Not-Doing

[Stosh]

Yes, it is true. The native Chinese have an advantage over the non natives. It's because the native do not have to deal with any translation or mistranslation. Hence, they only have to be concerned with the interpretation which are written in their own language. Of cause, the Taoists wouldn't follow it blindly. It was simply that they have their own interpretation which may be esoteric to the outside people.

Im not so sure thats the only way to look at it Cd the reason is this once you think you know what a term means ,you can be closed to other meanings, you might think you get it , but not.Native Chinese in China would have already been exposed to interpretations of what stuff meant ,since its largely figurative language it will always have multiple interps.Yes ,no translation from one language to another can be said to ever be perfectly accurate. Since the meanings of words are subjective in nature, there is no objective thing to be translated.Its also true within a language! I write something, and the reader makes his-her own associations.So no , I dont think there is really much reason to assume one way or another to assess whether modern chinese folks will understand the meanings of these Classical Chinese writings significantly better. They will just be more prone to their own misinterpretationsrather than the misinterpretations of the initial translator.Just an opinion , but I have no idea how one would prove one way or another if your, or my own, stance was accurate.Stosh

[Marblehead]

Maybe, this just occurred to me, Wu Wei is somewhat like Song in taiji, 'not tense, relaxed, but not limp, ' able to react to the way things are flowing, but the reaction is the natural one, so, in effect, there is nothing 'reactionary' happening, like, if I walk past a young tree, and brush my hand past one of its branches, it gives, but when I my hand moves past it, it moves back to where it was, so nothing actually happened, or the way water moves, it's not passiveness, but....naturalness, for lack of a better word,

 

this conflicts a little with my understanding of Don Juan's not-doing ( from the books, not just the post)....but then again...hmm, I'll let this roll around for a while, first...

 

∞Nelida

HI,

 

I do understand what you are saying here and it's nice to see this thread revived.

 

I would disagree with you on one point though: regarding your hand and the young tree.

 

I suggest that something did happen. Your life was forever changed by this interaction. And the tree was forever changed as well. The changes may not be perceptible but they happened none-the-less.

 

And this is the essence of this thread, really, both not-doing and doing will result in change. Your hand and the tree fall into the not-doing category - there was no intent, only the interaction.

[Stosh]

And if a child was born 9 months later

you could be sure it happened

and that changes things

Stosh

[Marblehead]

And if a child was born 9 months later

you could be sure it happened

and that changes things

Stosh

Yep.

[Nelida]

HI,

 

I do understand what you are saying here and it's nice to see this thread revived.

 

I would disagree with you on one point though: regarding your hand and the young tree.

 

I suggest that something did happen. Your life was forever changed by this interaction. And the tree was forever changed as well. The changes may not be perceptible but they happened none-the-less.

 

And this is the essence of this thread, really, both not-doing and doing will result in change. Your hand and the tree fall into the not-doing category - there was no intent, only the interaction.

 

hi Marblehead

thanks for your comment, got me thinking again, you're right that 'nothing happening' is not the right nuance now that I read it back, it is indeed part of all that is everchanging and through the interaction a connection is made between the branch and my hand that consequently influences the changes that come afterward, the phrase 'touch the world lightly' comes to mind here for some reason,

I wonder though, if ever something is really without intent,

this reminds me of something else, a description I read about wu-wei, and consequently intent, I can't remember where it is from, it could well have been TTC,

about how the seasons don't need an 'action' to do what they do, or a plant or tree doesn't 'act' in this sense, because it is simply the way they naturally change, if the snow melts, the seeds simply sprout and then grow because that's what they do, it's the 'intent' that is inherent in their existence that makes them move and change accordingly...

 

( I thought this was a beautiful passage, if it sounds familiar to anyone, let me know, I have no clue where I read this, could it be 'the web that has no weaver'?)

 

I'm seeing 'intent' in a castanedian way here, I guess, I don't know how this would translate in another thought system, but I like the idea, I think what I wrote above, trees grow because it is inherent in what they do, may have made my own understanding clearer here, they don't 'act' because the intent set for them envelops all the actions and characteristics of their existence....

