Does Taoism presuppose a political viewpoint?

[Encephalon]

I was a critical thinking junkie as an undergrad years ago up at Sonoma State University -

http://www.criticalthinking.org/

 

I volunteered at these conferences every summer in order to get in for free. One particularly informative session was "Does critical thinking presuppose a political viewpoint?" If you laid out the political spectrum from end to end, could you plot critical thinking on one spot or another, on many spots...? The most approximate conclusion we could make is that critical thinking is inherently subversive to hierarchical, authoritarian power systems. This did not fly well among those who were inclined to sit on "the right side of the aisle," or subscribe to a top-down moral order.

 

I have inadvertantly raised this potentially ugly subject by posting a link that impugns those who are politically or socially opposed to a single-payer health care system in America, modelled on those that exist throughout Europe and other industrial countries. A good question to ask is "Why did I post this in a forum for Taoism?" But since my interests in Taoism include health care, I thought nothing of it. Most of my understanding of Taoist philosphy comes from the writings of of deng MIng-Dao, especially "Scholar/Warrior" and "365 Tao." Taoism resonates with me because I recognize critical thinking and anti-authoritarianism within Taoism. But my degree is in geography, not Chinese philosophy.

 

What'ya think?

[Martial Development]

"If you're not with us, you're against us."

 

Are Taoists "with us"?

 

No.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Martial Development

[Encephalon]

"If you're not with us, you're against us."

 

Are Taoists "with us"?

 

No.

 

Could you elaborate?

[agharta]

I think that Taoism presupposes 2 things about politics

 

1. Flexibility in finding solutions is helpful (or, "The Tao is utterly open")

 

2. Extremist ideologies are unhelpful

 

but I haven't totally thought it through.

[doc benway]

I was a critical thinking junkie as an undergrad years ago up at Sonoma State University -

http://www.criticalthinking.org/

 

I volunteered at these conferences every summer in order to get in for free. One particularly informative session was "Does critical thinking presuppose a political viewpoint?" If you laid out the political spectrum from end to end, could you plot critical thinking on one spot or another, on many spots...? The most approximate conclusion we could make is that critical thinking is inherently subversive to hierarchical, authoritarian power systems. This did not fly well among those who were inclined to sit on "the right side of the aisle," or subscribe to a top-down moral order.

 

I have inadvertantly raised this potentially ugly subject by posting a link that impugns those who are politically or socially opposed to a single-payer health care system in America, modelled on those that exist throughout Europe and other industrial countries. A good question to ask is "Why did I post this in a forum for Taoism?" But since my interests in Taoism include health care, I thought nothing of it. Most of my understanding of Taoist philosphy comes from the writings of of deng MIng-Dao, especially "Scholar/Warrior" and "365 Tao." Taoism resonates with me because I recognize critical thinking and anti-authoritarianism within Taoism. But my degree is in geography, not Chinese philosophy.

 

What'ya think?

 

There is a really nice summary of the political, social, and cultural background of Daoism in Burton Watson's introduction to his complete translation of the works of Zhuangzi (I think that's where I read it). Clearly, Daoism was very important as a political movement at one time in history. That is no longer the case to my knowledge. The only place in the world where Daoism is widely practiced in its native form is under rule of an authoritarian regime. Ironic, huh?

 

In or outside of China, I believe that the myriad approaches to Daoist practice would tend not to presuppose a particular political viewpoint at this point in time. On the other hand, if one were to just look at the folks in Western countries who consider themselves Daoists based on philosophical or metaphysical beliefs, then I feel comfortable that there would be some fairly significant political trends...

[Wayfarer64]

So far so good!-

Politics is often a spark to anger amongst men... politics as we have it today is pretty antithetical to what "harmony" could be found in forming societies & systems of governance...

 

And of course there is a huge expansive variety of systems to argue for/against...

 

Which again leads me to believe that politics as a whole is worrisome to any one seeking harmony - even if they never heard of Taoism!!!

 

I have run for public office and see our political system here in NJ USA as very corrupted and loathsome...I do not want to run for office again... But then if that is so - who is to change it???

 

That is the paradox of politics as well- who wins if only the rats win the rat race?-

not the folks who have to live under inept self-serving leadership...(as we had with GWBush in my opinion...)

