I had not thought of it that way.
Is the trick to find the beautiful? But if all things are 'good', does that mean all things are 'bad'? Is it a contradiction? Or, if all things are 'good' then there are no 'bad' things? Or has 'good' and 'bad' just become irrelevant?
Nothing is inherently better or worse than anything else. However, some things may be more or less preferable to you (and differently preferable to someone else).
Everything has a purpose. Sometimes that purpose is to be less preferable, so that you know what is more preferable.
Everything has a purpose. Most things are not purposed for you. That doesn't make the thing 'bad'.
There are no platonic ideals, because nothing exists in a vacuum. A chair is purposeful only in relation to an arse. There's no perfect chair because there is no perfect arse. But for every bottom there is a preferable chair.
In short: Tao is about finding a good seat.
Thank you for your responses. This is why I wanted to discuss Taoism here.
Nothing is inherently better or worse than anything else. However, some things may be more or less preferable to you (and differently preferable to someone else).
How can I act with compassion then? Nothing is inherently more or less compassionate than anything else except in relation to self. My self is different than your self. Therefore, what is compassionate for me may be uncompassionate for you.
Or am I misunderstanding?
Religion assumes there is a moral authority, exterior of you.
Does Taoism fit this definition of religion?
Philosophy offers there is a universe, exterior of you, and it can be understood.
Taoism seems to suggest the universe can only be partially understood. Semantics, but I took you literally.
In closing, CourtFool, I point here and humbly cry pardon / I apologize most sincerely if I offended.
You did not offend. I learn by applying new concepts in ways they were not originally presented. Often, my first test is against myself.
I was trying to point to the fact you were ahead of the curve, and possibly didn't realize it.
I think my pride remains a roadblock. I want the answers now and if Tao can not offer them immediately, what good is it? Perhaps the same is true of my rejection of Christianity.
I suggest we leave aside the definition of religion for now.
I don't think you can really expect the tao to provide answers. It has some explanatory power, especially when you're wondering why things went down the way they did. But overall, it asks more of a person than it offers.
Nothing is inherently better or worse than anything else. However, some things may be more or less preferable to you (and differently preferable to someone else).How can I act with compassion then? Nothing is inherently more or less compassionate than anything else except in relation to self. My self is different than your self. Therefore, what is compassionate for me may be uncompassionate for you.
Or am I misunderstanding?
George Bernard Shaw (at least according to the internet) said: "Do not do unto others as you expect they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same."
How do know what another person considers compassionate (or any other adjective)? Ask. "How can I help you?"
People aren't always honest (with themselves or others), though. So also: Observe.
You have experience so: Analyze. Yes, people are unique (are emergent), but we can categorize them because they have things in common (fundamentals). Statistically, what you consider compassionate is likely very similar to what other people consider compassionate.
Even if you play the odds, you might be wrong. That's no excuse for not trying. If your intent is to be compassionate, they can only accuse you of being misguided (and you can learn from that), they can't (rightly) accuse you of being uncompassionate.
Very straight forward, Mr. Schwartz. Thank you. Although, I think you were too straight forward for this thread. You could have at least done a Yoda voice or something. :)
Articulation
Knowledge of Tao lodges in the same part of the mind as poetry. That is why the ancients expressed themselves in verse : There is the same quick perception.
When we are in touch with Tao, it is not our academic learning that is speaking, but the spirit of Tao itself. The old texts are very specific about this. That is why there is such a vast difference between the words of scholars and the words of a practitioner, just as the words of academics differ from the words of poets.
At the elementary stages of study, we need to articulate our experiences and let Tao flow through us. Followers of Tao frequently use writing, art, and even poetry as tools for self-discovery. By articulating their experiences, it helps them to understand the stages they are going through. Once they can do this, it satisfies and neutralizes their rational minds. The process clears away intellectualism and leaves the true Tao, which is not subject to words or images.
I enjoy art as much as the next person, but I am not sure I want to neutralize my rational mind. The above quote seems to me to be hinting that the Tao works in mysterious ways. That sets off some warning flags for me.
It seems to me that the 'truth' and/or 'path' should be just as rational as anything else.
Knowledge of Tao lodges in the same part of the mind as poetry.
Well, I can feel that and so I know that much is true.
I may be wrong, CF, but it seems to me that you get hung up on language. I see that you are often identifying with something that appears to be vilified in the text. It happened upthread with "knowledge" too.
