What is Dao?

[opendao]

There are a lot of discussions about Daoism, but very rare there is any understanding what Dao is and was for Daoists.

 

Few quotes from various Daoist texts:

 

Dao is empty, but things have forms.

 

Dao is the source of all things.

 

Dao has no form, it can be given but cannot be taken, it can be gained but cannot be seen.

 

 

"The way", "principle" is just one level of understanding, very basic.

 

For practising Daoists it means more then just a way of practice, but also a substance and final result of the Dao cultivation:

 

In the Universe the most valuable are Dao and De, the most difficult to receive - human, for humans the most difficult - to receive Dao and De in own body.

 

[Marblehead]

Dao is the totality of the universe and the "way" it functions.  It is not a thing in and of itself.

 

What we mostly talk about is De - Virtue.

 

But we need keep in mind that there is the De of Dao and there is the De of humans.  These are often contradictory.

[leth]

Dao is the totality of the universe and the "way" it functions.  It is not a thing in and of itself.

 

I'm not sure I agree with this.

 

What we mostly talk about is De - Virtue.

 

De is the modus operandi of Dao. So De and Dao are interconnected. If it isn't the modus operandi of Dao it isn't De. So if we are talking about De we are talking about Dao.

 

But we need keep in mind that there is the De of Dao and there is the De of humans.  These are often contradictory.

 

Are humans not part of the whole, and as such would not any part of the whole be part of Dao, and would not it's De be the De of the whole?

Is there only Dao? Is there only De?

If not then what is that which is not Dao, and that which is not De?

If there is no other thing than Dao and De, then what is the point of De, and what is Ziran?

[Marblehead]

Nice response/questions.  I will respond as best I can.

I'm not sure I agree with this.

That's okay.  You have the right to disagree with me.  Of course, you will be naturally wrong if you do.

 

De is the modus operandi of Dao. So De and Dao are interconnected. If it isn't the modus operandi of Dao it isn't De. So if we are talking about De we are talking about Dao.

This is true but we really can't talk about Dao exclusively.  Remember, those who speak do not know and those who know do not speak.  Dao is undefinable.  However, we can talk about some of its characteristics.  That would be either De or the natural processes of the universe.

 

Are humans not part of the whole, and as such would not any part of the whole be part of Dao, and would not it's De be the De of the whole?

Is there only Dao? Is there only De?

If not then what is that which is not Dao, and that which is not De?

If there is no other thing than Dao and De, then what is the point of De, and what is Ziran?

This is a discussion I have been in a number of times and it is always very difficult to express myself with only words.  But here goes:

 

Yes, humans are a part of the whole.  Yes, humans are a part of Dao.  Stop there.

 

The De of Dao (the entirety of the universe) is not based within human concepts.  The Way of Dao is based only within the processes of the universe.  The laws of physics, if you will.  Stars explode.  People don't.  Earth goes around the sun constantly; no variation.  Most people don't walk around in circles.  When people die in a tornado we feel regret for them.  Dao feels no regrets.

 

There is Dao and the way it functions, De.

 

Here's the hard part.  All aspects of the universe function within the limitations of possibilities of Dao.  A person who murders another is still operating within the limits of Dao.  If any action were not within the limits of Dao the action could never be performed.  So in such cases we must conclude that the person is following the Way of Dao.  However, They will not be following the way of man.  So this is to say that man has added more limiters to those of Dao.

 

The point of De is to understand some of the characteristics of Dao.  If we understand how something works we have a fuller understanding of that something than we would if we just used it and never tried to determine how it does what it does.

 

And that leads us to Ziran (Tzujan).  Ziran is a thing's naturalness.  To have a flat Earth would not be natural.  Therefore we would say that it is not being true to its own naturalness.  If a good person started doing very ugly things we would say that the person is not behaving naturally.

 

So, for the universe, it is natural for comets to occasionally collide with Earth.  But in most societies it would not be natural for people to start killing each other for no reason.

 

The De of Dao is basically the process of cause and effect.  There was a cause and we see the effect.  We might never see the cause.  Same with a human; we can observe what they do but we rarely know why they have done whatever.  But there surely was a cause.  And no, logic need not apply.

[Taoist Texts]

  but also a substance  

 

a controlled one, no doubt. 

[leth]

This is true but we really can't talk about Dao exclusively.  Remember, those who speak do not know and those who know do not speak.  Dao is undefinable.  However, we can talk about some of its characteristics.  That would be either De or the natural processes of the universe.

