...

[Brian]

..

[Marblehead]

Well, I don't see where you have a problem with your understanding.

 

The fewer laws a nation has the fewer criminals it will have as well.

 

Sad that governments most often over-react to situations and keep creating laws that cannot, in the most part, be enforced. This just places added burden on those who comply with the laws.

 

And then, if people, in general, would act more responsibly there would be little need for government.

 

I think you have the right idea. It's called 'doing the right thing'.

 

Peace & Love!

[Apech]

There was a study in India (where there is a very high population density and widespread poverty) where in a certain village instead of delivering programmes like mass birth control and charity food handouts they just delivered two things. Proper public health like clean water and sanitation + a medical center and education to a reasonably high level. The result was that infant mortality plummeted and the families in the village started to have fewer children, individual prosperity increased and people started to live settled happy lives. Some of children became teachers and doctors etc. which added to the community in other ways.

 

This is a kind of intervention but is very different from laissez faire capitalism.

 

Not sure what point I am making here but your OP made me think of this because sometimes non-intervention can look like intervention. Health and education allow people to make their own decisions, act responsibly and need less government/nanny state.

 

Just some thoughts

 

Cheers

 

John

[Encephalon]

[Martial Development]

Is Tao large enough to contain its own opposite? If so, than is Taoism similarly large...or is it incomplete? The latter, by its own definition, and it is good to keep that in mind. Furthermore, to remember that insofar as Taoism is expressed in written works, it is the product of a time and a place: and not this time or this place. Anyway...

 

When you decide that "the human population" is a problem, either to be ignored or solved (partially) by yourself, you've already taken a position, even before you've decided what your position is, within the larger "obvious" position. What goes without saying here, I suppose, is that being sterilized or killed is much worse than never being born. (And how certain are you of that?)

 

I would argue that recognizing points such as this is itself "Taoist"--i.e. a fruition of a "Taoist" cultivation process--and no worse for the fact that it is not exclusively so. It also seems to be the opposite of formulating a "Taoist party platform".

 

I think it is fair to say that the goal of Taoism is to surpass itself. Asking whether a particular position is Taoist is a bit like asking how many inches are in a pound.

[Encephalon]

Is Tao large enough to contain its own opposite? If so, than is Taoism similarly large...or is it incomplete? The latter, by its own definition, and it is good to keep that in mind. Furthermore, to remember that insofar as Taoism is expressed in written works, it is the product of a time and a place: and not this time or this place. Anyway...

 

When you decide that "the human population" is a problem, either to be ignored or solved (partially) by yourself, you've already taken a position, even before you've decided what your position is, within the larger "obvious" position. What goes without saying here, I suppose, is that being sterilized or killed is much worse than never being born. (And how certain are you of that?)

 

I would argue that recognizing points such as this is itself "Taoist"--i.e. a fruition of a "Taoist" cultivation process--and no worse for the fact that it is not exclusively so. It also seems to be the opposite of formulating a "Taoist party platform".

 

I think it is fair to say that the goal of Taoism is to surpass itself. Asking whether a particular position is Taoist is a bit like asking how many inches are in a pound.

 

 

If I understand correctly that too much yang gives birth to yin and vice versa, then this whole consumer culture will give birth to a much smaller, less consumer-oriented culture. A lot of the urban theorists/planners like James Kunstler and the New Urbanists as well as the peak-oilers have already teased out what this will look like from a land use perspective, but it boils down to three elements: a revitalization of the national train system (not high-speed rail, just comfortable diesel-electric, with transit-oriented developments; a revitalization of the urban core, hi-density, modest size dwellings, super-insulated (rammed earth or other high (r-80) construction; and a return to downsized agriculture (greenbelts surrounding the cores).

 

Prognosis is good for a lot of areas that have adequate water supplies and greenbelts and inhabitants who have green skills. Prognosis for places like Los Angeles and much of the Southwest is pretty poor. We'll see, won't we?

[Tao99]

.

Edited July 31, 2010 by Tao99

[Tao99]

.

Edited July 31, 2010 by Tao99

[Brian]

..

[Ryan T.]

So, please, help me to understand here -- from a Taoist perspective, where am I mistaken? Do Taoist philosophies suggest that "least intrusion" is generally the proper approach or am I way off base here?

 

While I understand the gratification a person can get from such "thought experiments", I see it as crap.

 

You made your choice about birth control what does it matter what others might do or not do. We have lived out of sync with nature since the advent of widespread agriculture. Many, if not most, choices stem from that step several millennia ago.

 

Minimum wage? Really? Why would you think to try to apply "Taoist" philosophy to such a thing? The buying and selling of goods and services. People's labor as part of that commoditization? Taoism told me I should only pay you this because it is what the market will support.

