Geof Nanto

For me this is not a good illustration of Daoist wu wei. It's more a Confucian interpretation of wu wei in that it's about harmony within existing human society. Daoist wu wei is about harmony with the Dao and that may or may not coincide with any given societal organisation.

I looked up Fermat's principle on Wikipedia but it doesn't speak to me in the special way it obviously does for you. I understand your frustration though that other people don't also find it especially insightful. I suspect such experience is a deeply personal affair in that it involves mysterious resonances within our psyche. I feel the same way about Niklas Luhmann's social systems theory, but no one I know shares my delight in his work. However I certainly agree with you that wu wei is an observation of one of the fundamental principles of nature in action (I've deliberately removed 'merely' because to my mind there's nothing 'merely' about that), and that "To understand how we reflect that principle in our own behavior, we should look not to tomes of men but to the heavens & the earth." Or perhaps simply to a flower.... "Among adherents of Zen, the origin of Zen Buddhism is ascribed to a story, known in English as the Flower Sermon, in which Śākyamuni Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) transmits direct prajñā (wisdom) to the disciple Mahākāśyapa. In the original Sino-Japanese, the story is called nengemishō (拈花微笑, literally "pick up flower, subtle smile"). In the story, Śākyamuni gives a wordless sermon to his disciples (sangha) by holding up a white flower. No one in the audience understands the Flower Sermon except Mahākāśyapa, who smiles. Within Zen, the Flower Sermon communicates the ineffable nature of tathātā (suchness) and Mahākāśyapa's smile signifies the direct transmission of wisdom without words." (from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_Sermon)

No way is the Way! “Oddly enough the paradox is one of our most valuable spiritual possessions, while uniformity of meaning is a sign of weakness. Hence a religion becomes inwardly impoverished when it loses or waters down its paradoxes; but their multiplication enriches because only the paradox comes anywhere near comprehending the fullness of life. Non-ambiguity and non-contradiction are one-sided and thus unsuitable to express the incomprehensible.” Carl Jung "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." F. Scott Fitzgerald

It’s been said many times before, but worth repeating….. Life is the best practice, nature is the best teacher, and if you’re not making mistakes you’re not learning. It’s through full immersion in the complexities of real life that principles such as wu wei and ziran slowly transform themselves from intellectual concepts and grow into lived reality arising from the depths of one’s being. Otherwise these teachings risk degeneration into yet another form of behavioural control based on externally derived principles. For me that means following my desires and learning from the consequences. I relate to Jung when he says "A man who has not passed through the inferno of his passions has never overcome them. They then dwell in the house next door, and at any moment a flame may dart out and set fire to his own house. Whenever we give up, leave behind, and forget too much, there is always the danger that the things we have neglected will return with added force."

From Po Chu-I (written around 810 AD) ON MY DAUGHTER'S FIRST BIRTHDAY Finally, after almost forty years of life, I have a girl. We named her Golden-Bells, and it's been a year since she was born. Saying nothing, she studies sitting now, but it seems I'm no sage-master at heart. I can't get free of this trifling affection: I know it's only a tangle of appearance, but however empty, it's bliss to see her. I'll worry about her dying. Spared that, I'll worry about finding a good husband. All those plans to find a mountain home: I guess they'll wait another fifteen years. IN SICKNESS, MOURNING GOLDEN-BELLS What can I do? So sick, and your life cut so short pitching me into such grief: it startles me from sleep. I get up and try lamplight for comfort against these tears, but a daughter's an absolute tangle of love, and without a son the sorrow's inescapable. After three full years of nurture and care, a sickness barely lasting ten quick days: such things tear at the heart long after tears follow the last cries of grief away. Little robes still hung on dressing-racks, the useless medicines there at your pillow, we send you off in this deep village lane, then watch earth fill your tiny grave over. Don't say you're hardly a mile away here: this is farewell to the very ends of heaven. (Translated by David Hinton)

Lindsay Wei has written an excellent account of her life at The Five Immortals Temple. I found it a fascinating book for her emotional honesty as well her descriptions of Daoist practice in contemporary China...... "A young woman, Lindsey Wei, graduates from high school in America and sets out to find her roots in China, questing for who she is and where her life path belongs. She discovers in herself a skill for martial arts and seeks the hidden knowledge of meditation. After three years of study in various martial styles and unveiling false teachers, she is finally led to the ancient Wudang Mountains. Here she meets a Daoist recluse, Li Shi Fu, who has renounced the world of the 'red dust' and long since retired into an isolated temple to cast oracles and read the stars. The coming together of these two extraordinary characters, master and disciple, begins a spiritual relationship taking the young adept on an unforgettable journey through the light and dark sides of modern China and deep into herself. Battling between earthly desires and heavenly knowledge, she makes the transformation into a dynamic and complete woman. A coming-of-age, personal account, the book describes the lived experiences of a profoundly sincere, bitter yet ultimately liberating female quest. It is written for anyone who ponders the true meaning of Chinese wisdom and the way of the Dao in the hope of discovering a deeper strength within themselves."

