The Tao and Non-dualism
I've been fascinated by both Taoist philosophy and non-dualism generally for quite some time, but it's been difficult to learn about in the West for a variety of reasons. "The Tao that can be explained is not the Tao," and all that. But I'm wondering if anyone else has any knowledge on the topic, as I'm eager to learn more and get other people's takes. Most of the books I've found seem to just be translations of the Tao Te Ching (which isn't very long), and while I've long felt an affinity towards this kind of thinking, tbh I'm not sure I understand it properly.
My understanding of the Tao is that we are all a part of a greater whole, and to whatever end there is a purpose in life, it's to find what your purpose is and be the best at it as your authentic, genuine self.
Am I on the right track? Any deeper insights? Let me know what ya'll think.
My understanding of the Tao is that we are all a part of a greater whole, and to whatever end there is a purpose in life, it's to find what your purpose is and be the best at it as your authentic, genuine self.
Am I on the right track? Any deeper insights? Let me know what ya'll think.
Comments (75)
I have a strong interest in Taoism as expressed in the works of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu. I have never found a philosophy closer to my own understanding of how the world works. If you look at my discussions and posts you'll see that the Tao is never far from my thoughts. That being said, you're asking for a lot. I'm not sure what to offer. Here are a couple of things.
This is a link to dozens of different translations of the Tao Te Ching along with other Taoist texts. When you get deeper into it, reading more than just one version can be very helpful. I like Stephen Mitchell, which is very non-traditional but is good for beginner westerners. To get deeper into a more "authentic" version, I like Gia-Fu Feng and Lin Yutang. There are plenty of other interesting ones.
https://terebess.hu/english/tao/_index.html
This link goes to a very brief, clear, and insightful summary of Taoist principles from a western point of view.
https://superbowl.substack.com/p/taoism-minus-the-nonsense
And this is to a discussion I started several years ago about my favorite verses from a very personal point of view. I only got up to about verse 25 before people lost interest.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10427/my-favorite-verses-in-the-tao-te-ching/p1
I also recommend Alan Watts "Tao - the Watercourse Way." It's a good simple introduction with some depth.
So, I'd love to discuss this with you, but I don't know where you'd like to start.
I'm not sure if this is Tao related or not, but one of the things I've been thinking about lately is how sand can appear rough or smooth depending on your perspective. If the sand is small enough, it appears smooths, but if you zoom in, it is usually rough and jagged. I feel like that kind of contradictory truth speaks to how I understand the Tao, though maybe I'm off base.
I disagree with that, for mereological reasons as well as metaphysical reasons. I am not a "part", in the mereological and metaphysical sense of the term, of any "whole", in the mereological and metaphysical sense of the term. I am an individual. There is no object in the world of which I am a part of. And if you say that I'm a "part" of the Universe, then I'll just say that the Universe is not a single object, it's instead a plurality of objects that compose no further object. The same goes for equivalent notions, such as Cosmos, Reality, Multiverse, Tao, or what have you.
@MrLiminal is talking about what the Tao Te Ching says and his description is a pretty good one. If you want to disagree with a 2,500 year old philosophy which, I assume, you don't understand very much if at all, your opinion is not very useful.
It is, I agree.
Quoting T Clark
I do, yes.
Quoting T Clark
Then explain it to me.
Quoting T Clark
It isn't.
I'm glad that we agree for the most part, @T Clark.
It's because we don't speak the language in which the book in question was written.
Quoting MrLiminal
Wittgenstein 101, basically.
Quoting MrLiminal
I don't think anyone has knowledge on the topic of the Tao, and this is by definition: "the Tao that can be explained is not the Tao.". What I would add to this, to qualify my words, is that there is knowledge about the book: the Tao Te Ching.
Thank you for your input, but we are specifically discussing Taoist thought in here. If you don't agree with it to begin with, I'm not sure our discussion will get much of anywhere. I'm not looking to debate it, as I get plenty of people telling me it doesn't make any sense when I try to talk about it irl; I want to learn more about it and discuss it with people who aren't going to dismiss the concepts. I've appreciated our discussions in other threads, but you obviously don't subscribe to Taoist thought, so I'm not sure what you're hoping to add to the conversation.
Legalism. That's what I'm hopping to add to this specific conversation, about Taoist thought.
Will you allow me that, yes or no?
Why don't you pick a verse of the Tao Te Ching you'd like to discuss.
He's made it clear what he's interested in. You should back off.
I second that motion. Pick a verse from the Tao Te Ching that you'd like to discuss, and let us proceed.
It's neither my place to allow or disallow, I'm just unsure what you're hoping to accomplish when you come into a discussion of Taoism and open with your total non-belief in its principals, and I don't really see how what you've said so far connects to legalism either tbh.
Honestly I think one of the things I'd like to discuss is, if the Tao cannot be explained, why do we have the Tao Te Ching? I'm familiar with the generalities of it, but it does seem deliciously ironic in a very Taoist way. Also, do you have a favorite translation? I read it once forever ago and don't remember which translator I read. Curious how it varies from edition to edition.
