The decision to go against natural instinct

[glooper23]

Taoism seems to speak about going with the flow, not forcing anything. How does one, then, decide to go against their desire to hurt, rape, pillage, and other negatively charged actions? Ought we not let them take their natural course instead of forcing ourselves to alter our natural cravings?

[gendao]

But that is not your true nature!

"Negative" emotions and urges stem from imbalances, deficiencies and unresolved issues.

You must purge and clear those out first to find your true nature.

At that state, you basically become totally empty and neutral.

[glooper23]

What would you say about a child who likes to hurt animals? Or a child who hurts their younger sibling? And when you ask, they simply say it's what they like to do?

 

Can following the true self contradict natural instinct?

[Aetherous]

Taoists go with the flow of the Tao, not the flow of humans. They are natural...nature is pretty calm most of the time. Even during a storm, it is calming.

 

Desiring things isn't calm...it's erratic! Following your evil (yes, I said it) desires only results in trouble. So...pretty unTaoist.

[Sloppy Zhang]

In Hermetic philosophy (as I understand it), what you have described as "negative" things are really just negative expressions of certain qualities. They may be an excess of that quality, or a deficiency in that quality.

 

Take your hurt, rape, and pillage example. Those all are considered to be negative things. But what positive things do they represent? Your ability to hurt someone reflects your own physical strength, rape also physical strength but an ability to control, and pillage your ability to take what you need.

 

All of those qualities can be used positively- you can use physical strength to protect and defend someone. You can control a situation or another person for the greater good, and you are a provider.

 

Those qualities, I imagine, were even more necessary historically- where your ability to survive depended a lot on physical strength, and your status in society was partially determined by how you could exhibit your ability to dominate and control others. Nowadays it's much more likely for us to consider such acts as "violent and bad", but keep in mind they are just one side of the coin.

 

As a side note, I find these things really helpful in terms of dream interpretation and lucid dreaming (discounting the fact that many dream signs are unique to an individual), especially with nightmares and other sorts of bad dreams- by analyzing what qualities appear to you, you can see what you have problems with and perhaps even means of expressing them.

 

I was reading somewhere about how the word "evil" evolved, and I think that one of its forms from back in the day was "something in excess", which is another way to look at things.

 

Now, motivations and your reasons for doing those things arise from imbalances. A need to hurt a sibling, or rape a woman, or steal something, all reflect a feeling of inner weakness that you perceive, and you are acting out to try and compensate for that imbalance.

[bindo]

Many people think 'being natural' means doing whatever they want, acting on impulse, even irresponsibly and chaotic.

 

As vortex said, you have to uncover your true nature before you can be 'natural'. Then you'll be removed from "natures machinery" and the herd mentality.

[Marblehead]

Taoism seems to speak about going with the flow, not forcing anything. How does one, then, decide to go against their desire to hurt, rape, pillage, and other negatively charged actions? Ought we not let them take their natural course instead of forcing ourselves to alter our natural cravings?

 

This concept is regularly discussed by Philosophical Taoists.

 

The answers are hard to accept.

 

Those who do evil are truely acting out their nature. The big question is, is it their 'true' nature? Regretfully, in my opinion, in most cases the answer is 'yes'.

 

The only time it would not be and act of their true nature would be when they have regrets for having done what they have done.

 

Otherwise, they are being true to their own nature. But what has caused them to be so deviant? Well, it could be something instinctual as we see in a lot of other animal species where the stronger sibling kills the weaker to insure that only the stronger survive, or it could be because of some physical mutation or defect of the brain, or it could be because of experiences in the past that have lead to this type of 'normal for that individual' behavior.

 

But bottom line, if it was possible for it to happen then it is completely consistent with Tao. But, it may not be consistent with, or acceptable to, man's interpretation of Tao.

 

If an action is not consistent with the survival of the species (human, in this case) then the action would likely be considered evil. For someone with a mental deformity to rape and impregnate a female would not be in the best interest of the species (social group) as it would propagate the unacceptable genes.

