dust

I was going to stop and leave us to simply disagree on our ideas of neoteny and evolution, but... I want to be sure. Are you saying that our hair length is somehow a result of genetic experimentation? Our hair length has been allowed to increase, genetically, without danger, because over the centuries and millennia we've developed tools for cutting it. Any research into the relationship between cultural perception of hair length and sexual selection should reveal that it's not down to purposeful genetic modification of any sort. Unless we consider sexual selection purposeful modification. In my opinion, to put it simply, as humans evolved to appreciate particular aesthetic forms and the ability to manage our appearance by using tools, the more that one was able to do -- within reason -- to modify their appearance and thus both appear more physically attractive as well as demonstrate creativity/initiative/rejection of cultural norms/compliance with cultural norms/etc, the more desirable they would be to a potential partner. This is why there is a very long history of tattooing, piercing, scarification, stretching/lengthening, and other body modification. There's a wide record of tattooing in entirely separate cultures worldwide, for thousands of years. The Ainu in Japan, the more modern Japanese irezumi, various groups in what is now Burma, groups in China such as the Li, many Polynesian groups, Indian pachakutharathu, Persia, Indonesia, Egypt, various other African tribes, the Picts (aparently) in Scotland..... As well as for 'healing' and to signify status or adolescence or other things, much of this tattooing has been aesthetic. I'd argue... same with hair length/style.

I don't disagree...but my translation takes one character in particular from the Guodian that I believe is different: 服 replaced with 穫 / 获 Though it actually looks like the character in the GD has a left-hand 彳 component

Perhaps I need someone to teach me the practical stuff. I meditate, when the feeling strikes, and practice qigong, but it's quite likely I'm missing something. I don't know which translation of ZZ you read (assuming not the Chinese) but Burton Watson's translation is quite accessible. It's fast becoming my favourite book. This quote is from Lieh Tzu / Liezi, no? I feel like there should be a stage between adolescence and old age...

Appreciate your response. We've gotten somewhere. Not sure where, but not nowhere. I apologize for my tone, too. Feel like a got a bit more 'passionate' than was necessary. And I agree that there is an umbrella under which comes every aspect that can be seen as Taoist. However, I don't think that something that can be so broadly defined can actually be defined usefully, and then... what's the point in having a name for it? If Taoism, as a whole, incorporates each and every person's precise and very differing versions, and if (for the sake of argument) they range from pure philosophy to pure magic, then the only definition of Taoism we can give is "the beliefs of people who claim Taoism". Which is pretty circular, isn't it? On the other hand, if we make an attempt to delineate the major modes of belief within this broad range, people can much more easily understand where others are coming from. What are the beliefs? Where do they come from? Why? At the beginning of this little debate, MH claimed that Taoism is an atheistic philosophy. He should have said, perhaps, that his Taoism as discovered in the Laozi and Zhuangzi is an atheistic philosophy. Equally, though, he should have been allowed to claim that there is an atheistic Taoism distinct from the other stuff. In my opinion, he should be allowed to claim that there is a very distinct thing that is concerned with 'earthly' advice and the rejection of such concerns as immortality and morality and ritual. To me, as someone who's always found religion bizarre and has begun to find Western philosophy fairly unimpressive, the brilliant ideas in the Laozi and Zhuangzi mean they deserve to be recognized as a couple of the most important philosophical texts in human history -- because that is what they are. Now, when someone says that their version of Taoism has very little to do with these texts -- that, in fact, it's better not to have read them -- how do I know that this 'Taoism' is even remotely similar to the 'Taoism' that I enjoy? But yes.. perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree! No judgement from me, either. It might sound like I'm judging very harshly... I have no problem with anyone's beliefs (assuming they don't cause harm)

God god divine immortal Why do we have to talk about divine or godly anything? Why do we have to call ourselves gods? Why do we have to change the definition of "immortal" if not to make ourselves feel better about the fact that we're not? These questions are not directly related to Tao. But they are directly related to my perspective and my personal understanding of Tao. If it bugs some of you that we deny that the major Taoist texts advocate any position regarding gods and divinity and immortality, and that we go so far as to say that our personal view of Taoism in fact has no room for gods at all, can you not see that it might bug us when you claim that Taoism is necessarily a grand divine mystical system involving magic and immortals and deities?

Regardless of whether or not there are gods, or we believe in them...I was pretty sure the direction this thread took was that of you guys telling MH that Taoism necessarily includes gods. It doesn't. There can be more than one thing named Taoism. The one that I know is entirely irreligious. The Taoism that is an atheistic philosophy is an atheistic philosophy. The fruit that is a red banana is a red banana. You might not have seen it / experienced it, you might not like how it tastes, but it exists. The Taoism that I study / follow is atheistic. I beg for an example.. There is religious Taoism. Ask a religious Taoist. There is shamanistic Taoism -- ask Flowing Hands... to say that it's all based on personal preference/belief is, it seems to me, unnecessary. Everything we do is based on personal preference or belief. And some choose a philosophical Taoism, and some a religious one, and everyone is on a wide spectrum of belief, guided, for the most part, initially by the Laozi and Zhuangzi. Which do not advocate religion.