...so then maybe 'intent' is the dynamic principle that initiates and shapes all changes, the movement and manifestation of qi in its different forms...and if you have 'intent' in what you do, you are in a way tapping in to something universally 'set in intent' and if you move along its lines, it's a natural movement and it is wu-wei..........

 

hmm....make any sense?...not sure it does to me, lol, I'd love to hear your thoughts, this is a good thread indeed

 

∞Nelida

[rene]

Nelida, hi

 

Regarding:

"about how the seasons don't need an 'action' to do what they do, or a plant or tree doesn't 'act' in this sense, because it is simply the way they naturally change, if the snow melts, the seeds simply sprout and then grow because that's what they do, it's the 'intent' that is inherent in their existence that makes them move and change accordingly..." and "... I think what I wrote above, trees grow because it is inherent in what they do, may have made my own understanding clearer here, they don't 'act' because the intent set for them envelops all the actions and characteristics of their existence...."

 

Well put, imo. To me, the difficulties folks have with the idea of 'wu-wei' being translated as 'no-action' are resolved with instead of the 'act' part of no-action implying motion (i.e. do nothing), the 'act' part of 'no-action' refers to "acting" (like a theater actor assumes a role).

 

[Note: to those of you who may be following the States of Tao thread... that latter version of 'no-action' (above) is the same thing as Wu-action, action of the Wu-state, action that arises through what is natrually inherent, rather than contrived.]

 

Also, regarding:

"...so then maybe 'intent' is the dynamic principle that initiates and shapes all changes, the movement and manifestation of qi in its different forms...and if you have 'intent' in what you do, you are in a way tapping in to something universally 'set in intent' and if you move along its lines, it's a natural movement and it is wu-wei.........."

 

I tend to respectfully disagree here, maybe, lol, depending on your definition of 'intent'. If it's refering to what inherently arises, then I agree. But if by 'intent' you are refering to an overarching universal 'intent' (for what one might prefer) and we just tap into that to make our decisions and then (theater)-act on them, then I disagree. I run fast from other peoples 'good intentions'.

 

Maybe somebody (not me, lol) could make a thread on the kinds of 'intent': I intend to eat when hungry. I dont intend to shape anyone into another version of me.

 

BTW, welcome to TaoBums, Nelida. I've been reading your posts, they're quite enjoyable.

 

warm regards

[Nelida]

hi Rene

thank you, and nice to make your acquaintance

 

please disagree, lol, I made a connection in my head somewhere, but the expression of this thought was flimsy indeed, let's try again...

I don't mean 'intent' in the manner of 'people's intentions' or 'I intend to eat pizza for dinner today' anyway ;p

 

hmm..if the wu-wei or non-action of a tree is the thing it 'does not do' or is simply being then its intent is to sprout, to grow up, to give fruit, for example,

in human reference ( tcm terminology that is) intent could maybe be described as 'zhi' or 'will' and it lies deeper than an intention, it's deeper than humanity, it's more..cosmic..

it is maybe the same as the 'intent' you set to perform sympathetic magic, if one is so inclined,

or the 'intent' to give a question or dialogue with the I Ching, which makes you moves on the wavelength of the heaven and the earth

 

I have a nice description here about understanding the way the I Ching might 'work' and how it gives its answers, I think it's from Confucius' Analects; ( this is slightly paraphrased and freely translated from the dutch book I have)

"The Book of Changes contains the measure of Heaven and Earth, through it one can understand and bring order to the Tao of Heaven and Earth. [..] As man becomes equal to Heaven and Earth, there will be no conflict between them and his Tao will bring order to the world. [..] If then you ask how it is possible the I Ching brings you answers over time and space it could be said that it is a microcosm that mirrors the macrocosm. A man who is equalled to Heaven and Earth, or, a man who does not deviate from the movement of Heaven and Earth is therefore also a microcosm reflecting macrocosm. Man becomes equal to Heaven if he attempts to know and respect the Universal Laws, he becomes equal to Earth if he attempts to live and work according to these laws. If man is tuned in this way, his questions and the answers of the I Ching move on the same wavelength, and the miracle of resonance happens, the I Ching sounds through to man, and it becomes clear how it can answer your questions."