 

Whenever we speak about Dao we ar bound to our own limited minds, sure. But we have to use these limitations to point towards that which is not limited by our mental constructs. This is also why I atleast partly disagree with your description of Dao, I would interprete it to transcends reality as we understand it.

 

The De of Dao (the entirety of the universe) is not based within human concepts.  The Way of Dao is based only within the processes of the universe.  The laws of physics, if you will.  Stars explode.  People don't.  Earth goes around the sun constantly; no variation.  Most people don't walk around in circles.  When people die in a tornado we feel regret for them.  Dao feels no regrets.

 

There is Dao and the way it functions, De.

 

You mean that the De of Dao is deterministic laws of physics?

 

Here's the hard part.  All aspects of the universe function within the limitations of possibilities of Dao.  A person who murders another is still operating within the limits of Dao.  If any action were not within the limits of Dao the action could never be performed.  So in such cases we must conclude that the person is following the Way of Dao.  However, They will not be following the way of man.  So this is to say that man has added more limiters to those of Dao.

 

If the De of Dao is the deterministic laws of physics, how can any non-deterministic choice of free will be part of that De?

 

If there is no non-deterministic choice of free will then all human behaviour must surely be the De of Dao?

 

If there is non-determinisitc choice of free will, then how can any of those choice said to be part of the De of Dao yet not part of the De of Humans?

 

You mean to say that the De of Dao is any possible outcome and any choice made no matter what? Does that no deconstruct the idea of De itself?

 

And that leads us to Ziran (Tzujan).  Ziran is a thing's naturalness.  To have a flat Earth would not be natural.  Therefore we would say that it is not being true to its own naturalness.  If a good person started doing very ugly things we would say that the person is not behaving naturally.

 

Naturalness in the sense of deterministic behaviour is hardly the same thing as naturallness for a being with a non-deterministic free will. If there is no free will then surely whatever is done is De, If it can be said that people have free will, then what is De? What is natural if not to make a choice no matter what choice it is? What is it about our choices that make them natural or not?

 

So, for the universe, it is natural for comets to occasionally collide with Earth.  But in most societies it would not be natural for people to start killing each other for no reason.

 

Comets occasionally collide with Earth, Humans occasionally kill other humans. What is the difference?

 

The De of Dao is basically the process of cause and effect.  There was a cause and we see the effect.  We might never see the cause.  Same with a human; we can observe what they do but we rarely know why they have done whatever.  But there surely was a cause.  And no, logic need not apply.

 

What is the De of Humans if they have free will? What is the cause of that creates the choice?

And if the De of Dao is the whole of all, must it not include the De of Humans?

Edited February 16, 2016 by leth

[Marblehead]

You sure have offered me lots of wonderful questions.

 

Let me first point out that I do hold to the concept of free will.  In my signature block you will see the words "I reserve the right to change my mind."  This is an example of free will.  But I will add that free will has limits.  Some people have more limiters than do others.

 

Okay.  Here we go.

Whenever we speak about Dao we ar bound to our own limited minds, sure. But we have to use these limitations to point towards that which is not limited by our mental constructs. This is also why I atleast partly disagree with your description of Dao, I would interprete it to transcends reality as we understand it.

Please understand that I am the hard core Materialist here.  Wu and Yu.  Mystery and Manifest.  I rarely talk about Mystery because it is a mystery to me.  (Sorry)  But I understand what you are saying.

 

You mean that the De of Dao is deterministic laws of physics?

I have to answer "Yes" to this question.  Reasons:  The physical nature of the universe allow only certain things.  This is not to say that the conditions don't change over time though.  But at any given point in time only the possible is possible; the impossible must wait its proper time.

 

Also, I do not hold to the concept of a conscious Dao.  But self-actualization, yes.

 

If the De of Dao is the deterministic laws of physics, how can any non-deterministic choice of free will be part of that De?

It is my understanding that the De of Dao has no free will.  Remember the straw dogs?

 

Dao doesn't care.  People care.  Caring inspires free will. 

 

Our sun will radiate heat and light until its fuel is all used up.  Then it will die.  It has no choice.  Even we humans have no choice in this matter.

 

If there is no non-deterministic choice of free will then all human behaviour must surely be the De of Dao?

But we humans have a conscious mind capable of making choices.  Therein lies the difference.

