Can there be such a thing as a Nazi Dao?

[chenping]

Well, there's barely been any Semites there to begin with..

 

And why is that? If the Chinese were so hospitable, why didn't more Jews spread to China? Why did Jews head west to embed in hostile cultures instead of moving east?

[ChiDragon]

If people really spend more time to comprehend the Tao Te Ching, then, I don't see why that the question would have arose in the OP....!!!

The claim, in post #97, was written by a group of people who like to claim lots of fallacies and has a tendency to change the facts of history. Thus I'll not consider to take any part in their beliefs.

[Owledge]

Not agitated at all. Getting provoked over a conversation is mental sickness. I appreciate your willingness to engage me in discussion.

You didn't respond to the specifics of my statements about bells. The video you posted shows a bell with a lot of open space around it. Do you claim that if there were dense city around it instead, the sound would travel just as far? Or do you claim that making the bell larger would compensate for that?

But it would still be two very different things in style.

Also, an average church bell doesn't require ten men to swing, but one.

 

We are still on topic as these points we are looking at are connected to the examination of Nazi Dao. America sees herself as the standard bearer for freedom. It is difficult not to act when dictators in foreign lands kill and oppress their own people especially when you are holding the big stick in your hands. I wonder why you would say that it is hegemony and a fake goal to stop injustice.

I'm saying that because a plethora of facts support it. The spreading freedom and democracy is only a fairy tale for lower tier politicians and the masses. Those who make the decisions in US foreign politics do it for the power. US foreign policy supports or even puts into power dictators who kill and oppress their people when it is in US economic interests. The USA are supporting terrorism. The USA is severely violating the NPT. The country sets a new standard for hipocrisy. They blame others for what they do themselves. Oldest propaganda trick in the book. There are many sources and discussions in some other political threads here on TTB.

[Owledge]

And why is that? If the Chinese were so hospitable, why didn't more Jews spread to China? Why did Jews head west to embed in hostile cultures instead of moving east?

Good question.

[chenping]

Good question.

 

Feels like we both have the answer.

 

Why do people get their knickers in a knot when confronted with the truth?

[Adia]

I posted an essay today at Warp, Weft and Way, an excellent blog of Eastern philosophy discussing this question. It's a response to a provocative post Donald Sturgeon posted last October.

 

He was asking, can a Daoist (specifically a Zhuangist) criticize Nazis who are following their dao, given their rejection of conventional morality and relativism? [EDIT: to be clear, "their" rejection of conventional morality means "Daoists' rejection of"...]

 

My essay reframes the question to ask, "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. They can be rejected purely on the grounds of ineffectiveness. There really can't be a Dao that seeks complete domination of nations through constant war.

 

The question I didn't address is, are there other "bad" goals that can have effective Daos that work and would not undermine those involved? I can't think of any, but I'm curious what others think.

There is no "Nazi Tao". There is a "Nazi Way". The Nazi are apart of the Tao. They just are not in harmony with the Tao. The Tao that I know is a way of freedom, compassion, acceptance, sincerity and respect. None of these qualities are expressed in the ideas of Nazism. A Taoist is one with the Tao and accepts it. A Nazi is a part of the tao and hates it. Those who use "black magic" wish to control it. Control and hate rarely work.

[ChiDragon]

There is no "Nazi Tao". There is a "Nazi Way". The Nazi are apart of the Tao. They just are not in harmony with the Tao. The Tao that I know is a way of freedom, compassion, acceptance, sincerity and respect. None of these qualities are expressed in the ideas of Nazism. A Taoist is one with the Tao and accepts it. A Nazi is a part of the tao and hates it. Those who use "black magic" wish to control it. Control and hate rarely work.

 

I thank you...!!! I don't know why and how this thread was created, in the first place, to have such a relationship associated with Tao.

[chenping]

I thank you...!!! I don't know why and how this thread was created, in the first place, to have such a relationship associated with Tao.

 

I think the intent was to demonize Nazism using destructiveness as the argument. Nature can be quite destructive and seemingly more heartless than any ideology devised by man; and yet, we love Nature. The idea of purifying the human race alarms us but yet we pursue the same ideology in striving to be true Taoists through self-cultivation by weeding out the nasty bits about ourselves.