 

ooops is that too political a thing to say here ? I hope not!

 

So Taoists -particularly those of the Confucian way - tend to hope for good leadership through fine administrators and sage advisors - which is why the place of leadership is so often- "the 5th place" of the YiJings' hexigrams. As so often if not usually - it is that of the ruler of the hexagram to use more precise language...In other words - he who advises the actual figurehead of power...holds the power for real!

 

So it seems that -it is assumed that politicians can be lead by their underlings - which may or may not always fit the scenerio- or work out well. - again the last administration comes to mind...

 

But as to left and right sorts of politics - I think any time may warrant activities that would not be appropriate to other times - and that is what leadership is about - understnding what powers may be at hand and what the best course of activity should be...

 

enuff for now- love to all- Pat

[TheWhiteRabbit]

hmmm I know I was gone for a while.... thought I would give my take on it.

 

It seems difficult, I know that some argue that there is some mental aspect of Taoism, and yes that is very true. I think what is often not taught or not easily understood or studied is the non-mental aspect of taoism. By this I dont mean faith or the limbic system. It seems to me that the non-mental aspect of taoism is far more powerful and sublimating than the mere mental aspect.

 

Does Taoism in itself lend to a political agenda? Probably not anymore than people lend themselves to a particular type of work as a doctor, artist or engineer. Nature, healing and self healing as well as progressive enlightenment is something a lot of people aspire to on any political side.

 

I used to hold to a political agenda, however freeing oneself from strongly held-to ideas tends to free up more energy.

 

Could I suggest that Taoism does not lend itself to critical thinking, or an agenda? It seems to me that this is how it feels...

[gendao]

Absolutely, the Dao De Jing specifically addresses government. There are several whole chapters devoted to it (anyone here ever actually read?)!

57

 

If you want to be a great leader,

you must learn to follow the Tao.

Stop trying to control.

Let go of fixed plans and concepts,

and the world will govern itself.

 

The more prohibitions you have,

the less virtuous people will be.

The more weapons you have,

the less secure people will be.

The more subsidies you have,

the less self-reliant people will be.

 

Therefore the Master says:

I let go of the law,

and people become honest.

I let go of economics,

and people become prosperous.

I let go of religion,

and people become serene.

I let go of all desire for the common good,

and the good becomes common as grass.

 

58

 

If a country is governed with tolerance,

the people are comfortable and honest.

If a country is governed with repression,

the people are depressed and crafty.

 

When the will to power is in charge,

the higher the ideals, the lower the results.

Try to make people happy,

and you lay the groundwork for misery.

Try to make people moral,

and you lay the groundwork for vice.

 

Thus the Master is content

to serve as an example

and not to impose her will.

She is pointed, but doesn't pierce.

Straightforward, but supple.

Radiant, but easy on the eyes.

 

59

 

For governing a country well

there is nothing better than moderation.

 

The mark of a moderate man

is freedom from his own ideas.

Tolerant like the sky,

all-pervading like sunlight,

firm like a mountain,

supple like a tree in the wind,

he has no destination in view

and makes use of anything

life happens to bring his way.

 

Nothing is impossible for him.

Because he has let go,

he can care for the people's welfare

as a mother cares for her child.

 

60

 

Governing a large country

is like frying a small fish.

You spoil it with too much poking.

 

Center your country in the Tao

and evil will have no power.

Not that it isn't there,

but you'll be able to step out of its way.

 

Give evil nothing to oppose

and it will disappear by itself.

 

61

 

When a country obtains great power,

it becomes like the sea:

all streams run downward into it.

The more powerful it grows,

the greater the need for humility.

Humility means trusting the Tao,

thus never needing to be defensive.

 

A great nation is like a great man:

When he makes a mistake, he realizes it.

Having realized it, he admits it.

Having admitted it, he corrects it.

He considers those who point out his faults

as his most benevolent teachers.

He thinks of his enemy

as the shadow that he himself casts.

 

If a nation is centered in the Tao,

if it nourishes its own people

and doesn't meddle in the affairs of others,

it will be a light to all nations in the world.

 

62

 

The Tao is the center of the universe,

the good man's treasure,

the bad man's refuge.

 

Honors can be bought with fine words,

respect can be won with good deeds;

but the Tao is beyond all value,

and no one can achieve it.

