The Father and Son of Taoist Philosophy

[Stosh]

Yeah, we could go on and on with this but I think we have hit on the most important aspects of Chuang Tzu's concepts regarding the Chih stories.

 

Yes, there is the Dao and then there is man.  Sometimes there is great harmony and other times there is great chaos.

 

The best we can do is try to live within the processes and not fight against them.

Ok , pick what passage you want to delve into , Ive been trying to tag different bases from this same arbitrary starting point , but if you want to cut to a particular fav subject thats fine with me,, though itll need to wait for mon. unless someone else wants to jump in and direct attention at something. 

[Marblehead]

Thanks Stosh.  Later or maybe tomorrow I will continue with the idea of going through the entire thread and speak to the comments that were made along the way.

 

Later.

[Marblehead]

Okay.  I have found the next one that deserves some attention.

 

It is Post #210, Page 13 by Yueya referring to Post #186.  The subject of discussion is Chapter 28 of the TTC, and specifically the concept of the uncarved block.

 

I'll put something together and we'll see where it might lead us.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Marblehead

[Marblehead]

The "uncarved block" is an interesting concept. Note that "infant", "new-born babe" and "new-born calf" are the same concept.

 

I will use Henricks' translation for line numbering purposes but will include translations and note from Red Pine and Victor H. Mair as well.

 

Chapter 28 (Henricks)

 

Line 5 And when your constant virtue doesn't leave,
Line 6 You'll return to the state of the infant.

 

Line 11 And when your constant virtue is complete,
Line 12 You'll return to the state of uncarved wood.

 

Line 19 When uncarved wood is cut up, it's turned into vessels;
Line 20 When the Sage is used, he becomes the Head of Officials.
Line 21 Truly, great carving is done without splitting up.

 

From his notes:

 

Lines 19 - 21 play with double meaning throughout.  The word for "vessel" (ch'i) can mean a government lackey; it refers to someone who is technically specialized, but one who lacks the all-around virtue and talent of the "gentleman."  (In Analects 2:12, Confucius says, "The Gentleman is not a vessel.")  Then i line 21 "carving" or "cutting" (chih) also means "regulating" in a governmental way; that is, the Sage is someone who will govern (= carve) without destroying (= splitting up) what is genuine and natural in people.

 

Chapter 28 (Mair)

 

Line 5     If eternal integrity never deserts you,
Line 6     You will return to the state of infancy.

 

Line 11    If eternal integrity suffices,
Line 12    You will return to the simplicity of the unhewn log.

 

Line 19   When the unhewn log is sawn apart, it is made into tools;
Line 20   When the sage is put to use, he becomes the chief of officials.
Line 21   (For) Great carving does no cutting.

 

From his notes for Line 19:

 

"Impliments [of government]," in other words, "tools" or "subordinates."

 

Chapter 28 (Pine)

 

Line 5    not losing your ancient virtue
Line 6    be a newborn child again

 

Line 11   being filled with ancient virtue
Line 12   be a block of wood again

 

Line 19   a block of wood can be split to make tools
Line 20   the sage makes in his chief official
Line 21   a master tailor doesn't cut

 

From his notes:

 

Wang Tao says, "...  Hence the sage returns to the original: a block of wood.  A block of wood can be made into tools, but tools cannot be made into a block of wood.  The sage is like a block of wood, not a tool.  He is the chief official, not a functionary."

 

Confucius says, "A great man is not a tool."  (Lunyu: 2.12).

 

Chang Tao-Ling says, "To make tools is to lose sight of the Way."

 

Sung Ch'ang-Hsing says, "Before a block of wood is split, it can take any shape.  Once it is split, it cannot be round if it is square,  It cannot be straight if it is curver.  Lao-tzu tells us to avoid being split.  Once we are split, we can never return to our original state."

 

 

 

So there we are.  My side note:  Be the uncarved block, either by remaining or returning; no one can use you as their tool.  Once you are carved you become someone else's tool.

[Stosh]

If Lao says you cant become unsplit, that is to say , once youve learned stuff, become socialized, or compromised your integrity.. then one cant go back, , he says ,,its too late for anyone to go back and be young innocent and all unrealized in  potential.  So either he is wrong , ( and no one can become the sage EVER , including himself ) or,,  he didnt say that. 

 

 

Line 11 And when your constant virtue is complete,
Line 12 You'll return to the state of un-carved wood.

 

Here it is  indicated that indeed one can potentially go back. 

 

 

If a person acting for his own benefit is to be considered 'not a tool' , and Conf. is acting really for his own benefit , then the use of his tutelage is as the cow standing in the shade of a tree. The difference only being that the 'non-tool' is acting only out of a concern for self,, Chih on these grounds also escapes the label of 'tool'. And were back at a situation of  enlightened self interest , not christian morality.