I've enjoyed our conversations before, Arcane, but it really seems like you're overstepping your bounds here. We have been very respectful and have not been rude to you, and the topic of this thread is very clear. If you have something related to the topic, feel free to share, but please try to stay on topic and do not accuse others of being rude when we have not been.
But then why do I have to put up with backseat moderation, if that's against the site's rules?
Pick a verse from the Tao Te Ching, and let us proceed. I won't warn the two of you again. I have already flagged several posts in this Thread for the moderation team to consider. @T Clark suggested that, and I agreed with him. By definition, I am not being disruptive, and you two are not moderators, so cut it out with the backseat moderation. Stay on topic, or I'm reporting you both.
Arcane, T - please remain civil to each other. @MrLiminal. If any of you wish not to engage with Arcane Sandwich's responses due to considering them off topic, please do so.
My apologies, then.
No worries. You didn't do anything against the site rules. No one knows exactly where a thread will go, and we rarely keep things on topic with mod actions.
I was apologizing in general. My apology was, first and foremost, to you as an Administrator. Secondly, it was for @T Clark for being uncivil towards him, and thirdly, it was for @MrLiminal for not entering this thread with the proper etiquette.
Thank you for accepting my apology, @fdrake
For a specific verse, here is one from Wayne Dyer's translation:
It is through selfless action I will experience my own fulfillment."
As much as I love seemingly contradictory lines like this, this is one I've experienced issues with irl. I've been told I would "Light myself on fire to keep others warm," which seems like it falls within the selfless action, but I have not seen it lead to much fulfillment long term, and have been told repeatedly by people I, essentially, need to be more selfish. How do you see this line working in a practical sense?
:heart:
I agree with this. It makes philosophical sense. It makes ethical sense. And it makes moral sense.
Quoting MrLiminal
I sincerely, honestly, do not think so. That example, "lighting yourself on fire to keep others warm", does not fall within the selfless action. At least not necessarily so. It depends on each specific case. In some cases, it will fall within the selfless action (i.e., if you give your life to save theirs), and in other cases, it will not (i.e, if you sacrifice yourself to merely amuse them).
Quoting MrLiminal
Yes, those people are correct, from a purely technical point of view.
Quoting MrLiminal
Quite easily. Do for others what others would do for yourself, in such a way that both are benefited by such actions. For example, I have something that you want, and you have something that I want. What I want from you will benefit me, and what you want from me will benefit you. For example, if you play the guitar, and I play the piano, I would want you to teach me some things about the specifics of the guitar as an instrument, and in exchange I would be willing to teach you something about the specifics of the piano as an instrument.
As far as 'being part of the larger whole', perhaps that is something that many traditional cultures afforded more so than in today's world, which if fragmented and individualised, and with a powerful undercurrent of nihilism. But I'm sure that if you incorporate Taoist disciplines and ways into your life, then they can become a support for that sense. It is after all an immensely durable cultural form which has existed continuously since the dawn of civlization.
I don't know that "mutually beneficial" is the same as selfless, as it is by definition, beneficial to both parties.
I read it in Spanish first, then years later in English. It's a trip.
Quoting Wayfarer
Could be.
Quoting MrLiminal
I mean it as mutualism in the ecological, biological sense of the term. And I mean it in the ethical and moral senses of the term as well.
I'm less familiar with the Hindu sources but I have dabbled in some Buddhist thought as well, though not to any great degree. Can you elaborate on what makes them more accessible? My understanding is that part of the "impenetrableness" of the Tao is a feature and not a bug.
I'm also interested in how some of the older Western schools of thought approached some of the ideas found in Tao and Buddhism, but seem to have different reactions to it. In particular, I remember some aspects of (I think?) Gnosticism and cynicism having some interesting parallels, though they seemed to take it in different directions.
You're exactly right, and that's right at the heart of what the Tao means to me. Of course Lao Tzu understands the irony of speaking about what cannot be spoken about. I've always seen it as a kind of a joke. For me, the Tao Te Ching is about pointing with words rather than explaining with them. Lao Tzu is showing us things, not telling us about them. It's the first contradiction in a book full of them. If you've read all the way through the Tao Te Ching, you've seen that there are verses that seem to contradict each other. That gets even stronger when you start looking at more than one translation.
My approach is to take each verse and each translation as a snapshot of something that can't be covered in a single photo. The result is impressionistic. Keep in mind - the Tao Te Ching is not about the words, it's about the experience Lao Tzu is trying to show us.
Quoting MrLiminal
I started with Stephen Mitchell's translation and I still like it a lot. It's very westernized and you'll hear lots of criticism that it's "inauthentic." Be that as it may, you should definitely look at other translations. For more authentic ones, I like Gia-Fu Feng and Lin Yutang. They're both found on that web page I linked to you, but I like lots of other versions too. Here are a couple of links that provide comparative translations.
https://ttc.tasuki.org/display:Code:gff,sm,jc,rh/section:meta
https://www.bu.edu/religion/files/pdf/Tao_Teh_Ching_Translations.pdf
Quoting MrLiminal
This is from Verse 7. Let me think about it for a bit.