 

Taoists were always wary of agriculture. Especially the farming of grains. Organic farming vs. conventional. A person could go 'round and 'round with this. A safe, steady food supply keeps people making more babies so to say that we need a safe, steady food supply(read: conventional, chemically treated, GM, whatever) seems little to do with Taoism and more to do with with being smothered in the the dust of the world.

 

Environmentalism vs. non-intrusion. Same thing as the others really.

 

 

The phrase that comes to mind for this is putting lipstick on a pig. For every thought experiment you offered there is no "true" way of balance. The balance of the world was upset many thousands of years ago. To try to look for a "Taoist" perspective on this to me just seems like a way to rationalize one's own take on an imbalanced world.

[Encephalon]

[Brian]

..

[Brian]

..

[Ryan T.]

Thank you for your thoughts, Ryan.

 

Your presupposition regarding the causality of my decisions and rationalizations is curious, though -- my decisions and actions are a product of my personal beliefs but my beliefs are not something new that I am trying to "wrap around" previous choices. Instead, reactions to recent postings of mine on a variety of topics on this forum caused me to examine whether my understanding of some of the foundations for my personal beliefs, based upon which prior decisions were consciously formulated, were consistent with the bedrock from which those foundational elements were carved. One of those is Taoist philosophy so I thought this would be an appropriate place to explain my thinking and ask for feedback from those who understand Taoism more initmately than I do, as I explained in my original post. I tried to keep my examples somewhat apolitical while picking challenging real-world topics on which I have had to make conscious decisions affecting my own life, rather than academic theoretical cases (hence my revelations about those personal decisions). The fact that Blasto and I are largely in accord (so far, at least!) within this thread suggests that I did that fairly well, I think.

 

Your offered stance for these particular devices seem to lean very much towards a "laissez faire" way of thinking. Very much a "let the market figure it out" type of stance, IMO.

 

Your view that birth control, minimum wage, farm policy and environmental policy are some how apolitical somehow doesn't seem quite accurate. Very few topics could be more politically charged, except for maybe gun control or abortion.

 

And I have no reason to doubt your sincerity about your self-examination. It does seem sincere. That does not however mean that you aren't trying to wrap some libertarian worldview up in Taoist clothing. It doesn't mean you are doing that either. That's just what I saw when I read your examples.

 

And maybe I'm reading this thread totally incorrectly, which totally happens, but I don't know if I would agree that you and Blasto are necessarily in accord. He seems to be saying there was a time when government intervention was a good thing and did right in the world. But now government intervention has been "corporatized" and probably maintains and expands a corrupt system. Where you seem to be saying government intervention is not the Taoist way of doing things.

 

That doesn't seem like agreement/accord. But again like most I can be caught in the shackles of my own narrative.

[Brian]

..

[johndoe2012]

Maybe my understanding of Tao Te Ching and Taoism is lacking, but isn't it better to just be aware of your surroundings including society and not judge it as good and bad?

 

Isn't the human activity just a part of Tao?

 

Maybe Tao Te Ching was indeed written by many scholars and later chapters were added to dilute it.

 

Thoughts?

[Marblehead]

Maybe my understanding of Tao Te Ching and Taoism is lacking, but isn't it better to just be aware of your surroundings including society and not judge it as good and bad?

 

Isn't the human activity just a part of Tao?

 

Maybe Tao Te Ching was indeed written by many scholars and later chapters were added to dilute it.

 

Thoughts?

 

Well, yes, it has been fairly argued that the TTC was written by a number of different people. But that, IMO, is irrelevant. It is none-the-leass an excellent guide for one by which to live their life. It is even suggested that Lao Tzu really never existed. I don't by into that.

 

Yes, it is often said in Taoist philosophy that we should leave things alone. But that doesn't mean we sit on our butt and do nothing. Wu wei speaks to this issue. We do what needs be done. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

And I suggest that judging is part of the process needed in order to live a full and successful (I'm not speaking to materialism here) life. We judge every time we make a choice. We judge other people. And we for sure judge the actions of other people.

 

Yes, the human experience is a part of Tao. It cannot be otherwise. However, the human experience oftentimes tries to move against the flow of Tao. This is where we get into trouble, not only individually, but as societies as well.

 

When we see an evil act about to be committed we shouldn't just sit there and say "That's Tao." We should, if it is within our power, prevent that evil act from coming to fruit.

 

Peace & Love!

[Encephalon]

Yes, the human experience is a part of Tao. It cannot be otherwise. However, the human experience oftentimes tries to move against the flow of Tao. This is where we get into trouble, not only individually, but as societies as well.

 

Ah, but there's the rub.

