A Science of Wu Wei?

[wandelaar]

 

[Marblehead]

I have always considered spontaneity an aspect of wu wei.

 

[wandelaar]

What I like about the approach of Slingerland is that he tries to explain wu wei in terms of western psychology. I have also ordered his book on this:

 

https://books.google.nl/books?id=sTG0AAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

[freeform]

The issue I have with these sorts of things - (taking a Daoist principle and trying to make it fit some other western perspective) - is that you lose the depth and subtlety of the original, and you muddy the western perspective too.

 

I remember loving physics as a kid. We’d learn about atoms and how they’re put together... there’s the nucleus with all the electrons in an orbit around them... then a few years later you learn that this model is actually a vastly over-simplified model designed to give kids an approximation of what we actually understand.

 

So then you learn that the electrons aren't really in an orbit... you learn that the protons and neutrons aren’t really little balls in the centre... You get a new, much more in-depth understanding.

 

Then if you pursue it further you start bumping into quantum mechanics and suddenly that previous, more in-depth model needs to be thrown out too...

 

Often what happens is that scientists, doctors, psychologists etc. pick up that ‘high school’ level understanding of Daoist concepts and then change it and add their own interpretations to fit whatever theoretical model they have. All you get is a woolly mess that sounds good (mainly coz it’s coming from a person with credentials) - but really does disservice to both the Daoist perspective and the original model they’re working with.

 

 

[wandelaar]

I don't share your postmodern depreciation of western science and philosophy. There is no pure, original and uncontaminated doctrine anywhere on earth. It is all the product of fallible mortals wrestling with with their understanding of human existence. So I learn from whatever source that helps my understanding. The great thing about science is that it learns from its mistakes.

 

What do you know about the depth of Slingerland's understanding? See:

 

https://www.edx.org/bio/edward-slingerland

 

[OldDog]

I liked the Slingerland talk very much.

 

I have long believed that human progress happens in an unbalanced way. That is, from a pure science point of view we have gained a lot of understanding and sophistication. But socially (or politically ... or spiritually ... or other) we have not progressed in a manner that will allow us to make good use of what science has been able to accomplish. 

 

Particular doctrines aside, I think socially, we can learn a lot from social psychology, philosophy and other areas ... but only if they are posited in a non-exclsionary manner. After all, if one considers that all are efforts to ddescribe the same thing ... the one existence we find ourselves in ... then all points of view have some validity but by no means are complete ... or will ever have the ability to be, if they take an exclusionary position.

 

Slingerland is simply trying to point to the truth using language he is familiar with. He appears to have taken taoist concepts and attempted to show how they can fit into a modern context. Only through such efforts can we advance human understanding socially, philosophically, spritially, politically ... to make use of what we have learned to the benefit of all.

[OldDog]

On the other hand, @freeform has a valid point. 

 

Daoism evovlved over a very long period of time through the efforts of many venerable accomplished masters, who had the advangage of living in a time that was much less complex. Their efforts were not to advance by means of accumulating knowledge but rather by distilling knowledge into understanding. The understanding they developed is fundamental, pure and natural. It is because of its simplicity that it has clarity.

 

If we take what we have learned in the manifest world and use it in an attempt to overly modernized fundamental concepts, we are at risk of losing the simplicity and clarity. 

 

What science has taught us has to do with the manifest world ... the ten thousand things. Its methods may not be suitable for dealing with the underlaying truth in a complete sense. It is not the holy grail. 

 

A better way is to use what Daoist masters have given to inform our understanding of what science offers. 

 

It is almost a paradox. 

 

In a lighter note ... it has been said that an expert is one who knows more and more about less and less until finally he knows nothing at all.  I think there is a bit of truth in there somewhere.

 

 

[wandelaar]

I don't put science on a pedestal; I don't put the old masters on a pedestal; and I don't put myself on a pedestal.

 

But freeform puts the old masters on a pedestal, that's where we disagree.

[Marblehead]

It is easy to push pedestals over.  They all are top heavy.

 

 

[freeform]

1 hour ago, wandelaar said:

But freeform puts the old masters on a pedestal, that's where we disagree.

 

Oh - so that’s what you think I believe?

 

No, not quite.

 

I think the benefits of science are that scientists do the due diligence of actually testing their hypothesise. 

 

When most people with a western mindset come to Daoism, they see it as a hypothesis - a philosophical explanation of existence. It’s true - there is that aspect to Daoism. 

 

But the true value, the root source of this philosophy is actually in the ‘due diligence’ bit. The ‘doing’ of the tradition. The act of ‘testing’ this hypothesis. That’s the tradition. The philosophy is one of the many ‘byproducts’.

 

The Dao is the Way, because it’s the spiritual path you take - the transformation you make in yourself. That is how you begin to embody the philosophy - so that wuwei is a deeply felt experience, rather than just an idea. 

 

What I believe is not that modern understanding is better or worse than ancient wisdom. What I believe is that by staying in the confines of modern understanding when evaluating ancient wisdom, we completely miss the point and only see a small aspect of it.

Edited November 5, 2018 by freeform

[Stosh]

The product of rational interrogation Is ,that which gets called western science. 