 

If there is non-determinisitc choice of free will, then how can any of those choice said to be part of the De of Dao yet not part of the De of Humans?

Difficult question to respond to.  I fought with myself a long time before I had an answer I could accept.  But I'm not suggesting it is "the" correct answer.

 

Anything that happens is an aspect of Dao.  The rape and murder of a young girl is an aspect of Dao because it is a process that is possible.  Dao allows for it.  This is another reason I cannot give Dao consciousness.

 

However, the virtue of humans state that such things should not happen even though they do.  This is why those who do such things get punished.

 

You mean to say that the De of Dao is any possible outcome and any choice made no matter what? Does that no deconstruct the idea of De itself?

I have previously been accused of deconstructing and I pleaded guilty.

 

Basically, I must answer "Yes".  This is because if it weren't a possible process of Dao then it simply could not happen.  Therefore, anything that happens is a process (De) of Dao.

 

Naturalness in the sense of deterministic behaviour is hardly the same thing as naturallness for a being with a non-deterministic free will. If there is no free will then surely whatever is done is De, If it can be said that people have free will, then what is De? What is natural if not to make a choice no matter what choice it is? What is it about our choices that make them natural or not?

Again, free will requires a properly functioning conscious mind.  I do not attribute this characteristic to Dao.  Therefore my conclusion that Dao does not have free will.

 

The De of Dao is basically "cause and effect".  No intention.

 

Humans however, use their conscious mind to establish there own De (virtue).  Some are more virtuous than are others.  We humans face choices constantly.  We want to respond in a certain way but our virtue drives us to respond in some other way - a way that we can live with.  We have done the right thing.  There is no right/wrong for Dao.

 

Naturalness for Dao is not a problem.  It cannot be otherwise.

 

For humans it is different.  Our natural response might be to want to punch someone in the nose because of what they said or did.  Our learned virtue tells us that we are not supposed to do that.  So we turn around and walk away. 

 

 

Comets occasionally collide with Earth, Humans occasionally kill other humans. What is the difference?

In its essence, no difference.  But Dao (the comet) had no choice - cause and effect.  We humans have the choice of killing or not killing in most cases.  Sometimes cause and effect rule.  Self defense.  Other times we can turn around and walk away.

 

 

What is the De of Humans if they have free will? What is the cause of that creates the choice?

And if the De of Dao is the whole of all, must it not include the De of Humans?

All humans, all everything, are effected by the De of Dao.  We are a part of it.  Can't escape.

 

The De (virtue) of humans is partly learned and partly self-actualizing (our Tzujan).  There are many aspects of early life that determine a person's virtue.  But most important are our feelings and our ability to make choices.  If our choice causes no inner conflict then we did the right thing even though some others might say we did the wrong thing.  A very important thing is that we accept responsibility for all our thoughts, words, and deeds.

 

If we did what we thought we needed to do at the time then we are self-justified and we accept responsibility for what we did.

 

And the most beautiful aspect of free will is that we have no one to blame for what we did.  It was our choice. (No need for a devil to blame things on.)

[blue eyed snake]

Nice read Marble,

you use terms that I can understand 

 

today I was outside a little and saw a small swarm of starlings, they were swooping and swirling, never touching each other, a beautiful choreography. It seems to me they are perfectly in accordance with dao, By their swooping and swirling they are acting De, they are virtuous in the sense De means?

They cannot behave otherwise but in accordance with Dao.

 

when I was looking at them I thought, to be really virtuous ( in the sense of De) one should be able to live and act like those starlings.

 

Then I wondered about free will, humans are the only animals that, allegedly, have free will. Being somewhat younger than you  , it is still a question for me.

 

some pondering:

 

Sure, we make choices. But what would be  virtuous/De: Would I kill the rapist? or comfort the young girl and help her to regain her worthiness, go through the fear and the anger, make her life worthwhile again. Both can be virtuous/De, but only comforting the girl would be called virtuous in a cultural sense. Killing by citizens is usually frowned in most cultures. It seems to me that culture is taking away our free will, our chance to behave virtuous/De

 

 

and when I make that choice, is that free will? or is it the ingrained 'lessons' of my culture and parents.

Sometimes it seems to me that much of what is regarded as free will, is just that, ingrained lessons, often not even conscious.

 

Still , i would not want a culture with no rules/total anarchy. Most people seem unfit to me to make a happy neighbourhood without rules...