[Marblehead]

Very good observations Stosh.

 

Yes, I believe it to be an error in translation that Lao Tzu supposedly said we can't go back.

 

Even the Tai Chi symbol indicates that we can go back to the focal point no matter how far astray we have gone.

 

And I agree, both Confucius and Chih would not have been tools.  The two were extreme opposites though.

 

And then too we should consider that one need not be famous for having done anything special in order to qualify as not being a tool.  Of course, you should better be born wealthy so that you didn't have to be anyone's tool.

[Stosh]

Melville..

 

There is all of the difference in the world between paying and being paid. 

 

“Well, then, however the old sea-captains may order me about--however they may thump and punch me about, I have the satisfaction of knowing that it is all right; that everybody else is one way or other served in much the same way--either in a physical or metaphysical point of view, that is; and so the universal thump is passed round, and all hands should rub each other's shoulder-blades, and be content.”

 

Ah.... the tai chi,, makes brothers of Chih and Confu.tzu 

Edited February 29, 2016 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Yeah, there is much philosophy underlying this seemingly simple concept.

 

Maybe just half brothers for Chih and Confucius?

 

And then there is that Bob Dylan song about everyone having to serve someone.

[Stosh]

Look at this !    actual PHILOSOPHY at TAO bums , of all places! ...  

 

 

"Music hath charms to soothe the savage beast ",, 

Bugs Bunny..

[Marblehead]

Look at this !    actual PHILOSOPHY at TAO bums , of all places! ...

And no one has insulted anyone in this thread either.  How nice.

 

Yeah, music is an important part of my life.  I'm not sure I have ever been a beast but I have been in that savage basket a few times.

[Stosh]

When Im feeling philosophical , contemporary things come to mind first , In the Bugs Bunny skit, he calms a gorilla with a violin, and I suppose I paired that with your avatar , since you have mentioned your passion for contemporary music. 

 

Famous anthropologist Loius Leaky once speculated that certain hominid species may have been able to get along in a non hostile manner when food and water were locally abundant.  

[Marblehead]

I'm not sure a violin, or any form of music, would calm a pissed-off gorilla but I can imagine music to its liking would allow it to maintain its calm for a longer period of time.  I wouldn't want to piss off a silver-back.

 

As to Leaky, yes, when he was doing his work he was presenting some very new ideas regarding the evolution of humans.  Much of his work has become acceptable common knowledge.

 

Sure, if there was no need to compete for food and water life was likely pretty peaceful.  It's when resources are insufficient that competition begins and all hell breaks loose.

 

Speaking of Leaky, it is generally accepted that early homo sapiens mated with Neanderthal.  Caucasians the most, Black Africans the least with Peking Man in the middle.

 

There are new studies suggesting that there is a possibility that homo sapiens also mated with other species of our evolutionary tree.  (Strange DNA is showing up in some ancient fossil finds.)

 

 

It has also been said that music has been a primary force at bringing different cultures together.

 

(I just don't know what to say about much of today's music though.  Culture clashes.)

[Stosh]

As I've voiced , I consider the divisions of species etc to be imaginary confabulations. Taxonomy is a subject where the philosophic aspect really comes to the fore front. If one envisions that a species comprises a gene pool of related individuals, then if two species cross, then the pools are not very different ( either before or after the act) . Ducks or gulls for instance, cross fairly often. So whatever gene pool is , then many duck species should really be considered races. Same goes for Neanderthalensis. Sapiens ,Denisova , Florensis ,, and the 'races' really should just be considered regional quirks.

Such divisions really are human inventions. 

Edited March 1, 2016 by Stosh

[Stosh]

I cant tell if you could tell I was joking around.    

Gorillas in fact get along better than Humans or Chimps , which are comparatively violent , and Orangs really are pretty laid back though basically solitary. 

Of all creatures , monkies and apes really are pretty aggressive crafty high stress level animals. 

 

I went to Paynes Prairie last weekend , they have a large marshy wetland field fenced in with a small herd of Bison and some wild horses , You can walk the trails in their footsteps , need to wait if they are on the road , but they were only a few yards away ,, and its not like they went berserk ,,, they have a rationale, and social structure, and even etiquette. 

 

The Stallion even waved me to walk past with his ears , after I had patiently waited a moment for them to settle down, literally I was within kicking range. He couldve smashed my hip with a casual fling of the leg ,,, but being satisfied I wasnt a problem , just let me walk right through the herd. ..... He he he ,,,,,  the folks that came up the road next , got turned back and never did get past him.  but they probably werent watching the body language... which was quite clear. 