I think: when this writer speaks of poetry, I don't think they mean "anything written in the medium of poetry". I think he means those works that speak directly to the soul, that give you that light-hearted feeling like you'd witnessed something that directly captured life beyond language. I can't give a specific example, because it is different for each person. All I can say is that if you can think of a series of words or art that has made you shiver or knocked you completely out of your routine, that's what he means. Tao lives there.
Religious exaltation lives there too.
I honestly think it is a physical (neurological or hormonal perhaps) response to thinking about certain kinds of things. Must serve some kind of evolutionary purpose (or not) but it is a distinct and pronounced feeling, not merely the absence of rational thought. Something that goes beyond a mere cerebral understanding of facts (which is laudable) and actually captures life.
Nowadays, I just deal with the real world. Some of you kids out there trying to wear that pretension of "being enlightened" will tell me that IS Taoism. My response would be to advise you to try preaching that line in Calcutta...on New Year's Day...during a soccer riot. If you survive, then go to Mogadishu and try the same thing. Do that, and you're a Taoist. Do that and survive, and you'll have no need for Taoism.
No joke, I think a taoist might join the riot.
Was it this or another thread where we discussed the actual definition of mysticism?
Because I think that is rather pertinent here. The passage refers to things that can be experienced but not easily described. It isn't a prank or a contrived obstacle, nor is it an attempt to be alluring or authoritative, it's just that words aren't very good for relating it.
The only thing I know about daoism I learned from southpark. Apparently a advanced practitioner can animate a statue of John Wilks Booth in order to assassinate a statue of Abe Lincon. That is my contribution.
I may be wrong, CF, but it seems to me that you get hung up on language. I see that you are often identifying with something that appears to be vilified in the text. It happened upthread with "knowledge" too.
I think that is it exactly. This felt like another attack on knowledge. Thanks, EL. I need to change my perspective.
Was it this or another thread where we discussed the actual definition of mysticism?
I do not think it was this thread. Maybe the Civil Religious Discussion.
I think that is part of my resistance. I have an immediate negative response to 'mysticism'.
The only thing I know about daoism I learned from southpark. Apparently a advanced practitioner can animate a statue of John Wilks Booth in order to assassinate a statue of Abe Lincon. That is my contribution.
Oh yeah. That's easy stuff. Just realize there is no spoon. :)
I am watching the Avatar series with my daughter. I did not realize before (I watched the first half of the first season) how much Taoism was sprinkled throughout the show.
Gotta love Uncle Iro.
I think that is part of my resistance. I have an immediate negative response to 'mysticism'.
Me too.
But you accept the possibility that there are things in the mortal ken worth experiencing but impossible to relate through language, right? Mirabile dictu as it were.
Before a gaggle of immature new-agers besmirched the word, that's what mysticism meant. Maybe we need a new word for it now.
Love is the first thing that comes to my mind.
The only thing I know about daoism I learned from southpark. Apparently a advanced practitioner can animate a statue of John Wilks Booth in order to assassinate a statue of Abe Lincon. That is my contribution.
I gotta learn that trick. Wouldn't want to spoil a job well-done 146 years ago.
I suppose Lincoln had it coming, eh? I mean, look at the way he was dressed.
You know, love is pretty close to the feeling I'm trying to relate here. Maybe go back to the text you posted with an active conception of love in mind instead of poetry (if you are inclined to feel that), and it might resonate better.
As for my doppelganger's fashion sense, it is one of the few things we had in common. Those slack-jawed poodles with their puffy grooming had best reserve judgment.
It's the hat.
By articulating their experiences, it helps them to understand the stages they are going through. Once they can do this, it satisfies and neutralizes their rational minds. The process clears away intellectualism and leaves the true Tao, which is not subject to words or images.
I enjoy art as much as the next person, but I am not sure I want to neutralize my rational mind. The above quote seems to me to be hinting that the Tao works in mysterious ways. That sets off some warning flags for me.
I hate the phrasing of this because (like much Tao) it comes off anti-intellectual. However, I don't disagree. What the writer is talking about are the concepts of "affirmation" and "internalization".
Affirmation is articulating what you believe or desire to do. To yourself, to others, to your higher power of choice, doesn't matter. The act of consciously saying or writing it, makes you look at the idea, refine it, rationalize it, and internalize it.
The idea of internalizing is that if you think about the idea before hand, then when you need to apply that idea, you don't need to waste time considering it then and there, you can just act.
The thinking is as important as the acting, because if you act without knowing what you expect to achieve, who knows what you'll get?
Honestly, these threads are part of my affirmation. I can't quiet my mind and I don't have a higher power, but I can articulate.
