history.

But if our world someday rather-quickly evolved such that most kids were born unselfish, then suddenly what was unnatural becomes natural.

Certainly. And if fish were suddenly to start singing opera, that would become "natural" as well. I guess I don't see how this fact is relevant.

Keep in mind during this period of transition our world (call it new-world) would still be as lawless, the adults these children see would still be bad examples of how to be as you described. But now selfish babies would be regarded as the unnatural exception. What are we to do with them?

The better question would probably be "what are they to do with us," don't you think?

Besides, Nature isn't just planet Earth. For all we know our planet, our world may be the exception (selfishly born babies). It's possible most inteligent life in the Unverse is more advanced than we are and actually born unselfish.

Perhaps, but since we know of no such extraterrestrial life, speculations about it seem irrelevant. It has no bearing on our own situation.

All this, of course, could apply to many aspects and not just the selfishness or not of children. I don't know about you, but I reckon that would be one very confusing time to be be around!

Indeed it would, but I think it would be worth it (in the case of your "unselfish babies" example, anyway). But in the end, these are all "what if" scenarios. They don't bear on what we really experience, and what the evidence of human history suggests.

Nat: If the child is not exposed to false beliefs and delusion, his own rationality will eventually convince him of the necessity to abandon extreme selfishness.

Lenny: You seem like a very intelligent fellow. Read what you wrote here and then try to recall who it was that brain-washed you.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. I was not brainwashed into making that statement, I deduced it through reason. Extreme selfishness is not rational. It leads to problems for the individual and the group. The rational person would naturally abandon it, unless encouraged to preserve it by some delusive influence (like corporate consumerism).

Sure, life would run more smoothly for others, but he may work out that if he were to zap some of these others out of existence, as an older baby vulture does to it's smaller sibling, he himself may enjoy an even smoother more wonderful life. Then he would learn the value of selfishness, if you ask me. Soon he would come up with all kinds of rational, yet currently unnatural reasons to throw his will and his weight around.
This should be as clear as a bell.

For most people, who have a certain degree of empathy instilled in them by evolution (excepting sociopaths), such behavior would not be rewarding. It would lead to problems for the individual. Hitler tried that approach, and he ended up putting a gun in his mouth. His very physical survival was ultimately destroyed by his self-centered will to impose his vision on others by force.

No, no. You cannot define wisdom that way. Remember, in your scheme the newborn is not yet wise yet lacks deluded imprinting.
Try again.

I've already addressed this. Wisdom is expressed conceptually. An infant lacks the capacity for conceptual expression. Therefore, an undeluded infant possesses the potential for wisdom, while an undeluded adult possesses wisdom proper (and can express this in undeluded speech).

Don't remind me! It's a wonder I haven't already killed myself!

It's a wonder I never did as well. I decided to seek wisdom (become a philosopher) instead.

David,

Nat: Alright, I'm the Taoist Guy. Ask me questions, ridicule me, praise me, ignore me, or do whatever you want to do. But expect nothing, and be prepared for anything.

David (quoting Lao-Tzu)

He who is self-righteous is not respected.
He who boasts achieves nothing.
He who brags will not endure.
According to followers of the Tao,
"These are extra and unnecessary luggage."
They do not bring happiness.
Therefore followers of the Tao avoid them.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Where did I display self-righteousness, boasting, or bragging? If you are referring to my use of the term "Taoist Guy," it was not intended as such. I don't mean I am THE Taoist Guy in some unique sense, I only intended to convey the idea that I am a guy who happens to be a Taoist (or close enough for the purposes of this thread).

The greatest virtue is to follow the Tao and the Tao alone.

But Dan asked me about a "value hierarchy." I responded by saying that I put virtue (Te) first in such a hierarchy. If the greatest virtue is to follow the Tao and the Tao alone, aren't we still talking about virtue?

If we define virtue, as Lao Tzu does, as "following the Tao and the Tao alone", then it is clear that infants are even more removed from virtue than adults are. They are completely incapable of recognizing what the Tao is, let alone following it.

I agree with the first part of your assertion, but not the second. Infants are completely incapable of recognizing what the Tao is, but how could they be incapable of following it? If they are incapable of following it, they are the first natural thing I've heard of which does not. The flowers of the field follow the Tao, but infants do not?

Lao-Tzu:

Man follows Earth.
Earth follows heaven.
Heaven follows the Tao.
The Tao follows what is natural.

Infants follow the Tao naturally. Only when they are exposed to delusion do they even have the opportunity to turn away from virtue.

You've mentioned that they have more potential for virtue than adults do, but I'm not sure if this means anything. Yes, it's true to say that infants haven't yet been corrupted by our deluded society, but we do know they will be corrupted by society in the future.

