My first reaction is to say that we need to be wary of our intuition. While it may give us a good moral compass, it is also loaded with a lot of junk.
For example, recently the Bush Admin’s bioethicist said that we should listen to our guts and when we get an ‘ick’ feeling we should stop and consider the matter, because if we intuitively know it is bad, it is probably bad. The obvious counter to this is racial integration. If you were to ask my Grandmother about sitting next to a black person, she would definate say that it makes her feel squemish. I’d wager that most whites felt this way during racial integration and, frankly, there are a lot of people that still feel that way.
I think a reasonable person realizes that this is not right. That the ‘ick’ feeling in this case is, quite simply, off. So, it becomes a balancing act. Our gut does lay down a pretty good basic morality (you can choose the Yangming or the Bible quote above, or both – whatever suits your fancy) but it does need to be checked. We need to apply rationality to our gut reactions and make sure that these feelings are, indeed, correct.
That is where breaking things down into catagories comes into play. By having catagories, as well as ethical standards we try and measure ourselves by, we make sure that our feelings are correct and, indeed, we can train them to be more correct.
Nope, no stone throwing here. Take your way as you wish lady.
On your notes about females in China, it is prudent to remember two things:
To the victor belong the spoils of war, which includes writing the history.
What men often announce loudly in public, is antithetical to the fears they whisper in darkness.
Many women in China have been known for ferocity in love and combat, the female monk, Vtin Tsun, comes to mind certainly. Some Chinese women may have been property, or otherwise belittled, but this is often the case when we fear what we cannot understand. In China, the likely method of espionage or assassination, many times, was at the hands of a female, especially within the Palace or Governor’s mansion.
“As a martial warrior, I have only two fears, and the lesser of these is the wrath of heaven.”
Tent, often humans are a product of their culture, but not always. Many reject their culture, some drop out, Hippies per se, some develop divergent life paths from what many consider the nor; I am guessing you and Magnet Man, and Mastriani appear to be the few who have really broken the enculturation that shrouds our mindset. The rest appear to be sheeple jumping upon the “rebellious” bandwagon that others have developed. Sorry folks, but I am including myself in this category.
Kris and Bessy, I do enjoy your insights. Kris, are we really born a blank slate. Do we not all have some genetic dispostions, and abilities or lack thereof we are all born with. For example, my brother and mother had/have musical ability and genuine creative talent in many of the arts. Could whistle a tune, listen to a song and play it, etc. Me and my father are tone deaf. I cannot play unless I have music in front of me. Dad and I easily attract critters, as does my other half. I believe we have “sucker” on our scent or something. Not mom and my bro. I have know many young people. Some have genuine goodness, and some, IMO are quite evil, who come from similar homes, with similar tales to tell regarding mother and father. One asshole was caught torturing a raven with a broken wing (I saved it, and have save several others) I called his mom, she was shocked as she and hubby often rescued critters.
Now to Tao, intuitiveness and anarchy. Humans will eventually be able to connect with each other, life the universe if we allow ourselves to step outside of ourselves and into life. Accept that we cannot control and categorize life, which is true. Can we categorize each person (I know I am guilty as charged), each person’s life perceptions. Do any of us fit any of the labels. Not really, because we cannot be the other person, we cannot feel what the other person feels. But, what I am understanding from Tao, that we can if we develop a “sixth” sense, an intuitive understanding of the world around us. Hum, I really believe this is possible, as I have met and read some other individuals’ writings who appeared to have this ability. Ever met a person who sensed you, appeared to understand you without you ever saying a word? I sure have.
Xunzian, but isn’t intuition what Tao is mainly about? I am really asking as I do not really know. Tent, jump in any time.
LMFAO Mast, women have been known to be the most rutherless murderers around. Wait until hubby is asleep, tie him up, beat him with a baseball bat, then pour gas on him and it is crispy critter time. Then there is Lorena (sp) Bobbit, Lizzie Borden. Try reading Women Who Kill for some real shockers.
Sweetness and light, oh hell, women have never really been sweetness and light. We can be just as virtuous or viscious as any man.
Am I totally off regarding Tao? Feel free to correct my errors all.
Time to hope back in the pool and my better half just returned from work.
Nor am I a member of the Confucian School of the Mind, though I do have certain sympathies for them. At least they aren’t dualists like the Daoxue . . .
Can’t really correct “errors” aspacia, unless they are so blatantly outside the context of the discernment. Many schools of thought in Tao"ism".
