• The Stoics believed that living ethically was living in accordance with Nature. Sometimes they used the word Logos, which means “reason”. More specifically, they meant the reason by which the natural universe operates. They viewed this as a divine rationality that pervaded the way the entire universe worked, how its parts interacted, and so on.
• In the east, the Taoists use the concept of “Li” which means “organic pattern”. Here they refer to those complex structures in nature which one can’t easily describe, but you know it when you see it. A seashell, a cloud formation, a galaxy, an organism. Understanding Li was part of enlightenment.
• In modern times we have a new field of science called complexity. It studies “complex systems”, which are systems that lie on the edge of order and chaos. These include stock markets, economies, ecologies, living organisms, flocks of birds, galaxies. In essence, Complex Systems theory studies Li and Logos.
• Lastly, I have been reading, thinking, and writing, on the various secular reasons for living ethically for some time. Many of these reasons deal with how and why the various factors of our lives in the society we live in lead us to a fruitful and happy life when we live ethically. It occurred to me just today that, actually, each of our lives themselves are a “complex system” of interacting events. Our behavior plays a roll in the overall flow of those events, and that means that the Stoics and the Taoists were exactly right.
Living ethically is living in accordance with “Nature/Logos/Li/Complexity”.
I think your conclusion is contained in your argument as a premise. You have an intuition that these four things are connected, and I would probably agree with you, but “living ethically” seems to be circularly defined and defined in a way that is probably not familiar to most people. Moreover your statement of the problem is so fuzzy I wouldn’t know where to begin discussing it.
What is it that you are actually asking? Does one achieve X or Y or Z more effectively through an awareness of n/l/l/c?
Do we need to go back to a more fundamental question, first: are these four observations related and what is the nature of their relationship?
“Living ethically is living in accordance with “Nature/Logos/Li/Complexity”.”
I think you have found a place of consonance between Taoism and Stoicism that always made sense to me. You have defined in fact the nature of Spinoza’s Ethics (as he was heavily influenced by the Stoics). The difference though between Taoism and Stoicism/Spinoza is the manner in which you come to understand “Nature”. Conceptual rationality plays a much heavier role in the Western version of this thinking. But in looking into Spinoza’s theory of knowledge lately, there does seem to be room for the thought that the thing which distinguishes an adequate understanding from an inadequate one is the definition of the Self as having an exterior and an interior, so perhaps they are closer than one would instinctive imagine.
Bill, Thanks for you response, but it’s not meant to be a formal argument. I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything - it’s just some vague thoughts I’m interested on getting initial impressions on
Yes, I’m not sure that there is a corresponding thought to Taoism’s “p’u” (the “uncarved block”), in Stoicism, (although I may be wrong). Yet as I say Spinoza may have some basis in such a thing in his characterizations of the One Substance and the parallelism between thought and extension “under the form of eternity”, under which all ideas are true.
I seem to recall that Tao is not only the inter-relation between things, but also the things themselves. Whereas, I’m not sure that’s the case with Logos. Still, I think they’re all hitting on the same thing, and the language just overlaps and covers different areas of that thing.
As for the uncarved block, it seems to me that when Logos is described in western philosophy, it is more descriptive, and the prescriptives follow later. While, in the Taoist form, the uncarved block seems to me to suggest that they’re getting into the prescriptives (i.e., how you should therefore behave, or not-behave in this case, because of this model) right from the start. That’s kind of hard to decribe in a paragraph but I hope you get my meaning.
I seem to recall that Tao is not only the inter-relation between things, but also the things themselves. Whereas, I’m not sure that’s the case with Logos.
For this reason I think a turn to Plotinus is instructive. In Plotinus the One manifests through all things, perhaps the Tao-te ching’s “myriad of thingsâ€. The pivotal role of the Nous (mind) is that which has divided everything, but also now works to unite them. Neo-Platonism’s understanding the Logos as an interpenetration seems a good adjunct to Stoicism, and I suspect some influence upon Spinoza.
Still, I think they’re all hitting on the same thing, and the language just overlaps and covers different areas of that thing.
