Takaaki's "American Taoism"

[thinker]

So what, beyond the Three Treasures and wú wéi, might be included in such a simple, plain-language, non-mystical presentation of Daoism for the layman? Or perhaps it would be better to think of it as something that would be presented to a child, except that a child would probably have an unfair advantage, seeing as their thinking hasn't been as badly screwed up by our (American) school system yet.

Edited February 20, 2013 by thinker

[Mark Saltveit]

Oh, there's a lot. I'm working on a book. ;-) Avoid comparisons, be humble about what you know, practice your craft diligently until you're not "in your head" any more, etc. I prefer Zhuangzi's approach though -- using stories and parables, rather than a linear analytical list of principles. If ZZ or Laozi thought you could just list it out logically, I'm sure they would have.

[shanlung]

I agree, you Taoistic Idiot. A big part of Daoism's strength is NOT connecting all the dots for the reader, and avoiding fixed pronouncements.

 

It will be a very rare person, American or Chinese or Galatical Taoist, or not Taoist, to be able to get all the ducks lined up before the going on the Path.

 

And at the end, it will not matter. The first step is but the first step on a journey, where perhaps the journey might be as important , if not more important then the destination.

 

I was so sure of everything when I was younger. Maybe years bring greater stupidity to me, that I cannot be sure of anything anymore.

 

Those that will do genocide will do that with whatever tools at hand. Guns played a minor role as against the machete and sticks and stones in Rwanda.

 

Even if that man behind E=MC2 also wrote to the American Pres to work on the A bomb, can he be totally be blamed for what dropped from Bockscar and Enola Gay?

 

Wuwei can be so good to prevent paralysis of the mind. Just go and do what you think is good.

It can be put to good, and can be put to evil. That can be disconnected with whatever true wuwei will lead you to do.

 

Idiotic Taoist

[Marblehead]

And at the end, it will not matter. The first step is but the first step on a journey, where perhaps the journey might be as important , if not more important then the destination.

It is only the journey that is important. There is no destination. We are always where we are.

[thinker]

Oh, there's a lot. I'm working on a book. ;-) Avoid comparisons, be humble about what you know, practice your craft diligently until you're not "in your head" any more, etc. I prefer Zhuangzi's approach though -- using stories and parables, rather than a linear analytical list of principles. If ZZ or Laozi thought you could just list it out logically, I'm sure they would have.

 

I'm beginning to get the impression that a lot of Daoists are working on a book. Perhaps it should be considered one of the requirements for being a Daoist. Like most, I doubt that I'll ever finish mine. I started translating (for myself) the DDJ under a new set of assumptions. First, that it's a straightforward text, and that any mysticism and poetry that appear to be there are the result of poor translating. Second, that it must be translated in its historical context (I've already found references to events of the day that wouldn't be clear without the history). And third, that you have to go back to the original texts and meanings of the seal script characters, rather than using a (relatively) modern Chinese dictionary, which seems to be what many translators, inexplicably, did. And so on. Eventually I even decided to throw out the customary line breaks, many of which seem to be have been chosen for nothing more than their ability to produce an admittedly awful set of translations, and to treat each chapter as a single run-on sentence until I could break it up in my own way. The difference in meaning that this has made at some points in the text is so significant that I've come to consider translating using either a modern dictionary or the commonly accepted line breaks to be a waste of time. In the off chance that I finish before I die of old age, I'll probably e-publish the result.

 

Re your sentence "If ZZ or Laozi thought you could just list it out logically, I'm sure they would have.", based on the results of my translations, I think that Laozi did, and that most of the vagueness and mysticism that a lot of Daoists today seem to prize is really just poor translating. I've often wondered, if I'm more or less correct, and one day mysticism and mystery cease to be a part of Daoism, then how many will leave the fold because what they really value isn't the Daoism, but the mysticism and mystery. There seem to be a lot of people who's biggest fear is that there's no mystery, mysticism, or supernaturalism in the universe, just science and common sense; and they choose a religion not for the sake of enlightenment, but to give them hope that there's more than that, and a feeling that they're special because they've mastered knowledge that most others don't have. I wonder how many come to Daoism because its vague and poetic presentation caters to that need, and thus they always seem to be more loath to give up the mystery than anything else. Certainly a lot of Daoists seem, to me, to be misplaced Buddhists; but Buddhism is much better defined than Daoism, in empirical terms, and I suspect that many choose Daoism for that reason, even if they don't consciously realize it.

