Chuang Tzu Chapter 4, Section A

[Stosh]

Mh you aren't making a bad argument its just that mine also applies with the merit of living in the present. He doesn't say Confucious is a fool nor the proper role model , isn't it common opinion that he felt Confucious wasn't giving enough credit to human nature, that his rules were directly contrary to his own ideas of natural merit , instead substituting a contrived idea of virtue?

The philosophies of Lz and Cz depend heavily on human nature as the source of virtue ,, if one doesn't believe that one ends up with a humans natural conformance to rules , which is less optimistic less cherishing of humanity and more legalistic.

Surrounded by weapons is far more proven than someone's say so.

 

As with many of these stories this is one is supposed to apply not only to that particular situation in ancient china but to readers even today I just don't think his message was to just give up as soon as one had reason to expect opposition. ...one can always calculate they could lose anything which hasn't happened yet. BUT IT HASNT HAPPENED yet. Its all a matter of judgements virtues and values..we aren't here told what to do, the considerations are being laid before us .

[Stosh]

Retroactively one can look back and say that an action was stupid to try Or one can call it a brave act .In the face of this dependence on circumstance, what could one use to determine virtue? -the "right" thing to do going forward?

I have my own opinion of course.

[Marblehead]

But Stosh, if we understand "cause and effect" and we have knowledge of the present we can look into the future and see the effects of any causes we inject into the thread of life. We can see if an action will have positive or negative effects. And we can determine if an action might be wise or stupid.

 

Brave acts are normally done out of spontaneous inspiration. Here there is no consideration of "positive/negative", "right/wrong", "wise/stupid". We simply react (or act).

 

In spontaneous acts virtue is not a consideration. Whether it be virtuous or not will depend on our own true virtue.

 

Premeditated acts will normally include thoughts of "is this a virtuous thing to do" but in theory if we are in a state of wu wei even these thoughts will not enter the game.

[Rara]

 

That is extremely true. But even knowing this I still write my Senator or Rep when I have an opinion to voice.

 

If we don't say that we think something is wrong everyone will think that everything is right. But don't be so forceful that you cause yourself more problems.

Power to the people! Haha...

 

Yes, it is proven that with enough fighting for one thing can make a change. I still sign petitions and write to my MP on topics I feel strongly behind and know there is a decent campaign going.

[Marblehead]

Power to the people! Haha...

That is a phrase I have rarely used but I love it when John Lennon sang it.

 

Freedom is not free. Sometimes we must fight for it.

[ChiDragon]

That is a phrase I have rarely used but I love it when John Lennon sang it.

 

Freedom is not free. Sometimes we must fight for it.

 

Fight, only when someone takes it away from you! One don't need to buy. Thus it's free.

[Marblehead]

 

Fight, only when someone takes it away from you! One don't need to buy. Thus it's free.

Fight before it is taken away. The battles are less bloody that way.

 

True, you don't have to buy but someone still has to pay.

[Stosh]

But Stosh, if we understand "cause and effect" and we have knowledge of the present we can look into the future and see the effects of any causes we inject into the thread of life. We can see if an action will have positive or negative effects. And we can determine if an action might be wise or stupid. Brave acts are normally done out of spontaneous inspiration. Here there is no consideration of "positive/negative", "right/wrong", "wise/stupid". We simply react (or act). In spontaneous acts virtue is not a consideration. Whether it be virtuous or not will depend on our own true virtue. Premeditated acts will normally include thoughts of "is this a virtuous thing to do" but in theory if we are in a state of wu wei even these thoughts will not enter the game.