The Dao doesn't play favourites but it does 'favour' behaviours that are in harmony with the patterns of the Dao. If I was in the situation Rocco describes, I'd look for lessons too. The functioning of the Dao will always be ultimately mysterious for us humans.

What innate rights do we have? My answer is we have none. Rights are constructed by our societies and encoded into laws that are enforced by the state.

.

My thought for the day...... I know that in this world you've always got to show that you're a valid individual. All our lessons show us that, but I often feel exhausted forcing myself to be a match for that kind of ineptitude. I don't want to spend my time trapped in the intensity of engagement. I want to go on enjoying those slow inactive days, those completely empty afternoons, those evenings with nothing in prospect.

I started writing a reply to your post but realised my thoughts were far too complex to readily express. You raise important questions and I'd like to give a meaningful response that encompasses my experiences, if for no other reason than to clarify my own thinking. My path has been one of following my desires; that's how I've found myself to the (limited) extent I have. However, that statement requires many provisos. These Dao Bums discussions often tend to move faster than I'd like. I prefer slow and deep, but that doesn't work so well in a forum with so many competing voices and different perspectives. If I'm able to come up with something I deem worthwhile I'll post it here later.

Some words from Louis Komjathy about the foundational Daoist values and concerns of "non-action" (wuwei) and "suchness" (ziran)…… There is much confusion about these terms, especially when interpreted as justification for some kind of laissez faire ("anything goes") attitude, characterized by uninhibited personal fulfilment. Under this reading, wuwei and ziran contain implicit critiques of morality. However from a Daoist perspective, the terms are intricately related: the practice of wuwei leads to a state of ziran. Wuwei is effortless activity, the practice of not doing anything extra or unnecessary, we may think of it in terms of conservation and non-attachment. In certain social and environmental contexts, it may be understood as "non-intervention' and "non-interference," as letting be, as allowing space for existential freedom. Ziran (tzu-jan) is frequently translated as "self-so," "naturalness,” or "spontaneity." The latter two renderings are problematic if not interpreted contextually. Returning to or attaining the state of ziran, which is the Dao as such, presupposes four dimensions mentioned in Chapter 19 of the Daode jing: appearing plain, embracing simplicity, lessening personal interest, and decreasing desires. Ziran is not "going with the flow" in the sense of following one's own selfish desires. Rather, it refers to an ontological condition beyond the limitations of egoistic identity. Ziran is best understood as "suchness," or "being-so-of-itself,” to use a phrase from the German philosopher Martin Heidegger. It is simultaneously one's "natural" condition and the manifestation of the Dao through one's being. However, too often wuwei is misunderstood as apathy or atrophy, while ziran is misunderstood as the reproduction of habituation. Within the Daoist tradition, there is actually much discussion of and different perspectives on the relationship between "fate" (ontological givenness) and freedom, or the capacity for independent action and the possibility and desirability of "perfection." Wuwei involves allowing each being to unfold according to its own nature and connection with the Dao. It involves allowing space for ziran to appear. Applied to ethics, wuwei inspires one to stop doing everything that prevents one from being who one is and that inhibits other beings from expressing their innate condition with the Dao. Such a condition is characterized by virtue. For Daoists, it is possible to be "naturally ethical," but that entails a corresponding transcendence of social conditioning, familial obligations, and personal habituation. It involves understanding the sources of desire. A lack of attention to the condition of one's core goodness also frequently results in acceptance of what should be rejected and rejection of what should be accepted. (From The Daoist Tradition pp154-5)

Back on the subject of Daoist belief in any notion of karma....... Here's an extract from a well known poem by T'ao Ch'ien written around 400AD showing no hint of belief in either karma or rebirth. Although T'ao Ch'ien was primarily a Daoist in outlook, he also had close ties with some prominent Buddhists of his time. Young and old die the same death. When it comes, the difference between sage and fool vanishes. Drinking every day may help you forget, but won't it bring an early grave? And though good works may bring lasting joy, who will sing your praise? Listen - it's never ending analysis that wounds us. Why not circle away in the seasons, adrift on the Great Transformations, riding its vast swells without fear or delight? Once your time comes to an end, you end: not another moment lost to all those lonely worries.

