The Laozi as a Manual of Manipulation and Control

[Marblehead]

It was only possive due to a presence of a very special being below, the one with Heavenly qualities - the king. Thats a condition sine qua non. A state without a king or a being who is not a king is out of luck according to TTC.

That is a challenging thought. I doubt the thought could be supported today but back 2,500 years ago in China? But still true with the vast majority of states of today. That is why I am so critical of the "In God we trust" in my government. My government is doing god's will, they tell us.

[Taoist Texts]

Moderately prosperous society (Chinese: 小康社会; pinyin: xiǎokāngshehui) is a Chinese term, originally of Confucian origin, used to describe a society composed of a functional middle-class. The term is most well known in recent years as used by Chinese leader Hu Jintao when referring to economic policies meant to realize a more equal distribution of wealth.

In the usages (tifa) of Xi Jinping, the term "China Dream" or "Chinese Dream" has gained somewhat greater prominence.

Origins[edit]

It has been loosely translated as a "basically well-off" society in which the people are able to live relatively comfortably, albeit ordinarily. The term was first used in Classic of Poetry written as early as 3000 years ago

 

 

 

Pope Francis on Twitter: "When a society lacks God, even ...

 

https://twitter.com/pontifex/status/514334822253481984

Sep 23, 2014 - When a society lacks God, even prosperity is joined by a terrible spiritual poverty.

[dust]

Well, having reread my OP after a couple of months, I have no major disagreements with myself (though my writing could use some polishing!).

 

I'm still not quite sure how I feel about a couple of things, though.

 

 

 

This is among a number of other passages urging manipulation and suppression of the masses. What we’re suggesting is that the ruler keeps quiet, stays behind the scenes, and makes sure that nothing ever happens. In the passage above (WB 64), we’re talking about controlling unrest before it turns to disorder.

 

 

Assume the above interpretation is correct -- that the text is urging governance through quiet manipulation.

 

 

1. How is this applicable to personal cultivation? (assuming people have found ways to apply it)

 

 

2. In terms of governance, is this a "Taoist" way of doing things?

    i.e. Is manipulative rulership in line with our currently accepted Taoist ideas? (e.g. ziran/tzujan, wu wei)

 

 

3. Assuming we believe that there should be some form of control, is this the best way of ruling? What about democracy?

Edited March 17, 2015 by dustybeijing

[soaring crane]

Assume the above interpretation is correct -- that the text is urging governance through quiet manipulation.

 

 

1. How is this applicable to personal cultivation? (assuming people have found ways to apply it)

 

Do mean energy cultivation practices? Or personal morals/ethics and the like?

 

On the energetic side, it can be as simple as governing the body and mind by simply focussing on the breath (for example). You kind of trick the body/mind into submission by simply making the breath the ruler. And the result is a harmonious society that is coincidentally shaped just like you.

[Marblehead]

Great qustions Dusty!

... governance through quiet manipulation.

 

1. How is this applicable to personal cultivation? (assuming people have found ways to apply it)

We all have heard the saying, "No pain, no gain."  This is false and even contradictory.

 

Quiet manipulation, if properly applied, results on pleasure as well as gain.  (Pain causes me to want to not do that whatever again.)

 

Regarding the rule:  The ruler remains mostly silent (quiet).  It are his/her ministers who are implimenting and enforcing the ruler's directives.  This way the ruler is beyond praise or blame.

 

2. In terms of governance, is this a "Taoist" way of doing things?

    i.e. Is manipulative rulership in line with our currently accepted Taoist ideas? (e.g. ziran/tzujan, wu wei)

Yes.  There are  many places in the TTC that gives support to this concept.  I think Lao Tzu considered it a given that the people needed to be ruled.  (But in such a way so that the people believed they accomplished all they did of their own accord.)

 

On a personal level, we need rule our own life, just as the ruler need rule his/her territory.

 

Outside of environmental limits, we are solely responsible for our successes and failures.  (But then, if we are always doing what others tell us to do then we can pass blame to them when we fail.)

 

3. Assuming we believe that there should be some form of control, is this the best way of ruling? What about democracy?

Even Chuang Tzu acknowledge that there need be some form of control (even though he avoided being controlled as much as possible).  Democracy doesn't really work because most people do not have the knowledge to vote directly on various issues and the more complex societies become the less effective democracy becomes.

 

Even a republic, as in the USA, has way too many flaws.  We can read about that every day in the news.

 

I still think the best form of governance (control) would be in the form of a benevolent dictator.  But even here, (s)he remains in the background, rarely speaking to the public except perhaps to praise the people for their accomplishments.  (The ministers do their job and catch the blame for failures, never blaming the people.)

