Stosh

Mongol General: Wrong! Conan! What is best in life? Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women . Obviously Conan is taking an entirely subjective stance on what is good and it contrasts with the evil that his enemies would see in such an event. I think is ubiquitous for folks to have some sort of conceptry regarding good and evil , so it falls into the category of natural , or human nature or normal, objectively speaking. That doesnt change the subjective aspect of determining what is going to be the contents of that category for each individual,, Nor does it guarantee that societies will always come to the same exact collective assessments of what constitutes good or evil. In the end the collective assessment becomes law or common morality , and the subjective assessment remains with the individual to deal with. A person can naturally-innately be (or behave), that which you subjectively deem evil.They can still have human virtues of brain and language and body ,(exemplify the human condition in their own way) and for all that, can still be warped into a barely recognizable hostile destructive nutcase. I see no paradox there because the human condition is very flexible when it comes to behavior. Stosh

.

Et , you said "having personal freedoms - can benefit the individual and the society if the individual chooses wisely." Agreed , no problem, (emphasizing in both our statements the word CAN and assuming the society has a situation amenable to them. Freedom of speech in a dictatorship is a problem while here in the states its considered our virtuous right.) "Your definition of The virtue for humans requires reconsideration. The virtue for humans resides in enriching the society, the spaces, and the developments by being present. From what I understand Wu wei basically tells to do what needs be done" which may be to do nothing... I do get your point but I see the sentiment as virtue residing in 'what one does for or does not do to others' shifting the seat of virtue away from the individual and it exemplifies the collectivized subjective opinion which I am calling goodness rather than virtue (which is why I spent so much time defining the meaning of my wording.. I was in essence asking you to drop your own definitions temporarily so you could see where I was coming from,, if It works out that you just plain disagree ,,thats fine ,, Im grateful you took the time to read it through and respond anyway.) "on a side note I have a situation where some authority is saying what isn't is rather than accepting their error and correcting it - they maintain what is not to be what is. Most everyone tells me to let it go ( get along with society without creating issues) I claim that will only perpetuate the error and we need better ways to refine society. What I find most appalling is the underlying lesson being cultivated... don't dare question me, I will not hear any of what you have to say... you are creating issues be gone... " I have seen enough of that to know exactly where you are coming from ..whether you choose to hold on and fight for the untruth to be corrected or whether you take the easier route (which is just to let the untruth stand) Is a spiritual choice. It would make a thread of its own. I fight sometimes, and then sometimes I see that it isnt going to get fixed, and let it go. ..since its Ok to sometimes let the truth take care of itself . You dont have to accept the weight of the whole world all on your own shoulders all by yourself. Each has a responsibilty to themselves ,to verify for themselves ,the stuff they hear, before accepting it , and if they neglect that responsibility , they will deal with any consequences that arise. Stosh

