How to handle the unknown

[Marblehead]

So "I" surrender "I" (i.e. the importance of the known, of the safe, of the right, of the good, of the pleasurable), in order to make room for all the other functions to take their place at the table. It has never been just "me" in my head, but "we", many functions that are supposed to work together as a unified team. But it is not until "I" get out of the way that the "we" can really function as a greater, unified "I".

 

Hi Otis,

 

The problem I have with that is that if we give up all out knowns we will every day reaffirm this, that, and everything else we experience in life. I don't have time for that. I don't even have time to question if my chair is still capable of holding my weight. I just sit down, not even thinking about hoping that it will still hold me weight.

 

When I get in my truck to go somewhere I have never questioned if "I" am actually in the truck. I take that as a given. And I have never imagined my truck to be an airplane. It can go fast but it cannot fly.

 

There are many thing in life that we simply need to accept as being known to us.

 

Now, if you asked me if There is a God I would have to say, "I don't know".

 

If you asked me if frogs have wings I would answer, "Absolutely not!"

 

If you ask me what will become of my Chi energy when I die I would have to say, "I think that is an unknown."

 

So basically, what I am saying is that we actually need some "knowns" is our life so that we do not life in total chaos. But then we should collect these knowns as they apply to our own life and not to someone else's. Afterall, they may have different 'knowns' or perhaps none at all. (That would be sad.)

 

Now granted, science is 'aware' of only 4% of what is believed to be the entire universe. So that leaves 96% that is unknown. And I do not claim to know any of this unknown percentage.

 

I guess the best I can say is that we should establish some form of order in our life. We can do this only by establishing our "knowns". Then, remain open-minded for new information that will improve our understandings or even prove some of our understandings misguided.

[Stigweard]

Another reason to think that "I" am the part that observes: the fact that I disappear when I "plug in" to awareness. When I give up the traditional functions of the ego (e.g. self-management and defense, getting it "right", defining myself and the world), and I just attend to what arises, then the sense of self vanishes, and the full Self (i.e. the body) seems to act on its own (wu wei). Wu wei, IME is the surrender of small-s "self", to allow all the functions of the body to work together as a unitary consciousness.

Yes I agree. I perhaps though would have used a different term than "the body", as I believe the "full Self" is so much more.

 

I think the ego was born upon the introduction of language. When the part of this organism that pays attention started learning language, then it became swollen with definition. It (now "I") used to just be a conduit for awareness, but now I begin to break up the world into elements, defined by words. Once I created "bad" in (my simulacrum of) the world, then I started avoiding parts of life. Once I created "right and wrong" then I started trying to manage my own behavior, be my own boss. Since the other parts of me are not within my direct control, I had to increase the power of my ego, and try to micro-manage the other functions of the full Self, even though the "I" function doesn't know the other jobs the way that the other functions do.

 

But all of those attempts at self-control just make the "I" function stronger, and debilitates the other functions, because they are constantly harassed, and never given the chance to come to full maturity, by living life fully themselves. In my early quest for self-improvement, I sought to control all of the surprising functions (which society has labeled "wild" and "animalistic"), but now I realize that "I" am the problem, not the other functions. I have been tripping them up, making them neurotic, (when they just wanted to grow up naturally) because I couldn't accept them as they were.

 

So "I" surrender "I" (i.e. the importance of the known, of the safe, of the right, of the good, of the pleasurable), in order to make room for all the other functions to take their place at the table. It has never been just "me" in my head, but "we", many functions that are supposed to work together as a unified team. But it is not until "I" get out of the way that the "we" can really function as a greater, unified "I".

And this is not so "dense" at all Very well written.

 

[rookie]

Yes, I have seen and heard of this stuff on various TV programs and while I will not try to negate the science behind the idea, I have never seen it happen, I have never heard of it happening, and I have never seen or heard of the prediction of such a thing ever actually happnening.

 

So that brings me back to things I can verify with my own senses. Sad sometimes that I have to be so practical but that's just the way I am.

 

I wouldn't call that sad.