I think it's very likely that this will happen, yes. However, I wouldn't consider it an inescapable fact. One can imagine a child growing up in a home with wise parents, and being equipped to reject delusion. Of course, this is still not ideal, because it requires a certain level of education, but it at least offers a possibility of experiencing minimal delusion.

But I agree, it's unlikely.

Infants don't have the power to stop this. So, in effect, it's not really true to say that they have more potential. They are in the same boat as the corrupted adults around them.

I would maintain that in principle, they do have more potential. In practice, however, I tend to agree that your assessment is largely correct. We have a society where very few, if any, children can be expected to avoid encountering delusion and being affected by it.

Nothing is hard and fixed in these sorts of issues. For example, if a society were to develop certain drugs and technologies that could remove a lot of the corruption in adults and return them to a more innocent and child-like state of mind, the adults of that society would suddenly be regarded as having more potential for virtue than infants.

Well, certainly. My argument doesn't hinge on promoting the idea that infants are wonderful. I am only pointing out that in our current society, they have more total potential for wisdom (at least in principle) than adults who are already deluded. In a different kind of society, it could easily be otherwise.

Even now, adults could be said to have more potential for virtue on account that their minds are far more conceptually developed and, as conscious, willing beings, they are in their prime.

But they must first go through the difficult process of dropping delusion. Infants need not do this, at least in principle. If a child never becomes deluded, there is nothing to drop as an adult.

Why is mowing the lawn and using chemicals violating the natural way?

You seem to be arbitrarily equating your own values (e.g. a clean, unkempt, chemical-free environment) with the the "natural way", and deriding all other opposing values as "unnatural". This despite the fact that you acknowledge elsewhere that, ultimately, everything is natural.

Well, grass grows. People chop it down. While this is ultimately natural enough (in the sense that everything is ultimately natural), it is "unnatural" in the more limited, provisional sense of "that which goes against the nature of individual things for deluded reasons." It is in the nature of grass to grow. Grass is not deluded. However, deluded humans believe that it is necessary to chop down grass obsessively and spray it with all manner of rubbish. The difference is in the deluded, foolish nature of the action.

The only way you can justify making such an arbitrary division is if it succeeds in helping people become more aware of the nature of Reality, or at least stimulates their minds a little bit in that direction.

Agreed.

I'm not sure how speaking against mowing the lawn and the use of chemicals, and describing them as "unnatural", achieves this.

I was trying to think of a particularly mundane, "ordinary" sort of issue in response to Lenny's question. I'm not suggesting that it is an issue of any great significance, although it might have some small potential to get people thinking about the foolishness of many such "ordinary" human actions.

I think you are doing the unforgiveable and placing your own petty emotional attachments on a pedestal and linking them with the highest wisdom.

No, not at all. Again, it was simply an example which I felt was relevant to the tone of the question. In retrospect, I probably should have taken the time to produce a much better one.

Why do you call yourself "Taoist Guy", then, and speak of Taoism advocating this and advocating that?

It's an exercise, actually. I'm attempting to hone my ability to communicate Taoist concepts. As I mentioned, when this thread winds down, I may switch to another aspect of my worldview and attempt to hone my expression thereof. Perhaps next week, I will be the "Hegel Guy" or the "Quasi-Socialist Guy."

It's essentially a philosophical exercise.

Truth is not a feature of Taoism? Are you saying that it doesn't matter whether or not Lao Tzu spoke the truth when he composed the Tao Te Ching?

Oh, that's not what I meant at all. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant to ensure that readers knew that the "theory of truth" I mentioned in my last post was my own creation rather than a part of Taoism. Taoism does not mention the criteria for determining truth which I mentioned above.

It was certainly not my intention to suggest that truth has no place in Taoism.

In any case, your definition of truth (i,e. what is both logical and apparent) doesn't seem to address the issue of the apparent possibly being an hallucination. For example, the sun rising in the east could well be an hallucination, in which case we would be entering into a falsehood if we believed we knew for sure that the sun really was rising in the east, or indeed that there really was a sun.

That's why I added the bit about truth also needing to be "intersubjectively corroborable" - meaning that any person faced with the same evidence, logic, or reason should be able to reach the same conclusion. If I say I can see Puff The Magic Dragon in the closet, but nobody else can, it's probably not the truth.

Lenny again,

Right, but How did she acquire this wisdom?

By not yet being totally deluded. Remember, I define "wisdom" as "lack of delusion."

Ok, but i think you may agree this is not infallible, that as unlikely the possibility is, it's possible all these people are wrong, or everyone is hallucinating, or that others are merely images and not real as yourself.
Would you agree what you call truth here will always be opinion and cannot be infallibly absolutely correct without possibility of error?

I addressed the hallucination issue in my response to David, above.

I implore you to seek and to find the Truth. Then only will you taste the purest liberation, then only will you know what your heros knew.