 

So in the end, it is we, man, who determines what, if any, intention Tao has. I think that Tao has no intentions so perhaps if anything is possible then that is the intention of Tao. But, we, who intrepret Tao's intentions, must set standards for the actions of those within our social group must naturally consider the survival of the species so we will define what is acceptable behavior and what is not.

 

Peace & Love!

[宁]

What would you say about a child who likes to hurt animals? Or a child who hurts their younger sibling? And when you ask, they simply say it's what they like to do?

 

Can following the true self contradict natural instinct?

 

I think there's no such thing as natural instinct. Everything is educated directly or indirectly:

- in past lives - the inner spirits that we have inside us, have their own past experience.

- during pregnancy - a child can learn while mother watches movies for example - some of them maybe violent

- during early stages of childhood - they immitate and have the tendency to express other peoples intentions

 

Everything there is, is under influence.

The purpose of daoists is to select the influence actively, because you can never escape it truely...

 

You sound a bit desperate. What's the story really?

[LukeMC]

I'm not sure I understand the idea of "going with the flow" as a submission to all instincts. The tao te ching appears (to me) to imply that one is to go with the flow of life and adapt like water while at the same time defeating your inner barriers.

 

Example 1: "Conquering others takes force. Conquering yourself is true strength."

To me, this is saying that you must win your inner battles- not let your hormones shape your decisions regarding murder/rape/etc.

 

Also, a slighty less obvious example,

Example 2: "Can you control your breath gently like a baby?"

It appears to show another case of self-control: being the master of your decisions and not falling into an indifference about your actions.

 

I don't normally cite any form of text as the basis of a view point as it makes the author appear infallible and absolute, but I think in this case my usage is warranted. It's how I understand the situation for the time being.

[doc benway]

Taoism seems to speak about going with the flow, not forcing anything. How does one, then, decide to go against their desire to hurt, rape, pillage, and other negatively charged actions? Ought we not let them take their natural course instead of forcing ourselves to alter our natural cravings?

Wu Wei is a fascinating topic.

 

Based on Tai Ji theory. Good and bad do not exist independently, they define each other.

Furthermore, good and bad are relative value judgements that depend on our conditioning and perspective as well as our closeness or distance from the subject.

 

 

I think there's no such thing as natural instinct.

 

I disagree.

Animals display natural instinct. If it exists in one species, it exists in all.

It's just that it is buried so deep that most of us don't recognize it.

 

This is what the Daoist sages are asking us to look for.

 

We are the product of years, generations, and eons of individual, familial, social, and cultural conditioning. Is it ever possible to see through all of that? Can we as individuals strip away, layer by layer, our emotional, psychological, social, and cultural conditioning?

 

If we are able to do that, then we may understand what "human nature" or "natural instinct" means

[Marblehead]

 

I disagree.

Animals display natural instinct. If it exists in one species, it exists in all.

It's just that it is buried so deep that most of us don't recognize it.

 

This is what the Daoist sages are asking us to look for.

 

We are the product of years, generations, and eons of individual, familial, social, and cultural conditioning. Is it ever possible to see through all of that? Can we as individuals strip away, layer by layer, our emotional, psychological, social, and cultural conditioning?

 

If we are able to do that, then we may understand what "human nature" or "natural instinct" means

 

Hi Steve, Thank you for disagreeing with Little1. I disagree too but I didn't want to post my disagreement. Hehehe.

 

I agree with what you said. I'm sure you knew that though.

 

Peace & Love!

[宁]

I disagree.

Animals display natural instinct. If it exists in one species, it exists in all.

It's just that it is buried so deep that most of us don't recognize it.

 

This is what the Daoist sages are asking us to look for.

 

We are the product of years, generations, and eons of individual, familial, social, and cultural conditioning. Is it ever possible to see through all of that? Can we as individuals strip away, layer by layer, our emotional, psychological, social, and cultural conditioning?

 

If we are able to do that, then we may understand what "human nature" or "natural instinct" means

 

I also disagree. To strip eons of individual familial social and cultural conditioning - and bare in mind that there are imprinted at dna and molecular and Qi level - is an impossible task.

Not just impossible, but improbable. As it is, i consider it a fruit of our evolution.

We don't have to fight it, we have to live with it, this is where our thinking differs.