You'll find ideas central to the Tao Te Ching in many other philosopher's work. It struck me that Kant's noumena is a very similar concept to the Tao. The idea that there is something fundamental below the level of our conscious awareness is common.
I believe you. Can you please explain that to me? Please be charitable to my intellect, I'm not very smart.
I will say something about my background. I came of age in the 60's, there was an influx of interest in Eastern culture and ideas. I got various popular eastern books about then, notably including Alan Watts. I took it seriously - I believed that there really is such a thing as enlightenment, in the Eastern sense, which is not the same as believing in God, although with some crossover. (Amusing line in a recent streaming series I watched, the female lead tells a young girl she's adopted 'meditation is what you do so you don't have to go to Church'.) I went to University late, as a mature-age student, and designed my curriculum around those pursuits - philosophy, comparative religion and anthropology being central to it (psychology rather less so). I majored in Comparative Religion, which is a fantastic subject in my opinion (and not at all to be confused with 'divinity' or 'biblical studies'.)
At the end of that, I thought that (and I still think that) Buddhism has the best overall product offering, so to speak. I'm not going to launch into a conversion pitch, but I will mention one very impactful book, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, Shunryu Suzuki. It was a published set of Dharma talks by the Japanese S?t? Zen Roshi (teacher) who founded the San Francisco Zen Centre in the late 1960's. S?t? Zen in particular is extremely direct and philosophically profound.
As for gnosticism - there's a parallel term in Buddhism, 'Jñ?na', which is from the same indo-European root as 'gnosis'. It's always been an element of Buddhist and Hindu teachings. It means 'saving insight' - basically, enlightenment, in that Eastern sense. And though it's something I never have and probably never will attain, I believe there is abundant textual evidence that it is real.
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
Pardon me, but I think that's rather disingenuous, considering the erudition you have shown in your (let's see) 190-odd comments since joining the other day. I think you're whip smart. I'm just saying, I find Chinese culture and language remote and incomprehensible from my Anglo upbringing. Whereas Indian languages, notably Sanskrit and Pali (the formal language of early Buddhism) are Indo-european languages. You can trace the connections between ancient Greek, Indian and Persian cultures (did you know the name 'Iran' is a version of 'Aryan'?) And Indian philosophies, notably Mah?y?na Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta, have had huge cultural impact on the West since about the mid-19th Century. So overall, I have found the Indian sources (including those filtered through Chinese and Japanese culture, like Zen), more approachable than the Chinese. (It's not like that for everyone. I know a New Zealand guy who learned classical Chinese and wrote a doctorate on Chinese Buddhist texts, in Chinese. I'm in awe of his achievements but I could never emulate that.)
Same. It's unfortunate. Anecdote: I'm thinking about learning Mandarin, but I don't know if I should.
Quoting Wayfarer
They're as difficult as Mandarin, I would say. Not that I would know anything about that, though.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes, everyone knows that, it's no big deal. Honestly. There are more important things to discuss.
Quoting Wayfarer
Not really. I think Christianism had a far stronger impact in these 2,000 or so years of Christian history.
Quoting Wayfarer
Same. That is what they are, essentially.
Quoting Wayfarer
Neither could I. You would have to love the Mandarin language in order to do that, you would need to love Asian culture in general to do that. But I don't think this is a problem that we have as Westerners. It's a problem that we have as Euro-descendants. It's a problem at the level of "continental awareness", or "awareness of the continent that one belongs to." For example, my heritage is entirely European, but I wasn't born in Europe. I've never even been to Europe, not once. Instead, I feel like a South American, because that's literally what I am: a person that was born in the continent of South America, in 1985. And I have joined this Forum because I want someone to tell me, why was I born in South America, and not Africa, or Europe, or Oceania, or Asia, or North America, or Antarctica.
Sorry if that last part was Off Topic. Let's get back to discussing the Tao Te Ching, the Tao, and Taoist thought.
P.S.: Thank you for your answer to my question, @Wayfarer
Ah, Kant and Jung were what originally got me into philosophy, iirc. It's been forever since I read them though.
>designed my curriculum around those pursuits - philosophy, comparative religion and anthropology being central to it
A class after my own heart. It sounds like we share many of the same interests. Comparative religion has been an interest of mine for some time.
>At the end of that, I thought that (and I still think that) Buddhism has the best overall product offering, so to speak.
There are definitely elements of Buddhism that speak to me, zen specifically, and I've fluctuated between that and Taoism over the years on which one I lean more towards. In general I find I like the sense of forward momentum of the Tao, but in many ways they kinda seem like different takes on the same concept. Not to be reductive, but to quote Dracula, "perhaps the same could be said of all religions."