 

There are competing ideas regarding the role of human agency in the natural world. I'm not too current on the argument - it's worth looking into - but I've subscribed to the idea that since human beings have self-consciousness and the technological capacity for manipulating their environment, they occupy a slightly different rung on the natural ladder. I believe "Scholar/Warrior" by Meng Deng-Dao delves into this subject matter a good deal, but Fritjof Capra probably offered the most accessible explication in "The Tao if Physics" and his more recent "The Web of Life." The ancient Taoists held the human intellect suspect but developed their intuitive powers to a degree that, as Capra says, rivals the explanatory power of the modern scientific method. Pretty cool shit, eh?

[johndoe2012]

The ancient Taoists held the human intellect suspect but developed their intuitive powers to a degree that, as Capra says, rivals the explanatory power of the modern scientific method. Pretty cool shit, eh?

 

This is what I think is crucial to understanding the Tao. Don't judge with your intellect, use your intuition. This will naturally unfold if you meditate and reach the Original Mind as it is called in the Secret of the Golden Flower.

 

Intervention in society is futile until you reach this stage. Until then you can't do anything but practice.

 

When we see an evil act about to be committed we shouldn't just sit there and say "That's Tao." We should, if it is within our power, prevent that evil act from coming to fruit.

Indeed, out of spontaneity we prevent the act from happening.

[Encephalon]

This is what I think is crucial to understanding the Tao. Don't judge with your intellect, use your intuition. This will naturally unfold if you meditate and reach the Original Mind as it is called in the Secret of the Golden Flower.

 

Intervention in society is futile until you reach this stage. Until then you can't do anything but practice.

 

 

Indeed, out of spontaneity we prevent the act from happening.

 

I agree with all this, but I would not jettison the western intellectual tradition entirely. We should still try to get a liberal education, if not to be a sage then at least to rid our mental universe of misinformation. I think it was Deng Ming-Dao who said that knowledge should proceed from simplicity to complexity, and then return to simplicity. But in this journey we should learn all we can about ourselves and our world. In fact that's how Stephen Batchelor defines one dimension of spirituality - a ceaseless process of curiosity and questioning.

 

You can still "intervene" in society in a wholesome fashion without being a zen master or Taoist priest.

[Marblehead]

Ah, but there's the rub.

 

There are competing ideas regarding the role of human agency in the natural world. I'm not too current on the argument - it's worth looking into - but I've subscribed to the idea that since human beings have self-consciousness and the technological capacity for manipulating their environment, they occupy a slightly different rung on the natural ladder. I believe "Scholar/Warrior" by Meng Deng-Dao delves into this subject matter a good deal, but Fritjof Capra probably offered the most accessible explication in "The Tao if Physics" and his more recent "The Web of Life." The ancient Taoists held the human intellect suspect but developed their intuitive powers to a degree that, as Capra says, rivals the explanatory power of the modern scientific method. Pretty cool shit, eh?

 

Yes, indeed. There are arguments concerning the importance of the human element in the scheme of things. Yes, we have effected Earth more than any other species ever has. But does that make us more 'right' than all other species? I suggest the answer is "No".

 

Most other species just use their environment - we try to (and have succeeded to a degree) change our environment. The question then would be: "Is our changing our environment increasing the potential for longer life or is it actually decreasing it?"

 

I don't know the answer.

 

But I still hold to the idea that we will live a fuller life if we follow the Way of Earth (nature).

 

And I agree, Taoism is, IMO, the most compatible philosophy with the scientific method. Observe, understand and comply. What more is there?

 

Peace & Love!

[Birch]

"held the human intellect suspect"

 

Because it is highly suspect and subject to all kinds of mis-accuracy (for want of a better word), it can also be too easily informed (some - i.e. me might say "corrupted")

 

There are numerous excellent "scientific" books out there right now on the topic of the failings of intellect. Knowing about them doesn't make them go away either.

 

If you can't/don't want to read those then I highly recommend older writers such as:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_and_Crooked_Thinking

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds

 

Of course, one could suspect that they had been reading some other people...

 

As for intuition, it's better to work with IME once the mind has been somewhat cleaned out because I reckon they both affect each other and one may still intellectually misread a signal from elsewhere. This is why right now I am loathe to separate things into "real" vs "imagined".

[Brian]

..

[Encephalon]

I immediately regretted using the "ladder" analogy cuz I'm all about lateral connectivity rather than hierarchy. (I'm up to speed on the intentional community movement and have participated in at one time, but I'm not a radical egalitarian either.)

 

My own learning curve through this subject will be through some of the basic works on eco-psychology, More Capra, and, someday, "Integral Ecology" (Wilber-ordained ecology studies) Other than that, I'm gonna concentrate on getting rich and moving to BC.

[Brian]

..