As for the uncarved block, it seems to me that when Logos is described in western philosophy, it is more descriptive, and the prescriptives follow later. While, in the Taoist form, the uncarved block seems to me to suggest that they’re getting into the prescriptives
I don’t get the sense of prescriptives in Taoist p’u, but rather a naturalism that is inherent within form, which the conceptual mind breaks from. This is not to say that you are wrong with this description. I just don’t see it.
(i.e., how you should therefore behave, or not-behave in this case, because of this model) right from the start
I feel that there is a kind of gentle but non-negotiable determinism in Taoism. There is no reason to do “x†or “y†other than the consequences of not understanding the manner in which things flow. “Shoulds†seem to be enforced other by the “nature of things†(the Tao) and nothing more.
Yes, I think it’s a very gentle “should”. Although much of eastern philosophy doesn’t get heavy handed with “thou shalts”, the very fact that they are passing along these “words of wisdom” would suggest a message of “you should listen to this, and modify your behavior accordingly if you want a better life” is implied but not stated - so, that’s all I meant.
For the uncarved block, it could be said that we shouldn’t try to force things into being according to some prescribed ideal or template, but rather allow them to come into being naturally and following from the events as they should. But I suppose this would me more of an implied “should not”.
Meanwhile, when Logos is described, it seems to me later that they get into how Logos therefore leads to the conclusion that we should live the good life. It’s all very segmented it seems to me, and I’m liking the way eastern philosophy integrates thought and action, concept and conclusion, more closely. I’m still in the process of wrapping my mind around the psychology of it though.
It would appear then that the only difference between the Logos and the Tao is in the language that describes them. That the essence of this principal cannot be expressed in words, that words only serve to complicate the inherent understanding - there must be a wordless language that the mind without the Tao in us cannot grasp. I think this is why Lao Tsu said;
“The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.”
We can allude to its meaning but we cannot express it adequately in our language and as the above verse says, when we try to express it in language we begin to complicate its simplicity.
I think that is the case. However, I also think that both Li and Logos are very old conceptions of the phenomena, and we would be ill advised to romanticize those conceptions to the point that we don’t recognize that our ability to describe things and learn things grows throughout history.
The science of chaos and complexity, I believe, is making good headway in describing the workings of Logos. This doesn’t mean that what Lao Tsu said isn’t true. We will always have a degree of crudity between the thing and the thing decribed, even if described with mathematic precision.
But through this new field, we are beginning to enjoy new insights which enable us to understand complex systems and empower us to take new courses of action to take advantage of that knowledge.
While the science of complexity may not have the poetic appeal of Li or Logos philosophic statements, it is far more specific and functional. The scientific study of the orderly and formative principles of the universe therefore has its place as well.
So I believe we should have an open-minded and flexible approach to the study of Li/Logos/complexity. Each method of exploration, be it philosophic, mathematical, empirical, or poetic, has its own benefits, uses, and form of beauty and wonder.
Some might suggest that the uncarved block is less about the block of wood and more about the danger of mind imposing itself (a carved block), and introducing a tiny piece of chaos. If we allow enough mind/carved blocks to occur, the Way is lost. The uncarved block is a subtle warning light.
This isn’t to say that wood may not be used to carve a spoon or construct a castle gate. It isn’t the what of the ‘ten thousand things’, it is the how of mind that must be considered. The utter simplicity of this understanding is difficult to hold. The mind want’s and demand’s complexity, and we all too often let it have its’ way.
Perhaps, but it was not an idle question. What do you mean by “living ethically”? There is one school of thought – and I’m thinking principally of Nietzsche here – that suggests that the whole issue is moot; that if you achieve organic unity in yourself, “right action” will flow naturally out of that unity – but it might not be anyone else’s idea of right action. The action is what is appropriate to the nature and structure of the entity in question . . . but nature and structure of the entity are not ethical factors in most other systems of thought – and particularly not in any system which owes any considerable heritage to Kant.
Action that flows out of organic unity is action that, in Aristotle’s formulation, is done by an entity and according to its nature – but it’s a very open question as to whether that could be considered “ethical” thereby.
I’m personally more interested in the Complexity theory end of this particular set of observations; the material I just talked about has a heavy impact in this kind of consideration: acting according to the nature and structure of the complex interacting system which the complex interacting system that is you is involved in means that it will be a part of the system, obeying the same “laws” as the system – but does that mean the behavior corresponds with anything we would regard as “ethical”? All I can say definitely is that it will be consistent with the nature of the entities and the system.