> It means 'saving insight' - basically, enlightenment, in that Eastern sense. And though it's something I never have and probably never will attain, I believe there is abundant textual evidence that it is real.
My understanding is that the concept of Gnosis is essentially the same concept of The Way, just filtered through an early Western/Christian lens. Iirc, each of us contains a spark of the divine that we must come to know and embody, which sounds a lot like the Tao/Enlightenment to me, so it sounds like we agree there.
Quoting MrLiminal
Well, yes and no. Gnosticism in the historical context was a tendency within axial religions, which manifested in early Christianity as the 'grnostic sects', usually considered heretical. But in a more general sense, 'gnosis' is indeed esoteric spiritual knowledge or insight.
(By the way, take at look at the Help article, How to Quote, for some tips and tricks around quoting on the Forum.)
There is an important concept in Taoism - "wu wei." It means action without action. Acting from your inner nature, your Te, without reflection or intention. That's what is meant by "selfless." It doesn't mean supporting other people's interests at the expense of your own. Here are some examples from Gia-Fu Feng's translation.
From Verse 15:
Quoting Tao Te Ching - Excerpt from Verse 15
Verse 37:
Quoting Tao Te Ching - Verse 37
Verse 42:
Quoting Tao Te Ching - Verse 42
This surprises me. I experience what Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu wrote as simple and down to earth. I call it meat and potatoes philosophy. That's why it appeals so much to me as an engineer. It's not clear to me why I would have a harder time understanding an ancient Chinese text than I would an ancient Greek one - or Japanese or Hindu. Modern Chinese and Japanese philosophers study Aristotle and Plato.
It helps to compare these statements with the words from Confucius and the role of Mohists as sources of legislation. The statements were made in a particular context.
That is not to say that an appeal to a universal truth is to be disregarded.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Did you have something from Confucius or Mozi in mind? It is my understanding that the Tao Te Ching was written in direct opposition to the Confucian and Mohist way of seeing things.
Quoting Paine
I don't see Taoist principles as universal truths. I think they are just one good way of looking at things. There are others.
There was that opposition. And it carried on over a number of centuries in the form of different narratives. I will try to round up examples that you are asking for. It is an old data set. It won't happen tomorrow.
One interesting aspect of Chuang Tzu's depiction of Confucius is that it represents him learning stuff.
It's true and confusing. Sometimes Chuang Tzu depicts him as someone who doesn't understand and sometimes he treats him as a sage.
Quoting Tao Te Ching
Don't follow the Tao. Follow what the Tao follows: follow "the way that things are".
That account does not include the talk about a natural world where the evils of the present world are not necessary.
The literature includes many examples of previous social orders that were deemed superior to a present state of affairs. The Daoist writings include such narratives.
[quote=Class Lecture Notes] Confucian values, particularly those emphasizing ritual (li), hierarchy, and moral propriety, were often parodied or critiqued in Taoist literature as representing an overly rigid adherence to social customs rather than a genuine alignment with the Dao (the Way). Taoist texts like the Zhuangzi frequently critique Confucianism for prioritizing artificial constructs and conventions over natural spontaneity (ziran), which is central to Taoist philosophy.
For instance, the Zhuangzi includes numerous anecdotes and dialogues that mock Confucian moralism, presenting Confucians as being overly preoccupied with external forms and neglectful of the deeper, effortless flow of the Way. The critique, however, was not a crude rejection of Confucian values but a deeper commentary on the limits of human contrivance and the importance of returning to simplicity and harmony with nature, the uncarved block.
This tension reflects the philosophical divergence between Confucianisms focus on cultivating virtue through societal roles and rituals and Taoisms emphasis on non-action (wu wei) and living in accordance with the natural order.[/quote]
I was a huge fan of the Kung Fu movie and tv show and Ursula K Le Guin's [I]Earthsea[/I] books for many years. Then, for reasons I don't remember, I thought I should take a look at the Tao Te Ching. I was stunned and thrilled to see where so much of Kung Fu and Earthsea came from. Some of it is quoted in Kung Fu, particularly by Masters Po and Kwan.
Turns out Le Guin wrote her own version of the TTC. Not a translation, because she didn't know Chinese. But she owned many translations, and wrote what it meant to her.
I was also a fan of the TV show. I don't remember the movie.
I think it was made for tv, and you might be thinking it was an episode or two. Awesome scene, where he meets Po for the first time:
https://youtu.be/tuoyeNqRI8A
Taoism speaks of the way of the universe, the way of nature. It speaks of what it considers the best way to live. That is, living without anger, hatred, frustration, and all the other negative emotions. Living as the universe exists, without effort or worry.
And how is that accomplished? In Taoism, it all comes down to this: Give up desire..
Thats all you need to know. Such a simple thing, really. Give up desire, and you will be content. And in your contentment, you will be able to find happiness.
I could stop now. And if you followed that advice, all would become clear to you. But I'll explain the nuts and bolts of it all.
