GENIUS FORUMS

David (or anyone substantive), feel free to chime in any time now. This thread is sinking fast under the above onslaughts of silly rubbish...

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

Deluded people are created just as naturally as are the flowers of the field, and babies. So if flowers and babies are following the Tao, then so are deluded people. At least, according to your reasoning they must be.

That's not right.

Ultimately the Tao has complete power over, and contains, and is, all things, including deluded people. But only the highly conscious can ever follow the Tao. This excludes flowers, babies, and deluded people.

Kevin,

Thanks for rescuing this thread from oompa-loompa land and bringing up an important point.

Deluded people are created just as naturally as are the flowers of the field, and babies. So if flowers and babies are following the Tao, then so are deluded people. At least, according to your reasoning they must be.

Ultimately, yes. But I've been careful to clarify the distinction between the ultimate and the conventional. Conventionally, there is a qualitative difference between flowers/babies and deluded people. The former follow the Tao unconsciously, while the latter only have the option to do so consciously (which most reject, as you are aware).

Ultimately the Tao has complete power over, and contains, and is, all things, including deluded people. But only the highly conscious can ever follow the Tao. This excludes flowers, babies, and deluded people.

I agree - only the "highly conscious" can follow the Tao consciously - that is to say, in the conventional sense as well as the ultimate sense. The unconscious are limited to following the Tao only in the ultimate sense - in the same way "the shit and the piss" do so, to paraphrase Chuang-Tzu.

Ok, so deluded people, being unconscious of the Tao, are following the Tao unconsciously - just the same as all other things.

I think that's correct. But the point (for me) is that non-deluded people are following the Tao consciously (regardless of whether they call it "Tao").

I can see now that you were only interacting with me for the purpose of pronouncing yourself superior. Okay, good luck with that, then.

Yeah, that's it, I've been waiting several months for you in particular to swing in to do this, it was impossible for me to do it before with someone else, no, I waited for you in particular and the wait was worth it, there's nothing like braging when debating with you, Nate, no one else can match it, thanks for understanding.

Seriously now----- I'm quite sure you wouldn't prefer that I lie to you, specially as you rated understanding which facts are genuinely true most highly. So however you take it I must remain ethical and give it to you straight, no matter how unbelieveable it may seem to you. Even though you don't beleive me surely you can appreciate this.

Returning to the heart of the discussion----
the growth of grass may be natural, but so is the growth of deadly viruses,
should we not resist an avian flu pandemic? That something has a characteristic behavior doesn't suggest to me that that ought to be regarded as good and wise and worth preserving. I think you ought to can this criteria entirely. Better than these were your points about consensus opinion, and that which does not clearly harm us or our world.

One thing that stands out in this philosopy of living is a resistance to change, mutation-- evolution. And little to no plan to actively shape evolution. Perhaps you simply haven't gotten around to explaining these facets yet. I reckon a world living by this philosphy would be poorly equipped to protect itself from unforeseen challenges, since the individuals
seem to treasure a simple, uncomplicated life, just living off the land as farmers perhaps, "lets sit back and let the natural way do it all for us," sort of thing. Seems very animal to me.

Besides, in practice, realizing that we are connected to everything around us and that our actions sometimes effect far more than ourselves, will do little in the way of promoting and preserving ethical behavour especially during trying times, or times of lacking. We tend to believe this would work because it seems to work when all is well, when the co-op is stocked full with food and goods and there is plenty of land and work for everyone, when there are substantial opportunities to indulge in carnal delights. But when the shit really hits the fan and the wife and the kids are hurting and hungry, this realization wont amount to a hill of beans. Only wishful thinking gives the illusion it's power over you.

On the contrary, the realization of the true philosopher, that of the Truth, in a flash makes sainthood possible. Makes a utopian society no longer just a pipe-dream.
To understand this, one must be ready and willing to be transformed, out with the old and in with the new. There is no other way.

You claim to be a Taoist, Nate, do you truely understand Tao?

"resistance to change, mutation-- evolution"

you misunderstood the core idea of tao

it is not that they are resistant to change

it is that they recieve everything as it is

if a change is to come, then change it will be

if it does not change, then it is

are you trying to say that they do not wish to explore the new things?

if so, then you are right

John Deer: Hey fella, wanna try this new machine of mine? Use it and you won't have to wait any longer for the winter cold to cut back your field of grass.
Natural-man: No thanks bro, we tend to resist changes like that.
John Deer: Well then, have some of these, the wife will love you for it!
Natural-man: Again, no thanks pal, our women will just have to learn to go without, when we're down.