Well said, except for one thing ... I see nohing we don't agee on here.. Seriously! The world continues to turn under our feet ..we do not remain fixed quantities jeither..we must look ahead at least SOME if we are to have any hope of staying in balance with our situations. At any given time we have to look around and assess where we are where we will go and what we will try to do when we get there. Situations change.. and we have to decide whether things look like they are working out well whether it means we should stick to a mission despite rough times ..or walk away from an unproductive effort. I think the present situations have a finite duration ...as in For the moment I am on the couch .. it is continuing fine.. no significant changes are pressing .. that is NOW.. 'Now' described as some infinitessimally small moment where you don't have any time at all to think is maybe during a fight or something. But here on the couch I can make considerations with the data at hand ..think things through...but taking into considerations stuff that's just a wild guess because the evidence isn't really here yet is no longer the present ....its fanciful imagination of the future..

[nestentrie]

[...]we must look ahead at least SOME if we are to have any hope of staying in balance with our situations. At any given time we have to look around and assess where we are where we will go and what we will try to do when we get there. Situations change.. and we have to decide whether things look like they are working out well whether it means we should stick to a mission despite rough times ..or walk away from an unproductive effort.

[...]

...but taking into considerations stuff that's just a wild guess because the evidence isn't really here yet is no longer the present ....its fanciful imagination of the future..

 

Reasonable assertions.

 

I think what's worth considering is does one look forward with the attitude to keep oneself in step with incoming changes? Or does one seek to make the changes themselves? Temperate attitude, or ambitious attitude? I think in the case of the chapter being discussed Confucius was not warning against temperance but ambition on the part of his pupil. To go to another place with one's own sensibilities and inclinations expecting the change of various others to conform to himself.

 

I think Lao Tzu has a word here:

 

22

The partial becomes complete; the crooked, straight; the empty,

full; the worn out, new. He whose (desires) are few gets them; he

whose (desires) are many goes astray.

 

Therefore the sage holds in his embrace the one thing (of

humility), and manifests it to all the world. He is free from self-

display, and therefore he shines; from self-assertion, and therefore

he is distinguished; from self-boasting, and therefore his merit is

acknowledged; from self-complacency, and therefore he acquires

superiority. It is because he is thus free from striving that

therefore no one in the world is able to strive with him.

 

That saying of the ancients that 'the partial becomes complete' was

not vainly spoken:--all real completion is comprehended under it.

 

 

I call this verse to underline the comments regarding desire. It's especially important what the pupil wants out of the exchange. If one can believe that because the pupil is a sage then he would be free of the things mentioned later in the verse he wouldn't be displaying himself to the ruler; he wouldn't be asserting himself; he wouldn't be boasting; but how strong is the pressure to be complacent? I think Confucius is warning against this. Complacency would put even a sage under terrible pressure to bend and sway with these things in his imperative to stand up to the ruler.

 

And this is without mentioning the very things Confucius explicitly spells out in the chapter.

Edited December 2, 2013 by nestentrie

[Marblehead]

Nice post Nestentrie. I will leave it for Stosh to respond to.

[Stosh]

Reasonable assertions.

 

I think what's worth considering is does one look forward with the attitude to keep oneself in step with incoming changes? Or does one seek to make the changes themselves? Temperate attitude, or ambitious attitude? I think in the case of the chapter being discussed Confucius was not warning against temperance but ambition on the part of his pupil. To go to another place with one's own sensibilities and inclinations expecting the change of various others to conform to himself.

 

It can fairly be read that way .. yep I can go with that as well

 

I think Lao Tzu has a word here:

 

22

The partial becomes complete; the crooked, straight; the empty,

full; the worn out, new. He whose (desires) are few gets them; he

whose (desires) are many goes astray.

 

Different text , though I can read it,, in itself ,, in a way that I agree easily ,, it requires discussion on its own to decide if this teaching is to be closely applied here, since it is also in the "creative writing style' and an interpreted document.

 

 

 

Therefore the sage holds in his embrace the one thing (of

humility), and manifests it to all the world. He is free from self-

display, and therefore he shines; from self-assertion, and therefore

he is distinguished; from self-boasting, and therefore his merit is

acknowledged; from self-complacency, and therefore he acquires

superiority. It is because he is thus free from striving that

therefore no one in the world is able to strive with him.