Its opponent is that which is not the product of a rational interrogation... and that is what gets called subjective bullshit.

Thirdly there is that which we experience as individuals, and that is called the human experience. 

Only a fool, refuses science or the the truth of human experience..... or keeps using the term Western Science as a perjorative. 

 

...as in "Badges? We dont need no stinkin badges!"

Edited November 6, 2018 by Stosh

[OldDog]

To say that science (rational interrogation) is the only valid means of inquiry seems wrong. To speak of any other form of inquiry as being an opponent of rational interrogation seems wrong. 

 

Better to speak of rational interrogation as a complement to other forms of inquiry ... and vice versa. 

 

It is a dangerous thing when we begin to define a position by denegrating other positions ... or to say that anything does not adhere to the standards of one position is irrelevant. This sets up an environment where extreme points of view predominate ... the worst situation in dualistic thinking ... and leads to stagnation.

 

Better to understand that there is truth and validity in all points of view and allow room for their expression and accommodation. In this manner, a natural and fluid environment is fostered that can easily change to meet demands of the times and circumstances.

 

Recognition of the unity of all being and harmony within. Seems like a healthier less contentious Daoist point if view.

 

 

[wandelaar]

Yes - human experience is not to be ignored. But it should not be accepted uncritically either. Most people don't know and often don't even want to know how to evaluate the probabilities of something happening on the basis of pure chance. That's why all kind of things are given a magical explanation and/or are considered as proof of paranormal phenomena where there is no need to do so. That's why I take those stories with a grain of salt until proven under conditions that rule out fraud and self deception as best as we can.

 

But wu wei isn't some magical unknown phenomenon, so I see no problem in scientifically investigating how it works.

 

 

Edited November 6, 2018 by wandelaar

[freeform]

We need to move away from talking about what is ‘better’ or more ‘true’ - modern science or ancient wisdom.

 

They're both perspectives we take on reality. Is poetry or art any more or less true than science?

 

It’s a stupid question.

 

I believe that coming to Daoism from a scientific perspective is losing the whole point. Just as only testing the chemical make-up of the pigments used on the Mona Lisa, misses the point. it needs to be investigated from a different perspective to get the real value.

 

With Daoism, you need to use its own tools of investigation. It’s laboratory is your body and mind. As an alchemical tradition, it requires you to go through the process itself. That’s the point of Daoism. Yes it’s a long and difficult process...

 

But trying to evaluate it at a distance, without having gone through the process, is like the chemist missing the image of Mona Lisa because she’s focused on the chemical make up of the piments.

 

Wandelaar talked about ‘magical unknown phenomena’.

 

‘Dark matter’ - sounds like a magical unknown phenomenon to me... but if I take the time, dive in to the ‘scientific tradition’... build up my understanding in a sequential way... I’ll see that it’s not really magical. It only seemed magical because I didn’t understand. 

 

And so it is in Daoism. Except the sequential ‘understanding’ happens in the body and in the mind using the specific process of transformation that is Daoism. 

 

Then you realise that Qi is not some magical unknown energy. It’s actually not what you thought at all. Because once you actually develop it in yourself, you get the ‘truth’. It’s there in front of you.

 

And it’s at that point that you might want to scientifically investigate something like Qi or the Dan Tien. Because you’ll have them to investigate. Anything before then is just conjecture based on a very limited perspective. 

[wandelaar]

@ Freeform

 

And there we have your limited perspective. Taoism has many forms, and the path of spiritual alchemy is only one of the roads taken. The early Taoists like Lao tzu and Chuang tzu were not much into that. 

 

Another example: Buddhism moved from India to China and from China to Japan and changed in the process. As a result we now have Chan Buddhism and Zen (among others). Was that wrong? Don't think so.

 

Spiritual traditions develop and jump from one culture to another changing as they adapt to the changed cultural environment. Western Taoism will again be different from Chinese Taoism.

[freeform]

2 hours ago, wandelaar said:

@ Freeform

 

And there we have your limited perspective. Taoism has many forms, and the path of spiritual alchemy is only one of the roads taken. The early Taoists like Lao tzu and Chuang tzu were not much into that. 

 

 

Actually that’s exactly what they were into. Although I use ‘they’ figuratively because in all likelihood these were texts written by several authors.

 

When you’re initiated into a Daoist lineage, you discover that these texts are teaching specific aspects of the ‘process’ of Daoism.

 

The outward packaging and language certainly change. But the core of the tradition remains the spiritual transformation process. It has survived out of view in the lineages of its practitioners passing this path down the generations.

 

PS.

 

Please understand that what I’m writing isn’t for you personally. Let’s face it, some random internet dude isn’t going to change the mind of someone deeply entrenched in his views. That’s not my aim anyway.

 

This is more for the mostly silent majority who come here looking for what Taoism really is. 

 

So I've made my point, and see no more reason to add to this particular debate.

 

It’s now up to them to decide  

[wandelaar]

1 minute ago, freeform said:

This is more for the mostly silent majority who come here looking for what Taoism really is. 

 

... what Taoism really is.

 

And you're talking about my limited perspective? But as I have experienced time and again, it's no use discussing with believers. So indeed - we better stop.