Re existentialism...vs wu wei Im sure youve noticed that the subjective adjectives of good and bad dont really fit with the phillosphy of Tao. Instead, the conceptry revolves around virtue, describing what exemplifies it, behaviors that maximize it, and where it comes from..etc. Bear with me a minute here... The difference between virtue and goodness is that goodness is delineated by the bias of the observer. For instance ,,The sandwich is 'good' if I like it and 'bad' if it makes me puke. The problematic aspect of this attitude is that someone else may like the sandwich that makes me puke, which renders its goodness to be entirely subjective. Collectively there may be consensus about many things and then you get a collective opinion about what is 'good', but there is a problem with the collectivized opinion of goodness as well, and that revolves around 'what is good for an individual is often contrary to the collective good of a group'. An example would be stealing property (or having personal freedoms). It-they would benefit the individual but the society at large can suffer. Defining virtue well , allows a less subjective interpretation of what behaviors are beneficial and what are a problem,( but a stubborn dualist can still render virtue back into a synonym for good, just like a stubborn theist can equate Tao with God if they want)Anyway... Lets say you need to cut down a tree, you want an axe that stays fairly sharp but you dont want one that is brittle and breaks. You want that axe to have a functional axe shape with a handle etc...so the axe that has axe virtue conforms to the expectations one has for an axe, and it will serviceably cut down the tree. An axe that is a rusty blob of metal with no handle..doesnt have axe virtue, its just not up for subjective debate whether it is 'good' or not. A person could approve of the blob all they want but it just isnt going to be as effective at cutting down the tree as the axe with axe virtue.The point here is.. (The virtue is self fulfilling whereas the goodness is subjective judgement) Taking this to the next level , what is virtue for humans? Well 1)they should be able to get along with society without creating issues ,and ,2) they should function to their own welfare as well. Re:1) (Things that allow us to function harmoniously with others...) are things like ... minding ones own business (let nature take its course) performing the tasks that falls to one accepting the group dynamic allowing others to grow and succeed (do no harm) You can go on and on inserting your favorites but.. This general pattern is what I think of as wu wei (as its generally considered to be meant by others) Re: 2) your own welfare this is more subjective, but as general policy.. you want to be healthy and happy and free to pursue your own goals and being able to do your stuff, living up to ones internal drives as a human is what I consider TzuJan or ZiRan as regards humans. Understand please (I am not at all concerned about the Chinese wording Im just talking concepts here) Wu-wei suggsets virtue lies in letting other things be what they will be,and you as the individual reap benefits of not being in conflict with stuff around you , extending the respect one extends to others back on onesself (and gaining personal peace, giving yourself a break from your own ambitions or dissatisfactions.) Ziran on the other hand suggests virtue lies in a thing being that which it is , and being allowed to "march to its own drums" The indirect benefits go to the stuff around you (or it)and one extends the same respect that one has for self to others. ( being able to express ones personal nature also can help one be at peace! Have a zinfandel for instance) These two concepts ( which I will be happy to rename some other time if its required,,) have much in common, they can work very similarly or they can be employed in tandem.,,But as It was described to me, the source of virtue , the place where virtue originally resides is in two different sources and/or flows in opposite directions for each of the two concepts. Cd describes wu wei as letting nature take its course ,and he says Lao-tzu was primarily concerned with avoiding negatives rather than promoting positives. That may be true enough ,I do hate the terminology he favors , but I understand his thought process in this regard enough ,that "I GET " his stance on it. It was Marbleheads mention of TzuJan which I googled for definition , I came across Wangs description of it. What that did was answer for me the big problem I had with wu wei as translated. Wu wei basically tells you to retreat , that everything else has value in its "being" , just not the one who is aiming at being virtuous! How could a wise man tell me that virtue for me, was to go around trying not to influence anything! That good rulers would do nothing at all to run their province! also,, How could I reconcile what all the Tao bums were saying about defending themselves with 'letting everything happen around oneself?' not interfering , not putting ones personal will into the equation? WHEN.. They ALL felt that there was virtue in defending themselves, feeding their family, and acting in various ways to promote things they felt had virtue ,such as rescuing bears, intervening between hostiles on a train , teaching their own world views, eating other living things, Doing their Jobs. Yes, they made arguments about why they thought these things were permissible, why they thought exemptions were valid..but wu wei by itself ,, to me, doesnt say why these exemptions should be. Thats why I see it as essential to recognize the source of virtue that lies in oneself and in other things just by 'virtue' of the innate character of the thing or person being that which it is. Such as the useless tree having virtue simply by extending its shade. Or the butcher who has virtue just by doing his job.Or the homeless dude still having virtue solely because he is still a human being. Either all things have virtue innate, or no one can have virtue (because there would be nothing virtuous in allowing all those non virtuous things to continue!) I cannot read the Chinese ,and all the translations to english that I have seen are FULLY translated to english, so terms like wu wei and tzu jan etc just dont show up! They arent english terms! The translations attempted to convey sentiments or connotations of the terms ,and so it is from this angle that I approach the subject, I dont consider it to be much of a hindrance to understanding the sentiments or connotations, but I admit there is difficulty in conveying my summations back into terms that Chinese-familiar folks regularly use.. so I am open to better terminology, maybe wei wu wei includes my point on the source of virtue ,I DONT KNOW..yet I consider the logic of the position to be solidly grounded ,because its just not about the terminology , its about needing to extend the source of virtue to include the "Innateness" of it or one would be rendered a zort of zombie, without personal meaning in the objective universe, no role to play, no validity. I think that would be a horrible perspective, destructive, self defeating, and I refuse it totally. And thats where I feel one can marry existentiallism to the Ziran-wu wei conceptry, that is, in the aspect of personal worth personal self fulfillment and meaning. Stosh