 

That saying of the ancients that 'the partial becomes complete' was

not vainly spoken:--all real completion is comprehended under it.

Same thing there basically , Im reluctant to directly use uninterpreted text from a different context to clarify the situation, since the assumption that I agree with the one you propose is read in the same way by both of us may or not be true. we'd end up going in circles ,, one quote to prove or explain another quote neither of which agreed upon Id like to find the point at which we each can agree but diverge. So even if I have other interpretive renderings I like better, I want to stick with the same wordings he's using here so as to treat them with fresh eyes. That being said I applaud your harmonizing of the conceptries.

 

I call this verse to underline the comments regarding desire. It's especially important what the pupil wants out of the exchange. If one can believe that because the pupil is a sage then he would be free of the things mentioned later in the verse he wouldn't be displaying himself to the ruler; he wouldn't be asserting himself; he wouldn't be boasting; but how strong is the pressure to be complacent? I think Confucius is warning against this. Complacency would put even a sage under terrible pressure to bend and sway with these things in his imperative to stand up to the ruler.

 

And this is without mentioning the very things Confucius explicitly spells out in the chapter.

Quite reasonable as well IMO , I see a shift in emphasis to my own, but I dont see the things as incompatible. I do however feel that it is the broader point which includes both,,,, desires to do good stuff -ambition, and the other side of the coin,, reacting with expediency to the real world situation as presented at the time -restraint.

Our situations in real life require decisions to be made , that are just as difficult or complex. The decisions we make are based on both our emotions and rational assessments of a given situation. One cant just put down a rule and say "ALWAYS" charge forward, and one cant say "ALWAYS" retreat. So the best lesson that can be told is to describe what are the subtleties and considerations that will help to come to sound conclusions.

[nestentrie]

Different text , though I can read it,, in itself ,, in a way that I agree easily ,, it requires discussion on its own to decide if this teaching is to be closely applied here, since it is also in the "creative writing style' and an interpreted document.

 

Yes I suppose I was taking liberties by referencing another text. I really just wanted the part that referenced having few desires, but the rest seemed also to apply so I kept going.

 

 

Our situations in real life require decisions to be made , that are just as difficult or complex. The decisions we make are based on both our emotions and rational assessments of a given situation. One cant just put down a rule and say "ALWAYS" charge forward, and one cant say "ALWAYS" retreat. So the best lesson that can be told is to describe what are the subtleties and considerations that will help to come to sound conclusions.

 

Agreed. There are always choices to be made. I especially agree that there is no hard rule of "ALWAYS" (or NEVER).

Edited December 2, 2013 by nestentrie

[Stosh]

Great, do you also concur that this whole story could be analagous to trying to convince someone something when they think they have the right answers despite a sorry state of affairs? You can't force your ideas to be embraced in most circumstances.You couldn't tell them always be trusting or friendly or merciful , that's unrealistic and they are going abandon your advice when the situation demands it anyway..otherwise they will blame you for the misfortunes that happened because they were not exercising sound judgement. And you can't tell them to always do the reverse, for the same reason.

All one can safely do , is point at considerations that are relevant if they will entertain them ,and leave it to them to decide which choice to make..Even doing only that ,one is interfering, but if ones way is to be a teacher then that is the risk one takes.

 

Any holes in that reasoning?

Edited December 3, 2013 by Stosh

[nestentrie]

Yeah, a made up mind is an impenetrable mind. There is little for the sage to do with such people. And you're right: there is difficulty trying to tell an obstinate person to be trusting and merciful. Also, telling them to be distrusting and violent has in it the core of wrong-doing, so you can't tell them that either.

 

As to the risk in it that you're talking about, I think something can be done if one examines what the root of obstinancy is.

