There is nothing wrong with categorizing or conceptualizing. In fact, it is unavoidable. It is how we makes “sense of”. That said, all of our categorization and conceptualizing is a CONSTRUCT. The symbols are not the reality, any more than a pointing finger is the destination.
Becoming is the only constant in the universe. It has nothing do do with dialectic constructs. Go back and read the post by philosophemer.
There are constructs and there are constructs. Some may be more beneficial than others. There is no proclamation of is or isn’t, but simply different ways of seeing that may be more beneficial.
And you expose your assumptions without examination. There is nothing wrong with western thinking, and that was neither stated or implied, BUT there are differences in apriori assumptions that might lead one in different directions.
Further discussion is pointless without intent to question honestly. You ask questions that are merely disguised defensiveness.
I agree that perspective creates a certain “state of being” In some ways, studying Tao Te Ching introduces a psychological state that produces a given philosophizing. For me, it didn’t feel like an all-or-none proposition and my committment to Tao came less of conscious choice and more because it fit my intuitive understanding. It is true that as I studied, Tao Te Ching gave both language and sharpened concepts as well as introducing perspectives I had never considered before. (I’m a slow and incomplete learner). But it gave me an understanding of my way of seeing, a better understanding of the ‘square peg in a world of round holes’ syndrome. (I’m sure you know nothing about that)
This I most certainly agree with, tent, that there are constructs and there are constructs. The first task is to know that they are constructs. To simply prefer one over the other is okay, but it’s not philosophy.
And to philosophise (well) is to be aware of one’s assumptions.
swedishmike - do you imply here that the Tao is a moral system? You mention how we treat others.
it can be. The tao talks about a few things of treating others. but it is more than that to some of us. It is a way to look at the universe.
The tao is different that many other systems, because it is not something to evangelize. If someone evangelizes it, then it is not the tao.
Therefore, one comes to it by themselves. The way I look at it is this, if someone does not come to it, then I hope they had a good life in another way.
I am just for harmony and morals (I know subjective) in general when it comes to people and respect etc.
Actually, unlike most philosophers, I started with Eastern philosophy (specifically Daoism) and moved to Western philosophy in order to explain it. I only began taking an active interest in Western philosophy after reading (what I think is) the best book ever on the topic – The Tao Encounters the West by Chenyang Li. There are others (some of them are also translators) who do East/West comparative philosophy, but my point all along has been to justify Eastern standing in a contemporary Western light.
As far as Western philosophy goes, I’m mediocre at best. However, Dao, instead of Existence or Material Being is the basis for my very scant metaphysics. I think Frege solved the problem of existence in a fashion that a Daoist would, by changing the paradigm of consideration of a vocabulary.
However, my explanation does not cover Dao entirely because the word actually covers two modes – a metaphysical one and an ethical one. The ethics of Daoism, to me, are the only reason why I call myself a “Daoist” at all.
I really don’t have the proper words for this, but I’ll try anyway. Tao is almost more of a pre-construct. It really isn’t so much “philosophy” as it is a way to see a philosophy. To be sure, Tao Te Ching has many chapters of philosophical constructs, but the essential core is… more about intuitive understanding that makes the constructs understandable?
Dammit. Mas, get in here and help me. I’m out on the limb…
Mike,
Chapter 5
[i]The heaven and the earth are not partial to institutionalized
morality.
They takes things and treat them all as straw dogs.
Sages too are not partial to institutionalized morality.
They treat the common people as straw dogs.
The space between the heavens and the earth -
Isn’t it just like a bellows!
Even though empty it is not vacuous.
Pump it and more comes out.
It is better to safeguard what you have within
Than to learn a great deal that so often goes nowhere.[/i]
True morality is that which comes from within or arises spontaneously, and not the prescribed, proscription of social rules and regulations.
Nature treats all equally. Humans and ants receive the same treatment from nature and no one thing is treated differently. Following this observation of nature, the wise person treats everyone in the same way.
It is better to remain true to your spontaneous morality than to chase after a prescribed morality that takes you nowhere.
This is all sounding a bit perspectivist, I must admit. For perspectivism is not a philosophy, but an approach to philosophy. Not a set of beliefs, but a method.
And perhaps that is the best way to look at it for the time being. It is much more than the words convey, and that is part of the difficulty in getting past the superficial. Of course, that is true of any but the most superficial of perspectives.
My rather simplistic understanding of qi is life force expressed as the inherent energy of transformation in a processual universe. qi when used in deferential non-coerced ways, enhances any particular experience. It is most often discussed in relation to yin - yang.
It is also misused as some sort of magical power by some of the splinter religions of the 100 school period.
This would probably be better explained by Mas. I’m not steeped in Chinese culture enough to give more than simplistic explanations.
Qi, (Pin Yin) or Chi, (Wade Giles), is breath energy. Within the physiology of the human body, there are points of intersection, pathways, Chinese call meridians. Most anatomically correct, places where arteries and nerve plexes cross.
From the Chinese perspective, and as has been found by empirical study, there is the ability to derive power from conscious attention and practice at “uniting” the internal workings of the body.
Qi by itself, is just energy, it keeps the body living. Shin and jin must be gathered and pooled with Qi, (literally “vapor of living”). It isn’t simple, and takes years of practice, and usually an intense discipline of tso, meditation.
It’s not magics, it’s physiology. It is using all the powers, essences, and vapors of the body for singular focus. It is devastating when used by someone who has mastered their own body. My sifu is a master of Buddhist iron palm. He can kill with a single strike, and more importantly, he has learned to use it for healing. I know personally, he has been instrumental in my healing process too many times to count.
There’s more to it than this, but for a non-practitioner, it just becomes befuddling.
I don’t believe this is so far off tentative. Tao is a methodology of the life process, for the complete entity to take part in, because we have forgotten how to do it naturally, of its’ own volition.
Qi is used in Chinese medicine as a clinical term for “life energy,” though it literally means “breath.” (The pictograph is actually a combination of food and wind).
Nevertheless, it can be completely excised from Daoist philosophy (but not the religion or alchemy) free from consequence.
I was trying to avoid the breath control aspect as applied in the alchemy and as practiced in the martial arts in order to hold to the prespectival or philosophical discussion. I think that either way has great validity. and breath control can be a strong part of meditative practices. The closest western equivelant I can come up with is perhaps ‘spirit’, but even that fails the fullness of the Chinese use of the word qi.
Okey dokey, this red neck desert rat is gonna set her trap. fair warnin.
where is the third ? Balance is only acheived if there is a semblance of a fulcrum. good and evil cannot balance if there is not a fulcrum. the board is obvious but, what is the fulcrum? what where and why? Describe the fulcrum if you would?
The fulcrum? A good question, and probably could be answered a number of ways… To me, the fulcrum is ourselves, and only we can sense our balance or imbalance. Your model put’s good and evil outside of ourselves, and perhaps I just see it differently. Good and evil and the fulcrum exists simultaneously inside of ourselves. In this sense, perhaps conscience is the fulcrum?
I would be curious to hear both the Daoist and the non-Daoist response to this work. How does it relate to your idea of balance? How does it relate to the Daoist idea of balance? Do you see the two as similar?
For me, it didn’t feel like an all-or-none proposition and my committment to Tao came less of conscious choice and more because it fit my intuitive understanding. It is true that as I studied, Tao Te Ching gave both language and sharpened concepts as well as introducing perspectives I had never considered before. (I’m a slow and incomplete learner). But it gave me an understanding of my way of seeing, a better understanding of the ‘square peg in a world of round holes’ syndrome. (I’m sure you know nothing about that)
You’ve earned your right to be a hippie.