As I am seeing it the difference is similar to the taijii One aspect is self assertive the other is self restraining Together they make a workable whole. Stosh

WW and Tj go together like peanut butter and jelly But I wouldve rather you leap in on the existentialism Q After all your posts and silent speculations here on Tb I figure you might have sound speculation to add. Stosh

Great question Zero ! Wu wei by itself in my opinion going by the popular definitions of both terms Is pretty much at odds with existentialism But when I go by my own understanding and couple the wu wei with its counterpart Tzu jan , the two views arent incompatible. I hope someone else answers that Q as well. Stosh

Sure he couldve done that , told everyone to "take a hike" he just thought the repercussions of doing that were worse than ( his estimations of) taking the path he took. Should one be walled in by societal rules ? Thats a really tough question. I think the Classical ones suggest that voluntarily instituted social rules are permissible and for the benefit of all ,and That they should be implemented impartially to the president and non-president alike. I personally figure that the system we have here is exactly the controlled chaos That Chuang Tzu championed. Since it relies on the common nature of all our citizens to provide a sort of voluntary order combined with freedom to pursue ones own wellbeing. (fits wu wei and TzuJan nicely) There are societal paradigms here which I agree are not wise , that I would rather see gone. But it makes sense for me to accept what the situation is right now , refrain from excessive resentment or judgement about the faults , and live with the consequences of my own choices. Our opinions do not seem very far apart on this You arent Idiotic at all, you should drop that tag line ,its not true. IMHO Stosh

Though I am not sure how you mean that post.. I cant see anything in there I dont consider a valid perspective. Have a nice evening Et Stosh Ps I think we are on the same page for that second post as well , but I would volunteer that although the tendency is to distrust all a man does for the failures in some areas, If you look at the actual resultant record of the results of his leadership .. they werent bad years. Vlad the Impaler has a really bad reputation now adays , but back "in the day" he was a very effective leader and loved by his people -or so I read.

Ill try to take your advice Steve But it may just be that my conditioning is too deeply ground in and the anchor is buried in mud. Ill look again. Stosh ( I like that moving target analogy too)

create stirring song cast a glittering pearl tide unmoved swells in

Mh , Im not sure whether it is or isnt directly a common Taoist concept Im just tossing out the idea that some of the concepts can be implied or indirect. for instance.. If one is going around doing harm , the likely long term reprecussions are likely negative, and therefore contraindicated whether or not anyone spelled it out in that particular way. In regards to this I think there is evidence that suggests that they suggested stuff like to "arrange circumstances so that the general populace will cooperate in their own self interest and according to their own inspirations." Not having to force folks into cooperation is harmonious , but arranging win win scenarios was the job of leaders , it requires understanding and sophistication. So stupidity was to be promulgated as a virtue for the masses and wisdom for the rulers. In todays day and age leadership is more democratized , sophistication and subtlety can be the tools of all in arranging harmonious relationships. If this wasnt the case , I suppose I could be more understanding of those promoting lack of all knowlege, as a virtue rather than lack of predispositions due to biased socialization. The much vaunted flexibility lies in having options , knowlege is power and provides options. To understand that the lessons were for particular classes of people ,, removes some of the contradictions. So as a general code of behavior I would say that the do no harm credo makes fairly good second teir reasoning. But thats just my personal opinion. (which may wind down since Im tired of hitting folks with sticks) Stosh

There were those that felt he betrayed his wife , that he lied under oath about it and that he disgraced the office , many of them wanted to find reasons to justify an attack they already had in mind. I liked and still like Bill Clinton , he had a pretty good presidency as far as it affected me,, and I dont give a darn about his sex life. But to most Americans , lies and betrayal , and literally perjury, are all offenses. Maybe such lies and betrayal arent offensive elsewhere, maybe in places,such is the norm. Stosh Its quite ironic I want to smash folks with a stick when they have stopped thinking!