 

and: " The changes don't have consciousness, they have no action, they are silent and don't move. When they are roused, however, they pervade everything under the skies."

 

here, again, as with wu-wei and not-doing as discussed in this thread, there seems to be two different meanings, as I see it at this point anyway, on one hand, it is the natural inherent nonaction, on the other it is something more active, for lack of a better word,

 

hmm, I don't think I made it any better, lol,

the quantum-shaman page says 'intent is the active side of clarity' this resonates too, somehow..I want to look further for an explanation of intent as described in castaneda's books, but that will have to wait a bit, my love is claiming a little together time and I really have to go now

 

maybe anyone else knows more about the Analects or has better words to describe this 'knowledge of no words'? lol

 

until soon!

 

∞Nelida

[Marblehead]

Hi,

 

I do have a problem with "intent" if used for anything other than a human (and a few other species) characteristic. What I would speak to regarding the characteristics of anything in the universe beyond the human would be a thing's nature - Tzujan (Ziran).

 

Example: The Earth does not create tornadoes with intent to do anything. It is doing only what is natural for it to do. (This, to me, is what wu wei in the human animal would be.)

 

I also think it is an error to suggest that there is intent in the metaphysical/spiritual realm because we are invoking powers that I believe do not exist. (Consider that statement with the knowledge that I am an Atheist. Hehehe.)

 

I think that life can be much simplier and therefore much more enjoyable if we can live as much as possible within our true nature (we wei) and keep the living with intent to a minimum.

 

Regarding changes and changing, I do believe that there is a connectivity between all things of the universe. I do not personify this connectivity. What we do effects some thing and that some thing effects some other thing, etc. But those effects might be so minimal that they may not be directly observable.

 

But again, wu wei, not doing, is not 'doing nothing'. In my understanding it is not doing anything that is not natural for us. Now true, what is natural for one might not be natural for another but that is beside the point.

[Nelida]

maybe it is unclear from what I said ( rambled earlier, but I didn't mean it to be something personal or personified, to the contrary! if it seemed that way, then no, let me adjust by saying that I don't think this principle is anthropomorphic ( ok, this is not right, I mean...applicable to humans...?) in any way, if it is a universal principle, then it goes way beyond that. I'm not familiar with Tjuzan, so I'll have to look this up the 'nature' of something, or maybe its purpose does come close to this, but it...is not what I mean exactly, lol, difficult issue, this...

ah, maybe this...if I may repost two earlier lines " The changes don't have consciousness, they have no action, they are silent and don't move. When they are roused, however, they pervade everything under the skies." this implies in a way that this impersonal principle that is ever present and shapes reality in a way, has the potential, or the other way around, if people /man learns to discern it and move to its appropriate wavelength, this energy or principle can be 'used' made practical or applicable to...ones own cause, I don't mean this to be manipulative in a bad sense, but, very simply said, if things are going well for you (because you are in Tao then you are more likely to be in the right place at the right time, to have good things come to you...it is possible to manipulate, and I suppose that means for good as well as for bad...

ok, maybe I should stop trying to figure out what intent means to me now, lol, it's not going to get any better, I'm sorry, it was fun though plus, this was about not-doing and I'm straying off-topic..

 

I can't speak from an atheists perspective, so I don't know what you consider spiritual powers that don't exist. I don't believe in 'a' god in the traditional sense, but there is a lot more going on than what we see or believe to be true in our current paradigm, and I think it's a lot less 'personal' or human centered than most would feel comfortable with. At least, that is my understanding at this point, I have yet to grow a lot to actually 'see' this better than I do now.