Perfect example, a friend that I still keep contact with from China, Xin Meng, has long been a “student” of a sect of Tao"ism" that relies almost entirely on internal purification by sexual practice. (some of it is real hochus pochus by my standards … active energy vampirism, pineal gland stimulation through potent, possibly dangerous aphrodisiacs, exercises for tightening the anus and vagina, and it only gets worse so I’ll stop)
He and I often speak of the teachings on Tao, but never on the methods, where we know we don’t agree. He may have a method that works, I’ll never know. The teachings that I learnt, came from a different tradition of methodologies and practices.
We both feel we have adequate grasp of the teachings for our time in studying, but we both know neither of us is sageworthy.
Your perspectives may be true, but there is only one of us who will ever understand that with certainty.
But what individual human is really “sage” enough to decide? How many of us have a strong intuitive connectiveness with nature. I know that I do not, except critters seem to love me and my other half.
However, humans, well I simply find most humans to be good, but do have alarms go immediately off when I meet some, especially those immediately tell me what wonderful Christians they are, or those who brag regarding how special they are.
My ALERT, ALERT, WARNING, WARNING IMMEDIATELY GO OFF.
Off again, my other half just returned from helping his folks.
UH huh. But if you look it actually is the only part that says/reads chapter 3 the rest is numbered only ( [size=59]make me get up and fetch the book when he knows perfectly well… mutttterereere muttererere [/size]) it is the part ,… wait let me quote my self dear one,:::: Your words on the chapter and what its meanings have been translated to might be of interest. How about chapter 3 for start. How do you resolve the two in your head?
[size=59]Speak redhead ,my asspiration give me guff i ought to… gads, he is lucky i love him[/size]
wow! i kind of jumped here and there on this post trying to get it in, sorry Aspacia, if I confuse you. I think I got the answers lined up with the questions. If not catch me on it it and bawl me out tomorrow or when ever. Pax
Thankyou so much for your kind words and believe me I return the compliment with wholeheart.
I am not putting categories in . They have already inserted themselves, I can not call a petunia a rose, if I did, you would not understand what I speak of. To deny categories is to confuse a lot of converstaons that are already confusing. Also to deny the historical importance of society’s outlooks, actions and thoughts in a contributing factor of philosophy and theology and politics of that time frame, is to remove a part of each that is important to comprehending it.
Aspacia quote:
I suppose labels won’t be needed when we speek without words eventually. But, to not catagorize to some extent is pretty much like saying:Blah, Blah blah blahh blahh blaah. It would make language even more difficult then it is. To catogorize with an ego is the wrong thing to do. Catagorizing with out ill intent and only intending to communicate the subject, intent, action is not wrong, it is a part of being. Gads are we supposed to all say flower when we mean a rose variety? are we supposed to say man when we mean boy? etc… Catagorizing is only wrong when the intent is wrong.
blank slate? yes, the part of us that is not hardwired is blank. Crap, Ok I just had to take a few minutes off but it gave me an idea how to explain;
We have a feline kid she is a very personable kid with a distinct personality that is loving, caring,protective and mischievious. She has a hardwiring problem though. When she injests pure protein ,such as feline meat products , eggs , milk, any kind of meat raw or cooked, she turns feral within a 24 hr. period, it lasts for an hour or two days max. This is not my Bay St. Luis at this time, it is her body that is taking over, her hardwiring that is allergic to protein. She is five yrs old and is doomed to being a house cat for her own protection. She must have had some protein with in the past 24 hrs because she just tried to kill her great grandchild that she is normally very lovingly attached to. 3 of her 20 descendents have a similar problem to a (thank any gods above) lesser extent. The rest harbor no such traits, all are very loving. One of each generation has this hardwiring problem.
It is the car analogy that I posted earlier. This body of ours must have some inbred genetic traits and instincts, the wiring, but, that is our body. The hardwiring attaches to our self and helps us to develop into ourselves. Or we can completely ignore the hardwired part or change it. Keeping bay from protein ignores that hardwired part that makes her feral and makes her remove her self to a corner of the body.
We as the independent part of us learns and is bequethed with all that this vehicle offers during its life span. We learn and adjust from and to it. Our self is blank as we awaken into this body of ours. It isn’t duality anymore than driving your car is duality.
Aspacia quotes:
whoops, missed this part of your posting sorry but, thank goodness for editing LOL.
Ah hah bonding! and sensing! Now watch a few of the folks groan around here Aspacia, LOL. Actually I am taking a break from that bit of learning but, if you are interested, and here comes the groans, go to: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=149362
On the matter of bonds. I look forward to your input. The answer for me is yes to your last question there.
For Tent he has sensed , well one is sure he has sensed something or someone maybe? kind of but, the potato,dust really clogs his senses maybe sort of? while swamp mold clears mine LOL
I personally would then recommend that that someone go out into the garden, into nature and observe. Nature follows the principle called Tao. Once observed then it matters not what particular books to read, Taoist scripture or indeed other scriptures would support one’s own experience. Scriptures are simply proof of what is already experienced in the heart, they are not meant for intellectual understanding.
