Can there be such a thing as a Nazi Dao?

[Mark Saltveit]

What is tyranny?

Laozi and Zhuangzi have a lot to say about good government. It's pretty clear that it meddles as little as possible in people's lives (like cooking a small fish.) They don't even think the government is doing anything; apparently they created every good thing on their own, without any great government works.

[Apech]

Laozi and Zhuangzi have a lot to say about good government. It's pretty clear that it meddles as little as possible in people's lives (like cooking a small fish.) They don't even think the government is doing anything; apparently they created every good thing on their own, without any great government works.

 

 

Tyrant originally meant lord, absolute ruler ... a king in other words. It came to mean someone who illegitimately seizes absolute power ... a despot ... but this was from a time when it was thought that there was such a thing as a legitimate absolute ruler ...the rightful, hereditary monarch ... as distinct to the usurper of power. Nowadays mostly anyway we don't make this distinction (even though it seems to emerge sometimes in political dynasties e.g. Kennedy and Bush families).

 

There was a time .... in fact for most of our recorded history when this was probably the prevalent type of rulership. In fact during the Warring States period this would be the case I think (Chinese history is not my strong point). So it could be argued that the TTC is exactly advice to an absolute ruler = tyrant on how to rule ... a way of absolute rulership. The cooking a little fish analogy could be read as just advice on restraint ... don't fiddle too much or it all falls apart. A kind of laissez faire style of tyrrany ... not based on the good of the people by the way who are straw dogs but in what is most effective in holding a country together and retaining one's position in power. Not a popular interpretation I don't suppose but one that has some merit.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Apech

[chenping]

Laozi and Zhuangzi have a lot to say about good government. It's pretty clear that it meddles as little as possible in people's lives (like cooking a small fish.) They don't even think the government is doing anything; apparently they created every good thing on their own, without any great government works.

 

Have you tracked this out? So what if it is a political prognosis?

 

Let's give us your best shot. How would you like the USA government to be? Do you support Ron Paul's libertarian manifesto?

[Apech]

Have you tracked this out? So what if it is a political prognosis?

 

Let's give us your best shot. How would you like the USA government to be? Do you support Ron Paul's libertarian manifesto?

 

 

Oh no ... don't turn this into one of those threads

[Rara]

"Can there even be such a thing as a Nazi Dao?" The short answer is, sort of, but the goals and techniques are so destructive of Dao that they would quickly backfire and fail.

 

This is the sort of thing I figured when questioning such things. Also, I went through a phase two years ago of getting mad at a world that couldn't "wake up" and seeing many injustices even here in England that mirror attitudes of dictatorships. Without piling any political bias or religious dogma into this thread, I just wanna say that how can anyone help being in a situation they are born and conditioned to be in? If you were born in Nazi Germany, you would have no choice but to believe you were on the side of the good guys...otherwise you faced death...not an easy spot to be in!

 

Like you say, if it backfires (ok I'll say it, Karma) then that's that...then people learn (hopefully) and all is restored back to happy understanding land before the next egotistical one needs to start another conflict

[dawei]

I'm fine with it -- it seems to come straight out of the stories in Zhuangzi and the Daodejing about Butcher Ding, the fighting rooster trainer, the wheelright, the archer, etc.

 

How do you explain in the DDJ where it seems to suggest falling away from Dao; or in ZZ where he says XX attained Dao. This latter one seems to imply they did not have Dao (or a way)? I don't necessary agree with that last point but that is one argument I have heard.

[GreytoWhite]

There is THIS guy...

 

http://www.bamboo-delight.com/index.htm

[Birch]

There is THIS guy...

 

http://www.bamboo-delight.com/index.htm

 

There's no end to diversity!

[Owledge]

There is THIS guy...

 

http://www.bamboo-delight.com/index.htm

 

"Aryan Knowledge from ancient Europe and Knowledge from Old China,"

Weird. AFAIK the whole Aryan thing is from ancient Indian history and thus Asia, not Europe.

Then I read some more from that website and it's so hilariously twisted that it could as well be a satire. I mean... the amount of philosophical contradiction is mindblowing.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Owledge

[chenping]

As far as I understand, what Lao Tzu pointed at as being "Dao" is balance. He advocates finding a balance between action and non-action. It doesn't seem to be the extreme of total non-action, because that is not grounded in material existence and might just lead to transcendence.

Personally I'm still kinda sceptic about the whole idea, because what is described in the DDJ doesn not sound like the origin of everything and that everything is part of the Dao and thus alright.

 

The DDJ, as you must surely know, is indeed an idea that we made up. There is no divine transmission, that's for sure. At any rate, why do you say total non-action is not grounded in material existence? On the one hand, you are correct because practitioners of total non-action are not quite here. On the other hand, total non-action is practicable and the intelligent thing to do if it is done in a sensible way.