In the Tao, everything acts only within its nature. The sun burns, the hawk hunts, the water runs, the tree grows. Water does not desire to run uphill. It does not attempt to act in a manner inconsistent with its nature, the Tao. The hawk does not desire to burrow into the ground as the mole does. It does not attempt to fight the Tao.
And despite the fact that things act only according to their nature, every single thing that is necessary for the continued existence of the universe is accomplished. My very favorite passage from the Tao Te Ching:
[I]Tao abides in non-action, yet nothing is left undone.[/I]
Things run perfectly without thinking and planning, without fighting against the universe.
The problem is that we are no longer part of the Tao. We have lost our Way. We don't see the glorious harmony of it all, the perfection of the universe's intricacies. And we don't even know that we are lost! We have separated ourselves from everything, and then go back and try to possess it all. That damned desire!
We desire things that the universe does not naturally give us. If the earth was made entirely of gold, we would not desire gold. We don't desire what we have, or can have whenever we want. We only desire what is not readily available to us.
Therefore, when you act to attain what you desire, you are fighting the Tao. You are fighting the natural order of the universe. That's worth repeating: [I]You are fighting the natural order of the universe![/I] Doesn't that seem like a strange, arrogant, and impossible thing to do?
The problem is that desire simply can't be satisfied. On the practical side, it just doesnt work. Yes, many individual desires can be achieved. But as soon as you get one thing that you desire, another pops up. Then another, and another..... Eventually, you will desire something that you can't have. Maybe you dont have enough money. Maybe not enough time. Eventually, you will be frustrated. You may envy those who have what you cannot. You may hate them, steal from them, or kill them to take what they have.
On the spiritual side, desire is all consuming. Even if you could eventually get any particular thing that you set your sights on, there is simply no end to the wanting. Desire itself cannot be satisfied. Its an all-or-nothing type of thing. If you have it, there is no end. No point where you say, "Ah, I now have everything I desire. I can relax now and enjoy all that I have." Give it up completely, or be prepared to spend your entire life trying, and often failing, to get one thing after another after another.(
So give up desire, and give up the negative results. The constant wanting, frustration, and anger. Accept what the Tao provides you, desire nothing that is not provided, and you will live in peace and happiness. Do only what is necessary to live, to eat, to breath, to be. If the Tao does not provide it to you, you don't need it.
This might seem somehow wrong. After all, doesnt giving up desire mean giving up caring and being happy with something? Not really. Someone could taste chocolate for the first time in their life at the age of 40, and absolutely love it. But never having tried it before, their enjoyment of it clearly had nothing to do with desire for it. We will like and dislike things even if we are free of desire. Our preferences will still be there. The thing is, if you're not spending so much time and energy trying to satisfy desires, and being frustrated and angry over those desires that you can't manage to fulfill, you will realize that there are a thousand things every day that will make you happy. Pay attention to the moment. Notice the beauty and happiness that is around all the time. That old stop and smell the roses idea. Just because I enjoyed something, say a particular meal, doesnt mean I have to drive myself crazy wanting to have it the next day. If I have it again, Im happy again. But I can still be happy with other meals that come my way. Heres a great story to illustrate my point. It's said to be a Zen story. But the connection between Taoism and Zen is obvious. I got this from a comic book called [I]The Hands of Shang-Chi: Master of Kung Fu[/I]. The writer, Doug Moench, said it was his favorite.
This is obviously an extreme example of giving up desire; giving up the desire to continue living another five minutes. But when he realized that he could not change his fate, he let go of the desire to do so, and took the pleasure that was available to him. He was not thinking, "I want a strawberry before I die." He just happened to find one, and ate it. Just because he was not going to experience pleasure beyond the next five minutes, doesnt mean that he couldnt experience it within the next five minutes. Holding on to his desire to live would have precluded his ability to be happy in the last moments of his life. Remember the story when something infinitely less important than your imminent demise is bothering you, and realize that its probably not that important anyway. And if it cant be changed, it doesnt matter how important it is. Let it go.
The natural consequence of having no desire is something called [I]wu-wei[/I]. This is usually translated as things like "non-action", "non-contrived", "non-ado", etc. The best explanation of the term that I've seen is from [I]The Tao of Zen[/I], by Ray Grigg. He says:
When we desire, our actions are planned and schemed. They are for a reason, with a goal in mind. Our energy is wasted trying to change circumstances, fighting the natural order of the universe. But when we practice [I]wu-wei[/I], our actions are unmotivated and instinctual. They are natural reactions to the moment.
[I]Wu-wei[/I] is not gained through any desire, effort, or plan. You do not say, "I will achieve [I]wu-wei[/I] in the following manner..." It is simply the way things without desire act. If you desire nothing, your actions will not be the result of any intent to satisfy a desire. Instead, your actions will simply be in accordance with what is happening around you. Because of our self-preservation instinct, the man in the story above did what he could to survive. His actions were the response to the moment; needs and instinct were driving him. (Of course, most of us desire to live, and his actions might be seen as attempts to achieve this desire. But animals that never think "I want to live" behave the same way. Without any conscious desire to live, the man would have instinctively acted the same way.) When he knew that his life was over, when there was no spontaneous/instinctual act left to perform (and, if desire to live did, indeed, play a role in his previous actions, he realized that no possible action could achieve this desire, and so stopped acting on it), he ate the strawberry. This was not a planned action based on any desire. It was a spontaneous action, made possible by the situation he was in.