 

Why is purifying the human race, at the biological level, such a bad thing? Why is breeding out physical deformities, genetic diseases, and even bad hair wrong?

 

There is no "Nazi Tao". There is a "Nazi Way". The Nazi are apart of the Tao. They just are not in harmony with the Tao. The Tao that I know is a way of freedom, compassion, acceptance, sincerity and respect. None of these qualities are expressed in the ideas of Nazism. A Taoist is one with the Tao and accepts it. A Nazi is a part of the tao and hates it. Those who use "black magic" wish to control it. Control and hate rarely work.

 

For one thing, the Tao that you know is not the eternal Tao. Which part of Chapter One you do not understand? The other thing is hate propaganda. Nazism, like Taoism, should be studied objectively. Both are part of being human.

[Owledge]

Why is purifying the human race, at the biological level, such a bad thing? Why is breeding out physical deformities, genetic diseases, and even bad hair wrong?

The debate is usually about touching personal freedoms, and to some degrees about social implications - like optional things becoming mandatory (foot-in-the-door), or certain mindsets ensuing from certain ways of doing things. There is a lot of mistrust in proponents of those philosophies.

[chenping]

The debate is usually about touching personal freedoms, and to some degrees about social implications - like optional things becoming mandatory (foot-in-the-door), or certain mindsets ensuing from certain ways of doing things. There is a lot of mistrust in proponents of those philosophies.

 

Then, mistrust is the problem and not the philosophies or their proponents.

 

Personal freedom is a nice thing to have if we are a tiger. Pack and herd animals must live under the rule of others who call the shots. We live in a herd even though you run with a pack.

Edited March 16, 2013 by chenping

[Owledge]

You're operating purely on elitist/malthusian/social-darwinist belief systems now.

Mistrust is very justified, as evidenced by past events (history of social developments initiated by powerful leadershop-type people and hierarchy).

Humans are not tigers, not pack animals, not herd animals. Just like many other animals, we can more or less adapt to different social conditions (e.g. various population densities).

Cultivating personal freedoms is the path to a higher evolved society. Those who dominate and control others will always be advocates for their lifestyle and views, but this brings about misery, because most of those who are so-called 'leaders' today have ruthlessly grabbed that power out of a feeling of inferiority and/or strong fears. Also, those who advocate that kind of society put forward the facts that they themselves created as support for their righteousness.

Remember how 'the negro' was just a savage, more an animal than a human? Not capable of refined social etiquette or higher intellecual conduct? That mindset was disproven only when society began treating them as equals, et voila - there's no difference. You reap what you sow.

 

Very high on the ladder of social evolution is anarchy, because that social system can only work with people of high wisdom and virtue.

Beware of people claiming that we have to employ systems based on what is. Because we have to employ systems that reflect what we want to be in the future, in order to make it happen.

Ironically, those who try to rule over others are the ones following the mainstream. They can't imagine a better world because fear destroys creativity - the ability to bring something new into the world.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Owledge

[chenping]

You're operating purely on elitist/malthusian/social-darwinist belief systems now.

Mistrust is very justified, as evidenced by past events (history of social developments initiated by powerful leadershop-type people and hierarchy).

Humans are not tigers, not pack animals, not herd animals. Just like many other animals, we can more or less adapt to different social conditions (e.g. various population densities).

 

On the one hand, I really do subscribe to "wu-wei", this Taoist concept of letting sleeping dogs lie. The world is a mess and the only way out is to pick your way through the crowd and step over strewn rubbish without touching it. Tigers, monkeys, whatever, best leave them be. They either get whacked with batons in dictatorships or left to the misery of their own making in socialist democracies that are run tight as drums with mobility to nowhere.

 

Cultivating personal freedoms is the path to a higher evolved society. Those who dominate and control others will always be advocates for their lifestyle and views, but this brings about misery, because most of those who are so-called 'leaders' today have ruthlessly grabbed that power out of a feeling of inferiority and/or strong fears. Also, those who advocate that kind of society put forward the facts that they themselves created as support for their righteousness.

 

Remember how 'the negro' was just a savage, more an animal than a human? Not capable of refined social etiquette or higher intellecual conduct? That mindset was disproven only when society began treating them as equals, et voila - there's no difference. You reap what you sow.