Huh? I guess you must assume that I haven't, and you have. Interesting.

Well, he would have to drop all the false conclusions that he has reached from the moment he first heard his mothers' heartbeat. He would have to drop his old eyes and replace them with wise ones, so he could see what there is to see within and beyond the apparent.

Agreed - but I think you are going too far. The mother's heartbeat is not a delusion, for example. Nor can infants reach false conclusions, at least in a conceptual sense. The root of delusion begins when we are able to understand concepts, and we are exposed to false ones.

[Lennyrizzo]

Wow, tons of stuff to address. This will necessitate a much higher level of brevity.

Really! Gee, I never would have guessed. ;)

Lenny,

Quote:
What comes to mind is-- Who's to say, then, what accords and what resists the natural way? It's got to be up to each individual. Certainly culture does influence it too. There is no set of ideas and actions applicable to all. With all this in mind, the natural way(s) seems so diluted, immaginary, something impossible to base a philosophy of life on.


Sure, it's somewhat subjective. But we also have works like The Tao Te Ching which point to the natural way. Are they worthless?

They are indeed, in the hands of someone who doesn't completely (ie. accurately) understand them, such as your good self. I don't mean this as a slam, Nat, it is simply my honest judgement of you, and it is absolutely correct. I realize you cannot possibly accept this, since for one you are headed in the right direction but like so many believe you've 'arrived'. Well you havent arrived, truely you haven't. There is no reason for me to lie to you. If you knew the Truth as I know It, your words would immediately tell you that the person who wrote them still has a long way to go.
First thing is to take your own advice and rid yourself of serious delusions.
Now i told you what they are so you are way ahead of the pack, most people with delusions have no idea what they are, that is the nature of delusion, that is why you can't believe me.
How many people must tell you the same damn thing in different words before you get off of your high horse and get back to the important work of securing the freedom that is yours for the taking? If you are satisfied with where you are at, then i'm going to be sick.
Liberation is about freedom from fear and anxiety, and all cares bar none, doesnt your Lao Tzu hero explain this? Such is a tremendous attainment few experience even for a moment in ideal conditions, and if you did you would never put it on par with a beautiful sunset. This, what you profess, is still the animal realms, my friend, right where i spend much of my own time.
Enlightened people could care less if someone goes and blows them away the next time they step out their door, for they realize there is absolutely no difference one way or the other--none. Do you experience even this rather minimal freedom? I seriously doubt it.

Quote:
To be fair you ought to say "according to me an unselfish child would be unnatural".


I disagree. Do you know many unselfish children? I'd wager not.

No, but that is irellevant. I added "according to me(you)" because this is not everyones truth and apt to change, but the Truth is unchanging. Doesnt it say that in your Tao Te Ching book!

Quote:
No, no. You cannot define wisdom that way. Remember, in your scheme the newborn is not yet wise yet lacks deluded imprinting.
Try again.


I've already addressed this. Wisdom is expressed conceptually. An infant lacks the capacity for conceptual expression. Therefore, an undeluded infant possesses the potential for wisdom, while an undeluded adult possesses wisdom proper (and can express this in undeluded speech).

Perhaps I'm missing the boat on this one, but I'll try again. If wisdom is lack of delusions then anyone lacking delusions has wisdom, and we can fairly call them wise. Notice it is wisdom they have, not merely the potential for wisdom. That a baby has potential for wisdom is not the same as it "having wisdom" or being "wise." this is very simple to see, what's the problem?
Since according to you babies, early in their lives, lack delusions and are not yet wise, you cannot go ahead and define wisdom to be lack of delusions. I think we both agree a stupid newborn is not wise yet.
Someone pinch me.
Whatever. My point is there is more to wisdom and being wise, and this every child and person must figure out, must understand. One must put their mind to unravelling the secret of creation itself. If a child doesnt put their mind to it they are not wise, and their potential is useless, wasted.
They are dumb as bricks philosopically speaking, no matter what the age.
There is more to becoming enlightened than simply being free of delusions.
Its true. Sorry, but it is true!

Quote:
Don't remind me! It's a wonder I haven't already killed myself!


It's a wonder I never did as well. I decided to seek wisdom (become a philosopher) instead.

Great, now don't stop, go all the way.

That's why I added the bit about truth also needing to be "intersubjectively corroborable" - meaning that any person faced with the same evidence, logic, or reason should be able to reach the same conclusion. If I say I can see Puff The Magic Dragon in the closet, but nobody else can, it's probably not the truth.

But these others may be unreal to, programmed to agree with all your observations, stop trusting them!

Lenny again,

Quote:
Right, but How did she acquire this wisdom?


By not yet being totally deluded. Remember, I define "wisdom" as "lack of delusion."

Yeah, don't remind me!

