AXIARCHISM as 21st century TAOISM

The Latin (axio + arche) means Value/Principle & Ruling/Primary. The article says It's “a novel view that pictures the creative power . . . . as a non-personal force that creates the best world . . . but not for us.” {my bold} Also, “Axiarchists argue that only a non-causal force or principle can ultimately explain why things exist”. As an abstract, impersonal, natural, acausal creative principle it seems quite similar to Lao Tse's Tao. Yet, in terms of the value-based “path” or “flow” of the universe, it may be analogous to an algorithm-crunching computer program.

If there is any tradition that is really marked by its consistent and thoroughgoing atheism in the sense that matters, it is the Chinese philosophical tradition. This is true of all three of the main classical traditions, Daoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism. The clearest and most paradigmatic anti-God resource in the Chinese tradition is the conception of Dao, as the term comes to be developed in what are later known as “philosophical Daoist” texts such as the Laozi (Daodejing) and the Zhuangzi. For as I have insisted already, though Dao has sometimes been depicted as some kind of vague or partial equivalent of the idea of God, it is better described as the most extreme possible antithesis of that idea. Indeed, classical Daoist thought can very well be described as one long polemic against the idea of purpose—the idea of conscious design, of intentional valuation as a source of existence, of deliberate creation, of control, of God.

The basic idea of the Daoists was to enable people to realize that, since human life is really only a small part of a larger process of nature, the only human actions which ultimately make sense are those which are in accord with the flow of Nature

My guess is that this boils down to just another ethical system based upon humility, kindness, acceptance and such.

For an alternate atheistic take on Taoism , especially the thinking of Zhuangzi, I highly recommend the recently published book by Brook Ziporyn, one of the top translators of ancient Chinese texts. It is called ‘Experiments in Mystical Atheism: Godless Epiphanies from Daoism to Spinoza and Beyond‘.

From the dao (Laozi-Zhuangzi) to logos (Heraclitus) to swirling atoms in void (Democritus-Epicurus-Lucretius) to natura naturans (Spinoza) to the absurd (Zapffe-Camus) to the real (Nishida-Nishitani / C. Rosset) ... to the (modern) pandeus¹ is, so far, the least irrational as well as most scientific evidence-compatible (or soundest) speculative path I have found to reflectively explore nature (i.e. surface of the real with which (we) natural beings are inescapably entangled – ergo embodied – and that fundamentally encompasses – enables-constrains – whatever is knowable (by us) including reason itself). YMMV

Does atheism entail that the category of 'the sacred' is meaningless?

Does it entail that the 'mok?a' of Hinduism or the 'Nirv??a' of Buddhism have no transcendent referent?

My guess is that this boils down to just another ethical system based upon humility, kindness, acceptance and such. If that's the case, let's stop being so vague and just enumerate the things I need to do in 10 simple commands. I've been following these taoist threads a bit, and I'd rather someone just speak in prose and not poems and lay it out.

For as I have insisted already, though Dao has sometimes been depicted as some kind of vague or partial equivalent of the idea of God, it is better described as the most extreme possible antithesis of that idea.

The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used, but never filled.
Oh, unfathomable source of ten thousand things!
Blunt the sharpness,
Untangle the knot,
Soften the glare,
Merge with dust.
Oh, hidden deep but ever present!
I do not know from whence it comes.
It is the forefather of the gods.

The Tao does not replace god, it comes before it. God is just one of the 10,000 things - the multiplicity of phenomena in our world brought into being by the Tao.

Humans are indeed “special” in the sense that they categorize events from a selfish perspective.

But one label, Axiarchism, I had never heard of. The Latin (axio + arche) means Value/Principle & Ruling/Primary. The article says It's “a novel view that pictures the creative power . . . . as a non-personal force that creates the best world . . . but not for us.” {my bold} Also, “Axiarchists argue that only a non-causal force or principle can ultimately explain why things exist”. As an abstract, impersonal, natural, acausal creative principle it seems quite similar to Lao Tse's Tao. Yet, in terms of the value-based “path” or “flow” of the universe, it may be analogous to an algorithm-crunching computer program. And as a general creative causal natural force, it sounds somewhat like my own notion of EnFormAction*1. The article goes on to say : “this view resonates most of all with the Chinese philosophical religion of Daoism”. Or, the Axiarche might be like Hindu Brahman, simply non-specific impersonal ultimate Reality.