 

Personal freedom is an idea fed into the heads of herd animals. They never learn. Have you read Animal Farm? Revolution just brings the scums at the bottom to the top of the trash heap. Leaders are not ruthless and corrupt because they are evil, they suck because they are you. I don't mean this in a personal sense.

 

Yeah, I remember how "the negro" was just a savage. Here in America, they make hundreds of millions playing basketball because society treat them as equals. Back in Africa, left on their own, it's a different story.

 

Very high on the ladder of social evolution is anarchy, because that social system can only work with people of high wisdom and virtue.

 

Beware of people claiming that we have to employ systems based on what is. Because we have to employ systems that reflect what we want to be in the future, in order to make it happen.

Ironically, those who try to rule over others are the ones following the mainstream. They can't imagine a better world because fear destroys creativity - the ability to bring something new into the world.

 

Have you read Animal Farm? I suggest you do it before creativity leads us into another mess worse than the one before.

[Owledge]

I don't read fiction about politics when there's so much non-fiction available.

 

I' not sure about revolution, but non-revolution definitely brings 'the scum at the bottom to the top', as evidenced by history aplenty. I think it all depends on how enlightened the conduct is. If a revolution is done with a higher mindset than those it tries to overthrow, it is an improvement. The higher values in means must not be sacrified for ends sake.

 

Also be aware that whenever the USA (or other 'western' countries) pose as a positive example for good governance or demonizes socialism for its social problems, the USA is what it is due to its imperialism. You cannot blame Venezuela's socialism for resulting in corruption and poverty when corruption and poverty were caused by the USA's interference and the socialist government is trying to deal with those problems.

Also compare this: The US government is trying to convince people that the Constitution is of little or no value and attempts to scrap it all the time. The Venezuelan government lets articles of their Constitution be printed on food packaging to ensure that everybody knows their rights.

 

Your views are very much shaped by the mindset of the rule of order and yang principles. The old age, so to speak. It is in decline, for with its imbalance it has brought about great suffering.

"Chaos" doesn't have negative connotations for no reason. It is the male-dominant order in the world that demonizes its opponent. Fear of chaos is only there because people have become so dependant on order.

Only belief systems can cause human suffering. Change the beliefs into a positive outlook and the world will become a better place. And that requires creativity in that people have to create an impulse not based on the fear game, not reactive, not perpetuating the old game. Being a visionary.

 

It will becomer harder and harder for the agents of order to maintain their dominance. The longer they cling to their fears, the more painful it will be for everybody.

I've learned first-hand how hard it can be to abandon fears we (think we) are dependent on.

Chaos and anarchy are terms that have been badmouthed too much. But the transition has to be done carefully. Triggering fears is not wise - acting with love is better, although at times difficult.

[chenping]

I don't read fiction about politics when there's so much non-fiction available.

 

Animal Farm is not really fiction. Is the Chuang Tzu fiction? Is the Tao Te Ching fiction? Even Charlie Brown is not fiction. They are all commentaries on factual life.

 

I' not sure about revolution, but non-revolution definitely brings 'the scum at the bottom to the top', as evidenced by history aplenty. I think it all depends on how enlightened the conduct is. If a revolution is done with a higher mindset than those it tries to overthrow, it is an improvement. The higher values in means must not be sacrified for ends sake.

 

What difference does it make if is a genuine revolution done with a higher mindset? It's still the same devil up to monkey business.

 

Also be aware that whenever the USA (or other 'western' countries) pose as a positive example for good governance or demonizes socialism for its social problems, the USA is what it is due to its imperialism. You cannot blame Venezuela's socialism for resulting in corruption and poverty when corruption and poverty were caused by the USA's interference and the socialist government is trying to deal with those problems.

 

Come on, man. Why is everyone dumping on America? And when there is trouble from the bad guys, it's America to the rescue. If I were President, I would make every country relying on the US to pay their share to keep her 11 Aircraft carrier groups prowling the world's oceans. Venezuela's social problems are homegrown.

 

Also compare this: The US government is trying to convince people that the Constitution is of little or no value and attempts to scrap it all the time. The Venezuelan government lets articles of their Constitution be printed on food packaging to ensure that everybody knows their rights.