[Stosh]

 

These are them

[Marblehead]

I cant tell if you could tell I was joking around.  

Gorillas in fact get along better than Humans or Chimps , which are comparatively violent , and Orangs really are pretty laid back though basically solitary. 

Oh, I knew you were joking around.  But you know who much I enjoy going off topic.

 

Sounds like that was a nice time for you at Paynes.  Those animals probably get enough human visitors so that they don't get upset too much about it.  The bison are unpredictable though, especially the senior bulls.  Better to keep a safe distance.

 

Agree with you about the other ape species.  Most chimps can be just as nasty as humans can be.  (Except for that one sub-species that makes love, not war.)

[Stosh]

Oh, I knew you were joking around.  But you know who much I enjoy going off topic.

 

Sounds like that was a nice time for you at Paynes.  Those animals probably get enough human visitors so that they don't get upset too much about it.  The bison are unpredictable though, especially the senior bulls.  Better to keep a safe distance.

 

Agree with you about the other ape species.  Most chimps can be just as nasty as humans can be.  (Except for that one sub-species that makes love, not war.)

Yeah , the Bonobos   At a zoo I once saw one baboon dragging another around by his Johnson. 

[Marblehead]

Yeah , the Bonobos   At a zoo I once saw one baboon dragging another around by his Johnson. 

Yeah, baboons can be really nasty.  And the large males are extremely powerful.

 

The one you saw being dragged was likely having sex with one of the alpha male's ladies.  Alpha males don't tolerate that stuff.

[Stosh]

Maybe , dunno , it could just mean ( as you said)  they are rough brutal animals for any reason whatsoever, and there is no 'plan' or social order to it. OR They literally stress each other out,  or nurture, to the extent that particular lives get shortened or lengthened. 

One does not really want to be at the bottom of a baboon pecking order , because of the abuse, nor does it really serve to be the alpha male who will burn himself out and be deposed brutally, in time, only to find himself on the shit list of the new leader.

The remaining 'middle ground' is where most of us find ourselves .. basically , surrounded by baboons.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Yeah, there have been times in my life when I thought I was surrounded by baboons.

 

Yes, the "middle ground", the main path, the center of the flock, is generally the best position.  The extreme positions are generally subject to conflicts.

 

Best to remain an uncarved block that way we can become anything we wish to become.

[Stosh]

Yeah, there have been times in my life when I thought I was surrounded by baboons.

 

Yes, the "middle ground", the main path, the center of the flock, is generally the best position.  The extreme positions are generally subject to conflicts.

 

Best to remain an uncarved block that way we can become anything we wish to become.

Ok , maybe so, but ,, what would one want to become if they were already in the preferred position of greatest potential , and that was a position to want most? The advantage of that potential would have to be in that it would be relinquished, otherwise it would be like unspent cash.  I'm thinking one should not desire to be like un-carved wood. Ive never seen this problem attended to here, what do you think of it?

[Marblehead]

Ok , maybe so, but ,, what would one want to become if they were already in the preferred position of greatest potential , and that was a position to want most? The advantage of that potential would have to be in that it would be relinquished, otherwise it would be like unspent cash.  I'm thinking one should not desire to be like un-carved wood. Ive never seen this problem attended to here, what do you think of it?

You've done good again Stosh.

 

The uncarved block has infinite potential.  But then, the uncarved block. being perfectly content with being undefined has no desires to be anything else.  Therefore he travels without leaving any footprints.  He goes where he pleases and no one notices him.  He simply drags his tail in the mud living his allotted time in peace and contentment.

 

There is nothing that I know of that dictates that one must maximize one's potential.  The reserve energy allows for avoidance of conditions that would be harmful to one's self interests.

 

And so one dies of old age with unspent potential.  Does it matter any more?

[Stosh]

I dont know if it matters, that one 'leave it all on the table' or not. Tao says youre spent whenever that is. But say, in a concrete way , is it suggested to conserve or spend? 

[Marblehead]

But say, in a concrete way , is it suggested to conserve or spend? 

This is going to be difficult to respond to.

 

The concept of wu wei suggests that we conserve. 

 

But how far do we take this concept?  We still do want to live to our potential, don't we?  That would mean doing things; testing our capabilities and capacities.

 

So do we conserve (wu wei) first and have reserve energy to respond to whatever comes our way or do we first test our abilities and then, knowing what we are and are not capable of, rest in the state of wu wei?

 

I think that both Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu would suggest that we live our life according to our natural inspirations.  That would likely mean doing things that come natural to use but yet remember to retire (attain the state of wu wei) when the task is completed.

[Stosh]

Wow, thats a good response !