Interesting. When I read The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, I decided my mission statement should be my values prioritized. I decided Loyalty, Compassion, Justice, Truth. I am not sure I would still agree on the order. The relevance is I thought this would help me if I ever stumbled into a 'difficult' situation. You know one of those do you save person A or person B. I am not sure it would help in that exact situation. But it did give me some peace of mind to know I decided what I thought was most important. It also helped me to judge my own actions.
I haven't had much to add, but here's something. :)
Interesting. When I read The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, I decided my mission statement should be my values prioritized. I decided Loyalty, Compassion, Justice, Truth. I am not sure I would still agree on the order. The relevance is I thought this would help me if I ever stumbled into a 'difficult' situation. You know one of those do you save person A or person B. I am not sure it would help in that exact situation. But it did give me some peace of mind to know I decided what I thought was most important. It also helped me to judge my own actions.
I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to run down theoretical situations to decide what one ought to do. I've done it too. We might not actually behave that way in the situation, but the forethought might also help us do what we would rather instead of our first impulse.
To use your list of values, I think my order would be:
Truth
Justice & Compassion (roughly tied)
Loyalty.
But that's what I'd like to think they'd be. It's an order I settled on intellectually. In an actual, stressful situation? Who knows?
I'm more of the "you can never know" school.
It doesn't really grant me any comfort to put abstracts in an ordered list. I just focus on being myself, and I know that in one of those hypothetical crisis situations, I'll do my best based on who I am. I would never know what the exact right course of action was anyway.
Not dissing those of who who do that kind of thing, just doesn't do it for me.
If people are interested in a view of taoism filtered through a slightly western perspective, I recommend "The Tao is Silent" by Raymond Smullyan - it really got me on to lots of the ideas of Taoism
Stop wanting stuff;
it keeps you from seeing what's real.
When you want stuff,
all you see are things.
It occurred to me last night that 'stuff' and 'things' does not mean just physical things. Wanting to understand Tao or wanting to know how to act with Compassion, Humility and Moderation was wanting stuff. This may be obvious to others, but it did not dawn on my until last night.
I do not think that means this stuff should be undesirable, but that we should not focus on them to the exclusion of all else. I could be the most compassionate, humble and moderate person in the entire world…beloved by millions. But what good would it be if I achieved it by forsaking my relationship with my daughter or wife? This would not be balance and that lack of balance would create discord.
Returning
Swallows are famous for their daring speed and the unpredictable paths that they take in flight. Yet no matter how far they fly, they circle back to their nests.
The idea of returning is significant for all of us. We must work, explore, travel, and make our achievements in life. No matter how much we strain and how wide we wander, we all need some lodestone, some center from which to operate. For some of us, this is a place, a home. For others, it is merely withdrawal into our own hearts.
Followers of Tao believe that there is a core spirit to which each of us should return. This core spirit is increasingly obscured by our own thoughts and the complexity of civilization. All education, while a necessary evil, is a stain upon the primal soul. Therefore, returning is a process of simplification that throws off the unnecessary problems of socialization. One gradually peels back the layers and makes one's way back to the unsullied, pure inner person. The time to do this is long, and one needs a great deal of guidance and self-cultivation to achieve it, but until one returns to the natural state, one cannot truly hope to be one with Tao.
O.k. My perspective is skewed, but come on.
All education, while a necessary evil, is a stain upon the primal soul.
CF, I'm starting to think your dissonance lies not with the Tao, but with that website. :)
I get the sense that there's no authority in taoism beyond people with demonstrable wisdom. Some of the passages from that site have been rife with inconsistency, and don't seem terribly wise to em.
I tend to stick to Laozi. Even then, I understand that translations are bad much of the time. What's more, Laozi himself could be wrong. Lacking supernatural appointment, the only source of authority Laozi has is the fact that people have kept his words around so long.
Zhuanzi is good too, but in a less practical and more whimsical way, IMO.
Just a thought — if the website is calling things into question daily and running counter to your instinct, providing you with no philosophical benefit... maybe stop checking that site?
Stop wanting stuff;
it keeps you from seeing what's real.
When you want stuff,
all you see are things.It occurred to me last night that 'stuff' and 'things' does not mean just physical things. Wanting to understand Tao or wanting to know how to act with Compassion, Humility and Moderation was wanting stuff. This may be obvious to others, but it did not dawn on my until last night.
I do not think that means this stuff should be undesirable, but that we should not focus on them to the exclusion of all else. I could be the most compassionate, humble and moderate person in the entire world…beloved by millions. But what good would it be if I achieved it by forsaking my relationship with my daughter or wife? This would not be balance and that lack of balance would create discord.