The key difference from traditional Creator/creation models, is that this one may help to explain the Problem of Evil : why bad things happen to good people.

God is just one of the 10,000 things

For as I have insisted already, though Dao has sometimes been depicted as some kind of vague or partial equivalent of the idea of God, it is better described as the most extreme possible antithesis of that idea.

I have Ziporyn's translation of the Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi) and I like it. I certainly don't put myself up against him as an expert, but I understand the place of god in Taoism differently. Taoism isn't atheistic in the sense we normally mean it. It doesn't deny god's existence, it just (mostly) doesn't address it. It's non-theistic not anti-theistic.

Objectivity in the metaphysical sense is an unwarranted absolutizing or sedimentation of half of a two-step process. The philosophical worldview of objectivism is read off from an aspect of this process and made into a doctrine about metaphysics, when in fact it’s just one of many tools in the hands of a hungry animal. So even though it may be the case that, to the extent that we are admitting reasoning at all, the monotheist God can be disproved, there will always be Tertullian, that fascinatingly volatile and wickedly histrionic Church Father, who blurted out the unsurpassable final word on this issue way back in the early third century: I believe because it is absurd, said Tertullian. And no amount of reasoning will be of any use in convincing someone who has declined to accept the ultimate authority of reason.

It is no use saying, “Look, Tertullian, you’re already using reason, you tacitly admit it, so how can you exempt this one issue from application of the same standard you use when you cross the street?” Why must he have only one standard? Should he do it because it’s reasonable? But he’s already shown he’s willing to eschew reason when he feels like it. If we think of beliefs as tools, this sort of move becomes unremarkable: why should I have only one tool that I use on every kind of material? A hammer
for pounding nails, a nail-clipper for clipping nails—for not all nails are the same.

We call all things “things,” but not all things are the same or require the same type of treatment. The illegitimate step lies in assuming that there must be a single standard applied at all times, for all types of situations, regarding every type of subject matter. Why assume that there is any unity of this kind applying to the world, that all existence must form one single system with a single set of laws and rules applying to all of it? That too is part of the circular assumption of the sole universal authority of Reason—an assumption that, I would argue, ironically has deep roots precisely in the idea of God.

The Tao does not replace god, it comes before it. God is just one of the 10,000 things - the multiplicity of phenomena in our world brought into being by the Tao.

The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used, but never filled.
Oh, unfathomable source of ten thousand things!

My guess is that this boils down to just another ethical system based upon humility, kindness, acceptance and such. If that's the case, let's stop being so vague and just enumerate the things I need to do in 10 simple commands. I've been following these taoist threads a bit, and I'd rather someone just speak in prose and not poems and lay it out.

Be creedless; that is, be intelligent enough to make adaptations without dependence upon some formula.
Be self-reliant; that is, be not dependent upon supernatural agency for intellectual support or moral guidance.
Be critical; that is, question assumptions and seek certitude scientifically.
Be tolerant; that is, be open-minded and hold conclusions tentatively.
Be active; that is, live today and grow by exercising his capacities.
Be efficient; that is, accomplish the most with the least effort.
Be versatile; that is, vary his interests to attain a variety of interesting thoughts.
Be cooperative; that is, find some of his satisfactions in social activities.
Be appreciative; that is, make the present enjoyable by his attitude.
Be idealistic; that is, create and live by ideals which he finds inspiring.

My personal non-religious philosophical worldview has some aspects in common with ancient Chinese Taoism : the Way of Nature. But I just came across another name for a similar concept. In Philosophy Now magazine (12/24 ; 01/25) the cover title is The Return of God. It presents articles on various attitudes toward the god concept; including Atheism and Agnosticism.

One doesn’t have to subscribe to any religious belief to see the falsehood of this, whether you believe in God or not. As a matter of definition, God is not a thing or a phenomenon. In terms of philosophy of religion, the ‘uncreated’ is a term that may be used, and the uncreated is not one or any number of things.

Natural axiarchism offers a way to avoid human-centred morality. [b] The axiarchic creative principle seems nothing like human beings, and does not even care about their lives and values.

And from the cosmic perspective, everything is the best[/b]. From our limited perspective, however, things can be good or evil. Specifically, human acts are good when getting closer to the creative principle, but evil when far from it.