 

[Mark Saltveit]

Interesting. I look forward to reading some or all of your work.

 

My effort is not a translation of the Daodejing; I don't speak classical Chinese and am no expert. it's a collection of short things like this and this currently titled "Philosophy Without All Those Words."

 

I'm getting encouragement from agents and publishers, but they always want it to be longer. I'm like, what part of "without all those words" am I not making clear? Who ever hated a book because it was too short?

[Mark Saltveit]

I'm beginning to get the impression that a lot of Daoists are working on a book.

 

You know Brian Eno's famous quote about the Velvet Underground? "Only 30,000 people bought their first album, but every one of those people started a band."

 

That's what I love about the Daodejing. It's so short, and from so long ago, but despite every kind of distance, widely varying translations, etc. that slim book is still endlessly productive of ideas and inspiration.

[gendao]

Have you have spent any time living with chinese or in china? For myself, I see much more going on than a simple case of a diffusion of responsibility.

 

But your welcome to have other conclusions based on any direct experience and discussions with hundreds who have similar experiences too.

Yes, I have.

 

So, what "much more" exactly do you see going on? Are you saying that "Chinese" (ethnicity or nationality?) are more collectivist - and thus any isolated deaths may bother them less than group massacres with much heavier actual bodycounts?

But once you look to the inside, it is 'group' rather than 'individual' from birth (just as the west is the other way around from birth). But the group has individual fear as well and this may insulate them their fellow man. This could be easily seen with the news of the girl who was run over by a car in china and nobody would attempt to lead any help or hand. The west was outraged. For chinese, this was common practice as if they saw nothing [which prompts them to need to act for another].

Whereas with Americans, the exact opposite is true? One "personalized" death outweighs a million faceless, depersonalized deaths - no matter how unjust or barbaric?

Indeed, why are Americans SO MUCH more outraged by a few dozen alleged shooting victims...than millions killed widescale under false pretenses?

 

 

And if so, do you believe that such "cultural" or "ethnic" differences are due more to Nature (xiantian), nurture (houtian) or both?

Edited February 21, 2013 by vortex

[dawei]

Are you saying ...

 

Here is what I am saying... in any which way which makes sense:

1. One will find at the base/core cultural influence a disassociation to strangers in need of help.

2. The flip side comes with a fear of what can occur to them, given it is none of their business.

3. In proverb form, it could be stated as: Approach another's trouble and that trouble befriends you.

4. Lao Zi said: Ill fortune is that beside which good fortune lies;

5. There is a lack of desire to see the need to help another. Or: Look out for number 1.

6. Takaaki said it clearly in one post as (I hope correctly paraphrased): Chinese don't see any need to help another get to heaven.

 

This is one of a million kaleidoscope cultural mirrors. It may not be easy to see in the midst of everyday activities. But once understood, then one can 'see' the action for what it is.

[gendao]

Here is what I am saying... in any which way which makes sense:

1. One will find at the base/core cultural influence a disassociation to strangers in need of help.

2. The flip side comes with a fear of what can occur to them, given it is none of their business.

3. In proverb form, it could be stated as: Approach another's trouble and that trouble befriends you.

4. Lao Zi said: Ill fortune is that beside which good fortune lies;

5. There is a lack of desire to see the need to help another. Or: Look out for number 1.

6. Takaaki said it clearly in one post as (I hope correctly paraphrased): Chinese don't see any need to help another get to heaven.

 

This is one of a million kaleidoscope cultural mirrors. It may not be easy to see in the midst of everyday activities. But once understood, then one can 'see' the action for what it is.