 

Thus, when a new leader is chosen,

don't offer to help him

with your wealth or your expertise.

Offer instead

to teach him about the Tao.

 

Why did the ancient Masters esteem the Tao?

Because, being one with the Tao,

when you seek, you find;

and when you make a mistake, you are forgiven.

That is why everybody loves it.

 

63

 

Act without doing;

work without effort.

Think of the small as large

and the few as many.

Confront the difficult

while it is still easy;

accomplish the great task

by a series of small acts.

 

The Master never reaches for the great;

thus she achieves greatness.

When she runs into a difficulty,

she stops and gives herself to it.

She doesn't cling to her own comfort;

thus problems are no problem for her.

In short, I think he says that ideally, an enlightened populace is self-governing. And so a stupified populace needs to be enlightened, not more and more laws.

 

In general, less government and governing in moderation to serve the people is advocated.

Edited April 22, 2010 by vortex

[thelerner]

Vortex has a good point. If you assume the DDJ as one of the canons of Taoism then it seems to follow a very libertarian view point; less government, fewer laws.

 

 

Michael

[Josh Young]

Can it ever prescribe?

I would say yes, that it affords a type of clarity which can precipitate the formation of a view or even abstaining from forming a view.

 

The content of the DDJ pertaining to governing pertains as much to the government of self and the administration to the body as it does to the role of government.

[Enishi]

I was more of a liberal/progressive myself...until I stumbled across libertarian websites.

 

To me, the Dao De Ching has a very libertarian feel to it. Of course, there are different flavors of libertarians. Lao Tzu probably wouldn't have felt the anarcho-capitalist libertarians were very balanced (and neither do I). Many libertarians also ignore the ways in which Big Business has essentially received a steroid shot from state intervention, a problem which the Left-Libertarian Kevin Carson does a good job of pointing out on his blog. http://mutualist.blogspot.com/

Edited June 26, 2009 by Enishi

[Encephalon]

Absolutely, the Dao De Jing specifically addresses government. There are several whole chapters devoted to it (anyone here ever actually read?)!In short, I think he says that ideally, an enlightened populace is self-governing. And so a stupified populace needs to be enlightened, not more and more laws.

 

In general, less government and governing in moderation to serve the people is advocated.

 

David Loy - "The Great Awakening: A Buddhist Social Theory" - explores what a "culture of awakening" would look like. I don't think excessive rules and regulations are the answer - they have generally been regarded as a sign of a decrepid culture - but what kinds of institutions would exist, what kind of behaviors would be rewarded and made positive examples of, if an awakened populace were the goal? Human beings are basically reptiles who are tremendously susceptible to environmental conditioning. We gotta get 'em young if positive attributes are to be encouraged more than the negative ones. I can offer no rigid examples or social prescriptions, I merely pose the question.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Blasto

[Stigweard]

Vortex has a good point. If you assume the DDJ as one of the canons of Taoism then it seems to follow a very libertarian view point; less government, fewer laws.

Michael

 

I was more of a liberal/progressive myself...until I stumbled across libertarian websites.

 

To me, the Dao De Ching has a very libertarian feel to it. Of course, there are different flavors of libertarians. Lao Tzu probably wouldn't have felt the anarcho-capitalist libertarians were very balanced (and neither do I). Many libertarians also ignore the ways in which Big Business has essentially received a steroid shot from state intervention, a problem which the Left-Libertarian Kevin Carson does a good job of pointing out on his blog. http://mutualist.blogspot.com/

 

It would seem others agree as well:

 

Lao Tzu - Libertarian

 

Was Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu, who was born as early as 600 B.C., the world's first libertarian? He very well might have been, according to libertarian scholar Murray Rothbard.

 

In an essay in The Journal of Libertarian Studies (Fall 1990), Rothbard wrote: "The first libertarian intellectual was Lao-tzu, the founder of Taoism... For Lao-tzu the individual and his happiness was the key unit and goal of society. If social institutions hampered the individual's flowering and his happiness, then those institutions should be reduced or abolished altogether. To the individualist Lao-tzu, government, with its 'laws and regulations more numerous than the hairs of an ox,' was a vicious oppressor of the individual, and 'more to be feared than fierce tigers.'"