Axiarchism (from Greek axia {????, a-ksi-a} 'value' and arche {???? < (verb) ????} 'rule') is a metaphysical position that everything that exists, including the universe itself, exists for a good purpose. The word was coined by Canadian philosopher John Leslie.[1][2]

Just so, instead of being human-targeted as many theistic ethical systems are, natural axiarchism chooses the way of nature as its ideal.
This view resonates most of all with the Chinese philosophical religion of Daoism. ‘The Dao’ means ‘the way of nature’, and in Daoism human values are totally grounded in natural forces and processes.
Daoism advocates following a simple orderly life, living in unity with society, and respecting and preserving the diversity of life forms. Living in harmony with nature is Daoism’s fundamental principle. In this way, natural axiarchism can be seen as a metaphysical grounding for Daoist morality.

In the early years of the religion’s formation, Daoism quickly integrated several aspects of Chinese cosmology that were not obviously an initial part of the religion. The most prominent of these were the concepts of yin and yang. Daoism’s ability to syncretize with its surrounding context continued throughout the tradition’s history. When Buddhism entered China, Daoism absorbed many elements still seen today, elements such as the presence of altars to the bodhisattva Guanyin in many Daoist temples.

Since Daoism did not travel in the same manner as, and lacked the popularity of, Buddhism, its numbers in America have grown relatively slowly. Today, it is estimated there are around 30,000 Daoist practitioners living in the United States. Now that American Daoists are becoming a larger part of the religious landscape, this openness to change is shaping the religion in distinct ways and presenting unique issues. [...]

Currently, American Daoism in the 21st century is undergoing a phase of self-definition as it grapples with issues of interfaith interaction, decentralization, and the contrasting practices of converts and immigrants. Some scholars have suggested that a specific form of “American Daoism” will not form; rather, the great diversity of practice within America will result in “American Daoisms.”

Ziporyn’s claim is that what monotheisms and the atheisms of the ‘three horsemen’ (Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris) have in common is belief in a single purpose behind existence. For theists that purpose is God and the laws of morality he intends, and for Dawkins et al it is the sole authority of reason. Ziporyn argues that Daoism believes in no ultimate purpose, intention, principle, morality.

God and gods are not the same thing.

The first gods were the pure whole numbers which emanated from zero (the Source). The very first numbers to emanate were the twin 1s (-1, +1), represented by Janus, who is the namesake for January, the first month of the year.

We call all things “things,” but not all things are the same or require the same type of treatment.

The illegitimate step lies in assuming that there must be a single standard applied at all times, for all types of situations, regarding every type of subject matter.

Why assume that there is any unity of this kind applying to the world, that all existence must form one single system with a single set of laws and rules applying to all of it? That too is part of the circular assumption of the sole universal authority of Reason—an assumption that, I would argue, ironically has deep roots precisely in the idea of God.

Ziporyn argues that Daoism believes in no ultimate purpose, intention, principle, morality.

Nature is ultimate, the principle of initiating is ultimate, and the principle of perfecting is ultimate. And the intelligent person is also ultimate. Four kinds of ultimate, then, exist, and the intelligent man is one of them.
Man devotes himself to satisfying his desires, fulfilling his purposes, realizing his ideals, or achieving his goals. But goals are derived from aims. And all aiming is Nature's aiming, and is Nature's way of being itself.

Are you saying that the god of monotheistic religions is fundamentally different from the gods of multi-theistic ones? I don't see that. My, perhaps idiosyncratic, understanding is that, in Taoism, the Tao comes before God or the gods, whichever you like.

I didn't understand your mathematical interpretation of ultimate reality the last time we discussed it and I don't understand it now.

Again, non-theistic. But is it atheist, in the contemporary sense? That's the question I want to pose.

Well, what would you say is the difference between a God and a god?

You see, even though we agree, you may not think so because words or names for you are static, while for me they are fluid. That is our difference. Whatever word you or i use makes no difference. I mean, even the Tao suggests that we see beyond the names of things down to their essence.

Each culture or religion contains a piece of the ultimate puzzle to some degree, and the art is in recognizing which pieces go together and how.

Natural axiarchism offers a way to avoid human-centred morality. The axiarchic creative principle seems nothing like human beings, and does not even care about their lives and values. And from the cosmic perspective, everything is the best.

I don't think we can avoid a human-centered morality, even if we avoid putting what is good for humans at the center. It is human beings who judge questions of morality.

I don't think we can avoid a human-centered morality, even if we avoid putting what is good for humans at the center. It is human beings who judge questions of morality.