 

Informally referencing another Chuang Tzu chapter ("The Old Fisherman") it's stated that behaviour symptomatic of obstinancy is "to see his errors with changing them, and go on more resolutely in his own way when remonstrated with". I ask of this: what is it about "one's own way"? Possessively, we cling to what we think we know, refusing all outside interference. So where is the Humility in this? That's what I as a sage would be careful to find out.

 

If we know where the seeds of humility are in our obstinate ruler, we can put our sincere efforts into harmonising with them. Agree with the knowledge he asserts or puts forward that is well founded, cling to it with the mind that reciprocity can bear out a good relation, ignore the knowledge that is faulty and/or immoral. In fact I'd say that the Sage should be trying to not just wait for this to happen, but to draw it out. This is of course shaky ground as far as flattery goes, but I think it's worth a shot.

 

That is the what and why of it, however like Confucius warns, the exact method is problematic. So again, I agree with you that in the end the ruler is the one who has to make final judgement with the choices before him. You cannot put it to him, trying to flatter here and tease out there: one must adhere to sincerity on whole, and in strong spirit, not partially and with bias.

 

So in the end I don't know. Myself, I would try on sincerity and see where it would lead. I'd take on that danger.

[Stosh]

I concur with your attempt and caution well mixed..sincerity though, thats almost a separate subject but yes similar. Too much may disclose too much , too little may endanger credibility,, my feeling is that here again flexibility is key as well as keeping ones eye on ultimate goal.

 

Obstinacy, hmmmm , are you thinking that one holds to their ideas despite knowing they are wrong? Well I'd say that one may prefer to write their own path and wrongness is a questionable situation.

The greater fool listening to the other fool comes to mind. One may push ahead even with serious doubts without it being obstinate having learned that persistance may trump a lot of other things.

Bt there is a trait called belief persistance, where the is a lag between learning and emotional acceptance. Ones identity , sense of self and security in their own conclusions are undermined in accepting being wrong naturally one resists having that happen. Humility? the real kind , an acknowlegement of ones flaws or limitations ..could make someone admit to themselves their stupidity leaves no option but to stick with a bad plan rather than be stymied all the time.

One might simply be forced to what looks like obstinacy by humility..

On the other hand one may be forced to humility by stupidity and weakness..so it doesn't strike me as all that impressive of a trait.I guess I prefer the company and attitudes of people that have pride well earned than humility contrived ...or well earned

Edited December 3, 2013 by Stosh

[nestentrie]

[...]

Obstinacy, hmmmm , are you thinking that one holds to their ideas despite knowing they are wrong? Well I'd say that one may prefer to write their own path and wrongness is a questionable situation.

The greater fool listening to the other fool comes to mind. One may push ahead even with serious doubts without it being obstinate having learned that persistance may trump a lot of other things.

 

 

You may have actually just caught me up on something. I suppose you're right to question why I would talk of obstinancy when really what's under scrutiny in the chapter is conceited self faith (the ruler only believes in the rightness of his own views). You mentioned in an earlier post that this chapter had many subtleties and I think we have just found some of it because in the chapter Confucius makes a passing remark about obstinancy that doesn't hold the emphasis all the way through and goes back to talk more or less about the temperance of the ruler. Confucius himself isn't entirely sure of what ails the ruler. So it again comes back to the sage having to know more about the issues than the ruler and having the higher moral stance. In this I can't really offer any more than the pupil offers.

 

 

Humility? the real kind , an acknowlegement of ones flaws or limitations ..could make someone admit to themselves their stupidity leaves no option but to stick with a bad plan rather than be stymied all the time.

One might simply be forced to what looks like obstinacy by humility..

On the other hand one may be forced to humility by stupidity and weakness..so it doesn't strike me as all that impressive of a trait.I guess I prefer the company and attitudes of people that have pride well earned than humility contrived ...or well earned

 

Again you're right to bring this up, and yes, humility can be a kind of obstinancy (or at least passively lead to it).