Consequently, the primary term “living ethically” cannot be evaluated until you define some content for the expression.
But what is natural for our species as we are? Put your question into the context of a traffic jam during rush hour. What would be the ethical way to proceed? Everyone would take their turn. No one would be cutting in. Everyone would be courteous and concerned that the neighboring car is treated equally etc.
Now the traffic jam would become a bed of roses where people would be smiling and exchanging pleasantries with each other.
Why won’t it happen? Because we are as we are. We may know the advantage of cooperation but we don’t understand it so consequently we just continue acting in accordance with what we are naturally.
Ethics is a nice ideal and some individuals are more ethical than others but collectively, the complexities of society will continue to reflect what we are, our nature, and ethics will remain only an ideal.
Very fascinating stuff Bill!
Nietzche’s thoughts on this seem very similar to the thought of “moral character” as opposed to “virtue-rules”. Here is a concept I had recently regarding this…
In Confucianism, from what I’ve read at least, a person is encouraged to actively cultivate character according to principles. This is an emphasis on the active (Yang) portion of the balance. However, in Taoism, a person is encouraged to unconsciously (effortlessly) allow character to grow and flow naturally. This is an emphasis on the passive (Yin).
But it seems to me that these two approaches need not be at odds, but rather are two different stages of moral development.
What should happen, it seems to me, is that Confucian “active/virtues/principles” eventually can flourish into the Taoist “passive/character based/effortless” behavior. But both are essential in their proper times and stages of development. In a Christian context, this evolution is the “law” moving from “stone tablet” (old testament) to the “human heart” (new testament), and is what Paul describes as the “holy spirit” entering one and transforming character so that obedience to rules is supplanted by character transformation. Although Paul meant a literal holy spirit, I believe he was witnessing a transormation of the character which practitioners of ethical teaching may undergo, in which they no longer have to base their actions on “commandments” because their character has developed such that ethical action is effortless and unconscious.
So, it seems to me that Nietzche is speaking of a portion of this whole concept as well.
I think it will be, but that is a lengthy debate
I too am interested in this. It seems to me that this may indeed be ethical, at least according to what I would say was a rational definition. But certainly, the combination of all of these historic, philosophic, and scientific concepts is exciting and has much potential.
However, these things are not quite so boolean. Your analogy of the traffic jam is a good one, and it is true that we face difficulties in life because we don’t “understand it so consequently” that we are better off being ethical. But then, that is the very purpose of ethical philosophy and teaching - to help us understand that. And, while absolute perfect ethical behavior and understanding is but an ideal, we can get closer to that ideal with applied effort, and to varying degrees. So, the more we understand and try to apply ethical teaching in our lives, the more satisfactory those lives will be, both individually and collectively.
In other words, the traffic jam will be less severe if there is at least SOME presence of consideration and obedience to traffic laws. Perfection is not required to make the endeavor meaningful and important.
Complexity theory studies the self-organizing properties of interacting systems. In terms of complexity theory, a traffic jam would be a chaotic inclusion in a non-chaotic system – a very typical effect of an area in which a positive feedback mechanism was at work in the middle of a negative feedback system – the operation of the traffic laws [positive feedback] created an “edge” with the negative feedback system of traffic flow, at which the random variations could produce a positive feedback loop – i.e., a traffic jam.
In the nature of things, individual behavior is not generally effective, because the options for behavior are limited by the positive feedback mechanism at work. The “solution” is to redesign the system to remove the positive feedback mechanism – which might be the traffic laws [laws are almost always positive feedback mechanisms] or the physical composition of the site – or the conventions of driving – some of which are more amenable to adjustment than are others. For example, when the gridlock problem in cities other than New York began to become a matter of notice, a strong campaign was mounted to change driving conventions, enforced by individuals passing the meme to each other and reinforcing it with anger and social displeasure – “don’t block the box.” Gradually the cities took up the campaign as a public safety measure, and then gradually, “don’t block the box” got written into municipal ordinances widely, and the problem did not disappear, but it reduced to what was regarded as “bearable” frequency.
