Why Follow Tao?

[Marblehead]

22 minutes ago, Daemon said:

@Marblehead

That's where we probably reach disagreement, because I don't hold the premise that any questions that I might have are either illegitimate or unanswerable because I have found that many of my questions can be answered only in the heart (or in the gut) but not in the head.

I've also noticed that some people live almost exclusively in their heads and it seems to me that for them those questions and their answers seldom meet, even if the questions arise in the first place.

I speculate that's why so many live their lives dependent upon the authority that they choose bestow upon the pages of what they hope are Light-bearing texts, instead of from their own first-hand contact with their own truths illuminated by their own Light?

Peace,

☮️

I doubt we will ever have a significant disagreement regarding this.  I hear you saying that there are two basic sources  of answers to  questions we have:  Conscious(rational) and Subconscious (emotions, the heart).

 

If this is so then we are in agreement.

 

I don't give myself that much credit in thinking that I have answers for all questions that might arise in my mind.  Sometimes I just let the question fly away.

 

I like to think that I live my live based on logic and rational thought.  But then, I really love just living spontaneously.

 

I'm not even going to try to answer that last question.  Too many variables.

 

[Marblehead]

Okay.  Stosh answered that last question.

 

 

[Rickie]

Then maybe you would like the approach of the Hellenistic sceptics"

 

I'll read about it but I'm feeling good where I am now

 

Also  I am neither objective or subjective.  Actually I am both.  I don't think I can be any other  way.  Labels and definitions are limiting BUT if I were to chose a label it would be mostly but not limited to intuitive.

[Marblehead]

7 minutes ago, Rickie said:

Then maybe you would like the approach of the Hellenistic sceptics"

 

I'll read about it but I'm feeling good where I am now

 

Also  I am neither objective or subjective.  Actually I am both.  I don't think I can be any other  way.  Labels and definitions are limiting BUT if I were to chose a label it would be mostly but not limited to intuitive.

Gave me a chuckle.  Yes, both.  I don't have a problem with labels.  I use them all the time.

 

[Lost in Translation]

2 hours ago, Marblehead said:

I don't give myself that much credit in thinking that I have answers for all questions that might arise in my mind.  Sometimes I just let the question fly away.

 

Sometimes simply acknowledging the question is the answer.

 

For example: Imagine you are walking down the street and you suddenly feel uneasy. You can ask yourself "why do I feel uneasy?", or you can acknowledge that you do feel uneasy and quicken your pace.

 

 

[Daemon]

☮️

Edited October 5, 2018 by Daemon

[Marblehead]

Well, on the surface I will agree with you.  And I do agree, some answers simply cannot be express with words.

 

[Hannes]

To the first 3 statements:

You can only chose to lead your own life. You can chose to grow into being yourself and align yourself with Tao (under any other name) to grow. Or you can stay who you are, rust in place and stagnate and decline.

 

To the last 3 statements:

You chose to give because giving is receiving. There are no unilateral transactions.

Follows: receiving is giving.

I have not yet met a rock that is indifferent; even a single hadron has a will. Indifferent things don't manifest.

But if you refer to a state of mind, know that you are fooling yourself.

 

Why follow Tao? you cannot follow Tao. You can only realize Tao. Be aware of it.

Being aware if what some called being efficient in posts above.

Which you accomplish by Taoism or many other paths which are in fact all similar.

 

 

[Rocky Lionmouth]

Why follow Tao? Why not?

[wandelaar]

It's the same misunderstanding over and over again. Why would Lao tse and Chuang tse have recommended their own approach if it didn't really matter which way you follow anyhow?

 

2 hours ago, Rocky Lionmouth said:

Why follow Tao? Why not?

 

Yes - that's the appropriate response! If every way was OK then preferring just one would also be OK. I don't like the half-hearted post-modern form of relativism that's used to muddle clear thinking and to attack taking a stand. If you really take relativism seriously your own relativism (as an  ideological stand) will dissolve also. And that's where post-modern relativism is insincere, it's selectively used to attack ideological opponents without even realizing it is thereby taking an ideological position itself. If you take relativism seriously only the idea that we are all in the same position as far as absolute knowledge is concerned remains. But then again that search was hopeless to begin with. So after passing the stage of full relativistic doubt you just go on with one illusion less, but daily life just continues and there are still choices to make and stands to take. So for an honest relativist there doesn't change that much. But I fear we have to wait till post-modernism crumbles under it's own absurdity. It's beyond criticism.

 

So I just said what I didn't want to say - because it's a hopeless battle - but I felt I just had to. And so we see that we do what we think we have to do, whether we believe in absolute knowledge or not. 

[Marblehead]

4 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

But I fear we have to wait till post-modernism crumbles under it's own absurdity. It's beyond criticism.

 

Gave me a chuckle.  I'm not waiting for it to happen.  I'm just going to continue living "my" life.

 

Yes, I find it hard to not criticize what I see as absurdity.  But I am getting better - less criticism.

 

[wandelaar]

1 minute ago, Marblehead said:

Gave me a chuckle.  I'm not waiting for it to happen.  I'm just going to continue living "my" life.

 

Yes, I find it hard to not criticize what I see as absurdity.  But I am getting better - less criticism.

 

I'm still hoping to reach that point sometime.

