Societal Change. A perspective from Tao De Ching

So much for world peace. Since we are as we are, life will continue as it is.

Hi Nick,

A somewhat defeatist attitude, since where the Sage is, there is peace.

Shalom

Hi Bob

Calling a spade a spade is not a defeatist attitude, #29 suggests that we aren’t really doing anything but life is happening through us in accordance with universal law We can see it in the jungle where the interaction between animals and plants just happens in accordance with universal laws, dharma, or way. It is insulting to think that it is the same with us but I believe it to be the case on the large scale because life is a reflection of man’s being. It is as it is so life is as it is. No amount of wonderful speeches can change it since it is what we are This is why religion becomes the art of the possible for individuals since it is through awakening that the ESSENCE of religion supports that a person becomes more than a puppet.

I am unfamiliar with that quote but considering Jesus as a sage, there was always tension around him leading to the Crucifixion. Not all that peaceful.

chinapage.com/gnl.html

Look at #80 Utopia. It doesn’t speak of world peace but of what can be achieved by a few that understand something. Of course it is politically incorrect because it suggests exclusivity. I’ll just agree, hold my ears, and live through the growls of the PC “Great Beast.”

[i]“You want a small state with a minimal population

Have ready to had weaponry for a sufficient number of military units
Yet have no recourse to use them.

Make sure that the common people take dying seriously
So that they have no taste for venturing far from home.

Though you have ships and chariots enough
Have no reason to man them;
Though you have armor and weapons enough
Have no reason to parade them.

Bring the common people back to keeping their records with knot-
ted string.
To relishing their food,
To find beauty in their garments,
To enjoy their customs,
And to find security in their homes.

Although your neighboring states are within eyesight
And the sounds of their dogs and cocks are within earshot,
Your people will grow old and die without having anything to do
with them.”[/i]

There is nothing elitist about chapter 80, nor is it a call to rustic living. It simply suggests that a life is lived more meaningfully in the immediate and local experience. It resonates with chapter 47;

[i]“Venture not beyond your doors to know the world;
Peer not outside your window to know the way-making (Dao) of
tian.
The farther one goes
The less one knows.

It is for this reason that sages know without going anywhere out of
the ordinary,
Understand clearly without seeing anything out of the ordinary,
And get things done without doing anything out of the ordinary.”[/i]

Both chapters 80 and 47 are but two of some 3 dozen chapters all related to the concept of Wu Wei, which is the non-coercive interaction with the de (nature of) of things. Even a casual reading of Tao De Ching makes all of this fairly obvious. While the concept is rarely followed, there isn’t anything particularly profound about it.

I have no idea why anyone would have trouble with this, other than those who purport to know from a projected ‘objective reality’. The PC position is the knowing an ideal objective reality and not that of existential and conditional knowing. Of course, any suggestion that there is no objective reality is met with resistance by those who are merely religious, because they might have to accept the end of their life not knowing, and the threat of that drives the incessant need to prove their knowing. “The farther one goes the less one knows.” (shrug)

Sounds reasonable. There will always be a svolach or two that will cause a war from not saying enough "lovely"thoughts. Occasional head clunking with big sticks and bombs during these times is an essential clean-up from this omission.

But this conditional knowing of the effect of a club hitting you over the head does make an impression and its effects can be experienced as real objective knowledge.

Shrug if you like but Buddhism suggests the teaching of the Dharma which is objective knowledge of universal law. It exists in esoteric Christianity as well. These are not the normally religious.

So if Tentative the Great has now made a pronouncement that there is no objective reality expressed as the interactions of universal laws, I cannot take it seriously when so many brilliant others claim its existence and within our capacity as human beings to grow to understand… I side with common sense.

There is the objectivity of that which is manifest and there is the metaphysical where logic and objectivity fail. Tentative the Great doesn’t confuse the two, nor does he mix and match to suit some agenda.

The metaphysical must be logical or else it is our imagination and worthless. It is up to us to grow to understand it not just be content with not having a clue. This is why words like karma and justice cannot have meaning for you. You deny the objective truths they are based on.

Of course he does. It will happen to anyone continually and willfully vacationing in la la land after a while.

“Try to take it and you will loose it”
Applies to humanity trying to “take” the entire world.

But as for who will survive during the ongoing resource wars, places like the USA will be the last to go. Inequality keeps on getting more inequal.

Tentative, are you a socialist…?
Please say.

Nick,

Really? Some might be of the opinion that demanding the metaphysical be logical is nothing more than an invention of ego-driven imagination and worthless.

Dan~,

A socialist? ummm, I don’t think so, but maybe some part of my pov could be considered such. I guess it would depend on the definition. I’m not much into labels, so I really don’t know.

So you do have some things to say about the objectiveness of reality after all, tentative. Welcome back to the religion forum. I have to ask this:

If I understand you correctly, that which is manifest (rocks, trees, each other, so on) can be objective, but that which is transcendent (you use metaphysical) is not. Is that fair?

Hi Ucc,

Yup. That’s fair. I can be as logical and explore the “objective” manifest universe till the cows come home. I actually enjoy some of those explorations. But to declare that I know or even can know that which is the realm of the metaphysical seems to defy rules of proof available in the manifest world. While it is true that many of our explanations of the so-called objective universe are speculative in that we have no way to prove them - yet, that is quite different than speculation about the metaphysical realm for which there is no proof. There is nothing wrong with speculation in itself, but to say we can know without verification possible is a little more than I can accept.

JT

I have written a letter to:

The Metaphysics Research Lab
Center for the Study of Language and Information
Cordura Hall 202
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-4115

I have explained that their research should be abandoned since it has been officially proclaimed as egoistic foolishness by one who “knows.” Naturally then it is a waste of time and money. Better to vacation in la la land.

mally.stanford.edu/

I hope they give your assertion the credit it deserves.