Yes, there's a saying that the first casualty of war is truth. But as to Japan's surrender, there is plenty of research showing that the Japanese were actively seeking surrender many months before the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. For instance.... A Secret Memorandum It was only after the war that the American public learned about Japan's efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan, for example, was obliged by wartime censorship to withhold for seven months one of the most important stories of the war. In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials. (The complete text of Trohan's article is in the Winter 1985-86Journal, pp. 508-512.) This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included: Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries. Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction. Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan. Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war. Release of all prisoners of war and internees. Surrender of designated war criminals. Is this memorandum authentic? It was supposedly leaked to Trohan by Admiral William D. Leahy, presidential Chief of Staff. (See: M. Rothbard in A. Goddard, ed., Harry Elmer Barnes: Learned Crusader [1968], pp. 327f.) Historian Harry Elmer Barnes has related (in "Hiroshima: Assault on a Beaten Foe," National Review, May 10, 1958): The authenticity of the Trohan article was never challenged by the White House or the State Department, and for very good reason. After General MacArthur returned from Korea in 1951, his neighbor in the Waldorf Towers, former President Herbert Hoover, took the Trohan article to General MacArthur and the latter confirmed its accuracy in every detail and without qualification. (from http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html )

As systems theory has gained a small toehold in this at times acrimonious debate, here are some brief words on aspects of the social systems theory of Niklas Luhmann ….. It’s unfortunately that Luhmann’s work is little known in the US because his theory is probably the most powerful one out there right now for explaining how society works. Its radicalism is much needed. And why is that? Simply put, because the dominating ideologies currently available such as socialism and capitalism still operate with the humanist vocabulary of early modernity, with all its notions of freedom, rights, recognition, the other, justice—you name it. These concepts may sound appealing, but they are theoretically shallow—for instance, with respect to understanding the social phenomena connected with the recent financial crisis. It happened because of “greed”? Is this all that the Left can offer us as an explanation? We need a radical theory so that those protesting will begin to comprehend what it is that they are protesting against, and so that they may begin to drop their moralistic jargon (which they share with the Republicans, by the way). In his 1997 essay “Globalization or World Society? How to Conceive of Modern Society?” Luhmann already described the “new centrality of international financial markets; the corresponding marginalization of production, labour, and trade; and the transfer of economic security from real assets and first-rate debtors to speculation itself,” which created an economy focusing on “financial products” rather than goods and undermined traditional economic couplings with, for instance, infrastructure, means of production, or the legal system. Luhmann understood that the “volatility of the financial market with its new derivative instruments for simultaneously maximizing security and risk with unpredictable effects” had led to the following situation: “He who tries to maintain his property will lose his fortune, and he who tries to maintain and increase his wealth will have to change his investments one day to the next. He can either use new derivative instruments or trust some of the many funds that do this for him.” For Luhmann all this cannot be explained on the basis of the traditional vocabulary of “exploitation” or tackled with ethical appeals. What we need is a radical departure from seventeenth-, eighteenth-, and nineteenth-century thought, and the guts to look into the mirror without old wigs and fancy dresses that show us in all our assumed human dignity and moral beauty. Most disappointingly, in the course of the “Dialectics of Enlightenment,” the radical options that were once available, like Marxism and pure capitalism, have now become the opium of the bourgeoisie. Luhmann’s theory is “radical” in the sense that it provides an entirely new framework for understanding how global society operates on a basic level, how social complexity emerges, how we are immersed in a relentless matrix of communication that has swallowed us and that provides us with a variety of comfort and illusions. Marx had meticulously and coldly described how the capitalist mode of production had shaped a society of industrialist production of goods and, in line with that, a merciless dictatorship of money. Luhmann, equalling Marx in meticulousness and coldness, describes how, in “postindustrial” times, communication systems have taken over and allow for a rich variety of modes of “exchange,” in which any claim for human control or for “making a difference” that the Left hope for must seem absurd. If society actually evolves, and this is one of Luhmann’s most basic premises, then it cannot be steered. The main difference between evolutionism and creationism is that the latter believes in “intelligent design” and “guidance from above.” Evolutionism, however, does not. Unfortunately, the illusion of intelligent design and guidance from above still dominates “post-enlightenment” social theory, only in a secularized version. Once this was the job of God and His helpers on earth. Now the helpers claim that they can do the job alone. But this is not how the real world has ever operated. Perhaps we should finally liberate ourselves from the liberal premises that we can determine basically whatsoever on the basis of our “free will.” The free will and the free market are specters that still haunt contemporary society. To exorcise them, a little radicalism may be needed, and this will imply, as was the case with Marx, a radical departure from the values and ideas of bourgeois moralists, leading far beyond what is currently offered by Left-wing or Right-wing ideologies. We do not need to despair, however. Just as we survived the insights of not being at the center of the universe, of not being the crown of creation, and of not being the master of our unconscious drives and social constraints, we can also survive Luhmann’s sociological insult. The sociological insult finally liberates us from the illusion that we can, and therefore must, control society (or communication). It may be at first disappointing to let go of illusions of control and controllability, but it can turn out to be a relief. In a surprising turn, Luhmann offers us a new form of radical theory that shares some commonality with classical Daoism and thus enables us to find a degree of personal tranquility in the midst of the follies and the frenzy of a globalized world. (Modified version of Hans-Georg Moeller’s post at……….http://www.cupblog.org/?p=4880 )