 

 

I agree that wu-wei is definitely not doing nothing, and frankly, I have a little trouble with the view of not acting or passiveness, I don't think this is what it implies, non-interference may be coming closer, but there I am also unsure of what it means practically.

 

∞Nelida

[Stosh]

here, again, as with wu-wei and not-doing as discussed in this thread, there seems to be two different meanings, as I see it at this point anyway, on one hand, it is the natural inherent nonaction, on the other it is something more active, for lack of a better word,

maybe anyone else knows more about the Analects or has better words to describe this 'knowledge of no words'? lol

You put your finger on the precise issue that much of the discussion revolves around, just " what is a better word?"The only way to really get at that problem is to see what words fit best in describing reasonable scenarios , words that have the ring of wisdom in ANY culture ,to ground them. Like in Jurassic Park where the scientists use frog DNA to splice fragments of Dino DNA together. :)Acting without imposing personal ambition , could fit , taking the path of least conflict could fit. But whatever you choose there will always be those who prefer to stick to nonsensical and uninformative terminology just because they feel it is technically more accurate, (misunderstanding that the subjective understanding of the terms negates the possibility of rendering a true "correct" interp.)Knowlege of no words , hmmm, direct-experience based understanding sans the distortions of socialization?Stosh

[Stosh]

<p>

, wu wei, not doing, is not 'doing nothing'. In my understanding it is not doing anything that is not natural for us. Now true, what is natural for one might not be natural for another but that is beside the point.

Doing things that are self destructive and make our lives more unhappy or difficult,, seems like a definition of 'unnatural' that could apply to anyone , all circumstances ,and cultures , for both groups and individuals, in a city or in the woods.

Even for folks who value moderation.

 

Stosh

Edited September 4, 2012 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

<p>

Doing things that are self destructive and make our lives more unhappy or difficult,, seems like a definition of 'unnatural' that could apply to anyone , all circumstances ,and cultures , for both groups and individuals, in a city or in the woods.

Even for folks who value moderation.

 

Stosh

I'm totally with you on that one.

[Nelida]

Stosh you are right, of course, words are just that, words, but they may be, or they are, completely inadequate to describe a certain understanding that happens without words, or language, as our socialization has taught us to do to communicate...

 

∞Nelida

[Nelida]

oops, double post

Edited September 4, 2012 by Nelida

[Stosh]

I'm totally with you on that one.

Great. Now we just need a publicist !Stosh

[Marblehead]

ok, maybe I should stop trying to figure out what intent means to me now, lol, it's not going to get any better, I'm sorry, it was fun though plus, this was about not-doing and I'm straying off-topic..

 

I was going to say that at least you know what you are talking about but maybe I should hold on that for a little while. Hehehe.

 

I agree that wu-wei is definitely not doing nothing, and frankly, I have a little trouble with the view of not acting or passiveness, I don't think this is what it implies, non-interference may be coming closer, but there I am also unsure of what it means practically.

 

∞Nelida

Actually, the concept of intent is component of the concept of wu wei so we haven't strayed off topic at all.

 

Yes, please get an understanding of Tzujan as it is an important concept to keep in mind when discussing wu wei.

 

The other parts of your post don't seem to need to be spoken to at this time.

 

And yes, I enjoy talking about this stuff.

[Stosh]

Stosh of course, words are just that, words, but they may be, or they are, completely inadequate to describe a certain understanding that happens without words, or language, as our socialization has taught us to do to communicate...

 

∞Nelida

I think you are in complete accord with the Classical ones.My personal opinion of socialization is that its a "double edged sword"that should best be blunted on one side and sharpened on the other because we cant really live on instinct alone , and although the exact messages of socialization are arbitrary to a large extent, it is also innate that there be socialization of us of some type (and that there are normal-expectable messages destined to be socialized regarding , such as not to go on murderous rampages) Stosh

[Nelida]

so I was getting somewhere after all, lol and I like talking about his too

I didn't find anything in-depth about Tzujan yet, I will have to look a little further, I'm surprised I really didn't hear about it until now, thanks!