And here are a bunch of quotes. They deal with the concept of giving up desire, accepting what comes to you through the Tao, and not fighting against it. These are all from non-Taoist sources, which are, nevertheless, clearly expressing this ideal.
Chapter 10 of The Little Prince, by Antoine de Saint Exupery, is a lesson in Taoism. He is obviously familiar with the Tao Te Ching. Very nice work.
That note is a reasonable generality of the different views.
There is comparison of different jobs in the literature. It is easier to understand the work of the butcher than that of a leader. The difference being asked for is not easy.
Quoting Patterner
This is a good description of Lao Tzu's and Chuang Tzu's vision of the Taoist path, as you note, the right way to live our lives, but I came to Taoism from a different direction. I tend to see things from an intellectual perspective and the part that first interested me was Taoist metaphysics. The description of the nature of reality in the Tao Te Ching recognizes that the reality we live in is fundamentally an interaction between an unformed, unnamed, unconceptualized reality and human thought and action. This is from Gia-Fu Feng's translation of Verse 1.
Quoting Tao Te Ching Verse 1
As I understand this, the Tao is one, undivided, uncategorized, unnamed. The act of naming is what brings the multiplicity of the world we experience, what is called the 10,000 things, into existence. I see naming as a fundamentally human activity, although others disagree with this. This is Verse 40.
Quoting Tao Te Ching - Verse 40
As I see this, the Tao is non-being - it doesn't exist, it isn't a thing. The 10,000 things are being, the multiplicity of the world we live in.
Another aspect of the writings of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu is a radical approach to morality. This is from Brook Ziporyn's translation of Chapter 8 of the Chuang Tzu.
"Intrinsic virtuosities" is how Ziporyn translates "Te," as in Tao Te Ching. This approach conflicts with the principles of Confucius, which focus on following rigid social roles and behaviors.
Also what Arthur Schopenhauer says, but when he says it, he's a miserable pessimist. When a Taoist master says it, it is Eastern wisdom.
It seems to me that on the topic of the impossibility of permanently satisfying desire, there is an important parallel with the philosophy of Epicurus. This is because Epicurus established a distinction between what he called "mobile pleasures" and "static pleasures". The former are fleeting, and associated with pain. The latter are permanent, in a sense, but have a duration in time. An example of a mobile pleasure would be eating something tasty. An example of a permanent pleasure would be to not feel hungry. And in Epicureanism as a philosophy, existence is the greatest permanent pleasure of all, because it is the one that has the longest duration of all of the permanent pleasures. What to make of the sorrow that contemporary existentialists speak about? That is where I always turn to the same verse of the Tao Te Ching, the final Verse of Chapter 25:
Quoting Tao Te Ching
In my humble opinion (I could be wrong), this is what Hesiod called Xaos, and what Heidegger called "Being".
Quoting Tao Te Ching
This, in my humble opinion, is the idea of the Ying and the Yang in motion, and what Hegel called "Absolute Spirit".
Quoting Tao Te Ching
In this part, Laozi (Lao Tzu) is trying to extract a moral lesson from his experience of the Tao. He says that the king is one of the four great powers of the universe. Yet, in the following verse (the final verse of Chapter 25), the king is not mentioned:
Quoting Tao Te Ching
The king is not mentioned. If the king is one of the four great powers of the universe, why isn't he mentioned in the final Verse? Because (this is my interpretation) the king is Man. And there are five elements here. I will count them: one (the king / Man), two (Earth), three (Heaven), four (Tao), five (what is natural / Nature).
This, in my humble opinion, is connected to the theory of the Five Elements as found in Wuxing (Chinese philosophy).
That, Wuxing (Chinese philosophy) is, in my humble opinion, connected to the ancient Greek theory of the four (actually five) elements: Earth, Air, Fire, Water (and the Fifth Element, the fifth essence, the quintessence, is the Aether).
The Five Elements in Wuxing are: Fire, Water, Wood, Metal, and Earth.
The Five Elements in Western Culture are: Fire, Water, Aether, Air, and Earth.
We can represent the elements in common as a mathematical set, and the elements that differ as another mathematical set:
The Elements that Wuxing and Western Culture have in common = {Fire, Water, Earth}
The Elements that Wuxing and Western Culture do not have in common: {Wood, Metal, Aether, Air}
The first set has three elements.
The second set has four elements.
And I have written both sets.
No doubt. There are very many resonances between Tao, early Buddhism and Stoicism, albeit Taoism and Buddhism both had beliefs in immortality in various forms, which the Stoics did not.