1) Firstly, when you say "Chinese," do you mean: ethnic Chinese (who could be living anywhere), anyone (of any ethnicity) living in China, only ethnic Chinese living in China or Chinese culture, etc?

 

2) Who specifically do you believe are more prone to "good Samaritarianism" - any non-Chinese or just Christians? If the latter, do you believe this is due to an underlying self-serving, Christian meme that it's needed to get into "Heaven?" And what about Chinese Christians, then? Or non-Christian non-Chinese? Or millions of infidel strangers actively persecuted, murdered and tortured by "good Samaritan" Christians?

 

3) Who has killed more foreigners/strangers throughout history - non-Chinese (Christian or not) or Chinese? Does such "good Samaritanism" take a game theory backseat to hegemonic imperialism when the 2 conflict? In terms of historical global exploitation and colonialism, who are the greater "good Samaritans" vs those looking out for #1 more? Scoreboard?

 

 

Sorry for all the questions. I agree there are many conflating mirrors here. Hence, I am trying to understand what exactly it is you believe you are seeing?

Edited February 22, 2013 by vortex

[dawei]

1) Firstly, when you say "Chinese," do you mean: ethnic Chinese (who could be living anywhere), anyone (of any ethnicity) living in China, only ethnic Chinese living in China or Chinese culture, etc?

 

2) Who specifically do you believe are more prone to "good Samaritarianism" - any non-Chinese or just Christians? If the latter, do you believe this is due to an underlying self-serving, Christian meme that it's needed to get into "Heaven?" And what about Chinese Christians, then? Or non-Christian non-Chinese? Or millions of infidel strangers actively persecuted, murdered and tortured by Christians?

 

3) Who has killed more foreigners/strangers throughout history - non-Chinese (Christian or not) or Chinese? Does such "good Samaritanism" take a game theory backseat to hegemonic imperialism? In terms of historical global exploitation and colonialism, who are the greater "good Samaritans" vs those looking out for #1 more? Scoreboard?

 

 

Sorry for all the questions. I agree there are many conflating mirrors here. Hence, I am trying to understand what exactly it is you believe you are seeing?

 

I think this may be one of those things that if you have not observed it and immediately connected it to some core cultural influence then no amount of explanation may make sense. I've talked to dozens upon dozens about this, east and west, and they simply knew it and even stated examples themselves.

 

The point is one of a core cultural influence and the resulting behaviors we see. It is not really about comparing to another group so much or who is killed; it is seeing that behavioral outcome (whatever it may be) based on some cultural conditioning.

 

When one westerner said to me that Chinese are essentially rude to beggers in their homeland... I reply that this is simply their way of expressing a core cultural influence as I describe. This core influence can then be seen in sometimes disparate actions but in fact there is a connection between them all if traced back to the core influence.

[9th]

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

i believe without a shadow of a doubt that nationality, civility, and everything tied into these are the source of and cause of 99.99% of all of humanity's problems.


I beleive without a shadow of a doubt that we are currently in a stage of availability; to evolve from civilians into humans.

[Mig]

Wonder what happened to the American Daoists? Or maybe whatever country/culture Daoists?

[thelerner]

maybe like this thread, they got distracted and pulled off course. 

 

Traveling in the West years ago, I found a small town that had an old Taoist shrine, built by the Chinese imported to build railroads in the 1800's.   I got the feeling it was a remnant and there was no or little Taoist tradition going on there, but i could be wrong. 

[Mig]

11 hours ago, thelerner said:

maybe like this thread, they got distracted and pulled off course. 

 

Traveling in the West years ago, I found a small town that had an old Taoist shrine, built by the Chinese imported to build railroads in the 1800's.   I got the feeling it was a remnant and there was no or little Taoist tradition going on there, but i could be wrong. 

 

I think the contributions were stimulating and the way each see Daoism from their own magnifying glasses. We all see different realities and I am always stunned to read "western Daoist" or "American Daoist" as that concept doesn't count the different perspectives from different countries, cultures and languages.