 

However I'd like to take this opportunity to perhaps enlighten this concept a little. I've taken on board (from Chuang Tzu's "The Old Fisherman) the 8 defects of character and 4 evils a person is subject to as weighty topics to think over and digest. Without trying to self promote I'm actually developing a theory of 4 modes/expressions of self with it. Perhaps in another thread I'll one day type it up, but for here I'd like to just expound more on what i think humility is.

 

Humility is not just being accepting of one's own limitations and faults. It's actually being aware aware of one's own abilities in a proactive sense (humility can be active). Adjacent to humility is prudence. The humble person, is yes, aware of their limitations, but also aware of how to implement their actual ability. Knowing what is right to say when is not only an act of prudence it is the act of a truly humble person because what is right or wrong to say is directly proportionate with what one is able to say and do (what is their state of knowledge and virtue).

 

The most extenuated form of humility is mercy. Prudence following humility sets up what can and cannot be said, based on the question of "Should I? Or shouldn't I?" and is the ground foundation of mercy. Prudence following humility sets up "Should I treat this person this way? Are they deserving?". Mercy is the highest sense of right and wrong, both internally (what one does for oneself) and externally (what one tolerates and accepts in others).

 

This is what is really at stake in this chapter. Confucius is concerned that Yen Hui will be subject to the ruler's temper (and temperament) where every move he makes is quashed and subverted. Internally, Yen Hui's own mercies are put under strain and stress. But I think this has been talked about enough.

 

I've chopped and changed with my successive posts, but I do believe this is Confucius' real concern (not just warning).

[Stosh]

Oooo interesting directions your post goes. ( thought provoked into Yoda-ese fall I into sometimes )

 

You may have actually just caught me up on something. I suppose you're right to question why I would talk of obstinancy when really what's under scrutiny in the chapter is conceited self faith (the ruler only believes in the rightness of his own views).

 

Oh its fine to flesh out a subject , I agree there is a lot of stuff to be examined below the surface in these things,,

just Mh hates it when it goes awry.

Confucious also thinks he's right.

As does Yan Hui , but Yan is cautious or doubts himself.

So I think we could agree, the one person showing a lack of obstinacy is Yan.

 

 

You mentioned in an earlier post that this chapter had many subtleties and I think we have just found some of it because in the chapter Confucius makes a passing remark about obstinancy that doesn't hold the emphasis all the way through and goes back to talk more or less about the temperance of the ruler. Confucius himself isn't entirely sure of what ails the ruler. So it again comes back to the sage having to know more about the issues than the ruler and having the higher moral stance. In this I can't really offer any more than the pupil offers.

 

If I get it right , the job of these advisors to the rulers was exactly that , to instruct on virtues, they were literally called upon to endorse or advise , in that capacity. Confucious never held a position of that kind of authority himself . Does Confucious speak out of humility caution concern or fear here?

I guess Im of a position that whichever it is,, that it represents a retreat from his calling which would represent a diversion from his task in life.

 

 

However I'd like to take this opportunity to perhaps enlighten this concept a little. I've taken on board (from Chuang Tzu's "The Old Fisherman) the 8 defects of character and 4 evils a person is subject to as weighty topics to think over and digest. Without trying to self promote I'm actually developing a theory of 4 modes/expressions of self with it. Perhaps in another thread I'll one day type it up,

 

Im thinking it will be very interesting should you do so.

 

noun: humility

1. 1.

   a modest or low view of one's own importance; humbleness.

   synonyms: modesty, humbleness, meekness, diffidence, unassertiveness; More

   lack of pride, lack of vanity;

   servility, submissiveness

   "he accepted the award with sincere humility"

   antonyms: pride

Going by strict definitions, I think your term prudence is possibly better choice than assigning a proactive attitude to humility.

Rather than say the following ...

Mercy is the highest sense of right and wrong

I would think Prudence is doing that which is expedient.