I think I’m getting a handle on it, tentative- let me dig a little deeper. You seem to me to be mixing a little epistemology with your metaphysics, assuming you draw a distinction. So me ask something else.
You say that we can have no knowledge or proof of transcendant matters. Granting that for the moment, does that mean that in fact, there is no objective way transcendant matters are, or just that transcendant matters cannot be objectively known? In other words, do you think that there is an absolute, inaccessible way things are when it comes to transcendence, or are they as indeterminant as they appear to humans?

Nick quotes:

(bolding mine)
Yes, Yes, and Yes. Abstract theories. Wonderful stuff. And patterns? I see 'em too. All kinds. And some of them come from an awareness that there is order to the universe beyond logical explanation.

But that’s OK. An institute to prove the metaphysical. Gonna be a lot of job security there. I’m all for it.

Hi Ucc,

You’ve heard me say before that awareness isn’t the same as knowing. Is there an orderliness to those glimpses of the transcendent? Yes. Can one sense that “something” beyond cognition? I think so, or at least I’m convinced that I have had that experience - a number of times.

I would have to say that things are indeterminate for a couple of reasons. First and foremost, there is no way within our limited heart/mind capacity to acertain apprehension of ‘reality’ or whether we are merely ‘projecting’ an illusion. Secondly, and perhaps most important, is that there is no way to provide objective proof that all (physical and metaphysical) is knowable. One position relies on the Newtonian mechanical clock - the clock is there, we just haven’t figured out all the pieces - ie - all is knowable. A different view, and the one that seems more likely to me, is that much of the coming into being and returning in the universe happens with sponteneity and novelty. Yes, we can see seemingly ordered patterns, but we know nothing with specificity. To this extent it ceases to be a question of knowing, but of knowing what? There is a difference in simple-minded acceptance of naive reality, and projecting a limitless ego of knowing.

And so to sum up: Whether transcendent matters are objective or that objective transcendence cannot be objectively known leaves us in the same place, does it not? Accept what you will on faith. We all pass that hurdle of necessity, but for me, it isn’t what I know but what I can’t know that is important.

Hi Nick,
I missed this one:

If I have learnt anything, it is that although the Sage “allows for all these things, preferring none over the other” he doesn’t bow down to some kind of Darwinian idea of the survival of the fittest, but moves amidst the polarity of our existence like walking through a forest. He observes the rhythm of life and plays his part, without attempting to change the rhythm. He remains calm and concentrated, allowing tao to hold sway over his existence, so that each and everyone might lead their lives in peace.

The erroneous thought is that through activism we might change the natural run of things, avoid the conflicts and the world would be full of peace – it is through peace that peace grows. Therefore, where the Sage is, there must be peace – which also applies to Jesus. The reaction of Jesus during the trial actually portrays exactly this behaviour. There is unrest all around him, but he remains quiet, like a lamb going to the slaughter. You mention #80, I read it like some of the prophecy of the Old Testament:

If the tao held sway, nations would be small and people few
There might be weapons enough,
but no one would use them or display them
All would regard fighting as a serious, unpleasant affair
They might have boats and carriages enough,
but no one would ride them
All would be content with what they see and know
There might be laws and contracts,
but no one would write them
All would pay their debts as they could,
because no one would care if they didn’t
Such a land would delight in their food,
their clothing, their traditions
And feel safe and secure in their homes
Though neighbouring lands might be close enough that their songs are heard
One could grow old without ever having the urge to visit them

It doesn’t suggest exclusivity, but a smaller population. The people could have weapons, but they wouldn’t fight, since all would “would regard fighting as a serious, unpleasant affair”. If you like, it is like the Amish without “the English”, since those who allow tao have no opposites, since they are part of the unity of the tao. They are detached but safe and secure, since it is fighting the rule of opposites that causes wars and unrest, trying to make unity into a singularity.

Shalom

Dan, I just noticed your banner. You know, that symbol Marx is doing with his fingers is the sign of the great horned beast, a frequent symbol displayed by drunken metal heads at Ozzie Ozbourne concerts. Marx was anything but that.

Please, if you must, exhange the symbol for one that represents “da west side,” because Marx was from the west, and he was one of the original gangstas.

JT writes

This is the attraction of la la land. Consciousness by definition means to know and the greater the consciousness, the more that is known. I am not referring here to the knowledge of a computer and feel I’ve explained that enough. Denying what can be consciously known for the comfort and security of accepting only what we want to know is good for la la land but nothing more can or should be expected from it relying on the faith of floating down the river. The question then is why a person should desire anything other than la la land.

"Row row row your boat gently down the stream

merrily merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream.

Hi Bob

This is the message of the anti Christ making everything “wonderful”. It was different with the Christ:

So much for walking by and people automatically begin thinking “wonderful” thoughts.

You describe the sage as having presence and there I will agree. The one man I wish Simone could have known so as to be understood in a human sense beyond our conception had presence to the degree of creating his own atmosphere or aura. That is presence. But, as I’ve learned, people like this have to be tough with normal humanity because this atmosphere is like charisma in that it is highly attractive. In short it makes slaves of people. The true sage is not interested in slaves because he sees the slavery of the human condition. He wants to help in awakening and freedom from slavery. To do this requires turning away those only capable at that time of increasing their slavery for their own good.

Their community is small and not suggested to be the only community on the planet. Therefore, the idea is for an exclusive, separate, self sufficient community where they can “delight in their own society.” Fine with me and I respect it though it is not PC thinking. It means that they may actually have human values others wish to destroy so must be avoided. Yes, I know that is horrible for me to say but since I’ve been on a roll recently, what the hey.