Is philosophical Daoism (daojia) agnostic?

[Marblehead]

All good questions.  But I must allow time for Dusty to speak.

[dust]

So mean!

 

 

Knowledge stops. At what it does not know. 

 

This does not make sense. All known things were previously unknown. How would anything be known if knowledge would stop at every unknown?

 

This is why I prefer the use of "understanding", which you so delicately removed

 

Not just knowing of a fact, but real understanding. I might interpret it as

 

"One who understands that he cannot understand everything possesses the highest understanding"

 

 

 

And why it is the highest?

 

There are a number of translations we could use for 至, but I have a feeling you wouldn't be happy with any that I chose....

 

http://www.zdic.net/z/22/xs/81F3.htm

 

Highest, greatest, best... much of a muchness..

Edited April 1, 2015 by dustybeijing

[Stosh]

Taoist texts,id like to supplement dustybeijings response about highest knowlege , Imo, if knowlege is a progression of explanation, to larger and larger principles, one gets to a point where one doesnt really know the answer. Knowing that, is just one more step beyond being wrong, and thats the end of the progression. So he Zz feels that simply allowing the doubt is the wiser stance..agnosticism.

 

[Taoist Texts]

So mean!This is why I prefer the use of "understanding", which you so delicately removed

sorry)

 

 

Not just knowing of a fact, but real understanding. I might interpret it as

 

"One who understands that he cannot understand everything possesses the highest understanding" 

 

This is actually not bad, this interpretation is fairly close to Confucious and Socrates but i would say here ZZ means stopping the intelectual process and using the extrasensory cognition. It is proved by a quote from the butcher story

 

 

 

 

官知止而神欲行

 

Now I deal with it in a spirit-like manner, and do not look at it with my eyes. The use of my senses is discarded*, and my spirit acts as it wills.

 

use of my senses is discarded=knowledge stops in the original

[dust]

And...this is where we will come to a stalemate, I think.

 

I see how you got there, and cannot prove that you are wrong, but I don't think that 神 needs to be literally interpreted as a magical god-spirit, separate from the body, floating around and doing magical things.

 

It can also mean essence, mind/psyche, talent, energy (in modern Chinese, as 精神)

 

http://www.zdic.net/z/20/xs/795E.htm

 

On a purely linguistic note, it's interesting that English "spirit" and Chinese 神 / 精神 share the same variation in meaning..

[Marblehead]

And...this is where we will come to a stalemate, I think.

 

I see how you got there, and cannot prove that you are wrong, but I don't think that 神 needs to be literally interpreted as a magical god-spirit, separate from the body, floating around and doing magical things.

 

It can also mean essence, mind/psyche, talent, energy (in modern Chinese, as 精神)

I have to side with you regarding the above.

 

On a purely linguistic note, it's interesting that English "spirit" and Chinese 神 / 精神 share the same variation in meaning..

 

Something else to keep in mind too; when Chuang Tzu speaks of knowledge in a negative way he is almost always speaking to the Confucian concept of knowledge and the gaining thereof.

 

Chuang Tzu saw this only as a way for the powerful to gain control of and manipulate the people, destroying their true nature.

[Taoist Texts]

Taoist texts,id like to supplement dustybeijings response about highest knowlege , Imo, if knowlege is a progression of explanation, to larger and larger principles, one gets to a point where one doesnt really know the answer. Knowing that, is just one more step beyond being wrong, and thats the end of the progression. So he Zz feels that simply allowing the doubt is the wiser stance..agnosticism.

Hey Stosh

 

yes what you say is imminently reasonable and for any normal person it would be wise to stop investigating any further once the limit of human knowledghe is apparently reached. Also you used the word progression fortuitiously, for the ancient chinese also spoke about the process of knowledge expansion in terms of a progression. The only difference is - they did not stop. The chinese never do. 

 

Here is the progression they laid out for themselves, lets see if we can follow whats going on:

 

《禮記 - Liji》

 

[Warring States (475 BC - 221 BC)] [Also known as: 《小戴禮記》, "The Classic of Rites"]

 

大學之道，....。知止而後有定，定而後能靜，靜而後能安，安而後能慮，慮而後能得。

 

What the Great Learning teaches, is ...

1 Knowledge (the intellect) stops,

2 the object of pursuit is then determined;

3 and, that being determined,

4 a calm unperturbedness may be attained to.

5To that calmness there will succeed a tranquil repose.