[goldisheavy]

A Taoist treatise on politics is called "Wen Tzu". I highly recommend it. I think the word "presuppose" is a little too strong, but I also think it's false to claim that Taoism is utterly unpolitical. Taoist way of life does have some political implications, as discussed in Wen Tzu.

[TheWhiteRabbit]

Very good posts everyone. Especially Vortex and Stigweard.

 

60

 

Governing a large country

is like frying a small fish.

You spoil it with too much poking.

 

Center your country in the Tao

and evil will have no power.

Not that it isn't there,

but you'll be able to step out of its way.

 

Give evil nothing to oppose

and it will disappear by itself.

 

Ive found people sometimes have a hard time understanding non-dualism.

It doesnt make it invalid, just that the world has become a strange place.

 

I feel I should quote the hua hu ching (highly trivial?)

Part of verse 29:

Kind prince, one who is integrally virtuous does not sit back and enjoy the loftiness of his personal spiritual achievement while the world engages in bloodshed because of the people's ignorant attachments to particular ideologies and theologies. One of integral virtue is not interested in personal exaltation. He exposes the truth and shows the way of evolution of all humanity. Any individual's spiritual achievement can never be considered great as long as the world is victimized by wars.

Kind prince, those who brandish power are like small children playing with an enormous axe; they will inevitably bring about their own destruction. Undeveloped humanity can destroy itself through its own ignorance, and this is why one of universal virtue has something of great value to say and share with people. His purpose is not to share the excellence of his mind nor to display his great compassion. It is simply the natural responsibility of one who can see to tell a blind horseman on a blind horse that he is riding tword an abyss.

 

I am not sure of the majority of thought here on the hua hu ching, but this came to mind.

I merely suggest that most learn facets of how to do different workings within the Tao, but do not seek complete wisdom to prevent harming themselves or others.

Edited June 26, 2009 by TheWhiteRabbit

[Zhuo Ming-Dao]

To answer the question of what such an enlightened society would look like, Laozi gives us chapter 80:

 

A small country has fewer people.

Though there are machines that can work ten to a hundred times faster than man, they are not needed.

The people take death seriously and do not travel far.

Though they have boats and carriages, no one uses them.

Though they have armor and weapons, no one displays them.

Men return to the knotting of rope in place of writing.

Their food is plain and good, their clothes fine but simple, their homes secure;

They are happy in their ways.

Though they live within sight of their neighbors,

And crowing cocks and barking dogs are heard across the way,

Yet they leave each other in peace while they grow old and die.

 

 

This simple agrarian societal model was, interestingly, also the type of model that the classical libertarians originally had in mind. (John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, etc).

 

I find this to be a beautiful ideal, but have we industrialized too far to see a potential for this type of simple life in the world? Also, would we be willing to sacrifice all that we have accomplished to live in a peaceful, enlightened world like this one?

[Encephalon]

To answer the question of what such an enlightened society would look like, Laozi gives us chapter 80:

This simple agrarian societal model was, interestingly, also the type of model that the classical libertarians originally had in mind. (John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, etc).

 

I find this to be a beautiful ideal, but have we industrialized too far to see a potential for this type of simple life in the world? Also, would we be willing to sacrifice all that we have accomplished to live in a peaceful, enlightened world like this one?

 

I'd like to thank everyone for contributing such thoughtful commentary. I would like to conclude by answering the preceding paragraph - "...but have we industrialized too far to see a potential for this type of simple life in the world? Also, would we be willing to sacrifice all that we have accomplished to live in a peaceful, enlightened world like this one?"

 

According to the trajectories posited by a number of social scientists, as well as physical scientists (particularly the "peak oil" and "post oil" folks) we may not really have a choice but to adapt to an agrarian 1850s level technology. This is the premise of James Kunstler's "The Long Emergency" and "A World Made by Hand," as well as a host of other writers frequently profiled at http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net. The sheer enormity of having to raise our own food and live in a post-oil world, which we could see in as little as two decades, will force this upon us, and those who can find the resilience and resourcerfulness to do so may very well be the ones who find it a means to a Jeffersonian ideal. I've attempted to bring up the post-oil scenario in this forum because the "Transition Town" movement that is taking shape in Europe, and to a lesser extent in the US, would be a particularly appropriate vehicle for such a Taoist agrarian community.