Let me ask a couple of questions. Since it is a possibility in that it does not violate the most fundamentally correct known law of physics, if it did happen, would you be more likely to think you had spaced out for a second and missed something, or doubt that it had happened?

This goes to how our expectations can condition our experience.

 

Do you go so far as to doubt anything you have not seen with your eyes directly?

For example, if you have never seen a Grizzly bear in person would you doubt their existence?

How about a virus or the moon of Pluto?

Just wondering how far you take it.

Is the line drawn by utility?

 

You see it is practical and utilitarian, not to mention necessary, to use the quantum mechanical models to design semiconductors. But no one has seen electrons tunneling through a potential barrier, just the effects of it.

[Otis]

Yes I agree. I perhaps though would have used a different term than "the body", as I believe the "full Self" is so much more.

 

 

And this is not so "dense" at all Very well written.

 

Thanks, Stigweard. I use the term "the body" to indicate the "full Self", but I don't mean that as a limitation as to what the full Self actually is. I cannot know the limitation.

 

I only use the equation: full Self = body, because that is the most reasonable explanation I can give. If I want the most elegant explanation of what is a human being, then I want to make no egregious assumptions, and I want to make sure that all of my observations fall within the model.

 

When I look around, I see bodies. I do not see spirits or souls. Granted, these are bodies whose minds think that they are more than bodies, but that seems like a very easy delusion to have, especially since most people also see themselves as distinct from other animals. We tend to see animals in terms of their bodies (and enclosed brains), and rarely suggest that they are more than that.

 

I'm a big fan of science, which has done a lot of work on these questions, and psychology sees no reason to suggest a "self" that is other than the body and its parts. It shows that there are certain parts of the brain that are activated for various reasons, during certain processes, and that these equivalents of structure and function stay pretty much the same over time, and between people (with certain, usually pathological exceptions).

 

The only evidence that I personally have that the body is anything less than the "full Self" is tantric experience. That experience is compelling, but I don't want to try to conceptualize the lessons which arise from that, for the same reasons we've been talking about on this thread (not wanting to create superstition). Perhaps my body has within it the senses that allow tantric exploration, so nothing non-body is needed.

 

So, for now, the only reasonable model that I can think of, is that the body is the full Self. However, that doesn't mean that I know what "the body" actually is, since I know the concept of the body is not the true body. Perhaps the energy body is the true body, and the physical body is merely an apparent manifestation of that energy (the particle version of the wave/Qi body). I do want to be clear that when I say "body" I don't mean the experience of looking at myself in the mirror, and I don't mean how I feel about the body, nor how I think the body works or my internal body-map. These, of course, are all concepts. The body itself is in the realm of the unknown.

Edited April 11, 2011 by Otis

[Otis]

Hi Otis,

 

The problem I have with that is that if we give up all out knowns we will every day reaffirm this, that, and everything else we experience in life. I don't have time for that. I don't even have time to question if my chair is still capable of holding my weight. I just sit down, not even thinking about hoping that it will still hold me weight.

 

When I get in my truck to go somewhere I have never questioned if "I" am actually in the truck. I take that as a given. And I have never imagined my truck to be an airplane. It can go fast but it cannot fly.

 

There are many thing in life that we simply need to accept as being known to us.

 

Now, if you asked me if There is a God I would have to say, "I don't know".

 

If you asked me if frogs have wings I would answer, "Absolutely not!"

 

If you ask me what will become of my Chi energy when I die I would have to say, "I think that is an unknown."

 

So basically, what I am saying is that we actually need some "knowns" is our life so that we do not life in total chaos. But then we should collect these knowns as they apply to our own life and not to someone else's. Afterall, they may have different 'knowns' or perhaps none at all. (That would be sad.)

 

Now granted, science is 'aware' of only 4% of what is believed to be the entire universe. So that leaves 96% that is unknown. And I do not claim to know any of this unknown percentage.

 

I guess the best I can say is that we should establish some form of order in our life. We can do this only by establishing our "knowns". Then, remain open-minded for new information that will improve our understandings or even prove some of our understandings misguided.