6 In that repose there may be careful deliberation,

7 and that deliberation will be followed by the attainment of the desired end.

 

So its indeed a 7 step progression as to how to go beyond the limits of intellect and know what is desired to know.

 

Also a note to Dusty: that 至 in ZZ, is probably not "the highest", its the attainment.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Taoist Texts

[doc benway]

Theres no taoist rule about being fair. Its not like the theists are taking pains to keep the numbers even its looks like five or so against one, maybe two.

Take Steve there, he thinks his idea might be objective,

I guess you missed the part where I typed "... from my perspective. "

That was my acknowledgement of subjectivity.

 

well, he didnt point at spotless or flowing hands. Is that fair? No its not.

It was not my intention to provide fair and comprehensive commentary on all points of view.

Marbles was clearly showing contempt for Theists while accusing Spotless of belittling people.

I know him well enough to know that he would not want to be intentionally hypocritical and pointed that out.

I consider Marbles a friend, whereas I don't really have any relationship with flowing hands and Spotless so I didn't feel a desire or responsibility to criticize their posts.

 

He doesnt see Spotlesss shots across the bow?

Of course I did, his mode of presentation can sometimes be confrontational. 

I think that's his voice and he seems to be aware of it.

I'm not trying to play mod here.

 

I see them ,it doesnt upset me, he is allowed some leeway for his own perspective, but that doesnt mean, he didnt say anything easily taken badly. Once he understood your feelings, it was possible for him to make nice as well, so theres no reason for all of it to lie on your shoulders.

That was kind of you and accurate but when we have expectations of others we are inviting disappointment. 

 

Look, if he feels Spotless is being fair, by holding all the groups on equal footing, then his own fairness needs to look the same, if one thinks each individual situation, like your reaction, needs to be judged in respect to the validity of the other positions, ....so doing, deeming your own reaction abrupt relatively, then you shouldnt be expected to feel your opinions are not more valid than your opposers. No doubt each of us feels RIGHT... and feeling thus.. wish to let loose a torrent of justified fervor. That is conventional. However, less conventional , and perhaps better, is to live and let live as much as we can ,even accepting the odd trampled foot.

I do not have an opinion about whether or not Spotless was being fair, nor did I offer one.

He was, however, treating Theist and Atheist perspectives with parity.

This treatment comes from a fundamental understanding of the inherent flaw in both perspectives, not from an intent to belittle the individuals adopting these views.

At least, that's how I see it.

[Stosh]

Parity, ! thats the word I was looking for! 

Yes we both gave Spotless a pass based on parity. 

Im thinking , that yes you diverged from that regarding Mh based on subjectivity.

Parity would say Mh was also just as deserving of a pass based on it. 

Hard line stances on both sides, and neutrality on the sidelines.  

[Marblehead]

Marbles was clearly showing contempt for Theists while accusing Spotless of belittling people.

I know him well enough to know that he would not want to be intentionally hypocritical and pointed that out.

I consider Marbles a friend, whereas I don't really have any relationship with flowing hands and Spotless so I didn't feel a desire or responsibility to criticize their posts.

Just to clarify this, at the time I was expressing contempt toward Agnosticism because both Atheism and Theism were being spoken to contemptuously.

 

And to the best of my recall I cannot recall a single time when I have said that a person should not believe in religion.  But then, I have never recommended a religious belief to anyone.

 

Sure, I may well have responded in the extreme but IMO extreme response is necessary when someone says that Atheism and Theism are the same.

 

And Steve, you know I feel the same way but I will always question you just like I did Spotless when you say something that needs further clarification.  That is, as politely as possible unless condition demand otherwise.

[Marblehead]

Note to Spotless:

 

Although I stand by "what" is said in response to your comments, I acknowledge that I was not very polite in doing so.  That is one of my flaws.  I apologize for that flaw.

[Stosh]

Hey Stosh

 

yes what you say is imminently reasonable and for any normal person it would be wise to stop investigating any further once the limit of human knowledghe is apparently reached. Also you used the word progression fortuitiously, for the ancient chinese also spoke about the process of knowledge expansion in terms of a progression. The only difference is - they did not stop. The chinese never do. 

 

Here is the progression they laid out for themselves, lets see if we can follow whats going on:

 

《禮記 - Liji》

 

[Warring States (475 BC - 221 BC)] [Also known as: 《小戴禮記》, "The Classic of Rites"]

 

大學之道，....。知止而後有定，定而後能靜，靜而後能安，安而後能慮，慮而後能得。

 

What the Great Learning teaches, is ...