 

James Lovelock predicts a population of 500 million will see the 22nd century. I predict that many of them will be Taoists!

[Stigweard]

I find this to be a beautiful ideal, but have we industrialized too far to see a potential for this type of simple life in the world? Also, would we be willing to sacrifice all that we have accomplished to live in a peaceful, enlightened world like this one?

The answer here is quite possibly, "Yes, we have become too overcomplicated in our society for this ideal."

 

Our populations are much too concentrated and our societal structures much too entrenched for everyone to return to agrarian models. Sure people are doing this on their own micro-scale (i.e. self-sufficient communities), however it is the activities of the majority that are impacting on the global picture.

 

So what are we to do? I believe Master Hua-Ching Ni has it right:

 

When enough people think universally instead of personally, and when they make a sincere effort towards the reesteablishment of their own innate, true, and virtuous nature, a return to equilibrium will be possible in this troubled world.

 

The Taoist politic is one of self-government and self-responsibility. As examplified in the Daodejing, a government should be a passive structure that does not interfere in the day to day affairs of the people. With all it's regulations and complicated tax systems our governments are like an upside down pyramid requiring ever-increasing systems of control to keep the unnatural ruling structure in place. And the more systems of control in place the more brittle the whole structure becomes and, again following the Daodejing, the bow that cannot bend eventually snaps.

 

The 'pliancy' or 'resilience' needed today to avoid that fatal breakdown in the world's social structure is for people from all cultures, traditions, religions etc. to make a concerted effort to venerate Virtue as the common guiding principle in all human affairs. And it is here that us Taoists and Buddhists have so much to offer the world today. With our traditional education so rooted in Virtue it is us who need to be 'like water from the mountain stream' and give sustenance to a world starving for reintegration with the essence of individual and social virtuous nature.

 

And yet, sadly, even amongst our own ranks, we witness so many who overlook the subtle yet profound power of virtue in order to chase the allure of 'party tricks' or 'phenomenalistic fantasies' held out as 'sales hooks' by self-serving so-called teachers.

 

Virtue is the foundation of our 'spiritual empire' and self virtue, family virtue, and societal virtue form the only possible foundation upon which we can build a world of interdependent peace and prosperity.

[Encephalon]

The answer here is quite possibly, "Yes, we have become too overcomplicated in our society for this ideal."

 

Our populations are much too concentrated and our societal structures much too entrenched for everyone to return to agrarian models. Sure people are doing this on their own micro-scale (i.e. self-sufficient communities), however it is the activities of the majority that are impacting on the global picture.

 

So what are we to do? I believe Master Hua-Ching Ni has it right:

The Taoist politic is one of self-government and self-responsibility. As examplified in the Daodejing, a government should be a passive structure that does not interfere in the day to day affairs of the people. With all it's regulations and complicated tax systems our governments are like an upside down pyramid requiring ever-increasing systems of control to keep the unnatural ruling structure in place. And the more systems of control in place the more brittle the whole structure becomes and, again following the Daodejing, the bow that cannot bend eventually snaps.

 

The 'pliancy' or 'resilience' needed today to avoid that fatal breakdown in the world's social structure is for people from all cultures, traditions, religions etc. to make a concerted effort to venerate Virtue as the common guiding principle in all human affairs. And it is here that us Taoists and Buddhists have so much to offer the world today. With our traditional education so rooted in Virtue it is us who need to be 'like water from the mountain stream' and give sustenance to a world starving for reintegration with the essence of individual and social virtuous nature.

 

And yet, sadly, even amongst our own ranks, we witness so many who overlook the subtle yet profound power of virtue in order to chase the allure of 'party tricks' or 'phenomenalistic fantasies' held out as 'sales hooks' by self-serving so-called teachers.

 

Virtue is the foundation of our 'spiritual empire' and self virtue, family virtue, and societal virtue form the only possible foundation upon which we can build a world of interdependent peace and prosperity.

 

I don't see a viable means of avoiding "that fatal breakdown in the world's social structure," no matter how enlightened or virtuous the population becomes. Ken Wilber and Co. (Spiral Dynamics) have argued that only ten percent of the population at any given time is enlightened, self-actualized, self-possessed, etc. There is simply no means of growing enough food to feed 7 billion people without petroleum, and most of the alternative energy folks are well-intentioned but they overestimate our ability to replace oil. The planet can support about two billion, and that assumes adequate access to water, topsoil, and agricultural skills.