[vonkrankenhaus]

Re"

-----

"Still , i would not want a culture with no rules/total anarchy. Most people seem unfit to me to make a happy neighbourhood without rules..."

-----

 

It took a lot of work to make that happen.

 

To insure dependence.

 

That even snails do not need.

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[vonkrankenhaus]

Dao

 

Dao is like "the way" of making a sandwich.

 

Pull "the way of making a sandwich" out of your pocket.

 

Not "a piece of paper with instructions on it".

 

But the actual "way" of doing it.

 

Impossible.

 

Dao is not a thing.

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[Marblehead]

I was going to make a quick reply but as I read I decided to respond to each concept separately.

Nice read Marble,

you use terms that I can understand 

Thanks.  That's a key to good communications.  Keep it as simple as possible

 

today I was outside a little and saw a small swarm of starlings, they were swooping and swirling, never touching each other, a beautiful choreography. It seems to me they are perfectly in accordance with dao, By their swooping and swirling they are acting De, they are virtuous in the sense De means?

Let's remember that "virtue" is a human concept.  What you saw was both de of humans and De of Dao.  And yes, I would agree that they were in accord with the Yin/Yang aspect of De (harmony) as well as the virtue of humans.  Just doing what starlings do naturally.

 

They cannot behave otherwise but in accordance with Dao.

Yes, we should say that they cannot act otherwise.  Even if they were fussing over nesting and feeding territory.

 

when I was looking at them I thought, to be really virtuous ( in the sense of De) one should be able to live and act like those starlings.

Yes, we should be able to live naturally according to our true nature.  (Remembering the harmonizing of Yin/Yang.)

 

Then I wondered about free will, humans are the only animals that, allegedly, have free will. Being somewhat younger than you  , it is still a question for me.

That is the general understanding but I am inclined to suggest that there are a few other mammals that have very limited free will.

 

some pondering:

Yeah.  Even this old man still enjoys doing that.

 

Sure, we make choices. But what would be  virtuous/De: Would I kill the rapist? or comfort the young girl and help her to regain her worthiness, go through the fear and the anger, make her life worthwhile again. Both can be virtuous/De, but only comforting the girl would be called virtuous in a cultural sense. Killing by citizens is usually frowned in most cultures. It seems to me that culture is taking away our free will, our chance to behave virtuous/De

In the above I understand the rape has already happened but the victim has not been murdered.  First would be to protect the victim from any further harm.  If this meant killing the aggressor then so be it.  Then, yes, having compassion for the victim.

 

There was disharmony.  Harmony must be regained.  This is the De of Dao.  The protection and compassion for the victim would be the virtue of humans.

 

and when I make that choice, is that free will?

I would say "Yes".  You could just as easily ignored what was happening for fear of getting harmed yourself.  This would be understandable.

 

or is it the ingrained 'lessons' of my culture and parents.

Sometimes it seems to me that much of what is regarded as free will, is just that, ingrained lessons, often not even conscious.

This is a difficult concept to respond to.  I would have to say, yes, our decision would be based on our teachings and experiences in life.

 

Our ingrained teachings, lessons, would be dictate how we would react intuitively.  Our instincts would dominate though, I think.

 

But regardless, our thoughts and inspirations are only in our mind.  We must make that conscious choice of getting involved or walking away.  This would be our free will.

 

Still , i would not want a culture with no rules/total anarchy. Most people seem unfit to me to make a happy neighbourhood without rules...

And that is why I speak favorably of individual Anarchy but then suggest that Social Anarchy is not possible.  I am am optimist but I am also a realist.  And I agree, there are many who would be unfit to live in a society of Social Anarchy.

[Marblehead]

Dao

 

Dao is like "the way" of making a sandwich.

 

Pull "the way of making a sandwich" out of your pocket.

 

Not "a piece of paper with instructions on it".

 

But the actual "way" of doing it.

 

Impossible.

 

Dao is not a thing.

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

 

My continuous argument:  Dao is not a thing.  Not a noun but a verb.  The "Way" of what is.  Sure, some would argue that De is the "Way" of Dao.  I wouldn't be able to argue against that view.  But then there would be no need to consider Dao at all.  I might eventually, if I live long enough, consider this to be a valid thought.  That would leave:  The way the universe works.

[opendao]

In all such nice philosophical discussions there is one big problem: they don't take into account what Daoism teaches about various relations, possible between human and Dao. What are they?