In answer to the OP: No. I suppose there's the possibility of our species evolving into a more peaceful one, but that's a long, long way off, if it's even remotely likely. Unless genetic modification comes into the equation. As well as being inherently compassionate, thoughtful, and perceptive, we humans are inherently selfish, violent, and arrogant. All at the same time.

I don't really understand what you mean by "extreme normalness". What do you mean by normality? Yes, there are different understandings of immortality... it's my understanding that some people believe their physical/spiritual form might live forever.. it's also my understanding that LZ and ZZ (for all his talk of men who could suck the wind and drink the dew and ride flying dragons -- allegory, not reality) did not believe in this kind of spiritual/physical immortality, but the endless existence that one becomes aware of being a part of when one is enlightened (essentially)....

It all depends on what one chooses to believe. So it's not worth arguing, really. But I'm argumentative, so... I'm curious to know what encouragement or suggestions to worship, prayer, obedience, belief in deities, desire for immortality, ability to become immortal, etc people can find in the Laozi or Zhuangzi I'm aware that the Taoist canon is far larger than these 2 texts, but these 2 texts form the basis for what I would also call philosophical Taoism, and they are my only real concern..

Thank you! And thanks to CD's response we don't have to, in this case at least No more than anyone else does...online or in the 'real world'. Heh Well I've been reading it again recently, Watson's translation mostly, and this time reading the Chinese of the sections I particularly enjoy, and I have to say that the more I read the more it becomes the best thing I've ever read. Not to be too down on Legge again, but part of the problem with his translations it that he makes sentences over-long and complicated, and adds in words and ideas that aren't there. By the time I've finished a paragraph, I can't remember exactly what the beginning was about. I think that dissuaded me from falling in love with the Zhuangzi years ago when I first stumbled across it in the library. Watson's done a much better job of keeping it readable, if not necessarily always 100% accurate.

I'm surprised this didn't get more discussion. I'm surprised the whole damn book hasn't had pages of discussions... but hey. Once I'm done with the Laozi I'll get around to translating ZZ too Anyway, I think the versions I'm reading (Watson and Legge) have both mistranslated a bit, and wondered what others think. 天選子之形，子以堅白鳴 Heaven selected for you the bodily form (of a man), and you babble about what is strong and what is white. (Legge) Heaven picked out a body for you and you use it to gibber about `hard' and `white' (Watson) Babble about hard and white? Does this mean anything? Would "persist in vain babble/gibber" not make more sense? 堅 -- strong/persist 白 -- white/vain/empty 鳴 -- sound/cry Well, one problem is that 白 might not have come to mean 'vain' or 'empty' until later than ZZ... but I don't know.. Any helpers? Other ideas?

Interesting! Well, I didn't think I was the first one to make this deduction, but I didn't know who else had. Economy, frugality, etc are OK, they are not far off what I'm saying, but they haven't quite gotten the point: that many of these chapters are directly applicable instructions for governing a country. As far as the Guodian (which is what I was translating), the first character, 紿, which Moss Roberts says means "store", is used in 64 為之於丌亡又也 Act when something doesn’t exist yet, 紿之於丌未亂 Control it before it turns to disorder; and I think it pretty surely means "control" here.. though "provide" could make sense I should have noted: I think that the "mother of the realm" would refer to food. The land, the crop, the sustenance that people need...if one controls this, one controls all, no?

TT has inspired me to look beyond simple fuzzy words and phrases. So many nonsense translations of 早服 it's unbelievable. return before straying - Wu giving up one's own ideas - Feng responding quickly - Addiss early submit - Henricks Well..none of them make much sense. It seems fairly simple. If we translate se 嗇 in its original meaning -- storing rice, rather than frugality -- everything else follows quite nicely.. 紿人事天莫若嗇 In governing people there is nothing as good as storing rice; 夫唯嗇是以早穫 Storing rice is managed with a timely harvest; 早服是胃重積惪 A timely harvest is called the virtue of a heavy crop; 重積惪則亡不克 The virtue of a heavy crop is undefeatable; 亡不克則莫智丌恒 Being undefeatable, none knows its extent; 莫智丌恒可以又域 None knowing its extent, one can have the realm; 又域之母可以長舊 Having the mother of the realm, one can last long; 是胃深槿固氐 This is called the Way of having deep roots, a solid foundation, 長生舊見之道也 Long life, and lasting vision

"Everything has its "that," everything has its "this." From the point of view of "that" you cannot see it, but through understanding you can know it. So I say, "that" comes out of "this" and "this" depends on "that" - which is to say that "this" and "that" give birth to each other. But where there is birth there must be death; where there is death there must be birth. Where there is acceptability there must be unacceptability; where there is unacceptability there must be acceptability. Where there is recognition of right there must be recognition of wrong; where there is recognition of wrong there must be recognition of right. Therefore the sage does not proceed in such a way, but illuminates all in the light of Heaven. He too recognizes a "this," but a "this" which is also "that," a "that" which is also "this." His "that" has both a right and a wrong in it; his "this" too has both a right and a wrong in it. So, in fact, does he still have a "this" and "that"? Or does he in fact no longer have a "this" and "that"? A state in which "this" and "that" no longer find their opposites is called the hinge of the Way. When the hinge is fitted into the socket, it can respond endlessly. Its right then is a single endlessness and its wrong too is a single endlessness. So, I say, the best thing to use is clarity." Clear enough?