Chuang Tzu:What I call good is not humankindness and responsible conduct, but just being good at what is done by your own intrinsic virtuosities. Goodness, as I understand it, certainly does not mean humankindness and responsible conduct! It is just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out. What I call sharp hearing is not hearkening to others, but rather hearkening to oneself, nothing more.

You see, even though we agree, you may not think so because words or names for you are static, while for me they are fluid. That is our difference. Whatever word you or i use makes no difference. I mean, even the Tao suggests that we see beyond the names of things down to their essence. — punos


I don't understand.

I don't see that there is an ultimate puzzle. Each understanding of ultimate reality stands on it's own. It can be interesting and enlightening to compare different religions and philosophies, but that doesn't mean something is missing.

Whether or not you capitalize "god" depends on whether you consider it a name or a description.

As I understand it, Taoism does avoid a human-centered morality.

Chuang Tzu:...just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out.

The original sense of term [virtuosity, De] is an efficacious power, in the nonmoral sense, "by virtue of" ...

Light is the left hand of darkness
and darkness the right hand of light.
Two are one, life and death, lying
together like lovers in kemmer,
like hands joined together,
like the end and the way.

As I understand it, Taoism does avoid a human-centered morality.

As I understand it, Taoism does avoid a human-centered morality.
— T Clark

I don't think that:

...just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out.
— Chuang Tzu

is a non-human centered morality, or, for that matter a morality at all.

Ziporyn's translation from The Essential Writings, chapter, 8 is slightly different. Instead of "the' inborn nature is has "your" inborn nature. It is "your own" virtuosity. According to the glossary:

The original sense of term [virtuosity, De] is an efficacious power, in the nonmoral sense, "by virtue of" ...

Words are imperfect tools for communication. True understanding comes from grasping the underlying concepts, not just the words used to describe them. Flexibility in interpreting language can lead to deeper comprehension. In essence, i am advocating for a more holistic approach to communication and understanding, one that prioritizes meaning over specific terminology.

There is only one ultimate reality, not a multiplicity of ultimate realities.

We have a difference in the significance of "God" with a capital 'G' and "god" with a lowercase 'g'. For me, the capital 'G' indicates the primordial source. The word "God" is not a name but a title, and the same applies to "god". Gods have names, just as the President of the United States has a name. "President" is not a name itself. God is not a name, but Jehovah is, and God is his title.

I suppose the ancient oriental philosophies & religions were originally Naturalist, in the sense that most aboriginal (uncivilized) societies lived like animals at the mercy of their natural environment : Animism.

The animal world is a world of pure being, a world of immediacy and immanence. The animal soul is like “water in water,” seamlessly connected to all that surrounds it, so that there is no sense of self or other, of time, of space, of being or not being. This utopian (to human sensibility, which has such alienating notions) Shangri-La or Eden actually isn’t that because it is characterized at all points by what we’d call violence. Animals, that is, eat and are eaten. For them killing and being killed is the norm; and there isn’t any meaning to such a thing, or anything that we would call fear; there’s no concept of killing or being killed. There’s only being, immediacy, “is-ness.” Animals don’t have any need for religion; they already are that, already transcend life and death, being and nonbeing, self and other, in their very living, which is utterly pure.

[In his book, A Theory of Religion] Georges Bataille sees human consciousness beginning with the making of the first tool, the first “thing” that isn’t a pure being, intrinsic in its value and inseparable from all of being[sup]1[/sup]. A tool is a separable, useful, intentionally made thing; it can be possessed, and it serves a purpose. It can be altered to suit that purpose. It is instrumental, defined by its use. The tool is the first instance of the “not-I,” and with its advent there is now the beginning of a world of objects, a “thing” world. Little by little out of this comes a way of thinking and acting within thingness (language), and then once this plane of thingness is established, more and more gets placed upon it—other objects, plants, animals, other people, one’s self, a world. Now there is self and other—and then, paradoxically, self becomes other to itself, alienated not only from the rest of the projected world of things, but from itself, which it must perceive as a thing, a possession. This constellation of an alienated self is a double-edged sword: seeing the self as a thing, the self can for the first time know itself and so find a closeness to itself; prior to this, there isn’t any self so there is nothing to be known or not known. But the creation of my 'me', though it gives me for the first time myself as a friend, also rips me out of the world and puts me out on a limb on my own. Interestingly, and quite logically, this development of human consciousness coincides with a deepening of the human relationship to the animal world, which opens up to the human mind now as a depth, a mystery. Humans are that depth, because humans are animals, know this and feel it to be so, and yet also not so; humans long for union with the animal world of immediacy, yet know they are separate from it. Also they are terrified of it, for to reenter that world would be a loss of the self; it would literally be the end of me as I know me.