 

Marble, feel free to sent me a disagreement note as often as you can spare one

 

Also, we were talking about humans, not animals. Also, animals instincts are not 'natural', but are a product of their environment, when it becomes more domestic, so do their 'instincts'.

 

In fact, 'instinct' is just a word that hides a more complex phenomenon. It's easy to spell it and attach the word 'natural' to it, but if you dive into it, you can't tell anything for sure...

 

Cheers

[Pietro]

I also disagree. To strip eons of individual familial social and cultural conditioning - and bare in mind that there are imprinted at dna and molecular and Qi level - is an impossible task.

Not just impossible, but improbable. As it is, i consider it a fruit of our evolution.

We don't have to fight it, we have to live with it, this is where our thinking differs.

 

Marble, feel free to sent me a disagreement note as often as you can spare one

 

Also, we were talking about humans, not animals. Also, animals instincts are not 'natural', but are a product of their environment, when it becomes more domestic, so do their 'instincts'.

 

In fact, 'instinct' is just a word that hides a more complex phenomenon. It's easy to spell it and attach the word 'natural' to it, but if you dive into it, you can't tell anything for sure...

 

Cheers

WHat Little 1 said is absolutely true.

It is true nevertheless that there are practices and techniques to permit to a person to contact their natural morality. I will not repeat them (no time, sorry), but I spoke about them before. So maybe with a search you might be able to find them.

 

Using those techniques most people will discover that they will not harm, rape, kill, and similar.

 

Most people means most. Not all.

Some people will and can do all this without having any problem whatsoever. From an individual pov it this is a problem. From a social pov those people make really good efficient soldiers. Not to mention people who can take an incredible amount of stress and abuse without crashing. After all what they are receiving is not different from what they themselves would naturally do. In other words... fits them.

[Iyoiyo]

Little, I don't want to derail this topic into one about instinct, but instinct is clearly natural. It is not environmentally dependent. A cat, lizard, snake, whatever, will still follow the same instincts anywhere on the planet. With that said, back to the topic.

 

I believe that MB said it well with this line : "But bottom line, if it was possible for it to happen then it is completely consistent with Tao. But, it may not be consistent with, or acceptable to, man's interpretation of Tao."

 

Glooper asked:

 

"Taoism seems to speak about going with the flow, not forcing anything. How does one, then, decide to go against their desire to hurt, rape, pillage, and other negatively charged actions? Ought we not let them take their natural course instead of forcing ourselves to alter our natural cravings?"

 

People can argue whatever they want, and it's true (sad) that in some cases it may become the tendency of people to hurt, rape, and pillage. However, I would not label any of those things as natural cravings. I for one have never felt the desire to rape or pillage anything. There have been occasions when I wished destruction on things, but this has always been related to a wish that the subject be destroyed and vanish (as opposed to a wish that the subject suffer). It's a modicum of proof that only a tiny sliver of humanity commits these actions.

 

I would say that every person can feel the difference between natural tendency and desire driven action if they listen to themselves. However, desire is so powerful that it can overtake people nearly completely. Unless something happens after that point to change those people internally, they may never notice.

 

It's like we've been hearing though: No dark without light, no light without dark.

[宁]

Thanks Pietro,

 

you know, the Chinese had a simmilar debate in their culture, about 2000+ ago.

The philosophers were Confucius, Mozi, and Mencius.

I don't recall which said what, but there were three opinions:

- the human nature is inherently good

- the human nature is inherently bad

- you are not born human, you become human by education (this i'm sure belong to Confucius, the first one to Mencius, and the second to Mozi, if memory serves)

 

I agree with Confucius.

For all the exceptions, I agree with Mozi.

For the others not included, I agree with Mencius.

 

I recall that Pak John said there are three types of auras: black, white and yellow - good, bad, and in harmony with oneself and the universe.

 

Just some thoughs:)

[glooper23]

 

You sound a bit desperate. What's the story really?

 

I'm not desperate for anything. However, I am using Taoism to change many aspects of my life. Because of that, I would like to hammer out confusion and contradiction I see in the philosophy.