Thanks for that Ralis. I couldn't have framed a better reply myself. A grounding in systems theory certainly opens a whole new perspective on discussions such as this one. It pleases me greatly to know someone else on this forum is conversant with this radically different paradigm.

I like the Daoist perspective of cultivation of de "in ourselves, in our families and in our communities". (However I also accept and appreciate that there is much diversity in our individual needs and actions. The path of classical Daoism is not for everyone.) Along similar lines, this contribution from David Cooper's Convergence with Nature: A Daoist Perspective works very well when applied to any sort of political activism..... It is because self-cultivation is not focused on the 'inner' rather than the 'outer' that it requires an appropriate attunement and comportment towards the natural world. Engagements with nature......help to secure the moral space – the arena in which to develop virtue – which Daoists hope to occupy. This is why the metaphor of Daoists as gardeners of the world – as cultivators of personal landscapes – is an apt one. While Daoists engage with natural environments, their engagement is also a retreat – not from an 'outer' to an 'inner' world, but from a frenzied world of activity and ambition to a quieter haven. From this haven, they have no illusions about 'saving the planet'. Like one distinguished nature writer, they eschew "plans for reorganisation and reconstruction". But, also like him, they will want "to reduce somewhat the level of suffering where they encounter it" and, more generally, to serve in small, local and undramatic ways to protect and enhance the natural environments with which they engage. In doing so, they live naturally or spontaneously, for their actions are not dictated by principles and plans, but are mindful and pliant responses to the situations and contexts they encounter. Daoists, then, are unlikely to be found among `eco-warriors', but they will be found tending gardens, feeding birds in winter, protecting local wildlife from clumsy combine harvesters, opposing plans for a factory farm near their villages, and encouraging their neighbours to appreciate the useful uselessness of a threatened grove of trees. If this sounds insufficiently radical, one should recall that it is a way of living that is achieved only through a deep transformation of the self.

Yes, that's how complex systems evolve. It's slow but thorough, and the outcomes will never be determined by human will. That's reality. Your idea of 'pure capitalism' is just another conceptual framing based on a partial and imaginary model of reality.

OECD Data http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/gov_glance-2011-en/03/04/giii-4-01.html?itemId=/content/chapter/gov_glance-2011-10-en&_csp_=068e923eb1ecbbc65ba8f85d03f6f60d

Every modern economy is a mixture of socialist and capitalist policies. That's the path that's been found by trial and error to work best. The chart below shows government expenditure as a percentage of GDP. As can be seen 'capitalist' US and 'socialist' Europe are not very far apart.

Small government, limited government, unobtrusive government, and noninvasive government could be labelled Daoism as per the Daodejing.

I'm certainly not one who would shout you down for this observation. However the question is far too complex and multifaceted for me to offer any pertinent observation other than I personally believe in the importance of taking responsibility for my actions. That's how I learn.

I think he meant totalitarianism not fascism. "Totalitarianism is a political system in which the state holds total control over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible."

Yeah, I've read Wallace's book. It's much more than tittle-tattle. I was a great fan of Castaneda’s when I was younger. I've read all his books. His stories came to me just when I needed them, but now his world of the sorcerer doesn't appeal to me at all. Perhaps it's a topic for it's own thread? However, I don't personally feel any need to comment in depth on these 'gurus'. I don't see them in terms of good or evil, rather I see them as powerful personifications of aspects of our human psyche.

Yes, it seems Carlos followed the same downward trajectory of many popular 'gurus'; from genuine seeker of truth to delusional tyrant. In Sorceror's Apprentice: My Life with Carlos Castaneda Amy Wallace recounts her experiences with him and his inner group..... "Sorcerer's Apprentice "unblinkingly reveals the inner workings of the "Cult of Carlos," run by a charismatic authoritarian in his sixties who controlled his young female followers through emotional abuse, mind games, bizarre rituals, dubious teachings, and sexual excess. Wallace's story is both specific and universal, a captivating cautionary tale about the dangers of giving up one's power to a tyrant-and about surviving assaults on body and spirit.