One cannot actually say that they have studied Tao if they are not familiar with the Doctrine of the Mean …
Overly worded, but simplistically sensed of balances.
Why would you assume a Taoist would not already be familiar with the text?
Uhhhhhh . . . .
Because it was “written” by Kongzi’s “grandson”?
The quotes are there because I’m willing to wager that Daoists have a different (yet equally plausible) story for its extraction.
It was part of the Lijing as well, and I didn’t think the Daoists were big fans of the Five Classics.
Not that the term “five classics” isn’t all ready so infected with wuxing-learning . . .
Damn Qin and their love of book-burning. Complicates the issue more than it needs too . . .
brother Xunzian needs to remember the historicity of Tao"ism". It has, through the passage of time, and interference of less than virtuous minds, suffered sectarian dissolution.
The school of thought and education that my words come from is the descendant of the Long Pole Star school, called the Longmen Immortality sect. “Immortality” in the classical Mandarin sense; of balanced living harmony and internal control, that leads to extended longevity.
The school of Tao that I have most studied from, and lived by, is neither populist nor overly well known, because it stays to the roots of the methodology, practices and education … away from the political infighting and bastardisations that have taken away from the process.
Xunzian,
I think that perhaps the demarcation line between Taoist understanding and that of Confucianism is the origin of morality and right action. Taoist thought suggests a spontaneous morality that evolves in mutually entailing relationships. Confucian thought acknowledges this, and then goes the next step of describing(proscribing/prescribing) thought and action. Tao is inwardness projecting outward, Confucianism is outward projecting inward. Both begin with common understanding (doctrine of mean), it is how each projects their understanding that differences arise.
Tentative,
While you could make that argument based on Classical Confucianism. This is particularly clear in Chapter X of the Analects and more-or-less the whole of the Lijing, as we have it. Though Kongzi’s dialogues with failed students could argue top the contrary – I forget the passage number but google Confucius and Three year mourning period and you’ll see that right action and RIGHT action (as the Daoists understand it) are not so far off.
However, I would argue that Daoxue (Neo-Confucian) learning does not place any proscriptions on action. And it is through Daoxue that the Daxue and the Zhongyong became major Confucian texts (as opposed to merely parts of major texts). Within the confines of Daoxue learning, correct action is merely an extension of the original mind. This is why a Junzi’s actions are always correct, because he is in harmony with the original mind so his actions conform to the expectations thereof.
Or is this a critique of all normative values? Does it matter for whom these values are normative, or is this a raw rejection of anything beyond the esoteric?
You should know better. “Normative values” under eastern philosophy and logical methodology? Come now, no such thing exists.
Kongzi’s original mind as compared, normatively, to Laozi’s uncarved block. Wherein lies the difference? A calligraph or two perhaps?
The only values are the one’s that come from the origin of the source, all else is simply postulating differences for validating an egotistical argumentation of paradoxical sameness.
Esoteric?
Orthodox?
Words, symbols, human generated tripe. Why care?
Yes-and-no. I would argue that Confucianism is definately a normative system of morals. This has to do with the triad of Heaven-Man-Earth. Given that man’s true nature is within society, to harmonize with one’s nature is to harmonize with society.
I’d say that is pretty normative.
Though your point is well taken. Any of the schools (except maybe Mohism. Can we all agree that we reject Mohism? And Yang Zhu-ism, errr, Yangism?) have a great deal in common, so certain ideas are going to be the same.
They get even more similar after the Han synthesis. More human intervention? Perhaps. One of the major areas where I strongly disagree with Confucius is in my progressive view of history. I can’t help it, I’m a scientist, what do you expect?
In the historical context of the formation of Kongzi’s wisdom methodolgies, how geographically disparate would you say “Chinese society” would have been considered?
How does one have a normative definition of a social behavior/s, especially with consideration of nearly solitary demographic and geographic groups, even though considered to be under one nation?
Mohism … is well … yeah, we can agree … LOL.
No expectations necessary, you are entertaining enough as you are now. You can’t just blame the Zhuo, Han, Xia, or the earlier mentioned Qin … they are actually all to blame, if blame needs be placed.
Or perhaps it is all just t`ien ming?
Oh, please please. Confucius didn’t ever come up with an idea of his own. He was merely transmitting the wisdom of the Zhou. Some of which was transfered to him by the Duke of Zhou who visited him in his dreams . . .
But Confucianism is a totally analytical and rational philosophy, devoid of any esoteric aspects!