Unidian writes:

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

I was sort of hoping we could assume this elemental understanding of the physics of yin and yang and go straight to the marked preference for yin qualities that are extant in the verses. If you are not seeing this, we must be reading very different texts!

I have on occasion excused such a marked preference as historically contextual. Tzu's culture was one of much greed, aggression, external grasping and busy-ness, principalities at war, and perhaps he means to return and remind of this inter-relationship and counteract to balance. More than that, I see him using these physics to explain a world whose Way of movement in the main is yin. Tsunamis, wars, aggression, etc. are the exceptions to this movement ("know when . . . ).

Lennyrizzo writes:

One thing that stands out in this philosopy of living is a resistance to change, mutation-- evolution. And little to no plan to actively shape evolution.

Yes and no. It all depends upon how it is done; and choosing when is the most effective time and way. Ways that are more in tune with the Way of things already moving (water 'patiently' and slowly eroding the hardest substance) stand the far-greater if not only chance of making permanent, effective changes (e.g. passive resistance movements in human rights, etc). It is a mistake to read the Tao and assume it an entirely do-nothing philosophy. Everywhere there is direction to pay attention, know when and how this can most effectively be done.

For instance, the great middle-east conflict that has its roots in the 11th century Ottoman empire has had war after war to address its ills. Nothing is yet resolved. The (bloody) French Revolution that sought a permanent undermining to aristocracy has only replaced the authority of blood-ties with the authority of $, etc. But India is no longer under British rule. (I do wish I could say the same things of success for Martin Luther King . . . but you cannot beat Rosa Parks sitting down!)

As for the farming examples, it is worth noting how much successful farming has been revived by principles that do not eradicate pests, but rather encourage the checks and balances ecosystems that surround and support the desired growth. It is worth nothing how crop arrangement and rotation alone can return and retain original nutrients to the soil far more effectively than whole tractor tanks full of fertilizer.

John Deer: Hey fella, wanna try this new machine of mine? Use it and you won't have to wait any longer for the winter cold to cut back your field of grass.
Natural-man: No thanks bro, we tend to resist changes like that.
John Deer: Well then, have some of these, the wife will love you for it!
Natural-man: Again, no thanks pal, our women will just have to learn to go without, when we're down.

This is a strawman argument. There is a difference between useful innovations and deluded foolishness. I tried to make that clear. Just because it's foolish to use chemicals in order to have a greener lawn than the guy next door (for example), this does not mean it is similarly foolish to use helpful tools for legitimate purposes. The difference can't be laid out as a hard-and-fast rule, but one generally knows it when they see it.

I was sort of hoping we could assume this elemental understanding of the physics of yin and yang and go straight to the marked preference for yin qualities that are extant in the verses. If you are not seeing this, we must be reading very different texts!

There's definitely a preference for "keeping to the yin," yes. What about it did you want to discuss?

I have on occasion excused such a marked preference as historically contextual. Tzu's culture was one of much greed, aggression, external grasping and busy-ness, principalities at war, and perhaps he means to return and remind of this inter-relationship and counteract to balance.

I'm sure that was part of it. All thinkers are conditioned by their times to some extent (although I seem to recall David once claiming that this must be transcended to do anything of real worth). Even so, the times we live in tend to influence our thought in certain directions. Lao-Tzu (or whoever actually wrote the text) lived during the turbulent Warring States period, so it's safe to assume there is probably some cultural influence in the writing.

More than that, I see him using these physics to explain a world whose Way of movement in the main is yin. Tsunamis, wars, aggression, etc. are the exceptions to this movement ("know when . . . ).

We disagree here. I don't see Lao-Tzu as suggesting that Nature itself tends toward one polarity more than the other. Tsunamis, wars, and similar events are entirely natural, and part of the course of things. For me, Lao-Tzu's point is simply that the wise person prefers to align with the yin, not that Nature itself does so. Contrary to Lenny's apparent belief, I do not think that Taoism is not about trying to imitate Nature in every way (forsaking tractors and such). Rather, it is about understanding Nature and realizing how that understanding can be effectively applied to human affairs. In practical terms, Lao-Tzu higlights how aligning with the yin qualities of Nature can offer us a better approach to life.

It is a mistake to read the Tao and assume it an entirely do-nothing philosophy. Everywhere there is direction to pay attention, know when and how this can most effectively be done.

Agreed.