 

We are on the same page, or I should say, you and I and Kunstler et al are on the same page. He is ultimately optimistic that the culture that outlives the withering hordes will possess the spiritual component we speak of. "World Made by Hand" is deeply moving. I haven't yet thought through the question of whether an enlightened and virtuous community precipitates out of the the struggle to survive or if it's the reverse, but there seems to be a correlation.

 

Personally, I'm set. I have land in the mountains with a home, two wells, deer, arable land, weapons, a barn. Part of me romanticizes a simplified future in which I can grow food, tend to the property, practice piano, guitar, chi kung and meditation. Unfortunately, that is cold comfort when I think of all the friends I have made since moving to LA 7 years ago. Most of them won't have a chance.

 

Keep an eye on this wonderful state of California. We're $25 billion in the hole and about to join the ranks of the third world in July. As goes California, so goes the...

[Josh Young]

I don't see a viable means of avoiding "that fatal breakdown in the world's social structure," no matter how enlightened or virtuous the population becomes. Ken Wilber and Co. (Spiral Dynamics) have argued that only ten percent of the population at any given time is enlightened, self-actualized, self-possessed, etc. There is simply no means of growing enough food to feed 7 billion people without petroleum

I believe that depends upon the agricultural paradigm your ontology entails. How much energy gets wasted on resources that have no role in ensuring our existence? We fail to invest in ourselves.

 

Keep an eye on this wonderful state of California. We're $25 billion in the hole and about to join the ranks of the third world in July. As goes California, so goes the...

Just recall your governor...

[Martial Development]

Could you elaborate?

 

Non-participation or non-interference are absolutely political viewpoints. If you refuse to toe the line, then your very existence is an act of sedition. And in a time of endless war, sedition is punishable by death.

 

Didn't Zhuangzi made fun of Kong Qiu for trying to "change the world", and nearly killing himself in the process? Didn't it also say that a reasonable man would not sacrifice even one hair on his head "for the sake of the world"?

[Encephalon]

Edited June 28, 2009 by Blasto

[Josh Young]

I know recalling a governor is a joke, but it happened last time California couldn't balance the budget. My comment was meant only as humor.

 

I have studied Lovelock for about a decade now. Largely in relation to the Gaia Hypothesis. I disagree with him about a few things, including carrying capacity for the earth. The tenants of his own gaia theory involve auto-regulation factors in the function of the biosphere, if this is true then there is no fixed carrying capacity for earth due to the ability of the earth to adjust in a responsive manner.

 

Ontology is everything too, at least to my point of view. Living the way many developed nations do is fundamentally immoral (my 2cents), so the carrying capacity of the earth in terms of such a lifestyle is irrelevant.

 

If we take into consideration that currently the majority of the population is domesticated into servitude for the minority of the population, than social structure is as important a feature of sustainability as population. Different societies are not equal in their energy requirements per capita, for this reason there cannot be a generalization about carrying capacity of earth without specifying lifestyle and social structure.

 

The topic is not separate in promulgation of ideals, from the topic of class and caste division. Moreover I believe that planetary factors involving biosphere regulation are such as that our population remains subject to them, ergo we are not outside of ecology or evolution.

[Encephalon]

I know recalling a governor is a joke, but it happened last time California couldn't balance the budget. My comment was meant only as humor.

 

I have studied Lovelock for about a decade now. Largely in relation to the Gaia Hypothesis. I disagree with him about a few things, including carrying capacity for the earth. The tenants of his own gaia theory involve auto-regulation factors in the function of the biosphere, if this is true then there is no fixed carrying capacity for earth due to the ability of the earth to adjust in a responsive manner.

 

Ontology is everything too, at least to my point of view. Living the way many developed nations do is fundamentally immoral (my 2cents), so the carrying capacity of the earth in terms of such a lifestyle is irrelevant.

 

If we take into consideration that currently the majority of the population is domesticated into servitude for the minority of the population, than social structure is as important a feature of sustainability as population. Different societies are not equal in their energy requirements per capita, for this reason there cannot be a generalization about carrying capacity of earth without specifying lifestyle and social structure.