Why did you mention the Stoics there, and why did you not mention Epicurus? He was not a Stoic. Epicurean philosophy (Epicurean-ism) is not the same as the Philosophy of the Stoa (Stoicism).
Epicurus was a materialist. The Stoics, on the other hand, were objective idealists. I suppose you could say that Epicurus was an objective materialist, which would mean that he and the Stoics have something in common. But that commonality, in this case, would be their "objectness" (thing-ness) or "objectivity". Think of it in their original Hegelian sense, as the difference between Gegenständlichkeit and Objektivität. They have different etymologies, the former is from Common German (Gegenständlichkeit), while the latter is from Medieval Latin (Objektivität). The moral here, is that Hegel thinks that Objektivität is Ethically superior to Gegenständlichkeit, because it is older. It is more ancient. Yet, he himself (Hegel) was a Romanticist, he as an individual was in Love with Gegenständlichkeit, not with Objektivität. This caused him great suffering, so he studied the earliest philosophers. He studied Taoism, and Buddhism, and Legalism, among other Philosophies East of Europe. He then focused his gaze West of Asia. And he said: First there was Being. It is pure. It was first thought by Parmenides. At the same time, there is Nothing. It was first thought by Lao Tzu. The movement from Being to Nothing and from Nothing to Being is Becoming. And Becoming itself is the Absolute Spirit itself, before its March Through History truly begins.
But there is reason to believe that Hegel was simply wrong, on many intellectual fronts. He did not understand Lao Tzu. Not like someone from the 21st Century can understand him.
(Note: I have edited this comment for the sake of clarity -Arcane Sandwich)
I beg your pardon, it was a mistake. Interesting further points there on Hegel, with whom I am not well acquainted.
Well, not to brag, but in one of my novels, I have invented a fictional character who I call "The Antarctic Hegel". As in, this is a character who is considered by his peers to be "the Hegel of Antarctica". He has not had much success as a professional philosopher so far, but he has not given up hope: perhaps, in the next century, he will be honored, half-jokingly, in the minds of many as "Antarctica's Greatest Philosopher."
But let us focus our attention on the Tao once again. The Tao itself (this is my interpretation, I could be wrong) does not follow itself. Not if we trust the words of Lao Tzu in Verse 25 of the Tao Te Ching. As I hope to have explained, Tao does not follow Tao. Tao does not follow itself. Tao follows something else: Tao follows Nature.
One should follow Nature, not the Tao, because of the following:
1) Suppose that one follows the Tao.
2) And suppose that the Tao follows Nature.
3) It follows from this, that one follows Nature.
4) If so, the Tao is not Nature: Tao merely follows Nature, without being Nature.
That is my thought on Tao. It could have mistakes, my thought. And I'm certain that it does.
Quoting Wayfarer
I kindly suggest that you imagine these two quotes as if both of them were directed to yourself, by yourself. Then you will understand that you are indeed qualified to comment on the intricacies of Taoist principles: just not to the degree that you would like to have. And that, is why I have affectionately called you a "lumpen idealist" elsewhere: Phenomenology pales in comparison to Taoism. The former may be called, jokingly, "lumpen idealism", but the latter, Taoism, is not lumpen in any sense of the term. Taoism is serious. That is its tone. It is one of the elements of its tone. And that is something that you, from what I've read in your comments, have "in spades", so to speak.
That being said, I am listening.
Hmmm...
... there is a working theory today, which you have told me that you know, and which you do not accept: OOO. From the POV of OOO, there is a "real Tao" and a "sensual Tao", because every Object manifests itself, so to speak, as if it were two objects: a real object and a sensual object. Perhaps Tao is not an object. Perhaps it is a Quality. If so, in OOO there is a distinction between "real qualities" and "sensual qualities". Whatever the case may be, the following can be said, perhaps:
1) "The tao that can be named" = the "sensual Tao", in OOO-Speak.
2) "is not" = is not identical to
3) "the real Tao" = the "real Tao", in OOO-Speak. You will never access it. No one will. Nothing, no other subject, and no other object, can access it. Why not? Because the essence of a real object is forever inaccessible to every other object, even at the level of knowledge, even at the level of inorganic causation. But this is not to say that OOO is right about Tao, or about other topics. I agree with OOO on some things, yet not in others. On this one, if this were truly what OOO would say, then I would disagree with OOO. But not because I am a Taoist, since I am not. I would disagree for other motives.
That distinction it makes between real and sensual seems to me a form of the distinction between the manifest and scientific images - that there's the real object which science discerns, then how it appears to us on a sensory level. It's another version of the age-old 'appearance reality' divide. (I have an offsite essay called 'The Objective Stance' which I'm sure you wouldn't agree with.) I parse the distinction, if there is one, in a completely different way, but that would take us far afield of this topic, so let's leave it there for now.
Yes, this is what "transcendental nihilists" (I'm not accusing you of anything, BTW) usually reply to Object-Oriented Ontology. The usual retort is that to trace a distinction between the scientific image of the world versus the folk image of the world is to focus on images, instead of objects (and consequently, instead of people, and of individual human beings. To say nothing of Nature in general).