[Stosh]

5 hours ago, OldDog said:

To say that science (rational interrogation) is the only valid means of inquiry seems wrong. To speak of any other form of inquiry as being an opponent of rational interrogation seems wrong. 

It may seem wrong but its not. It is exactly the process of ascertaining what is true . But there are things which are not true.

 

 

5 hours ago, OldDog said:

Better to speak of rational interrogation as a complement to other forms of inquiry ... and vice versa. 

 

No. 

5 hours ago, OldDog said:

It is a dangerous thing when we begin to define a position by denegrating other positions ... or to say that anything does not adhere to the standards of one position is irrelevant. This sets up an environment where extreme points of view predominate ... the worst situation in dualistic thinking ... and leads to stagnation.

 

Its neither dangerous nor undesirable to determine fact from fiction.

You want to get to a polling place? ................Do you want the correct answer or a fictional one ?

 

5 hours ago, OldDog said:

Better to understand that there is truth and validity in all points of view and allow room for their expression and accommodation. In this manner, a natural and fluid environment is fostered that can easily change to meet demands of the times and circumstances.

 

Recognition of the unity of all being and harmony within. Seems like a healthier less contentious Daoist point if view.

 

No thats babying those who cant come to or handle reality at the expense of those who can use the true angle. To be uncontentious you clam up .

 

[Stosh]

23 minutes ago, freeform said:

 

 

Please understand that what I’m writing isn’t for you personally. Let’s face it, some random internet dude isn’t going to change the mind of someone deeply entrenched in his views. That’s not my aim anyway.

 

This is more for the mostly silent majority who come here looking for what Taoism really is. 

 

So I've made my point, and see no more reason to add to this particular debate.

 

It’s now up to them to decide  

Screw your imagined silent majority. They havent got the balls or social generosity to actually post anything , so no consideration is due, nor can it be , since their opinion is undisclosed. 

[silent thunder]

Investigate, observe with presence and awareness and truths will be revealed.  The nature of source is within our very being as much as in our instruments of science and the phenomena of conditions we observe and co-arise amongst.  One undivided flowing process.  All is connected to source and there are myriad inroads to observe the truths which are all interconnected.

 

Source is source.  However one approaches source, it is as it is, though how we encounter and interpret it, depends on the quality and nature of our inquiry and of the tools and apperatures we enlist.  Inquire with presence and awareness and observation and truths will be encountered.   So will untruths.  Yet untruth serves truth as truly as truth, for when untruth is revealed as untruth, we learn more about a truth.  I often find it more approachable to define my self by what I am not, instead of what I am.  For is my own observation of my own self, absolutely true?  The nature of life and decay seems to me a constant unfolding fluidity.  All interconnected.  Source is ever revealed wherever one looks with clarity and presence.

 

This was I sense, behind the realization of Fritjoff Capra when he wrote about the similarity of truths revealed in Taoism and Physics in his book, The Tao of Physics.

[Rocky Lionmouth]

On 2018-11-06 at 12:26 PM, Stosh said:

...as in "Badges? We dont need no stinkin badges!"

 

Hey speak for yourself, maybe others need badgers? What beef do you have with badgers anyway?

[wandelaar]

Currently reading his book (in Dutch translation):

 

https://books.google.nl/books?id=sTG0AAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

Interesting point: according to Slingerland there is a difference between flow and wu-wei.

 

What do the Bums think about that?

 

[OldDog]

5 hours ago, wandelaar said:

... a difference between flow and wu-wei

 

I'll bite. The question in a nutshell is something that I have been  becoming more and more interested in ... though it has not really emerged in a coherent manner. So, I'll offer this for sake of discussion.

 

Flow seems to have a highly directed and conscious focus on some form of activity. It's like thru executive cognitive control one forces a state where other extraneous input is ignored. 

 

Wu wei seems to be more intuitive ... less under cognitive control ... state that facilitates how one interacts less consciously with the world around one. In that sense it seems like way of being that can be developed over time.

 

I have not actually read the book that prompted your question but like I said these things have been bzzung around in my head lately.

[wandelaar]

Well - I have only just started reading the book, so I don't know what will be Slingerland's final thesis on this subject. But he seems to say that flow misses the feeling of becoming part of something bigger than oneself that gives wu wei its religious or spiritual flavour. (I think flow may also have a spiritual aspect so that this proposed distinction that is somewhat doubtful.) Also wu wei doesn't need to involve extraordinary activities or accomplishments that necessitate one's complete involvement. And I think he has a point there.  

 

1 hour ago, OldDog said:

Flow seems to have a highly directed and conscious focus on some form of activity. It's like thru executive cognitive control one forces a state where other extraneous input is ignored. 

 

That seems correct to me.

 

Quote

Wu wei seems to be more intuitive ... less under cognitive control ... state that facilitates how one interacts less consciously with the world around one. In that sense it seems like way of being that can be developed over time.

 

Yes - wu wei is a more general concept. But nevertheless in flow one also has to rely on intuition and automatic responses to come to optimal results.

 

Edited November 8, 2018 by wandelaar

[wandelaar]

For comparison, here is  Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi on Flow: