Taoist ideals and government corruption

[sean]

Via Asia Times Online

 

Culturally, the Taoist framework of self-maximization has much to do with corruption in China. In contrast with the Confucian principles that call for officials to act for the common good, Taoism recognizes the need and right of individuals to act for their own benefit. This allows Chinese people to accept the need for officials to enrich themselves, and, indeed, many see the richer as more successful. This is why corruption is quite open and direct; you can almost predict what any particular activity will cost. (more)

 

And a response via The Useless Tree

 

The only way I can understand this assertion is that the author is extrapolating from the religious Taoist practice of life extension, searching for medicinal means to prolong health and life span. But the interpretation fails, utterly. The author has obviously never seriously read the Tao Te Ching, Chuang Tzu or Lieh Tzu. If he (she?) had, he would know that Taoism is not about selfishness. It is not about "the need and right of individuals to act for their own benefit." (more)

[cloud recluse]

Sean,would it be fair to say that a "real" daoist ,not being driven by a compulsive self-obsession in any direction,would be hard to pin down in terms of conventional "morals?Like,at any given moment they could appear "selfish' or "selfless",following either apparent "selfdenial" or apparent "selfindulgence",in conventional terms.

 

I mean,either selfish or selfless are both behaviours that spring from a conventional notion of self,a conventional obsession with self,"Im just in it for myself/Im so untrustworthy & must be controlled",both being egoic.The Daoist would be inspired by something else.

 

So socially the Daoist would be hard to predict & control.Im given to understand that Chinese imperial culture has never been comfortable with them.They could be happily withdrawing from social obligation in apparent "selfishness",or savagely criticizing the moralistic pretences & hypocrisy of society with not only words,but actual deeds that would be seen as exemplary & "selfless".

 

What makes mainstream Chinese more uncomfortable,Daoist "selfishness" in withdrawing from social obligation,or their sheer unpredictability on which "moral' stance they take next?

 

Just a bit of speculation

 

Regards,Cloud.

Edited August 19, 2006 by cloud recluse

[SifuPhil]

Cloud, I think you win the kewpie doll!

 

Morals are a man-made construct - not a natural occurrence. Therefore, most taoists wouldn't subscribe to the popular notion of them.

 

"Selfishness" is great - without some degree of selfishness, we wouldn't care for ourselves physically or mentally. It's only when terms like "self", "selfish" and "selfless" become attached to radical swings of behaviour do they earn their bad reputation.

 

The Chinese, like Russia of old, most feared the West because of their unpredictability. We were those crazy people whom you could never be sure just what we'd do in a given situation. That makes for discomfort, and discomfort leads to political / quasi-religious actions.

 

And if "The Useless Tree" didn't mention THIS little fact - Taoist thought is clear on the point of governance - less is better; allow the people to believe it is THEIR actions that are governing them, not yours; move only with considered thought for the governed, not for the greater glory of government or self.

[...]

I agree with the jist of the two earlier posts...

the biggest thing about taoism, in my opinion, is that there is no dogma... no right or wrong... the good men are the teachers of the bad...

 

But the poor thing about taoist philosophy is that it can be contradicting. (probably because it was written by different people at different times...).... I find apparant contradictions within the tao te ching, hua hu ching... and can easily, easily understand why sean, and any others, would think along these lines.

Though I lean towards the more 'nihilistic' side of taoist philosophy, I totally dig and respect the more 'selfless and virtuous' side, as well.

 

virtue is non-virtuous, non-virtue is virtuous....

 

I can come up with some contradictions between these two books, tao te ching and hua hu ching, if you need me to.

[cloud recluse]

...Taoism is not about selfishness. It is not about "the need and right of individuals to act for their own benefit."

 

What Im getting at is that daoists dont "need" any position as a static moral stance,as they are not (ideally) driven by an underlying fear of extinction,they are not compusively attached to ANY conventional stance,be it "Selfish" or "Selfless".They can act as they feel appropriate,unclouded by existential fear & moved by deep intuition.

 

Now,you could say this in itself is a form of 'right & 'wrong',in that you have two basic positions to act from,Deep Intuition or Compulsive Fear,each reinforcing itself as it is enacted & embodied.But one has a potential for flexibility & clarity whereras the other does not.And the willingness to relax into Deep Intuition,I think,presupposes some degree of acceptance & reverance for the world (though NOT apathy),so it is definetely life-positive.A position of Compulsive Fear implies to me some kind of rejection of the world,be it the industrialists desire to control or the ascetics desire to escape.

 

So its not nihilism,its just based on a deeper vision than legalism,& thus is threatening by virtue of its unpredictability.A Daoist could be a head of state or a mountain recluse or anything in between,but the issue of remaining in a state of Deep Intuition would remain paramount.Compulsive,fear-driven "need" would exclude that ,as would any social position that reinforces compulsion & life-hatred (Sociopathic dictators may be "relaxed" in their callousness,but they dont strike me as life-revering).

Edited August 21, 2006 by cloud recluse

[Todd]

What Im getting at is that daoists dont "need" any position as a static moral stance,as they are not (ideally) driven by an underlying fear of extinction,they are not compusively attached to ANY conventional stance,be it "Selfish" or "Selfless".They can act as they feel appropriate,unclouded by existential fear & moved by deep intuition.