[Marblehead]

Difficult for most, I would think, at least until after they have retired from working for others for pay.

 

As long as we are active in society we have to play the game most of the time.

 

[Stosh]

Wandelaar, what approach do you think they advocate? And what is it that doesnt or does matter anyhow? 

[wandelaar]

What I protested against is the idea that there is nothing to choose because all Ways are fundamentally the same, or because what we think are our own choices is actually Tao acting through us, or that everything is good as it is because it derives from Tao, or....

 

In a metaphysical sense that might all somehow be true but in practical life it doesn't get you anywhere. It's like people coming up with Gödel's theorem when you only want to pay for the bread you just bought.

Edited April 19, 2018 by wandelaar

[Lost in Translation]

55 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

What I protested against is the idea that there is nothing to choose because all Ways are fundamentally the same, or because what we think are our own choices is actually Tao acting through us, or that everything is good as it is because it derives from Tao, or....

 

In a metaphysical sense that might all somehow be true but in practical life it doesn't get you anywhere.

 

Excellent! Very, very good insight! I might etch this onto a board and hang it on my wall. It's that good.

 

Actually I won't etch it, but you get my point. 

 

It seems to always come back to the same two items: 1) the nature of everything at a conceptual level, and 2) the nature of everything while living. In the former we can bask in the glory of knowing all is perfect and there's really nothing that ever needs to be done. Big G is in charge and all is well. But in the latter, things are always breaking, there's always work to do and we need to deal with making choices and living with the consequences of them.

 

[wandelaar]

Yes - that's the doctrine of the two truths. Conventional and absolute truth. It's also found in Buddhism. And probably in all religions with a mystical component. It doesn't sound nice 'two truths', but I guess we have to live with it or stop living altogether.

Edited April 19, 2018 by wandelaar

[Stosh]

2 hours ago, wandelaar said:

What I protested against is the idea that there is nothing to choose because all Ways are fundamentally the same, or because what we think are our own choices is actually Tao acting through us, or that everything is good as it is because it derives from Tao, or....

 

In a metaphysical sense that might all somehow be true but in practical life it doesn't get you anywhere. It's like people coming up with Gödel's theorem when you only want to pay for the bread you just bought.

I think I get what you are protesting , but I need you to go through the motions of formulating an answer with the structure my question suggests. What do you think they advocate , and what is the mattering that you say it doesn't affect.

[wandelaar]

I have said too much about postmodernism already. It's useless to add anything  more. Besides the thing has already been demolished several times. See in case you are interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_postmodernism

 

But postmodernism is immune to criticism, so why waste any more time on it?

Edited April 19, 2018 by wandelaar

[Stosh]

4 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

I have said too much about postmodernism already. It's useless to add anything  more. Besides the thing has already been demolished several times. See in case you are interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_postmodernism

 

But postmodernism is immune to criticism, so why waist any more time on it?

Whats all this reticence about ? Theyre two easy peasy questions   ?? Just hit em up like they come out of the blue and have nothing to do with this postmodernism - whatever that means. 

[wandelaar]

It leads nowhere. Time spend on discussing postmodernism cannot be spend on something else. And there are much more interesting things to discuss here. I have a lot to (un)learn and don't want to waste my time.

[Stosh]

Humor me. 

[Lost in Translation]

1 hour ago, wandelaar said:

But postmodernism is immune to criticism, so why waste any more time on it?

 

1 hour ago, Stosh said:

postmodernism - whatever that means

 

59 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

It leads nowhere. Time spend on discussing postmodernism cannot be spend on something else.

 

30 minutes ago, Stosh said:

Humor me. 

 

Postmodernism is a topic for "Off Grid". In a nutshell Postmodernism is nihilistic Leftism, which today is synonymous with Marxism. It's a doctrine that focuses on identity politics and fostering of feelings of victimization as a means to gain political power.

Edited April 19, 2018 by Lost in Translation
Changed "The Rabbit Hole" to "Off Grid"

[Stosh]

1 hour ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

 

 

 

Postmodernism is a topic for "Off Grid". In a nutshell Postmodernism is nihilistic Leftism, which today is synonymous with Marxism. It's a doctrine that focuses on identity politics and fostering of feelings of victimization as a means to gain political power.

Fine ,  but he said this

"It's the same misunderstanding over and over again. Why would Lao tse and Chuang tse have recommended their own approach if it didn't really matter which way you follow anyhow?" 

 

and I said this "Wandelaar, what approach do you think they advocate? And what is it that doesn't or does matter anyhow? "

 

And so I am thinking he possibly has no answer as to what Lao or Chuang were advocating , this would be a first step in understanding why one should follow Tao. 

(re: this postmodernism label , is he saying that Lao was a postmodernist in 300BCE ? )

 

And then , it may be , that he is obviating the -coming to a decision on it- rendering  a premature verdict , that it has no meaning. 

If he does say what he thinks they advocate , potentially he could see why this might have meaning. 

 

But I cant tell him my opinion , and have it sink in. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[wandelaar]

There is a huge misunderstanding here. I thought by "they" you meant the postmodernists, and that's why I said further discussion would be a waste of time. But of course I want to discuss the way of Lao tse and Chuang tse! That's why I joint this forum. So if you want to tell me what you think Lao tse and Chuang tse were up to, please do so.