 

Knowing their rights is one thing, enjoying them is another. What good is sticking the Constitution to their faces when they can't read or write? Third world countries all have rotten government and that's why they are third world. First world countries have less rotten governments. The only difference is that first world people are more vocal and assertive in making sure they don't get kicked around by people in high places.

 

Your views are very much shaped by the mindset of the rule of order and yang principles. The old age, so to speak. It is in decline, for with its imbalance it has brought about great suffering.

 

"Chaos" doesn't have negative connotations for no reason. It is the male-dominant order in the world that demonizes its opponent. Fear of chaos is only there because people have become so dependant on order.

 

Only belief systems can cause human suffering. Change the beliefs into a positive outlook and the world will become a better place. And that requires creativity in that people have to create an impulse not based on the fear game, not reactive, not perpetuating the old game. Being a visionary.

 

It will becomer harder and harder for the agents of order to maintain their dominance. The longer they cling to their fears, the more painful it will be for everybody.

 

I've learned first-hand how hard it can be to abandon fears we (think we) are dependent on.

 

Chaos and anarchy are terms that have been badmouthed too much. But the transition has to be done carefully. Triggering fears is not wise - acting with love is better, although at times difficult.

 

Seems like I have the mind-set of the ruling class and you have the mind-set of the underclass. I wonder how this came about? Whatever the system, the top 1% will always be in charge and the 99% will always be complaining. The head will always decide where to go and the feet will always do the walking. There is nothing right or wrong, fair or unfair about this arrangement. This is the way. Anarchy and chaos are not going to happen. Societies may crumble, social structures may fall but the totem pole will resurrect itself: head back on top and feet at the bottom.

[Owledge]

Animal Farm is not really fiction. Is the Chuang Tzu fiction? Is the Tao Te Ching fiction? Even Charlie Brown is not fiction. They are all commentaries on factual life.

From Wikipedia: "The novel addresses not only the corruption of the revolution by its leaders but also how wickedness, indifference, ignorance, greed and myopia corrupt the revolution. It portrays corrupt leadership as the flaw in revolution, rather than the act of revolution itself. It also shows how potential ignorance and indifference to problems within a revolution could allow horrors to happen if a smooth transition to a people's government is not achieved."

One example doesn't make a rule.

Besides... Charlie Brown is fiction. Because, while of course every piece of work is based on something, something real, and one can argue that it can contain a mix of fiction and non-fiction, using metaphor to comment on politics is not non-fiction work. Thus, I take an abundance of historical undisputed fact as my main source of information. As soon as one introduces fiction into an otherwise non-fictional work, the non-fictional part loses credibility in context.

 

What difference does it make if is a genuine revolution done with a higher mindset? It's still the same devil up to monkey business.

It's not. That's what I meant with "higher mindset". Elitists have always claimed that things will never change, but it always does. Just one example: The claim that overpopulation will cause food shortage has been made again and again, but all that causes starvation is politics of greed and dominance, not lack of food. You will find an advocate for any idea of non-change that eventually was invalidated through change. Outdated mindsets usually only die out when their advocates die out. For many it's too big of a jump to abandon harmful beliefs that they hold dear and made themselves emotionally dependent on.

 

Come on, man. Why is everyone dumping on America? And when there is trouble from the bad guys, it's America to the rescue. If I were President, I would make every country relying on the US to pay their share to keep her 11 Aircraft carrier groups prowling the world's oceans. Venezuela's social problems are homegrown.

Why is everyone dumping on America? Let me answer that with an info link that I ask you to please read, because what you write shows that you are very much operating on a lack of understanding of the history of world politics, at least regarding the USA:

http://www.addictedtowar.com/atw1a.html

 

Knowing their rights is one thing, enjoying them is another. What good is sticking the Constitution to their faces when they can't read or write? Third world countries all have rotten government and that's why they are third world. First world countries have less rotten governments. The only difference is that first world people are more vocal and assertive in making sure they don't get kicked around by people in high places.

The problem of illiteracy in Venezuela is dealt with through governmental support for the educational system. The thing with the food packagings is one example of evidence that they mean it, because a government of control-freaks would be way too afraid to give so much power to the people.

I also highly recommend you watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhzoIcIgNrk

...and then tell me your thoughts.