 

Now,you could say this in itself is a form of 'right & 'wrong',in that you have two basic positions to act from,Deep Intuition or Compulsive Fear,each reinforcing itself as it is enacted & embodied.But one has a potential for flexibility & clarity whereras the other does not.And the willingness to relax into Deep Intuition,I think,presupposes some degree of acceptance & reverance for the world (though NOT apathy),so it is definetely life-positive.A position of Compulsive Fear implies to me some kind of rejection of the world,be it the industrialists desire to control or the ascetics desire to escape.

 

So its not nihilism,its just based on a deeper vision than legalism,& thus is threatening by virtue of its unpredictability.A Daoist could be a head of state or a mountain recluse or anything in between,but the issue of remaining in a state of Deep Intuition would remain paramount.Compulsive,fear-driven "need" would exclude that ,as would any social position that reinforces compulsion & life-hatred (Sociopathic dictators may be "relaxed" in their callousness,but they dont strike me as life-revering).

 

Beautifully said.

[cloud recluse]

Sean,is all this chatter here actually adressing the issue you wanted to raise? I assume it was in regards to the attitudes of the Chinese establishment to daoists.Is that correct?

 

Regards,Cloud.

 

Beautifully said.

 

Awww Shucks

[sean]

Sean,is all this chatter here actually adressing the issue you wanted to raise? I assume it was in regards to the attitudes of the Chinese establishment to daoists.Is that correct?

I didn't really post it with any particular goal. Just a news bit I stumbled across and figured I'd share. I've been pretty busy lately and also kind of in a "quiet mode". But I realized that I bump into little shreds of news and such in my research and that I could share things like this here more often ... especially when I don't have that much to say otherwise.

[cloud recluse]

I didn't really post it with any particular goal. Just a news bit I stumbled across and figured I'd share. I've been pretty busy lately and also kind of in a "quiet mode". But I realized that I bump into little shreds of news and such in my research and that I could share things like this here more often ... especially when I don't have that much to say otherwise.

 

Cool

[Wayfarer64]

Cool

 

This is great! I was hoping to find a thread like this! I think that the Confucian line has taken a strong hand in Chinese/Taoist tradition, but may have swung the whole sytem of thought to "the right" or to a more authoritarian state-oriented philosophy. The hermits who first came up with the reading of burnt turtle shells had their minds in a very different place than Confucus who wanted very much to be the power behind the throne...

As I understand it the idea of "morality" is different in traditional Chinese culture then what we are used to in our puritanical/ prurient America. Just sexual morality alone sets us apart...

There, sex is part of one's staying healthy, like diet and nutrition, with little or no thought of it being dirty or sordid- at least as far as your non-kinky druthers would allow. "golden showers" would not be concidered a healthy response to sexual urges....But I may be reaching for qualifiers here...

The whole idea of corruption is pretty different though-out Asia. One must pay-off officials to get almost anything done on a business level. If there is money being made they get a peice of it, period. This is so in every Asian country I've done any business in (about 8 or 9)...where even small amounts -(by US biz #s )- a few hundred dollars - gets their attention. It is treated much like taxes are here. No one likes the over-head but its inevitable. And it may even work better than our giving congress the purse-strings for our tax money, just to end up in their croniey's pockets!

Anyway-

What brought me into Taoism is my interpetetion of the philosophy as allowing the right and wrong of situations to be found within the situation not some predetermined ethic to be found in behavioral guidlines. All things in their own time. (turn, turn, turn)...

The aim as I think about it- is for one to find an awareness, or to be in the moment and interact (live) within the moment to be the best person you can be... That niceness and comfort or weath and power are not goals in themselves, just attributes to use as the time and place call for them. While humility, honesty,compassion & self-awareness are always traits to emulate and strive to make part of one's charracter with some degree of durability. Which may be thought of as Perserverence in "the right ". This makes Taoism unique to me, as "the right" is suggested by inner thought processes and a link to conscience more than by doctrine or dogma. We get to think and act for ourselves moment by moment in the constant flux of life...

This is a liberating doctrine that upsets the authoritarians among us- be they Chinese or born-again Texicans...

Edited September 6, 2006 by Wayfarer64

[rex]

[Wayfarer64]

Edited September 23, 2006 by Wayfarer64

[Wayfarer64]

Here is a bit of controversy for us to mull over...

Ward Churchill has been labled by some as a traitor to America. But I wonder if a Native American who's heritage of Shamanism and Earth as Mother not property -was and remains under attack by this society, should have any loyalty to the system that destroyed his culture... Is his a Warrior's path on the Taoist Way?

It will piss some folks off no doubt, but the theory of the banality of evil has some merit. Group-think has produced many monsters...If the USA's corruption and racist practices from Burma to Oklahoma provoke armed response; can we still sympathize with the oppressed, even if they are our nation's "enemies"?

This of course doesn't apply to those Bums from other nations but their input is even more important here.

This thread raises important issues that go beyond our personal questing to address how we actually live in the world. Self-realization is not so far from self-absorbsion if the world we live in is neglected.

I believe it is the love of the wider world that leads to true mastery of the self, and the subsiquent loss of ego and the part of us that is "that which dies"...Linking our spirit to the natural world instead of the shell of our own body as it were...

At what point do our day-to-day activities add to the pressures on the environment and the pressures on indiginous people to submit to the onrush of globalization?...

These are all troubling questions that go to the core of our personal values. I for one have only respect for the gumption it takes to address the issues raised by Churchill.

 

Check out what he has to say...

http://www.zmag.org/bios/homepage.cfm?authorID=62

 

 

peace-wayfarer