I prefer harmony to balance, myself.
Fair enough. I do find insight more often than not.
I subscribed to Taoist webcast, but both times I have had a chance to actually tune in, it feels like the guy is pushing Vegetarianism more than Taoism. It has turned me off to the webcast.
The problem is I do not understand Laozi or Zhuanzi (or maybe it is the translations).
I looked for a Taoist temple or group in my area, but I could not find one. That is how I stumbled on the webcast, but I have no interest in giving up my sacred cow.
At the risk of pointing towards the moon ... if you are into a daily dose of the Tao, I'd recommend this.
Thanks!
I gave myself a time-out from this thread…
Why?
There's a Buddhist metaphor, "Words are fingers pointing toward the moon; if you watch the fingers you can't see the moon."
Fair enough, but what if you can not see the moon to begin with. Where do you start?
I fully acknowledge that the site is not the sum total of Taoism. It may not even be the 'right' Tao for me. It just gives me something to think about and sometimes, I strongly disagree with it. Sometimes, it makes sense.
Have I come off as anti-Taoist?
No, it's more like you have the same aversions I do, and you're good at finding things that set that off and confronting us with them. :)
I believe I am thought of as uncivil in the Civil Religious Discussion thread too, so I am beginning to wonder how I am perceived. I do not consider myself anti-religious, anti-Taoist or even anti-Christian. I question. I never grew out of the 'why' stage.
Maybe my questions seem hostile. I shall attempt to keep that in mind in the future.
I do not mean to be confronting anyone with anything. More, "I disagree with this…what do you guys think?"
I need to work on presentation.
O.k. My perspective is skewed, but come on.
All education, while a necessary evil, is a stain upon the primal soul.
The writer here is wrong. The necessity of returning to your center does not make the traveling outward bad. Both are on the Way.
(Obliquely, viz: "His Dark Materials" and "Fraggle Rock".)
I believe I am thought of as uncivil in the Civil Religious Discussion thread...
The comments on the Share Your Faith thread were illuminating in that regard, for me. "Civil" was being used in a way that did not seem to imply "polite," or "respectful," or any other definition that you or I would find immediately recognizable. Rather, it was apparently used to mean "in agreement and offering warm fuzzies for everyone who is obviously feeling the exact same way."
Newcomers raised their hands and said "I'm a member of the club, too!" And then everyone else would say "Yay! Everyone agrees with me! I love how civil this thread is, unlike that other nasty one!"
To many people, apparently Truth means "believing in what the Bible says," and Civil means "agreeing with me."
Just like when an NYC cabbie yells "F--- you!" out the window, it's just his way of asking "do you speak my language?" A reply of "F--- your mother!" could then be translated as "You betcha, neighbor!"
Is this at all relevant? Well, maybe the Tao means different things to different people as well.
|
I believe I am thought of as uncivil in the Civil Religious Discussion thread...The comments on the Share Your Faith thread were illuminating in that regard, for me. "Civil" was being used in a way that did not seem to imply "polite," or "respectful," or any other definition that you or I would find immediately recognizable. Rather, it was apparently used to mean "in agreement and offering warm fuzzies for everyone who is obviously feeling the exact same way."
Newcomers raised their hands and said "I'm a member of the club, too!" And then everyone else would say "Yay! Everyone agrees with me! I love how civil this thread is, unlike that other nasty one!"
To many people, apparently Truth means "believing in what the Bible says," and Civil means "agreeing with me."
Just like when an NYC cabbie yells "F--- you!" out the window, it's just his way of asking "do you speak my language?" A reply of "F--- your mother!" could then be translated as "You betcha, neighbor!"
Is this at all relevant? Well, maybe the Tao means different things to different people as well.
You really need to drink a beer and relax, that was not in any way shape or for what was going on. Then again having something as a hobby means not understanding it as a life style. Like collecting cars yet never knowing how to drive or even getting in one.
CF yes I see myself getting more agitated and nasty.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe I am thought of as uncivil in the Civil Religious Discussion thread...The comments on the Share Your Faith thread were illuminating in that regard, for me. "Civil" was being used in a way that did not seem to imply "polite," or "respectful," or any other definition that you or I would find immediately recognizable. Rather, it was apparently used to mean "in agreement and offering warm fuzzies for everyone who is obviously feeling the exact same way."
Newcomers raised their hands and said "I'm a member of the club, too!" And then everyone else would say "Yay! Everyone agrees with me! I love how civil this thread is, unlike that other nasty one!"