[Marblehead]

In all such nice philosophical discussions there is one big problem: they don't take into account what Daoism teaches about various relations, possible between human and Dao. What are they?

We humans are aspects of Dao.  But we live within our own Tzujan constraints.  I cannot fly but I can walk.

 

Daoism teaches us to live within our natural constraints.

 

Between humans and Dao is everything within the constraints.  But there is a difference between living in the Manifest only and trying to live in the Mystery only.  A nice harmonization between the two is recommended.

[leth]

Let me first point out that I do hold to the concept of free will.  In my signature block you will see the words "I reserve the right to change my mind."  This is an example of free will.  But I will add that free will has limits.  Some people have more limiters than do others.

 

I would argue that a change of will is in no sense an indication of Non-deterministic free will, but that is just a side note.

 

Also, I do not hold to the concept of a conscious Dao.  But self-actualization, yes.

 

What does Conciousness even mean?

 

It is my understanding that the De of Dao has no free will.  Remember the straw dogs?

 

I see no reason to interprete the straw dogs as an indication that Dao has no free will.

 

Dao doesn't care.  People care.  Caring inspires free will. 

 

You posit that people who do not care do not have free will?

 

Is free will directly connected to Empathy?

 

Anything that happens is an aspect of Dao.  The rape and murder of a young girl is an aspect of Dao because it is a process that is possible.  Dao allows for it.  This is another reason I cannot give Dao consciousness.

 

Would you also say that the choices not made - that which we do not choose or perhaps rather chose not to do - is also part of dao?

 

Is our choices not as much part of the De of Dao considering how reality itself forms according to our choices?

 

Again, free will requires a properly functioning conscious mind.  I do not attribute this characteristic to Dao.  Therefore my conclusion that Dao does not have free will.

 

How can you be sure that Dao is not concious?

 

The De of Dao is basically "cause and effect".  No intention.

 

Is reality not formed by the non-deterministic wills of those that are concious?

 

Does our will not change the deterministic system that the rest of the reality is?

 

Humans however, use their conscious mind to establish there own De (virtue).  Some are more virtuous than are others.  We humans face choices constantly.  We want to respond in a certain way but our virtue drives us to respond in some other way - a way that we can live with.  We have done the right thing.  There is no right/wrong for Dao.

 

If there is right and wrong for concious minds, then how can there not be right and wrong on the larger scale?

 

So from Dao's perspective, a hypothetical world in which all choices are made wrong would be no different from a hypothetical world in which all choices are made right?

 

If that is so, then how does our choices matter at all?

 

Naturalness for Dao is not a problem.  It cannot be otherwise.

 

Should our naturalness not reflect that of Dao?

 

Should our De not reflect the De of Dao?

 

 

All humans, all everything, are effected by the De of Dao.  We are a part of it.  Can't escape.

 

Is not reality itself also effected by the De of concious beings?

 

The De (virtue) of humans is partly learned and partly self-actualizing (our Tzujan).  There are many aspects of early life that determine a person's virtue.  But most important are our feelings and our ability to make choices.  If our choice causes no inner conflict then we did the right thing even though some others might say we did the wrong thing.  A very important thing is that we accept responsibility for all our thoughts, words, and deeds.

 

You mean to say that we have no responsibility outside of following our own inner compass?

Dao and the De of Dao is thus irrelevant?

 

And the most beautiful aspect of free will is that we have no one to blame for what we did.  It was our choice. (No need for a devil to blame things on.)

 

Yet it is fully possible for us to blame others, and if others also have choices can they not be said to e responsible and thus suspectible to blame?

 

Would you say that being manipulated doing something as an effect of manipulation is always a choice and could never be blamed on someone else?

[opendao]

Daoism teaches us to live within our natural constraints.

 

It's not the only thing it teaches. And not the most important one.

 

Between humans and Dao is everything within the constraints.  But there is a difference between living in the Manifest only and trying to live in the Mystery only.  A nice harmonization between the two is recommended.

 

That's correct, but it's one aspect of the relation. What is another one? There are several places where Lao Zi speaks about it.

[dust]

There are a lot of discussions about Daoism, but very rare there is any understanding what Dao is and was for Daoists.

 

Well, another discussion is just what's needed then...

 

 

[leth]

Dao

 

Dao is like "the way" of making a sandwich.