 

I've chopped and changed with my successive posts,

the accurate view of opinions is that they may not fit in the boxes of our words

 

but I do believe this is Confucius' real concern (not just warning).

I concede that may be true, I dunno.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

just Mh hates it when it goes awry.

 

You guys are doing great. Still within the roots of the concepts in the section being discussed.

[Marblehead]

Confucious never held a position of that kind of authority himself .

 

Actually, he did once. Counsel to a prince. But the prince's distractors presented him with fine dancing girls and the prince forgot all about Confucius.

[nestentrie]

You guys are doing great. Still within the roots of the concepts in the section being discussed.

 

Thanks, MarbleHead. Nice to know we're not wasting anybody's time. Myself, I'm enjoying the back and forth. Chuang Tzu is awesome. Where Lao Tzu is terse and concise, leaving the inner reflections almost to the reader alone, Chuang Tzu has so many handles and knobbly bits to grab onto. And stosh is definitely not letting anyone say "non-action. nuff said" and having everyone move on!

 

Which brings me closer to the substance of my post.

 

For some section of this exchange I've been back foot front, finding one fulcrum point in what stosh is saying then proceeding forward with my own ideas. Now I'd like stosh to give some ideas. He did very well in the thread before I came in so let's hear some more. To get at those ideas i'll pose a question: if courage is a virtue, what are it's features? And are its features more aptly applied to this situation than plain humility?

 

Some quick thoughts of my own are that it does indeed take courage to meet this ruler? Like I intimated some posts back, if I were the sage here I'd be willing to try sincerity. Is it courageous to be sincere? And what bearing would it have on the unfolding of things?

 

...

 

Getting yoda-esque on me is acceptable

[nestentrie]

Sorry. I was a bit hasty with that last response. I didn't address anything you had said to me stosh. Let me meet you halfway... (my question still stands! )

 

 

Confucious also thinks he's right.

As does Yan Hui , but Yan is cautious or doubts himself.

So I think we could agree, the one person showing a lack of obstinacy is Yan.

 

You're asking me to assess the temperament of the two sages, not just the ruler. I was always coming at this with the idea to solve the problem of the bombastic ruler...

 

I agree that Yan is the one being cautious. Confucius seems made up about what is practical and reasonable. Confucius isn't exactly being put on the spot where the root of obstinacy is exposed, but he's definitely set in his opinions.

 

What interests me though is Yan being humble? Is he being humble when he sets out his plan in full? Or is there some mix and match going on? He's on the one hand talking of taking a humble stance, but his scheme for expounding things to the ruler seem based on wisdom... Are humility and wisdom really of the same tack? The same process? Confucius seems to think it's admixture.

 

Again, I don't like to say that I have the problem solved, but my theory goes to this. In my reckoning I know why he calls it admixture, so I'm still interested in what you think of courage and how it pertains to sincerity

 

Going by strict definitions, I think your term prudence is possibly better choice than assigning a proactive attitude to humility.

Rather than say the following ...

Mercy is the highest sense of right and wrong

I would think Prudence is doing that which is expedient.

 

.Yes. What I suppose I was trying to explain was a process, not a state. Humility is fixed, as much as it is a nature that has form and movement, it cannot go beyond it's own bounds. Prudence is another thing that just happens to work synchronously with humility.

 

Too true about boxes and words!

[Marblehead]

To get at those ideas i'll pose a question: if courage is a virtue, what are it's features? And are its features more aptly applied to this situation than plain humility?

Yes, courage is having the strength and determination to act when action is needed. But Courage is also having the strength and determination to not act if that is the best thing to do.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Marblehead

[Stosh]

Chuang Tzu has so many handles and knobbly bits to grab onto. And stosh is definitely not letting anyone say "non-action. nuff said" and having everyone move on!