I do hope you see all the contradictions in that post Et Stosh

Is staying on a path, which one has no reason to continue to believe is valid, an action of the wise or not. Stosh

Ive read and believe that it is the Tao which is that which does not change Therefore the rules which have never changed , never will , so casting doubt upon oneself about it would be contraindicated. ( unless you are talking about death , and neither you nor I really have a basis to make comment ) Stosh

XieJia Sorry , false premise there what one sees is part what one is experiencing via their senses and part the preconceptions one has what one reads is part what has been written , and part what one interprets Shredding all those concepts destroys both the present and the past would you choose to be free of both the present and the past ? would you free yourself of the tools you learned and earned? is a person free-er with tools as baggage or not? Do you not see all the threads before and aft folks aiming to learn , attempting to acquire skills and answers? Others posting, well intended , to share-dispense their own findings ? Actually , there is a lot of beauty to it Its human nature to try and extend out to others and the really crazy beautiful thing about it is that so many folks wish to GIVE away what they have earned-learned! Stosh

Yes, you just have to specify the perspective along with the truth. EX , Down ,is toward the center of the earth, when you are standing on the earth. If you are floating in outer space , there is no down per-se. Abstracts can also be true in that they are self fulfilling . EX: the number one is exactly 1 always and forever out to the farthest decimal point. There are others, the tao has a whole slew of absolutes normal folks call 'laws of nature'. And there are logical truisms like "the valley is only so low as the mountain is high" Dont allow the highly suggestible , and those prone to escapism , to undermine your faith in reality. Stosh

Steve, I dont disagree on most of the points youre making But I cant see how " being aware" , does anything more than add fuel. The coping mechanisms most folks seem to employ are walking away , changing the issue , turning the problem at hand into a joke dismissing the offender behind their back, confront ,etc .. basically Escape ,attack ,or accept. Of those, I figure acceptance is the wisest but there are things I just dont accept , I cant even get a grip on why it rubs me wrong, it just does! and even if I knew why , I am not sure it would make any difference at all. Ill give a fer-instance I get bent out of shape at folks who just refuse to level with me like,,, When they say they can turn invisible. I know they cant ! They know they cant ! Everybody else knows they cant ! But they just refuse to drop the ruse. Wei wu wei certainly doesnt seem to have any answers for that Let nature take its course ? Do nothing harmful to anybody? What the heck does that have to do with the price of rice in China? Stosh

One can visualize all sorts of things, one can shift perspective and see things differently , theres nothing wrong in that in and of itself , the problem is that in order to be functional one must choose a perspective that will actually work , one that informs rather than boggles. You put your pants on the same way I do , that is to say that you behave in a way that indicates you have the same expectations of gravity that I do.The figurative speech is fun but there is a point at which it is really just obfuscating a rational view of the world. there are folks that believe in turning invisible and levitating and all sorts of weirdness .I am just attempting to be the boring voice of rationality . Stosh

Im not sure I believe anybody is so independent as that ! Its possible I suppose , but I figure that to the extent one extends their heart to include another they become vulnerable. In the face of betrayal , divorce, cruelty ,death , I cant see it as virtuous to not be affected. Stosh But to be honest , I figure it is my reactions to other folks which is the biggest disturber of my peace and to not have that be so would be very nice. I know enough folks who claim they dont care about the opinions of other folks , but they give away the falsity of the claim in various ways later. If youve got the solution , its worth a mint!

The words arent reading me , since I wouldnt have said they were. No the opposite of truth isnt an equal truth, saying 'up is down is wordplay' , it doesnt enable effective behavior, since the innate traits of materials and forces are not subject to your personal perspective. Stosh

They are concepts born of our human nature and the relationship that exists between us and everything else Just because they are concepts ,doesnt mean they are contraindicated, if that is the implication.. The eternal Tao has no concepts and has no bias but thats not you or me or Marblehead or Et. As a baby grows its crucial that they be enabled by learning concepts. Its just wise to reexamine them at some point, and determine whether they -such as they are- are working for our welfare or if they are self defeating. That they are not set in stone... allows flexibility , it doesnt mean ,,as some pretend,, that you or I would be better off as somekind of unthinking animal. Maybe you agree. Stosh

This Hellish-heaven is probably a place where no one gets to have any vices Stosh