I agree with you both But I don't think Laozi meant 'womb' But I can't be sure

But doesn't that mean that we can give any name we like to it? It'll still be what it is.. or still be what it isn't..or won't still be what it wasn't...or...

Nieh Ch'ueh asked Wang Ni, "Do you know what all things agree in calling right?" "How would I know that?" said Wang Ni. "Do you know that you don't know it?" "How would I know that?" "Then do things know nothing?" "How would I know that? However, suppose I try saying something. What way do I have of knowing that if I say I know something I don't really not know it? Or what way do I have of knowing that if I say I don't know something I don't really in fact know it? Now let me ask you some questions. If a man sleeps in a damp place, his back aches and he ends up half paralyzed, but is this true of an eel? If he lives in a tree, he is terrified and shakes with fright, but is this true of a monkey? Of these three creatures, then, which one knows the proper place to live? Men eat the flesh of grass-fed and grain-fed animals, deer eat grass, centipedes find snakes tasty, and hawks and falcons relish mice. Of these four, which knows how food ought to taste? Monkeys pair with monkeys, deer go out with deer, and fish play around with fish. Men claim that Mao-ch'iang and Lady Li were beautiful, but if fish saw them they would dive to the bottom of the stream, if birds saw them they would fly away, and if deer saw them they would break into a run. Of these four, which knows how to fix the standard of beauty for the world? The way I see it, the rules of benevolence and righteousness and the paths of right and wrong are all hopelessly snarled and jumbled. How could I know anything about such discriminations?" I think in future posts it might be enough to simply find a Zhuangzi quote to respond with. Less thought and typing involved. Have to memorize the Zhuangzi though.

Well smack my ass and call me Judy... that's incredible!

So many responses to that...but here's not the place Well, you're more laudatory and elated than me...not sure it can be quite so simple..

Well, for the purpose of this post, I'll go ahead and assume that it was indeed sarcasm... After all the potential misunderstandings and garbles etc that we've covered, including all the pieces in your earlier post, many of which require fairly large leaps of faith to resolve, why should it not be as simple as one 'wrong' character? Not necessarily even a wrong character -- maybe the correct character written at the wrong period in history... As for me...I think perhaps it's a combination. The Gushen refers to the Tao, but there's still the hint of a possibility of gu being yu. Pin 牝 can also mean gorge (i.e. valley). "Root" or origin also appears as 根 and potentially as 玄 and even 堇 [勤] An orgy of double/triple meanings with references to sex, femininity, immortality (the absurdity of), and of course Tao..

Ascribe it to the simplicity I've been cultivating, perhaps, but I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not...

because it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBDVarvFqYI

Guodian 30 不谷以兵强於天下 Are without desire to wage war 57 我谷不谷而民自樸 I desire no desire and the people simplify themselves 46 咎莫僉唬谷㝵 No fault is more common than greed The GD author, at least, very certainly used 谷 as desire I had 綿綿 as "continuous" -- where does 'guard' come from? But gorge represents the female, doesn't it? The receiving 玄 means dark, black, profound. I found no other meanings previously, so have always translated along these lines. I'm open to the idea that it might mean 'origin' 勤 means hard-working, industrious, constant -- an opposite of this could easily be not-hard-working, not-constant, right?

What a conversation! I'd like to butt in. Clear a couple of things up definition-wise. Evolution means development. Usually from more simple to more complex, but this is not necessarily the case: in the case of the evolution of life, evolution simply refers to the change of genetic characteristics over time (in response to environmental factors, generally). There is no 'opposite' to the evolution of life, because by definition it can only go one way. It's a process. Like frying an egg: there's no 'opposite' to frying an egg; one can't unfry an egg (without resorting to extreme measures!), one can only continue the process (eat the egg; throw it away; whatever). Neoteny is simply a name we've got for a curious way we've identified by which life evolves. We might retain certain juvenile characteristics, and we might develop new characteristics; any traits that survive are an adaptation. If we started to develop gills and flippers, we wouldn't be devolving or "evolving back" into fish, but evolving characteristics similar to those of fish. The idea that evolution is "progress" or "advancement" is nonsense. There is no progress. "Advancement" is a very human concept designed by us to make ourselves believe that the silly things we do are 'good'. In evolutionary terms, there is only survival. All this to say: the argument's a bit pointless, seems to me. Pretty much everyone agrees that life develops over time; this is evolution, as opposed to life having always existed in the state it exists (which is clearly absurd). What one believes we have inherited and not inherited from tortoises or chimps or the missing link is entirely up for debate, and I'd urge y'all to see that it's not worth insulting each other over.

Shit ain't changed much...except that hip-hop was better 20 years ago