 

Thank you for the responses. I like Sloppy Zhang's argument that the supposedly negative actions are neither good nor bad. By pillaging, the child is meeting needs according to his / her own nature. Perhaps a Taoist would claim that the child will continue to pillage so long as he / she does not learn the concept of treating others well.

 

And then, Little1's argument would come in, claiming that the child can only learn that concept through proper conditioning. But if the parents were not conditioned by "true natured" influences, they will influence their children in similar ways.

[宁]

Little, I don't want to derail this topic into one about instinct, but instinct is clearly natural.

 

I don't think you derail it, it's more like you go deep into it.

We need someone who has read Pavlov's work, if we want to get to constructive conclusions.

 

I like M Winn's asertion about becoming a complete human being: you don't become some kind of super-hero prototype. You fulfill your own nature, as good or as bad as it is, you bring it up to fruit. He sustained his view giving examples from the history of the eight immortals: one was crippled, another one gay, another one fat, another one drunk and so on.

 

No prototypes here...

 

 

compared to

 

 

You don't need to fight your own nature. And how can you discern what is your own nature, and what is something else? You yourself are a conglomerate, a complex being made up of hundred million small physical and non-physical beings.

Your habits are yours.

Make them work for you, not against you.

 

I got far... back to instinct. It's more than we culturally agree it is. Ah, anybody seen Pavlov around...?

[doc benway]

I also disagree. To strip eons of individual familial social and cultural conditioning - and bare in mind that there are imprinted at dna and molecular and Qi level - is an impossible task.

Not just impossible, but improbable. As it is, i consider it a fruit of our evolution.

We don't have to fight it, we have to live with it, this is where our thinking differs.

We will agree to disagree on this. It is not impossible, just challenging. There is no need to fight, just investigate. Seeing deeply into the nature of conditioning is all that is necessary for it to lose it's grasp. This is exactly the advice of Zhuangzi and Buddha (and countless others).

 

 

Also, we were talking about humans, not animals. Also, animals instincts are not 'natural', but are a product of their environment, when it becomes more domestic, so do their 'instincts'.

What is the difference between human and animal? Other than language, of course.

What is the difference between something that is natural and something that is a product of the environment?

This implies that you believe there is a separation between the animal (human) and environment. There is no separation - just the illusion of separation. Natural means organism/environment - they are one.

Instinct is generally used to refer to behavioral tendencies that are independent of learning and assumed to be related to evolution (which, after all is learning - just on a bigger scale).

Edited January 7, 2010 by steve f

[doc benway]

I don't think you derail it, it's more like you go deep into it.

We need someone who has read Pavlov's work, if we want to get to constructive conclusions.

 

I like M Winn's asertion about becoming a complete human being: you don't become some kind of super-hero prototype. You fulfill your own nature, as good or as bad as it is, you bring it up to fruit. He sustained his view giving examples from the history of the eight immortals: one was crippled, another one gay, another one fat, another one drunk and so on.

 

No prototypes here...

 

 

compared to

 

 

You don't need to fight your own nature. And how can you discern what is your own nature, and what is something else? You yourself are a conglomerate, a complex being made up of hundred million small physical and non-physical beings.

Your habits are yours.

Make them work for you, not against you.

 

I got far... back to instinct. It's more than we culturally agree it is. Ah, anybody seen Pavlov around...?

Great post -

This also brings us to another Daoist principle - De

It's usually translated as virtue and we make the assumption that it refers to the definition of virtue which implies proper or good behavior and invokes value judements and so on.

Another interpretation (and a much more accurate one IMO) is using the translation of virtue which means trait or characteristic. Be that which you are as deeply and fully as you can.

The tree can never more tree-y, the cat more cat-y.

Why do we humans have so much trouble just being human?

[Marblehead]

 

Marble, feel free to sent me a disagreement note as often as you can spare one

 

 

Hehehe. I just wouldn't feel right disagreeing with you because I agree with you on almost every post you make where I have even a little bit of knowledge of.

 

I do hold that we have instincts. Survival and propogation of the species are prime examples. Yes, we can, through thought and action overcome these instincts by taking action (a result of our free will) that is contrary to our instincts.