1 Knowledge (the intellect) stops,

2 the object of pursuit is then determined;

3 and, that being determined,

4 a calm unperturbedness may be attained to.

5To that calmness there will succeed a tranquil repose.

6 In that repose there may be careful deliberation,

7 and that deliberation will be followed by the attainment of the desired end.

 

So its indeed a 7 step progression as to how to go beyond the limits of intellect and know what is desired to know.

 

Also a note to Dusty: that 至 in ZZ, is probably not "the highest", its the attainment.

Does this mean that the Chinese eat until they burst , drive through red lights , find no peace? 

Hey! theyre just like us.

[Taoist Texts]

. The chinese never do. 

 

Here is the progression they laid out for themselves, lets see if we can follow whats going on:

 

No, we can't.

[dust]

Good quote. And I might accept that ZZ was talking of intellect and attainment (of the Way!)

 

知止其所不知  至矣

reading this aloud just now I once more realize that ZZ was also a master of the tongue twister

Edited April 1, 2015 by dustybeijing

[Geof Nanto]

“By subdividing subtle statements philosophers teach people to increase matters of doubt: they start us off extending and varying our difficulties, stretching them out and spreading them about. By sowing doubts and then pruning them back they make the world produce abundant crops of uncertainties and quarrels, just as the soil is made more fertile when it is broken up and dug deep: ‘It is learning that creates the difficulty.’”

 

(Modified paragraph from Montaigne‘s, ‘On Experience’ with the word ‘philosophers’ substituted for his ‘lawyers‘, quoted from Ben-Ami Scharfstein, ‘A Comparative History of World Philosophy‘.)

 

I would add - ‘it is learning that creates and needs the difficulty.’

 

I’d also add that to my mind Daoism favours the natural soil enhancement methods of permaculture over digging deep and breaking up.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Darkstar

[Marblehead]

 

I’d also add that to my mind Daoism favours the natural soil enhancement methods of permaculture over digging deep and breaking up.

Yep.  There's a story about that.

[Stosh]

  This kind of permaculture ? Intensive rotational grazing[edit]

Grazing has long been blamed for much of the destruction we see in the environment. However, it has been shown that when grazing is modeled after nature, the opposite effect can be seen.^[33][34] Also known as cell grazing, managed intensive rotational grazing (MIRG) is a system of grazing in which ruminant and non-ruminant herds and/or flocks are regularly and systematically moved to fresh pasture, range, or forest with the intent to maximize the quality and quantity of forage growth. This disturbance is then followed by a period of rest which allows new growth. MIRG can be used with cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, chickens, rabbits, geese, turkeys, ducks and other animals depending on the natural ecological community that is being mimicked. Sepp Holzer and Joel Salatin have shown how the disturbance caused by the animals can be the spark needed to start ecological succession or prepare ground for planting. Allan Savory's holistic management technique has been likened to "a permaculture approach to rangeland management".^[35][36] One variation on MIRG that is gaining rapid popularity is called eco-grazing. Often used to either control invasives or re-establish native species, in eco-grazing the primary purpose of the animals is to benefit the environment and the animals can be, but are not necessarily, used for meat, milk or fiber.^{[37][38][39][40][41][42][43]}

[Geof Nanto]

I would also add that, as a new contributor to this community, I'm totally impressed by the way this discussion worked through very real and valid disharmony to a position of relative harmony. I'm particularly impressed with Marblehead - he was the first person here to engage with my comments and in that way made me feel welcome. However, as well as feeling friendship over his openness,  I confess to feeling a tad afraid of him too.

 

Well, not of him personally, but of the intimidating power of his certainties - certainties that for me are only his opinions. I particularly rally against his believe in human rationality. To me he is almost deifying what is merely one method of making sense of the world. It's a fallible human facility. To be totally rational a person would need to know everything about the meaning of life and the universe as a whole. Without this knowledge rational thought can only ever be partial. Also a person would need to totally rid him or herself of subjective prejudices and achieve absolute objectivity - a position perhaps akin to enlightenment. Or perhaps not even a possibility for any human. 

 

I write this as a friend - one whose particularly impressed that he's also able to be more accommodating. (Otherwise I'd never write this.)    

[Geof Nanto]

 

 

This kind of permaculture ?

 

 

Yes that's certainly a start. One of my near neighbours uses cell grazing on their cattle property to good effect.