[dust]

Do mean energy cultivation practices? Or personal morals/ethics and the like?

 

Both!

 

 

On the energetic side, it can be as simple as governing the body and mind by simply focussing on the breath (for example). You kind of trick the body/mind into submission by simply making the breath the ruler. And the result is a harmonious society that is coincidentally shaped just like you.

 

I see. Yes..

 

Where a chapter, such as GD 16 (WB 67), quite specifically talks of war, weapons, etc:

1. This is always going to involve ethics of some sort -- and the ethics of governing a nation could then often be applied to the self

2. Do we then believe that every single chapter is also interpretable as relevant to energy cultivation? Both at the same time?

And do we think that Laozi had intent for such interpretations, or that his philosophy is just so broad and clever that any chapter is universally applicable, in any situation?

 

 

 

Regarding the rule:  The ruler remains mostly silent (quiet).  It are his/her ministers who are implimenting and enforcing the ruler's directives.  This way the ruler is beyond praise or blame.

 

Enforcing... implementing... directives... I must say, I don't like these words much!

 

 

Yes.  There are  many places in the TTC that gives support to this concept.

 

But isn't that circular? There's support for information in a book because there's support for it elsewhere in the same book?

 

 

I think Lao Tzu considered it a given that the people needed to be ruled.  (But in such a way so that the people believed they accomplished all they did of their own accord.)

 

On a personal level, we need rule our own life, just as the ruler need rule his/her territory.

 

If we're talking about modern ideas, ideas of freedom and creativity that I think many modern Taoists would like to see applied, surely freedom of will, of action and expression, is important? Doesn't ruling one's own life conflict with being ruled?

 

I see Laozi as being quite happy to limit most freedoms if they conflict with his ideals of a stupid, quiet, essentially submissive people.

 

What I mean is, how can I reconcile my need to be free to move and explore and learn and grow (things that life does, things that it is in our nature to do!!) with the manipulative ideas presented in some chapters?

 

 

 

Even Chuang Tzu acknowledge that there need be some form of control

 

If it's convenient, could you point to where he acknowledged this? I'm still not completely familiar with the whole text

 

 

(even though he avoided being controlled as much as possible).  Democracy doesn't really work because most people do not have the knowledge to vote directly on various issues and the more complex societies become the less effective democracy becomes.

 

Even a republic, as in the USA, has way too many flaws.  We can read about that every day in the news.

 

I still think the best form of governance (control) would be in the form of a benevolent dictator.  But even here, (s)he remains in the background, rarely speaking to the public except perhaps to praise the people for their accomplishments.  (The ministers do their job and catch the blame for failures, never blaming the people.)

 

I agree, to an extent, that democracy is very flawed, and the idea of a benevolent dictator was something I enjoyed for many years. But whilst democracy can be easily manipulated by a minority, it only takes one benevolent dictator turning to the Dark Side to plunge an entire nation, or the entire world, into turmoil...

 

Why not just leave people to it, like Dao does?

[soaring crane]

I think Macro/Microcosm is a good model for it.

[Taoist Texts]

What I mean is, how can I reconcile my need to be free to move and explore and learn and grow (things that life does, things that it is in our nature to do!!) with the manipulative ideas presented in some chapters?

 

need? or greed?

[dust]

inherent nature ~= need !!

 

imo

 

But... I would be happy to discuss whether or not this is truly a need...!

[Taoist Texts]

What I mean is, how can I reconcile my need to be free to move and explore and learn and grow (things that life does, things that it is in our nature to do!!) with the manipulative ideas presented in some chapters?

a reasonable departure point for this discourse would be for you to tell us why u need or want to reconcile your behaviour with that text?

 

why would a 21st century western man care what LZ said?

[dust]

In all honesty, I don't, any longer. I have picked and chosen, and I now no longer treat the text as any kind of personal instruction manual. At this point, I believe that it contains both wisdom and folly.

 

But I have only come to believe this after some amount research and contemplation. When I was younger, reading the text from a certain perspective, I felt like such an ancient and difficult text must contain many gems of wisdom, and for some time I did base some of my ideals and behaviours on what I thought LZ was saying. (The "why" to that is not important any more.)

 

More importantly, I know that many others aside from myself do base their behaviour around the LZ.

 

So I find it, at the very least, interesting (and possibly even important) to think about whether or not his ideas are reconcilable with human nature, and with other Taoist ideas.

Edited March 17, 2015 by dustybeijing

[Taoist Texts]

In all honesty, I don't, any longer. I have picked and chosen, and I now no longer treat the text as any kind of personal instruction manual. At this point, I believe that it contains both wisdom and folly.

thats an internally conflicted POV;)

 

More importantly, I know that many others   do base their behaviour around the LZ.

Role-playing game - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

A role-playing game (RPG and sometimes roleplaying game) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting

 

So I find it, at the very least, interesting (and possibly even important) to think about whether or not his ideas are reconcilable with human nature, and with other Taoist ideas.

yes its fun. In TTC there are two protagonists, the King and the commoners. Their roles are different so one has to pick a persona. Its a manual for the king so it makes sense to play the king without  mixing in the commoners' undertones. 

[dust]

thats an internally conflicted POV;)

 

Well, isn't every reasonable POV at least a little conflicted?

 

 

 

yes its fun. In TTC there are two protagonists, the King and the commoners. Their roles are different so one has to pick a persona. Its a manual for the king so it makes sense to play the king without  mixing in the commoners' undertones. 

 

It's a manual for a king; but we're commoners.

 

How can I pretend to be a king when, according to the laws of any given nation, I am not free to do as I please, even when it harms nobody else?

 

 

Either way, there are conflicting ideas between chapters.

 

Is it practice non-interference, or rule quietly (running interference)?

Is it be self-so and let others be self-so, or govern things with intent?

[Marblehead]

Hey Dusty,  I'll get back to your response and questions a little later.  I've been working in the gardens all morning and my mind can't handle the deep thoughts required.

[Taoist Texts]

Well, isn't every reasonable POV at least a little conflicted?

 

 

 

 

It's a manual for a king; but we're commoners.

 

thats the thing you see, its a matter of self-definition, contrary to the royal 'we',  those who define themselves as 'we' are commoners, those who are 'I' are nobility. Nobility is a long and lonsome road.

 

曾子曰：「士不可以不弘毅，任重而道遠。仁以為己任，不亦重乎？死而後已，不亦遠乎？」

The teacher said, "The officer may not be but enduring and firm for his burden is heavy and his course is long. To make humanness his duty - is it not heavy? Only after death does his course stop - is it not long?"

 

 

 

 

How can I pretend to be a king when, according to the laws of any given nation, I am not free to do as I please, even when it harms nobody else?

 

Thats no problem since the real life kings are bound by more laws than the subjects. The problem is choosing to be the kingdom of one.

 

Either way, there are conflicting ideas between chapters.

 

Is it practice non-interference, or rule quietly (running interference)?

Is it be self-so and let others be self-so, or govern things with intent?

Those questions need to be elaborated on to be answered.

[Rara]

Wow...I must read the OP in more detail when I get a chance

[dust]

thats the thing you see, its a matter of self-definition, contrary to the royal 'we',  those who define themselves as 'we' are commoners, those who are 'I' are nobility. Nobility is a long and lonsome road.

 

Would this mean that those who identify with "we" are content with being ruled, and those who identify with "I" are not happy unless they are ruling?

 

And if so, what about someone who just wants to be left alone?

 

 

 

Thats no problem since the real life kings are bound by more laws than the subjects. The problem is choosing to be the kingdom of one.

 

Not all kings, I think, but you make a good point. We are bound by our own limitations just as a king is bound by his powers... but some kings, some emperors, made the rules as they went along. Isn't Laozi doing just that? Creating his own rules?

 

 

 

Those questions need to be elaborated on to be answered.

 

non-interference / wu wei / 无为      vs      force, interference, outside influence, control

 

self-so / ziran/tzujan / 自然              vs      directed intent, planning, analysis

 

 

Very simply: if he believes that we don't need to do anything ( 以亡事取天下 ) why does he also say things like:

 

為之於丌亡又也                         Act when something doesn’t exist yet,

紿之於丌未亂                            Govern it before it turns to disorder

 

--- not acting, not governing, though it would perhaps result in more disorder, would be the most wu wei way, no?

[Marblehead]

Enforcing... implementing... directives... I must say, I don't like these words much!

Well, I can't help that.  It's the way societies are controlled.

 

The more I talk with you the more I hear you speaking as an anarchist.

 

But isn't that circular? There's support for information in a book because there's support for it elsewhere in the same book?

Yes, I have been accused of using circular logic before.  You didn't get a virgin.

 

But then, we are talking primarily about Lao Tzu.  AT least he was pretty consistent.

 

If we're talking about modern ideas, ideas of freedom and creativity that I think many modern Taoists would like to see applied, surely freedom of will, of action and expression, is important? Doesn't ruling one's own life conflict with being ruled?

Ha!  Of course there will be conflicts.  Cost/benefit analysis time.  In recent years in the US of A we have given up more of our freedoms for more security.  The majority support this so it still remains.

 

I see Laozi as being quite happy to limit most freedoms if they conflict with his ideals of a stupid, quiet, essentially submissive people.

Well, I think this is an extreme statement but you do have a point.  And afterall, he was a government employee.

 

What I mean is, how can I reconcile my need to be free to move and explore and learn and grow (things that life does, things that it is in our nature to do!!) with the manipulative ideas presented in some chapters?

Be selective.  The TTC is not a Bible.  It's just a guide book.  You are as free as you want to be within the limits of your environment.  Not free enough?  Move.

 

If it's convenient, could you point to where he acknowledged this? I'm still not completely familiar with the whole text

Research required - please hold.

 

Hmmm.  I'll get back to this.  I might have to retract my former statement.

 

I agree, to an extent, that democracy is very flawed, and the idea of a benevolent dictator was something I enjoyed for many years. But whilst democracy can be easily manipulated by a minority, it only takes one benevolent dictator turning to the Dark Side to plunge an entire nation, or the entire world, into turmoil...

 

Why not just leave people to it, like Dao does?

Because most people want services that no one individual can or is willing to provide.  We allow ourselves to be taxed so that these services can be provided by the collective.

[Stosh]

So I find it, at the very least, interesting (and possibly even important) to think about whether or not his ideas are reconcilable with human nature, and with other Taoist ideas.

IMO they are ,or they are not , depending on how one reads the text, whether one believes the essential nature of man is good -bad or otherwise , what translation you go with, and what phase the moon is in. 

I know from personal experience that you can give good advice , which if defied in spirit or practice , it will ultimately fail.. 

Whether the text works for any given person is dependent on whether one tries to see how it CAN go together. 

Typical western approach of such a thing is either to swallow it all without thinking, or spend ones energy trying to punch holes in the reasoning, I don't think one gets the meanings correct ,in this case, if one chooses one of those options.

 

SO , I wonder in your stead, if this is something I already believe has value, or is it all just BS.

 

If its all BS then -walk away ( for your own part , who cares how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? . 

 

If you think that it has GOT to be golden ! , since so many would not have fallen for BS , well , many faiths have popularity- but that isn't proof of a hell ,is it? I think not. 

 

If you think you see some good stuff in there, stuff you don't feel like a sucker for accepting..Well then I do think you have a reason to consider that these guys had something of value to say , for you to hear and consider. They dont tell you that you have to obey ten commandments, they expected the stuff to be examined on a personal level. If you want to give it a chance ,totally ignore all the stuff that I and everyone else has ever said to you about what any passage means , and I really do mean totally ignore everyone else's input as much you can. Which includes claims about who it was written for , how long it was written ago , who the authorship belongs to etc etc etc. 

How does it ring true to you? ....... not .....what do you imagine is wrong with this?

 

And if it falls flat from there,,,,  at least you gave it a good shake.

 

( i personally consider it a TOOL for personal growth , not the answer to everything from an angel

what you make with it , is what you will get OUT of it)

Edited March 17, 2015 by Stosh

[dust]

Well, I can't help that.  It's the way societies are controlled.

 

The more I talk with you the more I hear you speaking as an anarchist.

 

Yes, the more I think (or don't think) the less acceptance I find for the status quo. There are so many things that people just aren't allowed to do. It's better now than it was for many centuries, of course, but that doesn't make it any less galling.

 

 

Ha!  Of course there will be conflicts.  Cost/benefit analysis time.  In recent years in the US of A we have given up more of our freedoms for more security.  The majority support this so it still remains.

 

It's happening in the UK too, and it's.... bullshit.

 

When I was growing up, the IRA was the big threat here. Before that... Russia? Before that, Germany. The list goes on, all the way back to the beginning of mankind. Governments need threats so that the people need security.

 

Well, this is a different topic, really, isn't it... security vs freedom. As far as LZ goes, I believe that he was trying to allow for both

 

 

 

Well, I think this is an extreme statement but you do have a point.  And afterall, he was a government employee.

 

Perhaps he was, but..

government employee or not, if my statement is even a little bit true, at the very least Laozi and Zhuangzi must be in some disagreement, no?

 

So... which is the "more Taoist" way of doing things?

 

 

Be selective.  The TTC is not a Bible.  It's just a guide book.  You are as free as you want to be within the limits of your environment.  Not free enough?  Move.

 

No 2 people will ever agree 100% on everything forever, I know that.. we must be selective in every walk of life.

 

Anyway, my line of questioning isn't all about my personal differences with the Laozi. As many faults as I see in it, I still love it, and always will.

 

In this thread, I'm trying to figure this all out from a more objective, "academic" standpoint.

 

In a way, I suppose, I want to see if it makes sense when "Western rationale" is applied to it.

 

 

 

Because most people want services that no one individual can or is willing to provide.  We allow ourselves to be taxed so that these services can be provided by the collective.

 

Allow? Do most of us have a choice?

[Stosh]

Im glad you guys hit like, I dont want to be a nuisance.

I just wanted to add that dubious meanings may well have been intended.

Western rationale ,, any rationale will work with it, just not certain attitudes.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Stosh

[dust]

I know from personal experience that you can give good advice , which if defied in spirit or practice , it will ultimately fail.. 

 

Indeed

 

 

Whether the text works for any given person is dependent on whether one tries to see how it CAN go together. 

Typical western approach of such a thing is either to swallow it all without thinking, or spend ones energy trying to punch holes in the reasoning, I don't think one gets the meanings correct ,in this case, if one chooses one of those options.

 

I'm not sure that this is entirely fair. A traditional "Western approach" can be thorough in finding faults, but so can the traditional Eastern; Zhuangzi spent a lot of energy punching holes in people's reasoning! And anyone might swallow anything without thinking... Christians do it, Muslims do it, and people growing up in China under traditional Confucian and pseudo-Taoist values do it!

 

 

 

If you think that it has GOT to be golden ! , since so many would not have fallen for BS , well , many faiths have popularity- but that isn't proof of a hell ,is it? I think not. 

 

No, no, nothing like that. I place very little faith in the masses!

 

 

 

If you think you see some good stuff in there, stuff you don't feel like a sucker for accepting..Well then I do think you have a reason to consider that these guys had something of value to say , for you to hear and consider. They dont tell you that you have to obey ten commandments, they expected the stuff to be examined on a personal level.

 

Yes, I suppose they did.

 

 

 

( i personally consider it a TOOL for personal growth , not the answer to everything from an angel

what you make with it , is what you will get OUT of it)

 

Yes. As I mentioned in my last post to MH, though, my line of questioning isn't all about my personal differences with the Laozi. As many faults as I see in it, I still love it, and always will. I am, I suppose, guilty of trying to punch holes in the reasoning to see if it holds up as a general manual.

Edited March 17, 2015 by dustybeijing

[Marblehead]

Marblehead said:  Even Chuang Tzu acknowledge that there need be some form of control.

If it's convenient, could you point to where he acknowledged this? I'm still not completely familiar with the whole text

Well, it seems that what I said was my interpretation and not anything Chuang Tzu actually said.  He did speak often about the difference between good governing and bad governing but I was unable to find anywhere where he actually said that there needs be some form of government.

 

But from my own personal perspective I will stand by what I said.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Marblehead

[Stosh]

Ill take your word for it that other groups share the foibles of my people.

I was thinking about greek logic , rhetoric etc.

 

About finding holes, with mental agility and desire one can patch them.

 

Why does a man look for holes?

Ans ..to see if the logic is weak.

What if nothing is solid?

Ans .. Start patching.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Stosh

[Taoist Texts]

Would this mean that those who identify with "we" are content with being ruled,

absolutely, people need to be told what to do

 

and those who identify with "I" are not happy unless they are ruling?

 

yes, at least ruling their own life

 

And if so, what about someone who just wants to be left alone?

he has to make it so, he has to rule his own life, mind, body in such a way that others cant get at him 'round on the outside, square inside', thats what wu wei is all about, going with the flow using the flow for your own ends

 

 

Not all kings, I think, but you make a good point. We are bound by our own limitations just as a king is bound by his powers... but some kings, some emperors, made the rules as they went along. Isn't Laozi doing just that? Creating his own rules?

no. creating anything is interference with the natural rules, LZ is using the natural rules for HIS own benefit

 

 

non-interference / wu wei / 无为      vs      force, interference, outside influence, control

 

self-so / ziran/tzujan / 自然              vs      directed intent, planning, analysis

 

 

Very simply: if he believes that we don't need to do anything ( 以亡事取天下 ) why does he also say things like:

 

為之於丌亡又也                         Act when something doesn’t exist yet,

紿之於丌未亂                            Govern it before it turns to disorder

 

--- not acting, not governing, though it would perhaps result in more disorder, would be the most wu wei way, no?

Oh its simple, wuwei and ziran is not doing absolutely anything, it is using minimal action for maximal effect at the right time for your own benefit.

 

Absolutely not acting and absolutely not governing, as you correctly noted, will lead to disorder, and the disorder will get the king killed, which is a suboptimal outcome. For maximal own benefit take care of a problem when it is small, be it an impending war or a budding dental issue. Thats wuwei of a king.