 

Yep and heck no ! Everyone would continually be defying the non action thing all day long , its totally unfeasible unless defined otherwise ( which is possible)

 

To get at those ideas i'll pose a question: if courage is a virtue, what are it's features? And are its features more aptly applied to this situation than plain humility?

 

Courage is another one of those things that only really exists conceptually. as All virtues that one is, or might be calling 'positive attributes' likewise are. The very fact that one considers them "positive" already! is entering the world of make believe.

Ex:

US civil war ,, Pickett charges up a hill into withering cannon fire and his troops are decimated..

Observers and participants have different opinions about it , some consider that to be a heroic display of courage , others a futile and wasteful disgrace . If the circumstances worked out different , then it would be called heroic success or costly victory.

How the events unfolded ,,dictates whether there was a basis for a retroactive assessment of merit or virtue. But what happened is really what happened-- and the opinions are subjective nothings describing it.

 

If a man avoids a task due to concerns he has , well he calls it discretion , and if he goes ahead anyway , he calls it courage. If its someone else to do it he may call it either fear ,or simply rational.

 

So to answer your post most directly , There are no virtues in objective reality ..

but even if I were trying to entertain them from a perspective of subjective reality , courage,,,, ,may or may not pay-off ,be expedient ,carry a win , be commendable etc. It is a brand of 'attitude summation' , thats all.

 

Does it figure here heavier than humility,, ummm IMO yes ,because I think the ruler ,who is out of the picture, is part of the context , not the subject here.

 

Gotta get back to work do I , later more.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Stosh

[Stosh]

I was sleeping ,had some dreams, woke up, got thinking, and decided to jot this explanation down.

Please forgive the brief diversion

 

Starting with the taijii,

there is the dark formless unknowable existance of the objective eternal Dao,,

there is the light in the void… form and differentiation..

the knowable doable subjective living world.

Each half has an element of the other,

embracing they interact, making the whole of the universe.

 

The eternal Dao has no bias, it is objective.

It has no meaning and no desires.

It is a scene or context in which things may happen.

It embodies all the rules and laws which cannot be broken,

This is the objective aspect of our context..the universe.

The potential exists inherent within this objective context ,

for the subjective to exist as well.. in our mind.

 

We can only know the eternal Dao through a filter of our senses and inference,

and can use this understanding to make ourselves subjectively better off accepting it,

as we have the potential for the objective state within ourselves!

Just as ,,It -contains the potential for the subjective- Us.

 

The human condition is a subjective state,embodied by physical.

We have bias, emotions, awareness, and a physical avatar.

We are the generator and subject of meaning which we create for ourselves ,

but these things have no inherent objective veracity,

even so, they do have subjective truth.

We must subjectively conceptualize about the External objective state

because it is objectively real, and our thoughts are subjective ,

though they may mirror the objective in some respects.

 

The full idea of ‘the way’, is to bring us into harmony with ourselves

and the world,in the context of the eternal Dao , and being that which we innately are,

which requires acceptance of both.

Recognizing the difference between that which is subjective and objectively true

is important since ,though both exist, both are real, and both affect one another,,

the ‘rules’ are not the same.( so you can’t fly ,but might really imagine it and build a plane)

 

The external world may seem unreal to us since we don’t experience it directly ,

OR, we may see ourselves as the unreal thing,

since our emotions and ideas are more fleeting and malleable to us..

depending on our point of view,, which again,, is a subjective thing.

That which we do, because of what we think, is translated into ‘form’ that is physical,

, becoming objectively true or observable to others,

Albeit ,through their individual subjective evaluation and inference.

 

Which brings us back to the symbol of the taijii

Void and substance ,unmanifest potential and defined material ,

with impure distinction ,making up the whole of what is.

That’s the human situation in a nutshell.

IMO

Edited December 4, 2013 by Stosh

[nestentrie]

Makes one wonder: "what are we supposed to do with our subjective nature?" I suppose just reflect the truth of it?

 

Non action seems pretty attractive in this way of looking at things...