Well, let me ask it this way instead, good Mr. Marblehead.

 

What if the job of "knowing" and "believing" was supposed to fall to a different brain part than the ego (the "I")? Just like emotions and thoughts seem to happen elsewhere in the brain, maybe "believing" isn't part of the ego's evolved function. Maybe if the ego stops believing, then the full Self can continue on fine, because those functions are better handled elsewhere.

 

Inspiration seems to hit when we get out of the way. Perhaps a cleaner, clearer belief mechanism will also open up when we "get out of the way".

 

Of course, I'm not recommending getting a "Spotless Mind" brain wipe, because I think life would be pretty tough to live afterwards. Not necessarily because the brain needs the ego to believe, but because the brain is so conditioned by the ego's need to believe, that it won't be able to function as an adult. What I am living right now, is a continual and systematic surrender of beliefs, holding on to as little as possible, with the trust that my greater Brain and Body can more than take up the slack. So far, IME, my Brain and Body are a great deal smarter than I am.

[Marblehead]

I wouldn't call that sad.

Let me ask a couple of questions. Since it is a possibility in that it does not violate the most fundamentally correct known law of physics, if it did happen, would you be more likely to think you had spaced out for a second and missed something, or doubt that it had happened?

This goes to how our expectations can condition our experience.

 

If it did happen and I witnessed it I am very sure that I would immediately accept the fact that it happened. If someone else said they saw it I would hold judgement until someone else verified the sighting or had a similar sighting as well. But even here, if there is not sufficient proof of the sighting then I would question it. It's like all the flying saucer photos that are bully beyond rationality.

 

Do you go so far as to doubt anything you have not seen with your eyes directly?

For example, if you have never seen a Grizzly bear in person would you doubt their existence?

How about a virus or the moon of Pluto?

Just wondering how far you take it.

Is the line drawn by utility?

 

I accept the theory of the Big Bang. No, I was not there to witness it. But there is enough evidence to suggest that the theory is valid. There have been validated pictures of grizzlies and the moon (that is questionable) of Pluto.

 

Based on what science believes needs be the conditions for life I would say that there is no life on the moon of Pluto. Until this information is revised I would say that there are no viruses on the moon of pluto but there are many on this planet and there may even be some on Mars.

 

Matters such as this have no utility to me whatever except for the discussion of the concepts underlying the subject. Were I to go hiking in Alaska (ain't gonna' happen) I would want to know as much as I could learn about grizzlies before I went hiking.

 

But yes, there are many things that are totally useless to me. But I try really hard to understand that these exact same things may be valuable to someone else. There are other things that are useful to me but may be useless to someone else.

 

How far do I take this? To the limit of rationality. If there is no logic or rationality behind what is being suggested then I will doubt its existance and will even question its utility for those who believe it to be so. If something does not fit into my logical world then I will ask why does it seem illogical. If I find a reason to negate it I will do so.

 

You see it is practical and utilitarian, not to mention necessary, to use the quantum mechanical models to design semiconductors. But no one has seen electrons tunneling through a potential barrier, just the effects of it.

 

Yes, that thought has been expressed to me before. I do not have the knowledge to discuss it nor do I find any need for having the knowledge because it doesn't apply to my world. Okay, sure, if computer manufacturers use the knowledge to make computers more efficient then this is good. When I need another computer I will buy one but I still won't need the knowledge of how that computer is made to be able to have the capacities and capabilities it has. That fact that it does what is claimed is enough for me.

 

So yes, the bottom line to this "knowing" topic is whether or not the individual finds this knowledge useful. Therefore I suggest that we need to 'know' those things that are useful to us in living our life to the fullest. So is it important to even know if Pluto has a moon? No, that knowledge is totally useless. Is it important that I remember where the can opener is when I want to open a can of food? Absolutely yes.

[Marblehead]

Well, let me ask it this way instead, good Mr. Marblehead.

 

Hi Otis. We are really not in disagreement. We are just looking at this concept from different perspectives. Yes, eliminate all prejudgements and prejudices. Absolutely!!! Experience every experience for exactly and only what it truely is; nothing more, nothing less.