 

Pull "the way of making a sandwich" out of your pocket.

 

Not "a piece of paper with instructions on it".

 

But the actual "way" of doing it.

 

Impossible.

 

Dao is not a thing.

 

Is a thought not a thing?

 

Can you put a thought in your pocket?

 

Is a process not a thing?

 

I can talk about a process as if it were a thing, we call it "a process", "the process" and we give it qualities and attributes as we would with other things. We an for instance say that the process was fast or slow. It's fair to say that we treat it as a thing in our language.

 

And as such the process of making a sandwich is indeed a thing aswell. We can refere to it as the process of making a sandwitch, and give it attributes and talk about it as if it were a thing.

 

Thing as a word is used in a very broadly way.

 

We must differentiate between different conceptions of things.

[Marblehead]

It's not the only thing it teaches. And not the most important one.

 

 

That's correct, but it's one aspect of the relation. What is another one? There are several places where Lao Zi speaks about it.

Well, come on, you tell me.  I don't want to be the only one putting his ass on the line.   

[Marblehead]

Very involved discussion.  I hope I don't get my thought tangled.

I would argue that a change of will is in no sense an indication of Non-deterministic free will, but that is just a side note.

That's okay.  You had the free will to agree or disagree.

 

What does Conciousness even mean?

Awareness.  I will pose that all living things have a form of consciousness and this includes plants as well.

 

I see no reason to interprete the straw dogs as an indication that Dao has no free will.

How about when two stars collide?  Did Dao will them to collide or was it simply a result of cause and effect?

 

You posit that people who do not care do not have free will?

No.  To not care is a choice based in free will.

 

Is free will directly connected to Empathy?

Unknown.  I will say that if we act upon our empathy it is free will.

 

Would you also say that the choices not made - that which we do not choose or perhaps rather chose not to do - is also part of dao?

Yes.  Everything is an aspect of Dao.  (No consideration for human subjectivity.)

 

Is our choices not as much part of the De of Dao considering how reality itself forms according to our choices?

Ah, reality.  No value judgements.  Only "what is".  But I will remain with the observable universe as perceived by my senses.

 

Yes, our choices too are an aspect of Dao.  And yes, we are capable of modifying our reality.

 

How can you be sure that Dao is not concious?

Absolute?  No.  However, I have seen no indications to cause me to think otherwise.

 

Is reality not formed by the non-deterministic wills of those that are concious?

Yes.  At the micro level.  But I doubt at the macro level.  We humans aren't really all that significant as far as the universe is concerned.

 

Does our will not change the deterministic system that the rest of the reality is?

Within limits, yes.  But we will never stop the Mississippi River from flooding now and then.  And we cannot move Venus further from the sun so that it might become a habitable planet.

 

If there is right and wrong for concious minds, then how can there not be right and wrong on the larger scale?

Consciousness requires a living thing.  For those species capable of higher thought there will be the dualities of right and wrong.

 

I have no reason to believe that non-living things, a rock, for example, has consciousness therefore it is unable to consider the duality of right/wrong.

 

So from Dao's perspective, a hypothetical world in which all choices are made wrong would be no different from a hypothetical world in which all choices are made right?

From the perspective of Dao all things are right.  They cannot be otherwise.  From our perspective, Earth is right as it supports life; Mars and Venus are wrong as the former is too small and cold and the latter is too hot.  But from the perspective of Dao all three are just right.

 

If that is so, then how does our choices matter at all?

Well, I prefer to remain living on Earth rather than going to either Mars or Venus and trying to live on one of those two.  If the technology were available to transport me to one of the other two I would absolutely pass on any offer to go to either.

 

It is within my capacity to get into my truck, drive like a fool and kill someone.  I opt to not do that.

 

 

Should our naturalness not reflect that of Dao?

It does.  It cannot be otherwise.

 

Should our De not reflect the De of Dao?

Be careful here.  The straw dog again.  Dao doesn't care.  Most of we humans do.

 

Is not reality itself also effected by the De of concious beings?

Yes it is.  But again, only at the micro level.  And only those things we can effect.  We cannot stop the next tornado that could kill over a hundred people.  But we can walk carefully so that we do not trip, fall, and hurt our self.

 

 

You mean to say that we have no responsibility outside of following our own inner compass?

Dao and the De of Dao is thus irrelevant?