Sarcasm aside, Confucian philosophy was originally less of a philosophy and more of a reactionary movement trying to prevent the decentralization of power. Along with the recentralization, they wanted to bring back the archaic government (such as the 10:1 land system and 1:10:1000:ect payscale). So, it was the Zhou culture which Confucius largely sought to recreate. One can pretty easily couple this with a few choice quotes, “The chinese people are better off without leaders than barbarians are with their’s”, or when Mencius said: “I have heard of using what is Chinese to change what is barbarian, but I have never heard of using what is barbarian to change what is Chinese.” to make it clear what Confucius and his followers thought of other cultures.
At the same time, this is counter-balanced (somewhat. I could go into a Freudian explanation of Confucius and where his beliefs come from, but this isn’t the time nor the place) by his belief that when a gentleman is amongst the barbarians, he ought act as they do and adopt their customs. Once again, the theme is harmony. While the barbarian’s customs may be, strictly speaking, ‘wrong’, it is better to harmonize with an incorrect custom than it is to observe the correct customs and create disorder.
So, the right answer is that it is normative with respect to Zhou culture, but the right-wrong answer is that it is normative to all cultures, if that makes sense.
As for the dynasties and their messing up of the philosophies . . . well, I think it is hard to argue that after the book burning of the Qin that any of the Hundred Schools philosophies were ever really the same. They all had to be reassembled piecemeal based on the memories of many individuals. The different versions that were floating around were eventually unified, but it is highly unlikely that what came out was the same as what came in. Popular ideas of the time would have emphasized certain aspects and left others out. It also brings that bastard Democracy to the fore – the most popular versions were the ones that we get today.
Couple that with the Han attempts to smush them all together into one Eastern Philosophical GUT, and you can be damned sure that those texts are anything but the originals and the ideas are pretty warped.
The inner, outer, and misc chapters of the Zhuangzi are a clear example of all this. We are pretty certain that the inner chapters in some way reflect the thinking of Zhuangzi and/or his followers. The outer chapters maybe kinda do if you squint a little, and the misc chapters . . . hey man, your guess is as good as mine. Maybe they were inspired by Daoists? Maybe?
Xunzian,
You are trying to convince yourself, more than you are me.
My problem is this, quite simply.
Every form of wisdom and logic brought through the ages is changed: via book burnings, school burnings, church/temple burnings, teacher burnings, etc.
This is the passage of human “time”, and these things were/are foregone conclusions, in any place, in any culture, in any period.
faustest made this clear in one of his posts in another thread, and it is absolutely correct with respect to the movement from historicity to present. That which comes after will attempt to dismantle and destroy that which was before, and then claim the era for itself, in “new” ideals, “new” philosophies, and “new” methodologies … that all take their position from the past.
You were no more there with Kongzi than I was with Laosi or Quanzi … how do we know … and if wisdom is wisdom … why care?
Are we learning from it today? If the answer is yes, then all the questioning antecedents are “time” wasted in an already short journey.
Maybe Kongzi knew “society” would change with time, and left the door open without your knowledge?
Can you refute such?
Even opposites must converge and become one thing, they must at some point touch and meld to form a new thing. This creates a third part to balance. The center of good and evil, right and left up and down. is neutral. Neutrality. or apathy. If we are the fulcrum as you say with apathy/neutrality straight over us. Then is this not an impossible task for us to achieve harmony?
tent,
I got this from a site about Confusius and it sounds a lot like Tao. I got it from the thread on Religious links - but lost the link from Dan — sorry folks — do you agree that they are similar? They even mention The Way.
puzzled
The way of great learning consists in manifesting one’s bright virtue, consists in loving the people, consists in stopping in perfect goodness.
[2] 知止而后有定；
When you know where to stop, you have stability.
定而后能靜；
When you have stability, you can be tranquil.
靜而后能安；
When you are tranquil, you can be at ease.
安而后能慮；
When you are at ease, you can deliberate.
慮而后能得。
When you can deliberate you can attain your aims.
[3] 物有本末；事有終始。知所先後則近道矣。
Things have their roots and branches, affairs have their end and beginning. When you know what comes first and what comes last, then you are near the Way.
[4] 古之欲明明德於天下者、先治其國。
The ancients who wanted to manifest their bright virtue to all in the world first governed well their own states.
欲治其國者先齊其家。
Wanting to govern well their states, they first harmonized their own clans.
欲齊其家者先脩其身。
Wanting to harmonize their own clan, they first cultivated themselves.
欲脩其身者先正其心。
Wanting to cultivate themselves, they first corrected their minds.
欲正奇心者先誠其意。
Wanting to correct their minds, they first made their wills sincere.