 

And it is true, an excessively developed ego can get in the way all the time. I don't think I have even suggested otherwise. But I have suggested, and still stand by that suggestion, that we do need an ego in order to identify our physical existence. So that we can take good care of ourself and not allow ourself to be killed needlessly.

 

In the TTC it is written that the Sage has no opinion. It does not say he has no ego. Yes, it does say "If I had no self I would have no worries." (Paraphrased.) But it doesn't say that he has no self.

 

I do agree with you that our brain becomes conditioned beginning the moment we are born. Some of this conditioning is good. Much of it is not so good. Some of it is just plain bad. That is why we are told to unlearn. It doesn't mean to become stupid, it means to consider all this stuff we have been tought through the years and test its accuracy. Then discard what is inaccurate or useless.

[Otis]

Hi Otis. We are really not in disagreement. We are just looking at this concept from different perspectives. Yes, eliminate all prejudgements and prejudices. Absolutely!!! Experience every experience for exactly and only what it truely is; nothing more, nothing less.

 

And it is true, an excessively developed ego can get in the way all the time. I don't think I have even suggested otherwise. But I have suggested, and still stand by that suggestion, that we do need an ego in order to identify our physical existence. So that we can take good care of ourself and not allow ourself to be killed needlessly.

 

In the TTC it is written that the Sage has no opinion. It does not say he has no ego. Yes, it does say "If I had no self I would have no worries." (Paraphrased.) But it doesn't say that he has no self.

 

I do agree with you that our brain becomes conditioned beginning the moment we are born. Some of this conditioning is good. Much of it is not so good. Some of it is just plain bad. That is why we are told to unlearn. It doesn't mean to become stupid, it means to consider all this stuff we have been tought through the years and test its accuracy. Then discard what is inaccurate or useless.

Yes, I do think we are in agreement.

 

I also would not say: kill your ego. IMO, every part of us is there for a reason.

 

I think that epistemological humility is such a big bright subject for me, because it was such a wake-up call. I love to challenge my notions of what I thought was real, because possibility just seems to open up. It has been an important part of "finding myself through losing myself", so it's something I like to talk about a lot.

[Stigweard]

[Marblehead]

[rookie]

Hi Marblehead,

 

Some of your responses seem to indicate that you try to stay wholly within the realm of reason. Would you say this is true? I am not challenging your beliefs, I just find your responses interesting. I am not interested in changing your mind, but I have more questions for you to consider.

 

If you endeavor to stay wholly within the realm of reason, how aware are you of the limits of reason and logic?

Some of these limits that have been found by applying the method to itself I think are surprising, at first.

 

I think a lot of young people are attracted to mathematics, or philosophy or logic because they seek some certainty in the world. Certainty like this can be found within the system itself, until you take it to the limits and find it is incomplete in an essential way.

[Marblehead]

Hi Rookie,

 

Fair questions and comments. My response:

 

Some of your responses seem to indicate that you try to stay wholly within the realm of reason. Would you say this is true? I am not challenging your beliefs, I just find your responses interesting. I am not interested in changing your mind, but I have more questions for you to consider.

 

This is absolutely true. Valid observation. Although your opening phrase should have been, "Most of your responses ..."

 

If you endeavor to stay wholly within the realm of reason, how aware are you of the limits of reason and logic?

Some of these limits that have been found by applying the method to itself I think are surprising, at first.

 

I constantly speak to the need to constantly test our limits. This would naturally include testing the limits of reason and logic. All things change. Our limits change. Science fact even changes. Logic is useless without reason and reason is useless without logic.

 

I think a lot of young people are attracted to mathematics, or philosophy or logic because they seek some certainty in the world. Certainty like this can be found within the system itself, until you take it to the limits and find it is incomplete in an essential way.

 

I used to be a young person a long time ago. I used to utilize a lot of mysticism, imagination and idealism in my beliefs when I was young. And you know what? They never proved true in 'real life' where we have to interact with other people. Everyone does not have good intentions. Not everyone will do the 'right thing'.

 

I won't ask you what you mean by "... incomplete in an essential way." but will speak to the concept. Incomplete meaning a lack of spirituality. My spirituality is based in the beliefs of many of the nations of the North American Natives. And this is based in the belief that we should live with nature and not against it nor to strip the planet of all its resources but rather take only what is needed and leave the rest for others.

 

In doing this we are a part of the whole. We don't do it because someone has told us to do it - we do it because it is the right thing to do.

 

As to an afterlife, we believe that we return to Mother Earth upon our death. How we are used at that time by Mother Earth is of little concern for us. We understand that if we have lived in cooperation with Mother Earth whatever becomes of us will be the best of all possible alternatives.

 

But even we know that there are many unknowns. We know that there are bears in the woods and if we put ourself in a 'wrong' situation we can be harmed. Therefore we always maintain contact with the 'real world'.

[Otis]

I will however play a card into the hand of our pragmatic Mr Marbles who is our anchor of stoic practicality. No doubt I went a little to far "out there" and it did cause me a period of "inconvenience" in the effort to restabalize myself. These days I am a lot more pragmatic then I was when I was a young hot head.

Excellent observations, Stigweard, and thank you for sharing your own experience of discovering the sense of Qi.

 

I quoted the above paragraph, because I think that it is also one of the hallmarks of "living in the unknown". New freedom tends to breed some temporary clumsiness. You seem to have experienced a pendulum swing, where you went "too far out there", and then self-corrected. That is, I think, the sign that you were living in the unknown.

 

An example of this that I often see is: people trying to learn handstands. Because people tend to be afraid of falling on their backs, beginners rarely go all the way to the center point, where balance is easy. They tend to hang back, biased toward the face side, so they won't tumble. They are stuck within the comfort of the known, and therefore cannot go far enough to find the easy balance point. When people ask me for handstand advice, I suggest that they find some place to practice, in which they have no fear of falling, either social or physical. If failing is not the wrong thing to do, but instead is just a necessary part of learning, then it becomes much easier to move into the unknown.

 

That's a big part of why I practice surrendering my need to do it right. Because I learn a lot faster, and a lot more true to my own system, if I don't worry about "right", rather: just practice with what is available, right now.

[Otis]

Marblehead, you know that I do agree with you on most things. In fact, you are probably the poster on TTB that I most often agree with. I do have a coupla niggling (but potentially important) bones to pick with you, though, if you don't mind.

 

One is: in your response to Rookie, you lumped "idealism" in with "mysticism" and "imagination". But I contend that they do not fit together, at all. Idealism is pure delusion; it is belief trying to force itself on reality. Mysticism is about experiencing without beliefs, so it is the opposite of idealism. Imagination is just a tool of the brain to help us venture into the unknown. If we stick to a mystical path, we will have to engage our imaginations, but not our idealism.

 

Secondly: the "usefulness" test is a good one, perhaps the best one I know. However, it is also easy to dismiss very useful input, just because it doesn't immediately seem useful.

 

Thirdly: yes, it is wise to be aware of dangerous animals, and to give them wide berth. But it is also very true that caution and "false positives" can stop possibility, long before danger actually begins. This is part of why I got into stunts, a couple years ago, because I had lived removed from risk, and all the limitations that I saw were imaginary. As I started exploring further into the unknown of my own capacity for not freaking out, I realized that I was able to explore a great deal of seemingly dangerous situations, without hurting myself.

 

And I am sure you will agree that balance is necessary in each case. I guess the question is: how do we know where the balance lies?

[Otis]

And apropos of posts on handstands, danger, and finding balance:

 

 

Edit: actually, I held back from the center point on most of these handstands, precisely because I couldn't afford to fail.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Otis

[Marblehead]

And apropos of posts on handstands, danger, and finding balance:

 

 

Edit: actually, I held back from the center point on most of these handstands, precisely because I couldn't afford to fail.

 

Great demonstration! The last one was a tough one. Did you ever try doing pusups while you were in position?

 

(Now back the the other post. Hehehe.)

[Marblehead]

Marblehead, you know that I do agree with you on most things. In fact, you are probably the poster on TTB that I most often agree with. I do have a coupla niggling (but potentially important) bones to pick with you, though, if you don't mind.

 

Well, go ahead on. It's your quarter. (As in you are making the phone call.)

 

A note, I have on a few occasions reached in my pocket and offered someone who was doing nothing but complaining a quarter and said, "Here, call someone who cares." (People who bitch all the time but make no effort to solve their problems bug the heck out of me.

 

One is: in your response to Rookie, you lumped "idealism" in with "mysticism" and "imagination". But I contend that they do not fit together, at all. Idealism is pure delusion; it is belief trying to force itself on reality. Mysticism is about experiencing without beliefs, so it is the opposite of idealism. Imagination is just a tool of the brain to help us venture into the unknown. If we stick to a mystical path, we will have to engage our imaginations, but not our idealism.

 

Yes, I had a very difficult time with that sentence. I changed it three times. However, after consideration, if we look at any of the three and determine that there are no grounds for believing in any particular concept where these are invloved then they would end up being nothing more than delusion and/or illusion. I don't totally negate any of them. There are times and conditions where these attitudes (right word?) may be very useful. At other times and conditions them may be a hinderance.

 

Secondly: the "usefulness" test is a good one, perhaps the best one I know. However, it is also easy to dismiss very useful input, just because it doesn't immediately seem useful.

 

Yes, that is why I always try to remember to say "useful to me" because I really don't want to negate the usefulness of any thing or any one. And it is true, a useless thing of today may become a useful thing tomorrow. My work shop is full of today useless things but who knows what tomorrow I may need something that I threw away yesterday?

 

Thirdly: yes, it is wise to be aware of dangerous animals, and to give them wide berth. But it is also very true that caution and "false positives" can stop possibility, long before danger actually begins. This is part of why I got into stunts, a couple years ago, because I had lived removed from risk, and all the limitations that I saw were imaginary. As I started exploring further into the unknown of my own capacity for not freaking out, I realized that I was able to explore a great deal of seemingly dangerous situations, without hurting myself.

 

And this is why I oftentimes speak to the concept of "fear" and suggest that we should try our best to overcome our fears so that we can have a better chance of living our life to its fullest. The first time I rode my new Harley Sportster I had to overcome the fear of all that power. Only a year prior to buying it I had dumped my Ducati and ended up with a lot of injuries but luckily none were serious.

 

But then, we should not over-extend our confidence either. If we know our capacities and capabilities there is a good chance that we will accomplish the amazing but yet have done so with little extra effort.

 

Awareness is key then, I think.

 

And I am sure you will agree that balance is necessary in each case. I guess the question is: how do we know where the balance lies?

 

Oh, you know I like to talk about harmony rather than balance but yes, in your demonstration balance is key. And we find our balance only by testing. We ask ourself: Can I do this? We plan, we make sure we are in the physical condition needed and then we begin easy. Each new advancement is easy because we are taking the steps slowly. Eventually we accomplish something great but all the way to this greatness was easy.

 

So, yes, idealism, mysticism, and imagination all have a place in everyone's life. But all should be applied rationally and if possible, logically.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Marblehead

[Otis]

You are far too reasonable, Marblehead, to disagree with for long.

 

And yes, I agree harmony is a more elegant and accurate concept than balance. I will have to start including it in my posts, if you don't mind.

[Otis]

Great demonstration! The last one was a tough one. Did you ever try doing pusups while you were in position?

Thanks. I can only do partial handstand push-ups, but I didn't try them in that environment. In time, maybe...

[Stigweard]

In Taijiquan we have the principle of neither insisting nor resisting, meaning we never push too hard to create change nor do we resist too hard against change.

 

I believe this is appropriate advice here in regards to the unknown ... we should neither overly strive to seek it out, but neither should we fix ourselves in place and resist it.

 

To insist that we should journey into the mysterious unknown is an extreme, but so is insisting that we stay in realm of the rational known.

 

[Marblehead]

You are far too reasonable, Marblehead, to disagree with for long.

 

And yes, I agree harmony is a more elegant and accurate concept than balance. I will have to start including it in my posts, if you don't mind.

 

Hehehe. Why thank you Sir.

 

Yes, please speak of harmony.

 

Here's some harmony for you:

 

[Marblehead]

Thanks. I can only do partial handstand push-ups, but I didn't try them in that environment. In time, maybe...

 

No, I wouldn't want you to try them in that environment.

[Marblehead]

In Taijiquan we have the principle of neither insisting nor resisting, meaning we never push too hard to create change nor do we resist too hard against change.

 

I believe this is appropriate advice here in regards to the unknown ... we should neither overly strive to seek it out, but neither should we fix ourselves in place and resist it.

 

To insist that we should journey into the mysterious unknown is an extreme, but so is insisting that we stay in realm of the rational known.

 

 

Excellent advice, I think.

[Otis]

To insist that we should journey into the mysterious unknown is an extreme, but so is insisting that we stay in realm of the rational known.

I won't insist it for anyone else, but personally, the mysterious unknown seems like the only reasonable path for me. Otherwise, I will spend the rest of my life in a "shrinking-V" life (living within smaller and smaller opportunity), instead of an "expanding-V" life. Being comfortable and safe has its place, which is why I'm an incrementalist, but the "known" does not feel like the soil for growth, to me. Growth is my only pole star, because all other points of reference seem like illusions.

[Stigweard]

Just adding some snippets of dialogue from another discussion...

 

Zhuangzi might also help:

 

(tian is heaven)

 

The River Lord asked: When you say "tian" and you say "man," what do you mean?

The North Sea Being said: Horses and oxen have four feet, that’s what I call "tian." Haltering a horse and piercing the nose of an ox, that’s what I call "man." I advise, don’t let man obliterate tian, don’t let intentionality (gu) obliterate destiny (ming).

 

In other chapters there is balance:

 

“His oneness was integrated; his not oneness was also integrated. Being One, he was a student of heaven, being Not One, he was a student of man; the person in whom neither heaven nor man defeats the other is called an authentic person.”

 

其一也一，其不一也一。其一與天為徒，其不一與人為徒，天與人不相勝也，是之謂真人

 

one of the original usages of Tian was to imply "great nature" or even "original nature". I do like how Zhuangzi uses it the crafty bugger, enjoyed rereading that. As soon as we say "this is it" we are inevitably incorrect

 

So in this sense we can equate these phrases with each other:

 

Being One, he was a student of heaven, =

 

Therefore, always (ch'ang) without desire (wu-yü),

In order to observe (kuan) the hidden mystery (miao);

 

AND...

 

being Not One, he was a student of man; =

 

Always (ch'ang) with desire (yu-yü),

In order to observe the manifestations (chiao).

 

Pretty much has the same cadence and implication.

 

Actually I want to just continue on this line for a moment to further etch this into my mind because it is a prescription on how to do the binary flip between conceptual and non-conceptual perception.

 

To see the oneness (yī / tian / miao), what I call the subtle view (guān qí miào), we must abandon fixed descriptions and attachments (respectively wú míng and wú yù).

 

However both Laozi and Zhuangzi seem to be advocating against oneness as a "fixed perception" implying that "seeing the separate things" is equally valid and important.

 

Thus to see the many (wàn wù / bùyī ), what I call the superficial view (guān qí jiǎo), we must engage in or adhere to both descriptions and attachments (respectively yǒu míng and yǒu yù), or what Zhuanzi says "to be a student of man" (rén wèi tú).

 

I want to do some comparative ontology here, because this binary oscillation between the known and the unknown is the essence of many traditional shamanic practices. The shaman will deliberately shut down conceptual perception or consciousness in order to "journey" to the "spirit realms" (aka the unknown, aka tian). But then on the return she must reassemble conceptual perception (aka the known) and ground out the insights gained into some form of pragmatic and useful information (done usually with dance, song, poetry or art).

 

Edited February 9, 2012 by Stigweard