 

"My personal opinion of socialization is that its a "double edged sword"that should best be blunted on one side and sharpened on the other"

I like this thought, very nicely put this way

aside from the fact, though, that you need ( do you? ) to decide on a certain term to be able to know 'this is what we are speaking of right now" isn't this also in part because the things we speak of now in this thread aren't part of our western socialization, not part of the reality or paradigm that we were raised in?

I suppose people who were raised with certain concepts wouldn't have a need to discuss this in the manner we do, it would be part of their respective socialization.

They may also have differing views, of course, but what happens here a lot, in the west I mean, when trying to describe such concepts as are completely unfamiliar to us, is that the discussion may get stuck in the semantics, people disagreeing about a description of something that must be accurate, linguistic nitpicking? while it isn't really about a description, but about understanding what it is, really.

maybe if you were raised in a society that acknowledges the existence of...qi, or natural spirits, or sees that people have animal guides and recognizes its characteristics, really any society that the west might view as superstitious and primitive, then you would also have a 'name' for something 'unnameable' simply for the purpose of addressing it, but then people would know what the other was talking about simply because they also have in themselves this connection with this nameless thing.

Would socialization have to be blunted on one side too then?

But maybe I'm just too inclined to think that the west is, for all its science and technology and so-called 'superiority' and reasonableness, actually...naturalistically backward....

 

What if we could dream together and wouldn't need words to describe but could share the direct experience? we could bypass all this....

 

∞Nelida

[Stosh]

I think the tzujan that marblehead referrs to is another 'romanization'

pinyin term you may have seen as 'ziran'.

Folks put an inordinate amount of attention to the terms meanings because they dont translate directly well to english.

No, I dont think its always critical to agree on a certain term to be in agreement about the basic gist of a conversation ,( even folks using the same term can mean it differently they just dont see the conflict of opinion as easy)

but using different terms can indicate actual significant differences in connotation.

Yes, I think the paradigms we are raised with predispose us to needing common terminology to indicate agreement.

Sure, folks who are on the same page dont need to discuss some things but I hesitate to make the blanket assumption that easterners are on the same page as one another, or that they are more likely to not be on the same page as one of us westerners, regular life just has too many similarities between cultures. When I was in Thailand I was surprised at just how similar folks were on the other side of the globe once you get past superficialities. But I was struck by the relatively loud vigor of american habits (denoting my people) on my return.

Lots of folks here in the states have beliefs about ghosts and angels and gods and bigfoots ,auras and psychic abilites, thats no different here from there.

The way I see it faces and languages differ, but under the skin and in the mind not much difference is there at all.

 

"Would socialization have to be blunted on one side too then?"

Well , as I see it , there are social messages which we incorporate into a superego (which can be both positive or negative in influence) This aspect of ourselves should be revisited and investigated as we mature into adults, rather than accept the skewed perceptions we got as kids as being valid beyond suspicion. Updated rather than fought.

 

I dont know what naturalistically backwards means, but there are trade-offs society has made , makes and will make , and sometimes they arent always wise in the long run.

 

I dont want anyone messing around with my dreams or in my head , I like that divide , there are far too many folks who would be disadvantageous to have traipsing around in there.

Stosh

[Marblehead]

HI Nelida.

 

This does a pretty good job at defining Tzujan (Ziran).

 

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

[ChiDragon]

HI Nelida.

 

This does a pretty good job at defining Tzujan (Ziran).

 

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

 

Everything is OK, except the NOSE for 自 doesn't belong there.

[Marblehead]

Everything is OK, except the NOSE for 自 doesn't belong there.

Hehehe. I was wondering about that but did not have the knowledge to say anything.

[Stosh]

I thought the nose was a reference for oneself

such as when points a finger at ones chest.

Stosh

[ChiDragon]

I thought the nose was a reference for oneself

such as when points a finger at ones chest.

Stosh

 

Yes, you are right but the nose by itself is a NOSE rather than oneself as yourself.

[Stosh]

Ok ,

Stosh