For information of what this series is about, see the parent thread
Once all under Heaven knew beauty as “beauty”; at that moment “ugliness” was already there. Once all knew goodness as “goodness”; at that moment “not good” was already there. Thus it is that presence and absence generate each other; long and short give proportion to the other; highs and lows are a matter of relative inclination; instrumental sounds and voice tones depend on one another for harmony; and before and after result from their relative places in a sequence.
The beautiful [mei] is what induces pleasure in the human heart-and-mind [xin], and the ugly [e] is what brings aversion and disgust to it. To praise [mei] or censure [e] something is just the same as being delighted or angry with it. To regard something as good or not is just the same as approving [shi] or disapproving [fei] if it. Delight and anger have the same root, and approval and disapproval come from the same gate, thus they cannot be used with bias [pian]. These six [existence or absence, difficulty or ease, long or shot, instrumental sounds or voice tones, highs or lows, and before or after] are all terms that express what is natural [ziran] and cannot be used with bias.
The Great Learning says that, “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.” While Wang Bi was almost certainly aware of the Great Learning, the vaulted place in the Chinese literati tradition would not be attained until nearly a millennium after his death. That said, I do not think it is too much of a stretch to think he may have been deliberating over that line when he wrote his commentary. After all, the DDJ is fairly clear on its position that dividing things into ‘good’ and (by extension) ‘not good’ is a futile extension of conscious effort and it should probably be avoided all together. So, why does Wang Bi seemingly go back on this and say that these things are ‘without bias’?
I think that Xun Zi offers a synthesis to this quandary. He begins his essay, “Dispelling Obsession” with the following lines: “The thing all men should fear is that they will become obsessed by a small corner of the truth and fail to comprehend its over-all principles. If they can correct this fault, they must return to correct standards, but if they continue ot hesitate and be of two minds, then they will fall into delusion. There are not two Ways in the world, the sage is never of two minds.”* So, it becomes the task for the sage to be mindful of the root of things, that these things which appear to the small mind to be separate entities are, indeed, dependent upon each other. Keeping this in mind, we can dwell on the finer details of a thing without becoming lost in them.
Therefore the sage [sheng] tends to matters without conscious effort
That which by nature is already sufficient unto itself will only end in defeat if one applies conscious effort [wei] to it.
On ILP right now there is a thread about whether or not one can be taught to be an artist. The Daoist answer, and I think the correct answer, is that one cannot be taught to be an artist. One either has this particular ‘knack’ or they do not and education simply allows this trait to better manifest itself. So, if one is an artist, do art and it will flow from them. If they aren’t an artist, they will merely be able to make mimicries of what their teachers have considered art to be.
And practices the teaching that is no expressed in words. The myriad folk model their behavior on him, yet he does not tell them what to do. He gives them life, yet he possess them not. He acts, yet they do not depend on him.
Because such intelligence is complete unto itself, conscious effort would result in falsehood.
Confucius said that if an Emperor were able to truly possess the way, all he would need to do for his empire to be well run is sit in his throne. That is because matters have been properly delegated, so the Emperor, whose job it is to arbitrate between ministries and act as an authority in disputes, becomes redundant.
Unfortunately, the reverse is also true. A favorite pass-time of middle-management is to make themselves useful and to occasionally shake the system up according to the latest fad. Now, if the company is in dire need of a performance overhaul, clearly these plans might not be a bad idea – the way is already so lost their that drastic measures may be necessary to return it to proper alignment, but part of the ‘knack’ that one has to recognize is the ability to leave things in a state of incompletion. Since all things are in a state of becoming, the very idea of ‘completion’ is largely incompatible with Daoist thought. Realizing that complete and incomplete share the same root, it becomes the task of the sage to know when to ‘back off’ and let the system do its work. If chosen wisely, the system will set itself and keep going without further input.
He achieves success yet takes no pride in it.
Because he acts in accordance with things, success is achieved through them, and this way he takes no pride in it.
Part of recognizing one’s position in the world is to know that no one can be said to be independent. We have our roles to play in this interdependent web, but nothing we accomplish can truly be said to be ‘ours’. The painter needs miners for the minerals in his paint, chemists to mix them into dyes, likewise they need farmers for plant fiber and canvas-makers to transform the plant material into a proper medium for his expression. Even in creating a masterwork, they have merely placed the final touches on a work shared by many people.
It is just because he is not proprietary that he does not lose it.
If he supposed that success depended on himself, such success could not last long
In recognizing the contributions of others, the sage can’t be covetous because what can be said to truly be his accomplishment? Instead, he recognizes his place in the web of society and fulfills his function in accordance with his allotment. They follow their ‘knack’ and let it be given the fullest expression through the help of others while helping others realize their own ‘knack’.
In such a system, things cease to be ‘good’ and ‘not good’, but rather simply are. The only judgment comes from one’s self in finding their place. And from one’s self about one’s self, how can there be any discussion of bias?
*Burton Watson’s translation
I haven’t the slightest idea how a “classical Taoist” would address the issue being only a mediocre student and an even worse practicioner. 
It only took me about four or five years to ‘get it’. ( I’m very slow on the uptake). Lets try this. We have a goal. In this case, the goal is to have no goal. errr, what??? Yup. the goal is to have no goal. Then comes methodology. There are many methods touted and most of them work to some degree. Meditation, disciplined practice of an art, Yogic exercise, Tai Chi, the list goes on and on… but all are methods of stilling the mind. Through disciplined practice of a methodology, one can ‘learn’ to transcend duality. Then one forgets about the method and simply practices. And here is the hard part. One forgets what has been forgotten.