Quoting Wayfarer
Not quite, for OOO holds that this happens even at the level of inanimate causation, even in the absence of ontological subjects. Perhaps the example of a meteor striking the Moon is too harsh for the soft tone of this tranquile discussion, a more appropriate one in tone would be the ancient Medieval Arab example of a flame slowly burning a ball of cotton. The flame burns the cotton, but it does not know what the essence of cotton is. It consumes the cotton until the cotton no longer exists. Then the flame no longer exists. There is nothing. And the moral of this story, is that the flame never knew what the cotton was, and the cotton never knew what the flame was. Flame had quintessence, cotton had quintessence. Neither knew each other, even though they burned together, until they both ceased to be.
(edited for the sake of clarity - Arcane Sandwich)
The idea and application in our lives of "purpose" is made-up. If it serves one well, so be it. Often, however, it is distracting, misleading, even blinding or entrapping. I think "Taoism" (if there is such a unified, identifiable, thing), is pointing in a direction away from the conventional attachment to, even fixation with, purpose. Be an uncarved block, it suggests. Have no adherence to any purpose outside of sustaining life--as is the so called purpose of every other living organism. The rest, for humans, is a perpetual flow of stories we construct and project. Given that, "Taoism" suggests we be always free and ready to adapt to the narratives which flow in our direction, and surround us. One popular example is (extremely abridged here) the 'parable' of the aged and deformed tree--not suitable for lumber. Conventional think condemns it as useless and pathetic, Taoism recognizes it as an undisturbed place for shade...and so on. Another (also extremely abridged) is the parable of the man able to survive the rapids of a powerful river. He does so by allowing the flow to carry him, while adapting to it, rather than by trying to oppose or overcome it [with his own purpose/notions about the river and swimming].
Granted, certain animals may sense differently than humans. But the 'subjective' you are alluding to and discuss in your very interesting paper (offsite) applies to perception--as you say 'experience. The Narratives shaping us (as specifically human) and stored in our so called individual memories 'color' our sensation. That does not mean our sensations are subjective. If there were no Narratives coloring our experience, you and I might 'see' a red rose in exactly the same way. Of course, we would not be able to confirm that without creating and sharing a narrative about it. But that will in turn, bump the vision out of sensation and place it in perception/experience...and so on.
Taoism suggests we remain free and easy about our Narratives so that we can navigate through them without getting caught or trapped.
Quoting ENOAH
Both your posts are good clear summaries of what Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu have to say. I'll steal it and use it when someone asks for a quick summary of the basics and a bit beyond the basics. I'll give you an attribution. I especially like your emphasis on narratives.
Forgive me, I became "lost at this point", so to speak. I sincerely believe (and I might be wrong) that memories are individual. You say "so called". And I ask: what can a memory be, if not individual? Are you perhaps suggesting that there are "collective" memories, so to speak?
Or perhaps an underlying, "unifying" memory?
Please help me understand this point, for it is very rare for me to encounter someone of your admirable intellect in my ordinary life, and I say that as one would when in recognition of a fact.
I used 'so-called' because, given I am not a brain scientist (etc) I wish to reserve the possibility that I am mistaken/open to tweaking needed for precision.
However, your secondary point, regarding [so called] collective memory, seems to have grasped tge point I was trying to make. A red rose is whatever it is to our organic senses. But our perception of red rose, as 21st C, humans able to converse in English, has been reshaped by our common narratives--eg. romance, beauty, thorny, fragrant, Shakespeare, English history and so on. Because of this collective memory, a red rose is not what it might have been to a prehistoric human animal. Try as we might, we cannot see it with our senses, unmediated by our shared Mind.
This theme is something similar to what Umberto Eco intended to portray in his novel The Name of the Rose. A very interesting book, but very difficult to follow at times. I remember when I learned Medieval Philosophy at the University, one of my Professors was obsessed with that novel, as in, she would talk about it almost every class, whenever she had to state her personal opinion on some Medieval philosophical thesis or whatnot. She was quite good, actually. She knew "Medieval stuff", you could say.
Do I think that she had an extra-ordinary memory, in some sense of the term? Hmmm... that is actually an excellent question, I think, because our "folk" idea of what memory actually is, has become somewhat "tarnished", if you will, by the "commonality" of our ordinary lives, if that makes any sense to anyone.
Makes sense to me.
I should read Eco. Does the film do it justice? Thanks
Sure. Sean Connery wouldn't have acted in it otherwise (or at least I would hope not).
I'm really not that passionate about Eco myself. In fact, I am not passionate about any aspect of his theory. It just seems to me that there are more sophisticated semiologists in the world. And on the literary side of things, The Name of the Rose just sounds unappealingly "Europe-ish" to me. It's not "close enough to my heart", you could say. As far as Literature goes, I prefer the work of Macedonio Fernández and the work of J.R.R. Tolkien.