Quote:
I implore you to seek and to find the Truth. Then only will you taste the purest liberation, then only will you know what your heros knew.


Huh? I guess you must assume that I haven't, and you have. Interesting.

I assume nothing, numbskull, I can easily see that you've gone a good way along but haven't made the essential breakthrough. I can see it as easily as i can see this keyboard right here in front of me.

This, what you profess, is the same thing many others embrace, such as Shardrol, and the guy I think his name was Thomas K, and others. You guys got to keep going and there are people here who can tell you exactly what to do!

You are so fucking lucky to have found us!

Quote:
Well, he would have to drop all the false conclusions that he has reached from the moment he first heard his mothers' heartbeat. He would have to drop his old eyes and replace them with wise ones, so he could see what there is to see within and beyond the apparent.


Agreed - but I think you are going too far. The mother's heartbeat is not a delusion, for example. Nor can infants reach false conclusions, at least in a conceptual sense. The root of delusion begins when we are able to understand concepts, and we are exposed to false ones.
_________________

I didnt say her heartbeat was other than her heartbeat. If you were enlightened you would know exactly what i meant.
Anyone here who is truely enlightened knows exactly what i mean. They can explain right now, just ask them.

[Unidian]

Oops, I'm sorry, Lenny. I didn't realize you were a fruitcake.

Well, actually, that's not entirely true. I did realize it after your post before this one, but by then I had already responded to you and David. Don't worry, it won't happen again. I can see now that you were only interacting with me for the purpose of pronouncing yourself superior. Okay, good luck with that, then.

David, do you have anything else for me?

[hsandman]

edit: double post :S

[hsandman]

This ever happen to you.....Someone says something you know is really really wrong but you just don't know how to crack it to him without pissing him off? Or making him despise you? Or sending him reaching for his Zanax?
You damn well know that if he's ever going to beleive you, going to actually consider the possibility you may be dead-right for a while anyways, enough as much to permit some sense to be recognized as such, well you know he's going to have to do the unthinkable, that is he's going to have to abandon for a while his tightly held however mistaken
truths, he's going to have to entertain the incredible possibility that he may have to toss out his life's work!, which is something only a superman could do, something YOU yourself would never, ever do.
Then you hesitate, and wonder is it worth it, until finally you go ahead and throw caution to the wind, spill your guts, and hope for the improbable best.
Has it ever happened to YOU?
To me, all the time...........

===========
yes, i know exactly what you mean. it is hopless though, you can't help them. for them to turn the head to look and consider something else. to evaluate its merits compared to the position they "hold". it would mean, that they might discover that they are not safe and they position is precarious and they are only hanging in by the belief alone not suported by any facts.

Sometimes i fall for it and "test the waters" when i notice some glimer of hope such as great insight that they "regurgitate" in something they say even though "im the shmoe follower" was a big sign saying "NO".

The fact that someone claims to be follower of certain "school" of thought means that he has "found" a position where he feels at home. when proded he would answer inevetably by: because most of my beliefs seem to confer to the "shmoe school of thought". where do other "smaller" part belong to ? another school? cristianity? judaism? etc. can you have "equal" parts in beliefs? eg: half teachings of cristianaty and half teachings of budism? what would you call youreslf then? cristian buddist? yes, thats why there are so many different religions eg:scientologists, who have mixed beliefs. = "NO" sighn. they have no interest in what the truth is because they are scared of it (not that they know of it). Its like teaching logic to a brick wall. Such a person will regurgitate words and "wisdom" against onslought of logic and just waste your time. At least im glad that someone in this darkness still has light on. :) thats why i came to this forum.


edit: maybe im being too hash, i see glimer of hope again :P

On the other hand, let's say that someone saw an object they described as a "square circle." That something is presenting an appearance is not in question. However, there is a logical problem with the basic premise - circles cannot be squares. Therefore, it cannot be true that one has seen a square circle. In order to obtain a true statement, we would need to make a different distinction - such as "I saw a new kind of shape" or some such. While this might be true, to say that this new shape is a square circle is clearly not.

Intuitively, I think we all understand this definition of truth or something similar. When someone says "I saw a purple dragon," we know that it is unlikely anything has actually presented an appearance, even though there is nothing inherently illogical about purple dragons. The evidence (based on intersubjective experience) suggests that it was hallucinated, made up, or mislabeled, because purple dragons are not apparent in reality. Alternatively, when someone calls and proclaims "I just won the lottery," logic (and specifically statistical analysis) tells us that this is not likely, even though an appearance is being presented of this person winning the lottery. We assume it is a joke, so we laugh.

I have met mind like this before, it seems to be inteligent in some respects, but illogical in others. it has rejected logic in this particular field for the "reward" and insted has adopted someone elses ideas, good and the bad. "hook line and sinker" i belive the saying is. So be it :)