 

Seems like I have the mind-set of the ruling class and you have the mind-set of the underclass. I wonder how this came about? Whatever the system, the top 1% will always be in charge and the 99% will always be complaining. The head will always decide where to go and the feet will always do the walking. There is nothing right or wrong, fair or unfair about this arrangement. This is the way. Anarchy and chaos are not going to happen. Societies may crumble, social structures may fall but the totem pole will resurrect itself: head back on top and feet at the bottom.

That's a summary of the belief system you are employing and seeing the world by. Thus, you cannot/won't perceive reality outside of that. Only to the degree you are ready to abandon rigid beliefs will you be able to perceive a greater reality and potentials for a better future.

Power itself is not a bad thing; it's neutral. But today's ruling class is almost completely driven by fear-based belief systems. They rule because they feel they have to. And just like the behavior of banksters, you will maybe only but suddenly abandon your beliefs as soon as you have been kicked in the dumpster by your 'rulers'. Because that's how they rule. If you're not part of the upper 1% as you call it, then you're not part of the club. And the club gets smaller and smaller, too, because within the elitist peak, people are competing for power among themselves. The theoretical end result is a single, all-powerful ruler who monitors everything, controls the whole world and kills whoever is in the slightest bit suspect of not liking the way he rules, since he can't take any chances and killing people is daily business for him. Then I want to see you be a fan of the elitist club of the top 0.0000001%.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Owledge

[chenping]

That's a summary of the belief system you are employing and seeing the world by. Thus, you cannot/won't perceive reality outside of that. Only to the degree you are ready to abandon rigid beliefs will you be able to perceive a greater reality and potentials for a better future.

Power itself is not a bad thing; it's neutral. But today's ruling class

 

Your good analysis deserves serious comment. You are correct in stating that people employ belief systems which I call worldviews. Nazism is based on Hitler's weltanschauung . Daoism is also based on either the western Christian-based belief system of Philosophical Daoism or the Chinese-based worldview of Traditional Taoism. And, as you have said, nobody can perceive or willing to perceive reality outside of each person's weltanschauung. This is why we - the human race - are caught in perpetual conflict when worldviews clash.

 

Are you willing to examine our - meaning yours and mine - respective worldviews and see who is crazy? We cannot both be sane since we disagree with each other. There is a chance that the two of us could be mad. That's a frightening thought.

[Owledge]

And, as you have said, nobody can perceive or willing to perceive reality outside of each person's weltanschauung. This is why we - the human race - are caught in perpetual conflict when worldviews clash.

Yes, conflict is probably an eternal part of the human experience, but the efforts to avoid it are a part of it just as well. It's not about winning, but about fighting the good fight so to speak. Winning is a goal-oriented idea, based on high expectations, and fear is involved a lot in that.

Also, while people can only change if they allow themselves to, the myriad of external influences are offering opprtunities for that. E.g. when there is a person in need of help and they can't help themselves, it is up to compassionate action of other people to make a difference, by not being afraid to get involved.

 

Are you willing to examine our - meaning yours and mine - respective worldviews and see who is crazy? We cannot both be sane since we disagree with each other. There is a chance that the two of us could be mad. That's a frightening thought.

Abandon labels and generalizations like that. Let's just view things based on what fears motivate us. I'm not making grand claims, I'm just pointing out that action based on untruth are unwise, and mundane lies (things that are verifiable) can be revealed. They make people operate on a false picture of the world and thus create an outcome based on that picture. There might be lies that actually create a positive outcome, but the person telling a lie will build a more long-term foundation of insincerity that will eventually bite him in the ass. Sticking to the truth may require courage. Lies are the result of a character weakened by fear.

I'm not comfortable calling your world view elitist. The label might be suitable, but it's just a scale, it's not a yes/no question. It's also situation-dependent. So-called elitism just stems from a belief that that kind of approach to the world is necessary for the achievement of set goals that a person fears if not accomplished.

But it all boils down to connecting with the heart. Harming other human beings while being a human oneself is self-defeating. It also reduces human potential for shaping the world to that of lower lifeforms. It is self-disempowering. There is no need for things like 'weeding out the weak' through survival of the fittest. The perceived need comes from a lack of vision. Reality provides small scale examples of working alternatives. All that makes a paradise-like world a non-reality is the fact that many people are not yet qualfied to uphold it. They can be taught/shown how to.