I don't think I suggested that.  We have responsibilities to those we care about.  We have responsibilities for caring for the planet so that we do not cause it to become uninhabitable.  This is at the micro level.  I have no responsibility for the welfare of a star in another galaxy.

 

No, Dao and De are not irrelevant.  But both will continue existing according to their own Tzujan regardless of what I think and even regardless of anything I could possibly do.

 

Yet it is fully possible for us to blame others, and if others also have choices can they not be said to e responsible and thus suspectible to blame?

Sure, we can.  But we would be wrong (subjective) if we did so.  The doer would likely consider it right to pass blame.

 

Would you say that being manipulated doing something as an effect of manipulation is always a choice and could never be blamed on someone else?

Doing.  Nearly everything we do is a manipulation of something.  Even attending to our basic life needs.  Worthiness of blame, I think, is dependent upon intention.

 

Dao can never be blamed as there is no intention. 

[opendao]

Few thoughts after reading previous posts:

 

About De: De is not a moral, but a force. If it exists, it affects what's around, and make things, live creatures and actions "virtuous". There is no De of Human and De of Dao. But in humans De can be High and Low. Low De is an innate one. High De is obtained through practice. Any De cannot be evil. Btw, right and wrong, good and bad don't depend on human perception, but solely on the vector of actions: do they lead towards Dao or out of the Dao. To know what is good in every specific situation is a function of De, and an attribute of a sage.

 

Ziran is not "naturalness" of things. It is self sufficiency. "Dao follows Ziran" means that Dao is self sufficient and really free, it doesn't depend on anything.

 

About Dao's "cruelty": "The Tao of heaven is pointed but does no harm. " (zhan 81, tr  Gia-fu Feng and Jane English). If something is evil, it's not Dao. Again, it's not a question of subjective perception. It's a vector of results.

[leth]

Very involved discussion.  I hope I don't get my thought tangled.

 

Thoughts have a tendency to do that, but i find that good discussions and contemplation has a way of untagling them.

 

Awareness.  I will pose that all living things have a form of consciousness and this includes plants as well.

 

But what is awareness then?

 

How about when two stars collide?  Did Dao will them to collide or was it simply a result of cause and effect?

 

What does the protein synthesis in our cells say about our conciousnes?

 

What is will? What is a choice? What are comological forces?

 

Is not quantum mecahnics a mystery without any answer for whether the unvierse is deterministic or not?

 

If we do not know how the physical forces in the universe works, then how can we determine whether there is any sort of conciousness that is capable of non-deterministic free will involved in it's workings?

 

These are mysteries to us, as is our own conciousness, and is not Dao therefore a mystery to us?

 

If Dao is a mystery and conciousness is a mystery, then what can indicate whether Dao is concious or not?

 

Yes.  Everything is an aspect of Dao.  (No consideration for human subjectivity.)

 

Even our choices, and our conciousness?

 

Ah, reality.  No value judgements.  Only "what is".  But I will remain with the observable universe as perceived by my senses.

 

The observable universe is not all that is, and we do not even understand how that which we can observe works. But that is just a side note. Our senses are not even capable of directly percieving the observable universe as it is known today, so our sense are even more limited then our extended knowledge. And that is also just a side note.

 

Yes, our choices too are an aspect of Dao.  And yes, we are capable of modifying our reality.

 

Are the De of Dao not really made up of all our choices, and all our De, thus making the De of Dao also about choices?

 

Absolute?  No.  However, I have seen no indications to cause me to think otherwise.

 

I hav found no indications of the opposite either, we can only specualte about conciousness outside ourselves at best, we can't even define conciousness in any sort of way that makes it analysable outside ourselves with our current technology and science.

 

Yes.  At the micro level.  But I doubt at the macro level.  We humans aren't really all that significant as far as the universe is concerned.

 

What if we expand into the galaxy and start to alter the cosmos on a much larger scale? What if we just destroy our own star, would that not alter the future of the whole galaxy because it drastically alters the gravitational dynamics of the galaxy? What if one single choice alters the outcomes of these possibilites?

 

Within limits, yes.  But we will never stop the Mississippi River from flooding now and then.  And we cannot move Venus further from the sun so that it might become a habitable planet.

 

I would say that we most likely have the technology or if you will the possibility to change the Mississippi river from flooding now and then, and who knows what we will be capable of in the future, perhaps we could move alter Venus to make it habitable in some way.