Edited February 27, 2013 by chenping

[chenping]

Oh no ... don't turn this into one of those threads

 

What threads? I am not talking about politics in practice but the philosophy of politics. Governing but not meddling sounds like an oxymoron but who knows? We won't know it's silly unless that can be established as a fact.

[chenping]

How do you explain in the DDJ where it seems to suggest falling away from Dao; or in ZZ where he says XX attained Dao. This latter one seems to imply they did not have Dao (or a way)? I don't necessary agree with that last point but that is one argument I have heard.

 

Good point. One can't be too careful about falling into the trap of presumption. The sloppy mind is the devil's workshop.

[chenping]

If you were born in Nazi Germany, you would have no choice but to believe you were on the side of the good guys...otherwise you faced death...not an easy spot to be in!

 

It's not an easy spot to be in anywhere anytime. As long as one has to live among people, it's their way or you become the bad guy.

[Apech]

What threads? I am not talking about politics in practice but the philosophy of politics. Governing but not meddling sounds like an oxymoron but who knows? We won't know it's silly unless that can be established as a fact.

 

 

Check out Off Topic.

[Owledge]

The DDJ, as you must surely know, is indeed an idea that we made up. There is no divine transmission, that's for sure. At any rate, why do you say total non-action is not grounded in material existence? On the one hand, you are correct because practitioners of total non-action are not quite here. On the other hand, total non-action is practicable and the intelligent thing to do if it is done in a sensible way.

Maybe you mean no action, but only reaction. Although that would be a very philosophically debatable subject. Total non-action (its extreme) leads to a quick death.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Owledge

[chenping]

Maybe you mean no action, but only reaction. Although that would be a very philosophically debatable subject. Total non-action (its extreme) leads to a quick death.

 

I really mean total non-action. And it's not philosophy but necessary and doable if one is to remain sane. But then I don't know if this is off-topic.

 

Can I speak? Please?

[Owledge]

I really mean total non-action. And it's not philosophy but necessary and doable if one is to remain sane. But then I don't know if this is off-topic.

 

Can I speak? Please?

Could you please just quickly clarify how you imagine "total non-action" looking in practice? I think there might be a misunderstanding.

[chenping]

Could you please just quickly clarify how you imagine "total non-action" looking in practice? I think there might be a misunderstanding.

 

By total non-action (which is not imagined because I actually live this way), I mean non-interference with people's lives around me and emotionally dis-engaged with situations at hand. Sorry, I am unable to clarify with a response this quick.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

the tao is the way
the way is the how
the how is the be
the be is
the is be tao; the way and how.


The how of nazi; it must exist.

[Aaron]

I find it constantly perplexing when people say "Tao" and tend to confine it in this idea that it's someone's "natural behavior". I actually got into an argument about this, because the person was using the passage about straw dogs to justify his reasoning that the Tao doesn't care about the universe. That's not it actually. First, most archaeologists agree that straw dogs were effigies that were burnt in a symbolic gesture, in other words there is a drought in your village, you burn the effigy and it will appease the god's and ease the drought. With that in mind if you look at the concept of sentimentality in a proper context the meaning behind the passage changes dramatically. In my opinion Tao is not sentimental, it holds no preference to anything and in it's eyes all things will eventually be burnt (or die). With that said, it doesn't mean that there isn't a natural course of action that should occur, in fact the natural course is clearly defined in the Tao Te Ching.

 

There are certain things a Sage does and doesn't do. It's mentioned over and over and because there is no explicit moral definition applied to it, we tend to overlook that it really is a specific moral doctrine in its own right. If that wasn't enough we can always look at the passage that states, "Good men are the teachers of bad men" and that "bad men are the students of good men". There is a moral imperative aligned with Taoism, one that is based on a higher standard perhaps, but it is still there.

 

We also need to remember that there is a time for all things, but that doesn't mean there is a Tao for all things, unless we want to say tao (small t) in which the term is simply defined as "way". So in that sense the Nazi's had a tao, the republicans have a tao, the mother has a tao, but not all these things are necessarily in line with Tao, the unnameable and undefinable way.

 

The notion of justifying Nazi Fascism by claiming it was their way, is not only ludicrous, but a bit absurd. It calls to mind the reason many people become Taoists, because they feel that Taoism is void of morals and that it allows people to do whatever they want, when in fact it doesn't. Lao Tzu said people can do whatever they want, but that not all actions are beneficial. If you want to believe a race is evil, you can, but I believe Lao Tzu was strongly against racism (after all he left China for the land of the barbarians) and instead believed that all men had strayed from what he believed was the natural way of living.

 

This may seem long and lengthy, but it comes down to this. Taoism is ultimately about acting in a way that is beneficial to others. If your actions harm others, then they are not Tao. Compassion, frugality, and not striving to be first in the world (not to be confused with humility) are essential aspects of this philosophy, and although only mentioned once together, they are referenced numerous times throughout the text. If that doesn't amount to a morality, then I'm not sure what does.

 

So to close this up, there are ways things occur, but don't confuse this with Tao. There is an integral part of Tao that is ultimately aligned with Te (virtue). If something is not virtuous, then it is against Tao, plain and simple. You can try to justify taking whatever action you feel is right, but you will have to cut out a lot of the Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu to do so.

 

Aaron

Edited February 27, 2013 by Aaron

[ralis]

I find it constantly perplexing when people say "Tao" and tend to confine it in this idea that it's the "natural order". I actually got into an argument about this, because the person was using the passage about straw dogs to justify his reasoning that the Tao doesn't care about the universe. That's not it actually. First, most archaeologists agree that straw dogs were effigies that were burnt in a symbolic gesture, in other words there is a drought in your village, you burn the effigy and it will appease the god's and ease the drought. With that in mind if you at look at the concept of sentimentality in that context the meaning behind the passage changes dramatically. In my opinion Tao is not sentimental, it holds no preference to anything and in it's eyes all things will eventually be burnt (or die). With that said, it doesn't mean that there isn't a natural course of action that should occur, in fact the natural course is clearly defined in the Tao Te Ching.

 

There are certain things a Sage does and doesn't do. It's mentioned over and over and because there is no explicit moral definition applied to it, we tend to overlook that it really is a specific moral doctrine in its own right. If that wasn't enough we can always look at the passage that states, "Good men are the teachers of bad men" and that "bad men are the students of good men". There is a moral imperative aligned with Taoism, one that is based on a higher standard perhaps, but it is still there.

 

We also need to remember that there is a time for all things, but that doesn't mean there is a Tao for all things, unless we want to say tao (small t) in which the term is simply defined as "way". So in that sense the Nazi's had a tao, the republicans have a tao, the mother has a tao, but not all these things are necessarily in line with Tao, the unnameable and undefinable way.

 

The notion of justifying Nazi Fascism by claiming it was there way, is not only ludicrous, but a bit absurd. It calls to mind the reason many people become Taoists, because they feel that Taoism is void of morals and that it allows people to do whatever they want, when in fact it doesn't. Lao Tzu said people can do whatever they want, but that not all actions are beneficial. If you want to believe a race is evil, you can, but I believe Lao Tzu was strongly against racism (after all he left China for the land of the barbarians) and instead believed that all men had strayed from what he believed was the natural way of living.

 

This may seem long and lengthy, but it comes down to this. Taoism is ultimately about acting in a way that is beneficial to others. If your actions harm others, then they are not Tao. Compassion, frugality, and not striving to be first in the world (not to be confused with humility) are essential aspects of this philosophy, and although only mentioned once together, they are referenced numerous times throughout the text. If that doesn't amount to a morality, then I'm not sure what does.

 

So to close this up, there are ways things occur, but don't confuse this with Tao. There is an integral part of Tao that is ultimately aligned with Te (virtue). If something is not virtuous, then it is against Tao, plain and simple. You can try to justify taking whatever action you feel is right, but you will have to cut out a lot of the Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu to do so.

 

Aaron

 

Glad to see you back. Did you receive my PM yesterday?

[Aaron]

Glad to see you back. Did you receive my PM yesterday?

 

No, I can't send or receive personal messages, the moderators removed that from my permissions.

 

Aaron

Edited February 27, 2013 by Aaron

[ralis]

No, I can't send or receive personal messages, the moderators removed that from my permissions.

 

Aaron

 

Marblehead gave me your personal email address. It was sent to that.

[Aaron]

When did you send it? I looked through both my accounts and I can't find any email from you.

[Mark Saltveit]

Well said, Aaron. I certainly wasn't suggesting that Nazism would be OK because it is the Dao that Nazis follow. The argument was more like this; there is what I call a little dao -- a more successful way to accomplish it, following principles of the big Dao -- for pretty much everything we do, from relationships to woodworking. Can there be something so inherently unDaoish that you can't find any kind of little dao for it?

 

I think some ways you could pursue a Nazi agenda would be more effective than others, but the goals you would be pursuing violate the principles of Daoism -- limited meddling, not stoking anger against opponents, not categorizing -- so deeply, that (if you believe in Daoist principles) it would be doomed to failure. The dao of Nazism might just bring about it's inevitable collapse more quickly and efficiently.

 

The article at Warp Weft and Way, and the very interesting comments that follow it, go into this in much greater and more philosophic detail.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Mark Saltveit