To many people, apparently Truth means "believing in what the Bible says," and Civil means "agreeing with me."
Just like when an NYC cabbie yells "F--- you!" out the window, it's just his way of asking "do you speak my language?" A reply of "F--- your mother!" could then be translated as "You betcha, neighbor!"
Is this at all relevant? Well, maybe the Tao means different things to different people as well.
I find that when approaching certain subjects in religion, tact and tone are extremely important. If you can approach a subject with some sensitivity then maybe it won't be taken offensively. Instead I get from most atheists on this board a sense of challenging or adversarial bent. It isn't going to win you any friends and it's likely to outright offend some others with personal faiths. That is why they most stopped participating in the CRD. You weren't there to discuss, you seemed to be there to tear down their beliefs and challenge their faith at every turn. I don't blame them for being upset.
You weren't there to discuss, you seemed to be there to tear down their beliefs and challenge their faith at every turn.
If those "beliefs" were Young Earth Creationism and "all scientists are wrong about everything," then, yes, I am guilty of exactly what you claim. Outside of that... you may recall, for example, one of Moff's posts implying that the Haiti earthquake and its aftermath shook his faith. Who was the first one to suggest that it might be re-affirmed?
At no point did I personally tell anyone to give up their faith (nor even imply that they should), or that Jesus didn't exist, or whatever.
|
|
You weren't there to discuss, you seemed to be there to tear down their beliefs and challenge their faith at every turn.If those "beliefs" were Young Earth Creationism and "all scientists are wrong about everything," then, yes, I am guilty of exactly what you claim. Outside of that... you may recall, for example, one of Moff's posts implying that the Haiti earthquake and its aftermath shook his faith. Who was the first one to suggest that it might be re-affirmed?
Just maybe, someone who believes the young earth creationism may not want to go into a "Civil" religious discussion to told why he is wrong. I'm just saying certain subjects are very touchy. But I don't want to argue. I'm just saying empathy is a very wonderful human trait. Maybe you should try to not understand what someone believes, but why they believe it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Going back to the glass half full thing...
It depends on how it started.
If the glass was empty, and was filled half way, then it is half full.
If the glass was full, and emptied out half way, then it is half empty.
I think one's views on philosophy or religion is similar.
It depends on how you started.
Just maybe, someone who believes the young earth creationism may not want to go into a "Civil" religious discussion to told why he is wrong.
Perhaps that's the biggest difference right there. It's not about belief systems or supernatural things or anything else. It's just that, if I'm demonstrably wrong about a factual matter, I'd like to know about it. Anyone who takes the effort to show me, I consider a friend. On the flip side, I get very irate when people outright lie to me to "spare my feelings" -- it seems exceptionally condescending.
One of my favorite people to hang out with spent most of our time together trying to get me to convert to his Church. I admired him for taking so much effort to try and show me where I was wrong about it. That's a valuable friend, even if we disagreed about the particulars.
Your definition of "empathy" and "civility" as "lying to people and pretending to agree with them" is one that I personally can't accept. I also find it inteersting that the constant misrepresentations of what scientists believe and how they operate that I tried to adress met your definition of "civil."
|
|
Just maybe, someone who believes the young earth creationism may not want to go into a "Civil" religious discussion to told why he is wrong.Perhaps that's the biggest difference right there. It's not about belief systems or supernatural things or anything else. It's just that, if I'm demonstrably wrong about a factual matter, I'd like to know about it. Anyone who takes the effort to show me, I consider a friend. On the flip side, I get very irate when people outright lie to me to "spare my feelings" -- it seems exceptionally condescending.
One of my favorite people to hang out with spent most of our time together trying to get me to convert to his Church. I admired him for taking so much effort to try and show me where I was wrong about it. That's a valuable friend, even if we disagreed about the particulars.
Your definition of "empathy" and "civility" as "lying to people and pretending to agree with them" is one that I personally can't accept. I also find it inteersting that the constant misrepresentations of what scientists believe and how they operate that I tried to adress met your definition of "civil."
One assumption down, the way you view things and feel about things is not the way others do. Just because you don't like people trying to spare your feelings, doesn't others don't feel contrary. Again I'm not going to get drawn into an argument with you. This will be my last responding post on this subject. Good day.
Just because you don't like people trying to spare your feelings, doesn't others don't feel contrary.
I actually agree -- what I don't agree with is that that obligates me to lie to them in return.
I found the following Korean proverb the other day and it made me smile.
The bad plowman quarrels with his ox
How many times I have called my computer obscenities.
How many times I have called my computer obscenities.
Isn't that how you make them work?