[chenping]

Yes, conflict is probably an eternal part of the human experience, but the efforts to avoid it are a part of it just as well. It's not about winning, but about fighting the good fight so to speak. Winning is a goal-oriented idea, based on high expectations, and fear is involved a lot in that.

Also, while people can only change if they allow themselves to, the myriad of external influences are offering opprtunities for that. E.g. when there is a person in need of help and they can't help themselves, it is up to compassionate action of other people to make a difference, by not being afraid to get involved.

 

If you, who reject the idea of a ruling class and subscribe to the worldview of equality, isn't it a contradiction to accept a situation where some people are in need of help and other people get involved through compassionate action? Helping is a nice word for ruling. People in need of help are at the mercy of the helpers. No?

 

As for fighting the good fight, this has appeal to western sensibilities, and you are for it. Sun Tzu wants more: every battle is won before it is ever fought. I share Sun Tzu's worldview. A just means is not enough. Without victory, fighting for its own sake is pointless. Patience, therefore, is a Chinese value. Bide your time, wait for the moment. Act in haste - even for a just cause - invites misfortune.

 

 

Abandon labels and generalizations like that. Let's just view things based on what fears motivate us. I'm not making grand claims, I'm just pointing out that action based on untruth are unwise, and mundane lies (things that are verifiable) can be revealed. They make people operate on a false picture of the world and thus create an outcome based on that picture. There might be lies that actually create a positive outcome, but the person telling a lie will build a more long-term foundation of insincerity that will eventually bite him in the ass. Sticking to the truth may require courage. Lies are the result of a character weakened by fear.

 

But what is the truth? There are only worldviews: your belief system against my weltanschauung. Humans, inherently, are incapable of living correctly. This is why all societies are corrupt. The underclass, left to their own devices, are a mess. They need laws and regulations to protect them from each other. The ruling class, who devise the laws and enforce them to help the people in need of a civilized way of life, is usually self-serving and unfit to rule.

 

I'm not comfortable calling your world view elitist. The label might be suitable, but it's just a scale, it's not a yes/no question. It's also situation-dependent. So-called elitism just stems from a belief that that kind of approach to the world is necessary for the achievement of set goals that a person fears if not accomplished.

 

I am an elitist who practises wu-wei. This means that I believe in taking charge of my own destiny and don't believe in helping people in need. All goals are personal. People - including me - are best left to their own devices. This is the only form of anarchy and chaos that make sense to me. To each his own.

 

 

 

But it all boils down to connecting with the heart. Harming other human beings while being a human oneself is self-defeating. It also reduces human potential for shaping the world to that of lower lifeforms. It is self-disempowering. There is no need for things like 'weeding out the weak' through survival of the fittest. The perceived need comes from a lack of vision. Reality provides small scale examples of working alternatives. All that makes a paradise-like world a non-reality is the fact that many people are not yet qualfied to uphold it. They can be taught/shown how to.

 

 

Ours is a harsh reality. Nature will weed out the weak whether we live in forests or in cities. Nature does not believe in socialism and will do the harming. Pull up your socks or go down either individually as a homeless guy or collectively as a nation in economic ruin. Each man must look out for himself. People with the same worldview cooperate together for a better life and avoid conflict with others with a different belief system. Societies must allow for breakup into smaller parts with different worldviews. Divorce is good.

 

Can you see anything wrong with my belief system?

[Apech]

Ours is a harsh reality.

Reality encompasses both the harsh and the subtle, the gentle and the forceful.

 

Nature will weed out the weak whether we live in forests or in cities. Nature does not believe in socialism and will do the harming.

 

Nature follows its own course ... its way ... there are plenty of 'weak' in forests and cities on which the 'strong' depend ... this is all part of nature. Bees, ants, termites ... nature 'believes' in communities where appropriate.

 

Pull up your socks or go down either individually as a homeless guy or collectively as a nation in economic ruin.

 

As an individual follow the Tao in all conditions and circumstances.

 

Each man must look out for himself. People with the same worldview cooperate together for a better life and avoid conflict with others with a different belief system.

Do you hold the same 'worldview' as others in the place where you live? I doubt it. There are probably nearly as many world views as people. People of different beliefs do not avoid conflict ... just read the newspapers.

Societies must allow for breakup into smaller parts with different worldviews. Divorce is good.

Why? the most successful nations are unions of some kind. There is strength through cooperation.

 

Can you see anything wrong with my belief system?

 

Yes. A lot. It is a very superficial assessment of how things are.

[chenping]

Reality encompasses both the harsh and the subtle, the gentle and the forceful.

 

Of course. But we need only be concerned about reality that is harsh and forceful - stuff like unemployment, social violence, depression, being a nobody.

 

Nature follows its own course ... its way ... there are plenty of 'weak' in forests and cities on which the 'strong' depend ... this is all part of nature. Bees, ants, termites ... nature 'believes' in communities where appropriate.

 

The weak is the prey both in the forest and the cities. The strong depend on the weak the way your congressman depends on you, milk you for your vote, and use you to rubber stamp his self-serving policies.

 

Nature do believe in insect communities. Hitler's Mein Kampf was inspired by Nature. Could there be a Nazi Dao after all?

 

As an individual follow the Tao in all conditions and circumstances.

 

I don't see how anyone can avoid doing this.

 

Do you hold the same 'worldview' as others in the place where you live? I doubt it. There are probably nearly as many world views as people. People of different beliefs do not avoid conflict ... just read the newspapers.

 

Your doubt is well-founded. No, I don't hold the same worldview as others. To avoid conflict, I live by myself on my own and depend on the weak to serve me my food, clean my home, wash my car, and clean my clothes. The weak can have their worldviews for all I care as long as they keep it to themselves and just do their jobs for me. I treat them well.

 

Why? the most successful nations are unions of some kind. There is strength through cooperation.

 

I don't believe in nationalism. It's a form of religion where the weak are harnessed for a cause on which the strong depend. The strength that comes through cooperation is used to fight wars and dig ditches.

 

Yes. A lot. It is a very superficial assessment of how things are.

 

That's your worldview and I respect your right to have one even if you piss on mine.

Edited March 19, 2013 by chenping

[Apech]

Of course. But we need only be concerned about reality that is harsh and forceful - stuff like unemployment, social violence, depression, being a nobody.

 

Better to try to see things as they really are rather than concentrating on negative aspects.

 

 

The weak is the prey both in the forest and the cities. The strong depend on the weak the way your congressman depends on you, milk you for your vote, and use you to rubber stamp his self-serving policies.

The relationship between the weak and the strong is more subtle than that. It is one of mutual inter-dependence. I don't know if you familiar with the film The Seven Samurai ... at the end there is a scene where the samurai leader says it is the farmers (the weak) in the film who win in the end. Often the weak rule the strong.

 

Nature do believe in insect communities. Hitler's Mein Kampf was inspired by Nature. Could there be a Nazi Dao after all?

 

the Nazis used false ideology such as racial superiority and purity which are not with nature. They were overcome because their ideology was full of holes ... the democracies and socialist countries fared better in war than the right wing dictatorship.

 

 

I don't see how anyone can avoid doing this.

 

 

Your doubt is well-founded. No, I don't hold the same worldview as others. To avoid conflict, I live by myself on my own and depend on the weak to serve me my food, clean my home, wash my car, and clean my clothes. The weak can have their worldviews for all I care as long as they keep it to themselves and just do their jobs for me. I treat them well.

 

How do you treat them well?

 

I don't believe in nationalism. It's a form of religion where the weak are harness for a cause on which the strong depend. The strength that comes through cooperation is used to fight wars and dig ditches.

As above the relationship between weak and strong is complex.

 

 

That's your worldview and I respect your right to have one even if you piss on mine.

 

Actually i wasn't pissing on your view ... its just that I don't agree with it. Hold to it as much as you wish. This is a discussion forum so I thought I would share an alternative view with you. If you don't want to do this fair enough.

[Birch]

I'm quite surprised that a "1%er" would live alone. I would suggest that such people are even more imbricated in relationships of mutual dependence and obligation than others. They probably don't enjoy being reminded of it. I wonder if that's where some of the disdain comes from?

 

I'm not directing anything specifically at you Chenping. Just thinking aloud.

[Samurai Mountain man]

I think the question to be asked is: "Nazis followed their dao, or their ego?"

 

They followed a rigid pattern.

They forced their way.

They wasted energies with their efforts.

They were attached to their identity and ideas.
They acted mostly from their feelings.

 

History Books tell us that Hitler was very Yang and little ying, too much of something, a filled cup to eventually spill. IMHO

[chenping]

Wow, I feel like Hitler surrounded by Allied Forces: Apech, K and Samurai.

 

Better to try to see things as they really are rather than concentrating on negative aspects.

 

I am seeing things as they really are. What is real to me is not real to you and vice versa. The proper way of social discourse to avoid conflict is recognize this and don't force your worldview on me. I think you are foolish but I must not force you to accept my point of view even though I can easily prove my case through clever argument. Hitler did not suffer fools and had no time for arguments. Strong people are like that.

 

The relationship between the weak and the strong is more subtle than that. It is one of mutual inter-dependence. I don't know if you familiar with the film The Seven Samurai ... at the end there is a scene where the samurai leader says it is the farmers (the weak) in the film who win in the end. Often the weak rule the strong.

 

You see what you like to see. You identify with the weak and that's ok. I have seen The Seven Samurai and I see a different moral to that narrative. What you consider as the strong is not my idea of strength. Westerners would equate the Chinese concept of Yin and Yang with the western perception of the weak and the strong. That equation is wrong math. This is not a matter of difference in worldviews but rank arrogance. Chinese thought is inaccessible to simple minds.

 

the Nazis used false ideology such as racial superiority and purity which are not with nature. They were overcome because their ideology was full of holes ... the democracies and socialist countries fared better in war than the right wing dictatorship.

 

The label "Nazis" connotes hatefulness. I would rather not use this label but you are free to do so. Hitler's ideology may not appeal to you but that doesn't mean that his weltanschauung is flawed. Ideas need to be sold the way successful American businesses sell their products to the market. Hitler was successful in selling his ideology to the German people who gave him tremendous support to wield phenomenal national power in Europe. Hitler tried to sell his ideology to and got impatient with Churchill. So he decided not to suffer the fool and proceeded to brutalize him and his allies into submission.

 

The German people are indeed a strong race. In less than 65 years after total destruction by Allied Forces, Germany is now the most powerful economy in Europe. The rest of Europe are on the brink of financial collapse. The story of the German race is not over yet.

 

How do you treat them well?

 

How do I treat the weak well? I don't pay them minimum wage and always give them a good tip. I don't lord over them and keep them at a respectful distance. They have their places and I have mine. Any intent on their part to cross the divide is politely snuffed out even before they make the attempt and they are fired. Sun Tzu's strategy is effective in stopping conflict before it begins. On my part, I never reach across the class border the way Bill Clinton and Dominic Strauss Kahn did. Bad moves.

 

As above the relationship between weak and strong is complex.

 

You have no idea how complex that relationship is. To see it as just a matter of the strong and the weak is to be superficial. I view people differently. It's not just strong and weak. There are strong winners and strong losers. There are also weak winners and weak losers. I know that is perplexing to you. Chinese thought is not as superficial as you think. I will give you a clue to what I mean.

 

A strong loser is a bad person who makes it in this world. Your idea of a bad person is different from mine. My idea of a strong loser would be Cain who killed Abel in the Bible story.

 

And a weak winner is a good person who doesn't make it in this world. My idea of a weak winner would be Jesus Christ.

 

Why don't you share your worldview and tell me who would be your idea of a strong loser and a weak winner?

 

Actually i wasn't pissing on your view ... its just that I don't agree with it. Hold to it as much as you wish. This is a discussion forum so I thought I would share an alternative view with you. If you don't want to do this fair enough.

 

Oh, I do want you to share your views with me. I am culturally curious even though I don't cross the divide that separates me from others. And you are welcome to give criticisms and take apart my worldview in any fashion you choose. I believe in freedom of expression even though no society, including the land of the free (aka America), allows this. I understand that this forum has its rules about people getting upset in discussion. If you get upset and need to sock it to me even in foul language, please do it through private messaging to avoid upsetting the mods.

 

I look forward to a good discussion. And now, I need to deal with the other components of the Allied Forces, namely K and Samurai. Unlike Hitler, I intend to win the war. I wished Hitler had read Sun Tzu before he sent his panzers into Russia.

Edited March 20, 2013 by chenping

[Birch]

Not the intent Cheping. You're in no way obliged to respond to my thinking out loud:-)