In the midst of this essential human loneliness and perplexity, which is almost unbearable, religion appears. It intuits and imagines the ancient world of oneness, of which there is still a powerful primordial memory, and calls it The Sacred. This is the invisible world, world of spirit, world of the gods, or of God. It is inexorably opposed to, defined as the opposite of, the world of things, the profane world of the body, of instrumentality, a world of separation, the fallen world. Religion’s purpose then is to bring us back to the lost world of intimacy, and all its rites, rituals, and activities are created to this end. We want this, and need it, as sure as we need food and shelter; and yet it is also terrifying. All religions have known and been based squarely on this sense of terrible necessity.

Agnosticism of the Buddha

What is there to understanding a concept beyond understanding the words used to describe it? It seems to me that, in Taoism, conceptualizing something is the same as naming it, i.e. putting it into words.

I often say that there's only one world, so all the different philosophies and religions are describing the same thing in different words. I guess that means I agree with you.

But to greatly oversimplify, there is only one kind of thing - an apple - yet a multiplicity of ways to describe it. That doesn't mean there is something missing from our understanding of apples.

Each culture and tradition describes their experience of ultimate reality, but ultimate reality doesn't exist beyond those descriptions.

I agree with this:
Ziporyn argues that Daoism believes in no ultimate purpose, intention, principle, morality. — Joshs
However, some translations of the TTC appear to suggest that there is a goal, with aims. An example:

And what do you think that might be? ‘Buddha’, after all, means ‘knowing’ or 'one who knows' whereas ‘agnostic’ means ‘not knowing’. How would you reconcile that?

Perhaps Energy (causation), which is neither created nor destroyed, is the invisible God of Taoism. :smile:

Perhaps the way to Buddhahood is to know what you don't know.

Some concepts are very mercurial and appear one way in a certain context, yet differently in another, much like how different colors appear to change depending on the surrounding and framing the color. Have you ever thought or felt something you couldn't say or even name? That is what is most interesting to me.

Each appearance is given a name, but these names are just facets of one overarching concept. I think it is actually very simple, but the complexity arises from the cultural implications of the words we use. I believe everything of consequence can be expressed in one way or another, but it's not always easy. The correct approach, in my opinion, is to use words as containers of meaning that can be poured into other containers. Deep meaning must be triangulate with the assistance of other meanings to ascertain the ineffable. One will never be able to do it with a single word, just as you can't describe the universe with a single number. We should use all available perspectives to hone in on the source which has no name.

Hope you don't mind me chipping in on this point.

But there's another dimension to consider, and that is the sense in which deep spiritual or existential enquiry is necessarily first person. There are states of being, or states of understanding, which can only be realised in the first person. They can be conveyed to another, only in the event that the other has realised or has had access to insights of a similar nature. So that kind of insight is non-conceptual or non-discursive, so to speak - beyond words, which is the meaning of ineffable. But real, and highly significant, regardless.

It would appear that way, but certain concepts are too big for words, apparently. When something is too vast, pointing at it becomes ambiguous. Some concepts are very mercurial and appear one way in a certain context, yet differently in another, much like how different colors appear to change depending on the surrounding and framing colors. Have you ever thought or felt something you couldn't say or even name? That is what is most interesting to me.

Deep meaning must be triangulated with the assistance of other meanings to ascertain the ineffable.

I'm not sure what to say about this. I've already gone out on a limb a bit, being too definitive in rejecting your point of view. Maybe too rigid is a better way of saying it. It just sort of rubs me the wrong way, which I recognize is not much of an argument.

That is my understanding also. But it does not deny it, but offers the 'other hand'. The two work together.

Perhaps the way to Buddhahood is to know what you don't know. — Gnomon
Not something you're demonstrating in this thread :-)

"Since Axiarchism is new to me, I may have misunderstood its meaning. And my understanding of Taoism is superficial". Likewise, my knowledge of Buddhism is lacking in depth.

I will say something about the connection between Buddhism and agnosticism.

Typically, ignorance makes people less eager to give their opinions.

Most of those proffered thoughts may be based on familiarity with analogous concepts such as Taoism. But I have learned, from some of those erudite opinions, related ideas to fill-in the gaps in my ignorance of the "Ruling Values" of the Cosmos.