Unidian writes:

There's definitely a preference for "keeping to the yin," yes. What about it did you want to discuss?

I asked originally for your statement on this; that's all. On a board that sports virtually wholesale dismissal of things-yin, it occupies a unique position.

and

I don't see Lao-Tzu as suggesting that Nature itself tends toward one polarity more than the other.

How do you see nature tending? Here's the John C.H. Wu translation with which I am most familiar:

Verse 23

Only simple and quiet words will ripen of themselves.
For a whirlwind does not last a whole morning,
Nor does a sudden shower last a whole day.
....................
Even Heaven-and-Earth cannot make such violent things last long;
How much truer is it of the rash endeavors of men?

Just a couple sort of chatty things, Unidian. I think verse 18 regarding the original abandonment of the Tao and the fallout of divisions that ends with the appearance of "loyal ministers" is one of the funniest lawyer jokes I've ever read. And verse 11 wherein "it is the empty space within" that makes something useful is one of the best expressions of the "use" of meditation, too.


.

I asked originally for your statement on this; that's all. On a board that sports virtually wholesale dismissal of things-yin, it occupies a unique position.

I agree that the prevailing attitude here (motivated chiefly by anti-feminine sentiment) is certainly not consistent with Lao-Tzu's writings, which tend to explicitly praise the feminine dimension and its value. Personally, I have my own ideas about the issue, some of which tend to agree with "QRS" ones and some which do not, but I'm somewhat divergent from textbook Taoism here as well.

My own opinions about the issue of femininity are nowhere near as extreme as those of David and associates. They would probably respond that this is because I lack sufficient philosophical development. I would say that it is because I am not an extremist. They and I have argued this issue before.

That said, my ideas aren't identical to those of Lao-Tzu, either. I do see a place for the yang dimension in the human sphere, and I don't put femininity on a pedestal. This is an area where I have some divergence with Taoism - but not nearly as much as David and friends do.

But my overall point is that Lao-Tzu and the forum leadership here sharply disagree on the yin issue. With such a pronounced disagreement just waiting to be exposed, I've always wondered why they continue to list Lao as a "preferred sage." It's puzzling, because Lao is essentially a feminist.

Just a couple sort of chatty things, Unidian. I think verse 18 regarding the original abandonment of the Tao and the fallout of divisions that ends with the appearance of "loyal ministers" is one of the funniest lawyer jokes I've ever read. And verse 11 wherein "it is the empty space within" that makes something useful is one of the best expressions of the "use" of meditation, too.

It would be hard for me to single out any particular verses as favorites, because I'm fond of almost all of them. I suppose that verse 1 would have to top the list for me, simply because it encapsulates and prefigures the whole of the book, and offers a concise summary of metaphysics, dialectical monism, spirituality, and the whole 9 yards.

Unidian writes:

I do see a place for the yang dimension in the human sphere, and I don't put femininity on a pedestal.

Yes, the yang is necessarily there. And as we both know, any "pedestal" does not serve any person well at all -- neither the one on it, nor the one looking up at it.

Paradoxically, it is the pedestal of male desire that with the one hand puts the object-of up there (as desire), and with the other hand swipes at it with his disgust.

Ta for the clarification of where you meet and depart on this, both with the board fundamentals and Lao Tzu.

Natural-Man: By the way, have you had a chance to read that book I left with you?
John Deer: Oh, umm, you mean the one written by that sage you were telling me about?
Natural-Man: Yup. It's really great stuff, completely changed my life!
John Deer: Well I've been very busy, with all the rain we've been having there's much work to do. But the wife read it, and you know what? She told me not to bother.
Natural-Man: Oh. She didn't like it. That's too bad.
john Deer: No, it's not that Nat, she liked it alright. But she said I need not bother 'coz she can explain it to me with just seven words:
Be sure to use your common sense!

Natural-Man: By the way, have you had a chance to read that book I left with you?
John Deer: Oh, umm, you mean the one written by that sage you were telling me about?
Natural-Man: Yup. It's really great stuff, completely changed my life!
John Deer: Well I've been very busy, with all the rain we've been having there's much work to do. But the wife read it, and you know what? She told me not to bother.
Natural-Man: Oh. She didn't like it. That's too bad.
john Deer: No, it's not that Nat, she liked it alright. But she said I need not bother 'coz she can explain it to me with just seven words:
Be sure to use your common sense!

lenny, you have said something about "what you should do"

but "what it is" was untouched

Sorry to disappoint you, pal.