欲誠其意者先致其知。
Wanting to make their wills sincere, they first extended their knowledge.
致知在格物。
Extension of knowledge consists of the investigation of things.
[5] 物格而后知至。
When things are investigated, knowledge is extended.
知至而后意誠。
When knowledge is extended, the will becomes sincere.
意誠而后心正。
When the will is sincere, the mind is correct.
心正而后身脩。
When the mind is correct, the self is cultivated.
身脩而后家齊。
When the self is cultivated, the clan is harmonized.
家齊而后國治。
When the clan is harmonized, the country is well governed.
國治而后天下平。
When the country is well governed, there will be peace throughout the land.
[6] 自天子以至於庶人臺是皆以脩身爲本。
From the king down to the common people, all must regard the cultivation of the self as the most essential thing.
[7] 其本亂而末治者，否矣。其所厚者薄而其所薄者厚，未之有也。
It is impossible to have a situation wherein the essentials are in disorder, and the externals are well-managed. You simply cannot take the essential things as superficial, and the superficial things as essential.
Bessy,
Stop screwing around in Ebay, and finding saved links is much easier… 
Kris and Bessy,
Kris,
All experience (of opposites) constantly “meld to form a new thing”. And this is also true of ourselves. All is processual. It is seeing this oneness that gives rise to harmony. The fulcrum is not static as it is always evolving as well. It is awareness of this that allows us to see and choose ‘goodness’ for all within an experience. I don’t see apathy, but near balance as no experience is ever complete because of the constant change of process. I’ll fall back on the metaphor Watts used in the opening OP. Water is water, right? But a stream is not a bucket of water…
Bessy,
Yes. Both Taoist thought and Confucianism arises from the same culture and around the same time, and they draw on the oral and traditional wisdom of that time. There are many points of view held in common. There are differences that make a difference as I suggested in my last post to Xunzian. In the Readers Digest version, Taoist thought suggests that social structure arises naturally if individuals are allowed their natural selves. Confucianian thought seeks to codify that which is right or wrong. Taoism is a pure expression of anarchy while Confucianism seeks to place structure over behavior. It is a lot more complex than this, but that is the short version.
Mas,
As always, you’re words have thrown new light on my post. Thanks.
Bessy,
There is no accident that the Greater Learning resembled a Daoist text. It is part of the 4 books. During the Song Dynasty (~1200AD), Zhu Xi sought to revitalize Confucianism which was losing power to Buddhism. So, he synthesized Daoism and Buddhism together with Confucianism to produce Neo-Confucianism.
The Greater Learning was the first ‘book’ of Neo-Confucianism, which one had to study before they could study any other texts. It definately has a Daoist feel to it because it was selected to have just that.
Bessy has been playing in EBay? Uh Oh that could be trouble, for her family or EBay I am not sure which, maybe both 
Neutral is at the center of opposing sides. and yes it flows and changes but, Being niether way creates a falseness and a truth of its own does it not? The true center would be neutral to both sides. Right?
This that is the true center is the part that touches the fulcrum Right?
Get your thinking cap on Tent, Figure out which way I am jumping you can do it
eBay gives me my shopping pleasure without the out-pouring of big money at the mall. Same stuff for under $1.00. 
Xunzian,
Sorry, that link was your’s wasn’t it?
Tent and X,
Do you think that more Taoists are atheists in their thinking considering the behavioral aspect to the philosophy as opposed to the structural (as you say) or more dogmatic approach? Tent, is that what you meant by structural?
Kris,
Not biting. Like a pane of glass. I’ll just say, yes dear…
Bessy,
Taoist thought is neither aetheistic nor theistic. If anything, one who finds themselves comfortable with Tao is more likely to be agnostic, in that they accept the idea that they may not know, and so such ideas as theist - nontheist are irrelevent. But a caveat: This only applies to the earlier forms of Taoist thought and writings. As in all major philosophies, splinter groups over -emphasize certain aspects and create “religions” or quasi-religions. This happened to Confucianism as well.
Again the difference is whether human conduct comes from within one’s self or whether it is dictated from without.
I really must protest Tentative’s description of Confucianism.
The cliffnotes description I would use to seperate Daoism from Confucianism is that a Daoist looks within to harmonize themselves with nature, while a Confucian looks within to harmonize themselves with society.
tent, lady Bessy, lady Kriswest and Xunzian,
As I said to Xunzian before, (no slight intended, he’s own of my favorite assumably human posters), this discussion comes down to …
tien ming
That is the short of it, really.