 

Consciousness requires a living thing.  For those species capable of higher thought there will be the dualities of right and wrong.

 

I have no reason to believe that non-living things, a rock, for example, has consciousness therefore it is unable to consider the duality of right/wrong.

 

But on a larger scale, if we assume we use our conceptions of right and wrong could there be right and wrong for humanity, or for a certain group of people?

 

What about a superset of all entities capable of making choices in the universe?

 

From the perspective of Dao all things are right.

 

That is to say that Dao has no right and wrong?

 

They cannot be otherwise.  From our perspective, Earth is right as it supports life; Mars and Venus are wrong as the former is too small and cold and the latter is too hot.  But from the perspective of Dao all three are just right.

 

That is to say that from the perspective of Dao, they are simply what they are, as there is no right and wrong?

 

Well, I prefer to remain living on Earth rather than going to either Mars or Venus and trying to live on one of those two.  If the technology were available to transport me to one of the other two I would absolutely pass on any offer to go to either.

 

It is within my capacity to get into my truck, drive like a fool and kill someone.  I opt to not do that.

 

But what makes these choices right or wrong?

 

And why is that any different from the De of Dao?

 

It does.  It cannot be otherwise.

 

Then what is the difference between the De of Dao and the De of Humanity?

 

Is not De the path to Ziran?

 

Be careful here.  The straw dog again.  Dao doesn't care.  Most of we humans do.

 

But if our De should reflect the De of Dao should we not care?

 

Should the De of Humans be the same as the De of Dao for humans to attain Ziran?

 

Yes it is.  But again, only at the micro level.  And only those things we can effect.  We cannot stop the next tornado that could kill over a hundred people.  But we can walk carefully so that we do not trip, fall, and hurt our self.

 

But does it not mean that the De of Dao includes the De of Humans?

 

I don't think I suggested that.  We have responsibilities to those we care about.  We have responsibilities for caring for the planet so that we do not cause it to become uninhabitable.  This is at the micro level.  I have no responsibility for the welfare of a star in another galaxy.

 

But then we do have a responsibility towards something larger than us? Is that not the idea of that which is external, and in the end will point towards Dao, of course the outermost apsect of Dao is far from us, but in every little detail there is an aspect of Dao, so caring for our immediate environment is that not caring for Dao?

 

No, Dao and De are not irrelevant.  But both will continue existing according to their own Tzujan regardless of what I think and even regardless of anything I could possibly do.

 

Would you say that there is no relation between our Ziran and The Ziran of Dao, What about the Ziran of our more immediate environment? Should we consider the Ziran of the ecosystem of the planet earth? In essence can it not be said that by looking at our more immediate environment we are looking at Dao? And thought it can be said that the vastness of Dao in it's entirety is far beyond our capabilities our ziran is to be inline with the De of Dao by being inline with the De of our immidiate surroundings?

 

And is this not even if infinitesimal from the perspective of the Grand Dao not speaking of both the De and the Ziran of Dao, especially if we regard that our choices does infact alter the outcome of reality?

 

 

Dao can never be blamed as there is no intention.

 

Is not the doing of a group of people worthy of blame?

 

Is humanity to blame for it's many faults?

 

If we assume Dao as a superset of all choices, then does that not infer that Dao can be blamed in the sense that any group of choices cna be blamed?

[dust]

I can't help it

 

 

Low De is an innate one. High De is obtained through practice.

 

知其不可奈何而安之若命，德之至也

 

To understand what you can do nothing about and to be content with it as with fate - this is the perfection of virtue.

 

(ZZ)

 

 

Btw, right and wrong, good and bad don't depend on human perception, but solely on the vector of actions: do they lead towards Dao or out of the Dao. To know what is good in every specific situation is a function of De, and an attribute of a sage.

 

Not sure about your pseudo-mathematical terminology (function, vector).

 

'Right' and 'wrong' are the result of human perception.

 

Without human perception, there is no right or wrong. To a cloud, there is no right or wrong.

 

 

 

If something is evil, it's not Dao.

 

Just like how God can't be 'evil'? All the bad things are the work of the devil? The anti-Dao?

[Marblehead]

Few thoughts after reading previous posts:

Okay.  Allow me to transliterate the title of the TTC.

 

The Book of the Way the Universe Works.

 

(Abridged version)

 

 

No Dao, not De, no subjectivity, no dualities, no value judgements.

[Michael Sternbach]

What isn't Dao?