But – it’s not particularly a matter of courtesy and control, so much as it is of the design of the system as a whole. Gridlocks break up because of the same edge effects that caused them – gridlock is defined as a situation in which nobody can move, but in actual fact, they just cannot do normal “traffic flow” type of movement; other movements are possible and people who have the ability to make some kind of movement do so until one is able to escape the jam, making more room for others to move – widening the edge of the phase space in which transitions take place from chaotic to complex systems and back again.
Perhaps in the immediate, but in the larger picture not so. Individual action such as championing a moral cause, helping to teach it, and practicing it yourself, would be analogous here to a person working to get new traffic laws passed, working to get some improvements in construction, and doing their part to follow the laws in place. In short, all of the things you mentioned as being a solution, can be worked for by individuals, and individuals convincing other individuals to affect the system.
In this example, it took individuals to get things going, and then later individuals had to conduct themselves accordingly. Here, as in ethics, understanding how the “system” works is key to maximizing the effect one individual can have on that system, and also key to getting as much benefit from the system of interaction as possible (i.e. “the good life”).
Also in your example, perfection was not reached, but improvements were made. This too makes it a good analogy.
By the way, something else I meant to mention…
More than mere analogy, there have been some fascinating computer evolutionary models created in the field of complexity, that attempt to understand how and why different behavioral instincts and social ethical norms form. What this research seems to be pointing to, is the benefits that ethical behavior confers on the whole and the individual. Those individuals that are ethical themselves, and enforce ethical behavior in others, survive better in the systems. This would seem to support my belief that “virtue and wisdom are synonimous”.
I wish I had some references on this, but it’s from a number of sources I’ve read over the past year. I’ll see if I can come up with some.
I’m a little dubious about this idea. Nietzsche’s basic idea was that we should not try to develop “moral” character or behavior – that morality is just the codification of social rules that characterize the society of a particular time and place – and when the next agon comes about, morality will change to a ccommodate the new, transvalued, social values. Your formulation would only work if you reformulate the idea of morality entirely to something like: any behavior whatsoever that flows out of an organic unity is ipso facto ethical. That would be consistent with Nietzschean ideas, even though Nietzsche himself would probably say that renders the concept of morality superfluous.
Ayn Rand created an interesting nuance on Nietzsche that comes a bit closer to your notion here, but approaches it from the opposite direction: you should use the widest possible view of the entire context of your life in deciding what is in your best interests; your best interests are never served by taking immediate profit at the expense of your long-term benefit, when the taking of an immediate profit undercuts the terms of your long-term interests. This notion satisfies the question of universality: If every person acts to preserve his widest-context-best-interest, the social order will be preserved and moved toward maximum efficiency in satisfying the purposes of the social order. Therefore, the development of the habit of thought that builds a “moral character” is the underlying task of the philosophical discipline of ethics. Rand was one of the most “logos” oriented of all the modern philosophers – not even accepting Kantians.
Drawing further glosses on Rand, many of the behaviors we pretty universally recognize as ethical are those which preserve the context of the long-term benefit of the participants in the society. Why should one not generally lie? is answered not because of any categorical imperative or any argument from authority, or even, strictly speaking, from natural law – but for the pragmatic reason that we are at our best in society and universal truth-telling is a fundamental principal of social organization. and not-truth-telling is a chip in the foundation. There are circumstances in which not-truth-telling is the best pragmatic way of behaving, but it is a situational evaluation of an infinitely variable condition one encounters when one has to make a particular decision – that is, sometimes a moral inversion is the best way of preserving the total context. Moral inversions are not exceptions to a categorical imperative – they are the working out of the ethical principles. A very elegant way of handling a thorny problem.
I’m not entirely sure that the active/passive gets us any forarder – in fact, it maybe what Derrida calls a “violent hierarchy” – and in fact, that’s not what “yin” and “yang” really mean. Yin and Yang are complementary aspects of the same phenomenon, so the very idea that Yin should be contrasted to Yang has to be taken with a serious grain of salt; they cannot occur except in complement to each other. As you say, “But both are essential in their proper times and stages of development.” At best it is possible to treat the Taoist as a Yin dialectical complement to Confucian over-emphasis on Yang.
