Mair 6:6

[morning dew]

On 08/06/2017 at 5:41 PM, Marblehead said:

 

1. Chuang Tzu was a mystic.  He spoke often to the possibility of there being more to life than what we detect in the physical realm. 

 

2. Therefore, if our physical existence is only a part of our totality why make such a big deal about it?

 

3. Returning to the Dao is a paradox because we really never leave Dao.  It is just that while we have a physical body we spend much or most of our time with physical concerns.  What if we had no physical concerns?

 

4. The Dao bore us into this physical existence.  We surely shouldn't be considering our self wiser than the universe?

 

 

Okay, you've probably answered some of these points with your later discussion with Stosh, but I'll start here with some more thoughts.

 

1. I find it a little inconsistent that he's very sceptical with the butterfly story, yet ZZ seems happier to pick a side here and be more definite about there being more than the physical (and also that 'The' Dao' has self-awareness, experiences, judgements and knowledge of what's best, etc.).

 

2. Well, yes, that's a fair point. But, on the other hand, why denigrate it and call it a cyst/tumour lol? Why not make the most of it and just enjoy it while it's here?

 

3. I'm not sure what that would mean and what we would lose (Personal identity? Ability to think, experience, feel?). Maybe it is as he suggests elsewhere that we'll end up somewhere better.

 

4. Well, I'm not so sure about this. Life for humans is far from perfect and some awful things still happen to them. To say the universe is wiser than us seems to me to be almost lapsing into a 'God has a plan' some Christians will give for the 'problem of evil' and suffering, etc. The Dao/universe may well be smarter than I am; however, this doesn't mean I feel obligated to think it's done a good job or think it cares about what's best for me as a human being (or what's best from a human perspective), IMO.

 

 

Edited June 10, 2017 by morning dew

[morning dew]

On 08/06/2017 at 9:05 PM, Taoist Texts said:

This bit contains an antinomy which was lost in translation.

”孔子曰：“鱼相造乎水，人相造乎道。相造乎水者，穿池而养给；相造乎道者，无事而生定。故曰：鱼相忘乎江湖，人相忘乎道术。”

 

1. Fish lives together due to water, men live together due to dao (of ethical behavior).

2. Those who live together in water, scatter through waters to find food for themselves;

those who live together due to ethics, are only secure when they are uninvolved.

3. That is why it is said:

fish is uninvolved with each other in the waters; people being uninvolved with each other is the art of dao.

 

I. e people should make like fish and leave each other alone, thats the best dao.

 

Thanks, I'm a little bit lost here. You'll have to help me out.

 

1. Fish live together in water because they can't breathe air, walk on land, etc? If so, how is this related to humans living together due to the dao of ethical behaviour? What exactly does this mean? Why do they have to live together because of this? Why don't they live together because it's easier to survive in a community (and continue the human race, etc.) rather than on their own ?

Edited June 10, 2017 by morning dew

[Marblehead]

1 hour ago, morning dew said:

 

Okay, you've probably answered some of these points with your later discussion with Stosh, but I'll start here with some more thoughts.

Okay, time for me to just present my personal understandings.  (Sometimes trying to explain what is written is not possible for me.)

 

1 hour ago, morning dew said:

 

1. I find it a little inconsistent that he's very sceptical with the butterfly story, yet ZZ seems happier to pick a side here and be more definite about there being more than the physical (and also that 'The' Dao' has self-awareness, experiences, judgements and knowledge of what's best, etc.).

I don't consider Dao to be a thing therefore there cannot be any self-awareness, experiencing, making of judgements, knowledge, etc.  So to say "Dao knows." is a faulty statement.

 

1 hour ago, morning dew said:

 

2. Well, yes, that's a fair point. But, on the other hand, why denigrate it and call it a cyst/tumour lol? Why not make the most of it and just enjoy it while it's here?

I don't know why such negative words were used.  That's not typical of Chuang Tzu.  Chuang Tzu respected the body

 

1 hour ago, morning dew said:

 

3. I'm not sure what that would mean and what we would lose (Personal identity? Ability to think, experience, feel?). Maybe it is as he suggests elsewhere that we'll end up somewhere better.

It is probable that he believed that the "soul" lived on after death.  I don't believe that to be true though.  I believe he was more at believing that all aspects of what we are recycle upon death.

 

1 hour ago, morning dew said:

 

4. Well, I'm not so sure about this. Life for humans is far from perfect and some awful things still happen to them. To say the universe is wiser than us seems to me to be almost lapsing into a 'God has a plan' some Christians will give for the 'problem of evil' and suffering, etc. The Dao/universe may well be smarter than I am; however, this doesn't mean I feel obligated to think it's done a good job or think it cares about what's best for me as a human being (or what's best from a human perspective), IMO.

 

 

Exactly.  The is no Dao "thing" to be caring about us.  And I doubt Chuang Tzu believed in any kind of "master plan".  Dao simply is what is.  Tzujan is the processes.  It doesn't matter how thirsty your are, if you live in the desert you likely will not get rained on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Taoist Texts]

9 hours ago, morning dew said:

 

Thanks, I'm a little bit lost here. You'll have to help me out.

Sure.

 

Quote

1. Fish live together in water because they can't breathe air, walk on land, etc?

 

Water is their natural enveloping medium keeping them together. They can live only in it.

 

Quote

If so, how is this related to humans living together due to the dao of ethical behaviour? What exactly does this mean? Why do they have to live together because of this?

 

Similarly people are held together only by human ethics=dao.

 

 

Quote

Why don't they live together because it's easier to survive in a community (and continue the human race, etc.) rather than on their own ?

Well first of all, living individually on their own is impossible. Second, when people come together for profitable purposes, they are able to achieve those only due to ethics. Ethics is like an  mass of metaphorical water enveloping all humankind, making its existence possible just as water makes fishes existence possible.

 

However, brought together by ethics ppl overdo it and start encroaching on each other. Therefore , the best ethic is to forget about others, mind your own business and cooperate when necessary. It is ancient libertarian-ism, really. Nice but unfeasible as ever.

 

 

 

[morning dew]

Thanks guys I shall have to do some more reading on Taoist metaphysics. I don't think I've fully grasped the setup, according to ZZ anyway.

[Michael Sternbach]

Okay that I chime in?

 

Fish are self-governed. Humans should be as well, in the Daoist view.

[Michael Sternbach]

And it's easier to be self-governed if you are self-reliant.

[morning dew]

Well, autonomy is probably my highest value, so I probably would agree with this kind of thinking (on a personal level).

 

I'm afraid my knowledge of politics is very poor, though. I don't know how well it would work if everyone was doing this, especially if they, or some of them, were irresponsible or had conflicting ideas of how they wanted to govern themselves.

[Marblehead]

1 hour ago, morning dew said:

 I don't know how well it would work if everyone was doing this, especially if they, or some of them, were irresponsible or had conflicting ideas of how they wanted to govern themselves.

Yes, there are some people who need be governed.

[rene]

36 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Yes, there are some people who need be governed.

 

How does that fit in with your anarchist perspective?

[Michael Sternbach]

3 hours ago, morning dew said:

Well, autonomy is probably my highest value, so I probably would agree with this kind of thinking (on a personal level).

 

I'm afraid my knowledge of politics is very poor, though. I don't know how well it would work if everyone was doing this, especially if they, or some of them, were irresponsible or had conflicting ideas of how they wanted to govern themselves.

 

If everybody were a Daoist, it could work.

[Marblehead]

10 hours ago, WuDao said:

 

How does that fit in with your anarchist perspective?

Very poorly but reality rules.