 

Permaculture is a branch of ecological design, ecological engineering, environmental design, construction and integrated water resources management that develops sustainable architecture, regenerative and self-maintained habitat and agricultural systems modeled from natural ecosystems. The term permaculture (as a systematic method) was first coined by Australians Bill Mollison and David Holmgren in 1978. The word permaculture originally referred to "permanent agriculture" but was expanded to stand also for "permanent culture," as it was seen that social aspects were integral to a truly sustainable system as inspired by Masanobu Fukuoka's natural farming philosophy.

 

Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted and thoughtful observation rather than protracted and thoughtless labor; and of looking at plants and animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single product system.

 

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture

Edited April 1, 2015 by Darkstar

[Stosh]

Yes, that's where I located my clip from, the point however was that disturbance was still essential. The yin and yang thing isn't stagnant even philosophically. 

 

I’d also add that to my mind Daoism favours the natural soil enhancement methods of permaculture over digging deep and breaking up.

 

Back in college I found myself doing some archeology in the Mohawk valley of New York, its been farmed for centuries , looking for Indian longhouse remnants , one digs down through about 18cm or so of tilled earth, immediately below is the zone which isnt subject to the tilling. The difference is striking, below the topsoil there is a layer of inorganic clay so stagnant that one can still see the outlines of the posts driven in 300+ years earlier. Above that zone the earth is fertile and organic, though somewhat rocky . On the ground surface however one can find potsherds and arrowheads basically within just a few yards of where they most likely fell, way back then.  

My point is that the tilling disturbance allows the land to continue to produce, it isnt really destructive or obliterating , since one can still locate where the longhouse was! by the debris up top. The dead part is the part which sees no change. ( one can find similarities in native environments as well)

SO although philosophers , thinkers dredge stuff up for examination , and that may seem counterproductive at times, it keeps the system from stagnating , the old becomes new again, weeds are kept in check , the natural order IS disturbance and change, as much as it is continuity and peace. 

(  the bias or overpreference for one or the other is the destructive element  IMO ) 

Edited April 1, 2015 by Stosh

[Geof Nanto]

SO although philosophers , thinkers dredge stuff up for examination , and that may seem counterproductive at times, it keeps the system from stagnating , the old becomes new again, weeds are kept in check , the natural order IS disturbance and change, as much as it is continuity and peace. 

(  the bias or overpreference for one or the other is the destructive element  IMO ) 

 

 

Totally agreed, Stosh. I'm very familiar with the limitations of permaculture through personal experience, and also of the advantages of philosophical disputes.  I'm critical of some of the inferences of classical Daoism as well as of permaculture and all questions of sustainability - to me it can be akin to stagnation. This opens up a whole new discussion though, but it will take me a while to compose my thoughts. Also it's getting way off topic isn't it?  Very interesting for me though.

[Stosh]

Totally agreed, Stosh. I'm very familiar with the limitations of permaculture through personal experience, and also of the advantages of philosophical disputes.  I'm critical of some of the inferences of classical Daoism as well as of permaculture and all questions of sustainability - to me it can be akin to stagnation. This opens up a whole new discussion though, but it will take me a while to compose my thoughts. Also it's getting way off topic isn't it?  Very interesting for me though.

It might fit well in Marble Gardens tho

[Marblehead]

 I confess to feeling a tad afraid of him too.

Not to worry.  Although I carry a big stick I rarely use it.

 

And yes, I can handle your truth.

[Marblehead]

It might fit well in Marble Gardens tho

ABout half of my gardens are that way.  Different plants different times of the year and sometimes totally different plants.  Other areas are permanent so the best I can do is waer, weed, and fertilize.  And I do use fish pond waste when I'm not too lazy to go through the effort.

[Geof Nanto]

ABout half of my gardens are that way.  Different plants different times of the year and sometimes totally different plants.  Other areas are permanent so the best I can do is waer, weed, and fertilize.  And I do use fish pond waste when I'm not too lazy to go through the effort.

 

We’re cultivating very different gardens – each appropriate to our own situation, I assume. I live on a large acreage in a semi-wilderness area.  My approach is large-scale removal of invasive woody weeds in degraded habitats so that the natural ecology can restore itself.  Hard work to start with but once the previous harmony of the landscape is restored it means virtually no maintenance at all. A great diversity of flora and fauna returns, and the ecology maintains itself self-so by countless natural processes such as self-seeding and enhanced immunity to invasive species.