 

The topic is not separate in promulgation of ideals, from the topic of class and caste division. Moreover I believe that planetary factors involving biosphere regulation are such as that our population remains subject to them, ergo we are not outside of ecology or evolution.

 

I apologize for my rudeness. I hope the schisms in Lovelocks's thought render his arguments about carrying capacity ripe for reevaluation, and that he has erred in our favor. The bulk of data on all global fronts from climatologists, peak oil scientists, and military and insurance company forecasts all seem pretty consistent with Lovelock's pessimistic assessment.

 

I had the good fortune of attending the first biannual Integral Theory conference in N. Cal. last year. An unspoken, ill-defined consensus seemed to be that we will either exploit human capital and harvest the fruits of our better selves, or exploit the resource base beyond a recovery.

 

My source of anxiety is the perceived unwillingness of people to consider the possiblity, as just one of many, that we have already passed the point of no return. I know that I run the risk of appearing as one who suffered a cognitive blow so severe that I am incapable of seeing positive news, the "green shoots." But what are the implications if these voices are correct? Obama's energy secretary Chu knows all about peak oil and energy budgets. But should he open his mouth and come straight out with it, or would that be irresponsible? Is Obama just trying to buy time by sweet-talking the population into false optimism? How rapidly can our species mature in order to steer a successful course into the future?

[TheWhiteRabbit]

This post is written in a chinese way (explanation and conclusion in reverse).

 

It should be interesting to note that more car makers are designing more sporty diesel cars now.

It seems to me this is a step in the opposite direction.

I was doing some research on this this morning after looking at a car magazine that was covering sports car/ muscle car type vehicles with "sporty" specs.

The upside it seems is that diesel engines can be converted to burn a lpg-diesel blend to make the engines more efficient. The downside is that it increases dependancy on fossil fuels (petroleum).

 

What causes societies to change? The american beauty has for the most part been ignorance so to speak.

 

Unfortunately, out of ignorance one of our greatest sources of ignorance and possibly some of our libraries of ageless wisdom might be destroyed in the future. Humankind, dissatified with what religion has percievably caused could easily decide to abolish it for the reason of dissention and disunity resulting in a horrific mao tze tung like "cultural revolution" of horrific proportions.

 

One could easily point to religion as a problem, as in our age religious dogma tends to make our view of things very linear, black and white (dualism) and concieved notions that there is only one way of doing certain things when it comes to science, mathematics, art and music.

 

It seems that mankind needs to feel the need to "direct" things. The ant-like feelings of "thats all and good but that does not tell me what I need to do to get from point a to point b" line of thinking is completely void of the ability to be able to constantly look at waht is going on around oneself, or be aware of ones action upon all that currently exists.

 

When peoples are conquered the scribes and the intelligent people of the ones conquered are either reeducated or killed, which does not seem a very good end game. However seems unlikely as in recent decades it seems people have become more and more divided to subfactions and even more subfactions.

 

Since the problem is that the ignorance has run so deeply to the point that linear thinking, black and white (dualism) and desicions based upon preconcieved notions are so commonly used and only serve to create greater problems in the future...

 

However, for people to change it has to be no longer acceptable or even disasterous to hold to the current ways of doing things. This could happen through disasters be it natural, self-created or through management type strategies like ecological changes (creating an atmosphere more supportive of positive construtive ways of doing things) as well as projecting calmness deters restlessness or explosive behaviour.

 

Taoism tend to lend itself to acceptance of things that exist, because denying that some things exist only serve to add more stress to an organism and lends itself to a universal purpose that acceptance and letting go has a profound effect on people that is very contagious.

 

Purpose without attachment to an outcome is not easy to teach the masses (I mean teaching that the outcome of such behaviour can sometimes be more than an anxious attitude that an outcome might be achieved and with greater results than needing the outcome to take place) but could be done without putting oneself in harms way. It just takes some planning and work.

A good example would be people becommeing extremely sick and tired of extreme demands... caused by extreme demands. This is the result of an attempt of the current highrollers trying to maintain power and money.

 

Edit:

So, to more or less clarify what I am saying is that forcing an outcome, like many are currently doing, is their undoing. Even if the climate changes (a what if scenario), or the political order does become extreme it is only a matter of time before change ensues.

Edited June 29, 2009 by TheWhiteRabbit