 

But this doesn't mean that they do not exist, it simply means that our brain (will power) has become more powerful than are the instincts.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

 

 

Also, we were talking about humans, not animals. Also, animals instincts are not 'natural', but are a product of their environment, when it becomes more domestic, so do their 'instincts'.

 

In fact, 'instinct' is just a word that hides a more complex phenomenon. It's easy to spell it and attach the word 'natural' to it, but if you dive into it, you can't tell anything for sure...

 

Cheers

 

Oh My Goodness!!! I just have to comment on this. Humans are animals. Yes, I have known some who would be better classified as plants but they were still animals none-the-less.

 

How about a bee or an ant? Their entire life is based on instinct. They have no free will.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

Great post -

This also brings us to another Daoist principle - De

It's usually translated as virtue and we make the assumption that it refers to the definition of virtue which implies proper or good behavior and invokes value judements and so on.

Another interpretation (and a much more accurate one IMO) is using the translation of virtue which means trait or characteristic. Be that which you are as deeply and fully as you can.

The tree can never more tree-y, the cat more cat-y.

Why do we humans have so much trouble just being human?

 

I love talking about virtue and it is in line with this topic.

 

Let us not forget that there are two aspects of virtue: The Virtue of Tao and the virtue of man.

 

The Virtue of Tao is mostly the processes of the universe. These processes are beyond good and evil. This is where we can say that the rapist was following his (her) true nature.

 

The virtue of man is significantly different. Firstly, we define good and evil. Therefore we consider the rapist an evil person.

 

When we speak of the virtue of man we generally connote virtue with what society has determined as 'good' virtues but virtue does include the evil characteristics as well - they are generally called vices though.

 

So I guess that from the view of Tao the rapist's action was simply and action - no judgement, no valuation.

 

But, from the view of man the action was evil and the desire to do so was a vice.

 

Peace & Love!

[Tao99]

So I guess that from the view of Tao the rapist's action was simply and action - no judgement, no valuation

Here is Liu I-Ming's take on it:

 

The Tao is not apart from virtue (De)

and virtue is not apart from the Tao.

 

Those who would practice the Tao,

must first bring about virtue.

 

Liu I-Ming, Awakening to the Tao

Edited January 7, 2010 by Tao99

[宁]

Great post -

So you agree with me, now I'm worried However, I think you and I may have different understanding regarding what I've wrote there: Before you get to 'Just be yourself' there are alot of installments that need installing But I won't get into that here.

 

Hehehe. I just wouldn't feel right disagreeing with you because I agree with you on almost every post you make where I have even a little bit of knowledge of.

On the other hand I'm not worried that you agree with some of my views, because you admitted your comming here is part of a learning process. I am also a student, so I know firsthand how important to build a correct structure to your mind. What is correct? It's what is functional.

 

Btw, De means something precise. 'Virtue' is a technical word. Care about 'dismembering' it?

[Marblehead]

Care about 'dismembering' it?

 

No. Hehehe.

 

I don't read Chinese so I am at the mercy of those who can. All I can do is read the translations of others and adopt the most commonly used definition or the one that sounds the most logical to me. Logic has a lot to do with the way my brain works.

 

Peace & Love!

[Taomeow]

Our history has been referred to by someone who knows much about instincts, biologist Konrad Lorenz, as "the abnormal and pathological process of domestication of humans." He studied the behavior of wild and domesticated animals throughout his long and fruitful career and concluded that

 

nothing in human behavior is radically different from animal behavior, and

humans exhibit typical behavior patterns of domesticated animals.

 

This is the saddest piece of information I'd ever come across in my entire life, and some evidence that became available later only corroborated this view. Not only are we domesticated animals, we've been tampered with on the level of our chromosomes. All apes have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs), yet humans have 46 (23 pairs) and there's evidence that this was accomplished by fusing the 2nd and 3rd chromosomes together, which is unlikely to have happened naturally for any reason, and very likely to have been genetically engineered.

 

Which is why many of our instincts are scrambled and most of our "natural" behaviors are about as natural as those of a circus tiger. Sure, the tiger gets his morsel of food if he jumps through the hoops of fire. So do we. But it has nothing to do with "instinct," "natural," or "normal behavior of the species."

 

Poor us.