As you can imagine, one can have great intellectual understanding but without its practical application all of it is meaningless.
Jing (essence), qi (breath-energy), and shen (spirit) are the San Ti (Three Treasures). They are all one energy in different stages of refinement, jing being the least refined and shen being the most refined.
Meditative practices are not necessary for the philosophic consideration of Dao-jia (philosophic Daoism). Dao-jiao (religious Daoism), which incorporates the alchemy and traditional medicinal principles, often requires some sort of qigong (“breath work”) to attain the desired effects. I, personally, agree more with Wang Xiang Zhai in most respects, abandoning a bunch of this superstition in favor of postural mechanics, mental relaxation, alertness exercises, and deeper diaphragmatic (dan tian) breathing.
Another comment about attempting to group Daoism into all of these separate authors… Daoism is a philosophy with few areas of agreement (e.g. wu wei or zi ran and the mysteriousness of Dao’s origin and action) because, historically, Daoism as we might regard it now is a bunch of different philosophies all claiming to profess an understanding of Dao in one way or another.
That is to say that there is no direct lineage. Zhuang Zi lived hundreds of years after Lao Zi. Lie Zi was a contemporary of Zhuang Zi who used similar parables, but often arrived at different ideas. This is free from mention of Daoism’s inclusion of Yangism and Yin-yang-jia, two separate schools entirely that the Daoists more or less adopted to suit many conveyances of Dao through the Han Dynasty. Mastriani hinted at this, but even popular Daoist philosophers are worth considering.
Really, “Daoism” as a term is just an idea that contested against “Formalism,” so to speak, those proposed in Moism, Legalism, and Confucianism. Metaphysically and ethically, this can help get things on track from a Western perspective, since it indicates a difference in ethics between consequentialism and deontology. Cosmologically, though, China was fairly intact with agreement. The most glaring issues were those of methods of philosophy (metaphilosophy) and ethics.
Yes, I would be happy to give you my understanding of chapter three in the introduction. But at the risk of being seen as obtuse, which two would you like me to resolve? (in my head) My profound apologies for asking a second time, but I only took a 101 survey class in mindreading, and that was eons ago.
[size=59]JHC! Like dancing with a porcupine! Redheaded women = excedrin+[/size]
Good posts, philosophemer. Was the above comment directed at me and my reading list? It wasn’t so much a list that was about Daoism (as it represented Confucian, Mohist, and legalist philosophers as well) so much as it was to give an overview of the concept of Dao within the Hundred Schools period.
The Dao was a major concept at that time, and I think the differences between those philosophies are as instructive as the similarities. As for their chronologies . . . aside from the Hanfezi, we don’t even really know who wrote those texts! Now, I think that it is foolish to say that the Mencius doesn’t contain passages that are a clear rebuttal of Mohism, while the Zhuangzi rebuffs both aspects of the Mencius and the Mozi. And Xunzi, yeah, he clearly ripped off Zhuangzi’s metaphysics. But that doesn’t mean that different passages weren’t written outside of this rough chronology to out-and-out inserted afterwards!
For example, the Analects shows clear contamination by wuxing thought and given how hard the Xunzi rips on wuxing it is probable that many of these passages were either added or emphasized after the Han synthesis.
While it would be foolish to deny that Confucius had a less that progressive view on women, it is worth investigating *why* he had this view.
First, Confucius was a bastard child whose father died a few years after he was born. So, you've got an absent father coupled with no real recognition from his father's family. It is not unreasonable to guess that he blamed his mother for his family's poverty and, like many children with absent fathers, created quite the hero-image around his father. The histories say that his father was a General . . . but given the influence that Confucius had on future chroniclers, it's not unreasonable to suggest that perhaps that story is based around things Confucius himself said.
Couple this with the fact that he had eight sisters! Well, OK, maybe not eight (it is an auspicious number, after all), but a lot. Nietzsche grew up similarly surrounded by women, and look at his position on the matter!
It is worth noting that future Confucian scholars were more silent on the issue of women. Now, given the conservative nature of the Confucian philosopher, it would be too much to say that they rejected his misogynist views, but they are certainly not re-affirmed in the texts.
Unfortunately, they are most certainly re-affirmed in the culture. However, I do have to ask how much worse off women were in Chinese culture as opposed to European or Middle Eastern cultures. Foot binding didn't start until either the early Sung or late Tang, so it would be extreme to blame Confucian philosophy for this practice.
To blame Confucianism, soley, for these practices would be as absurd as blaming Christianity for the clitoridectomies performed in England to cure female masterbation during the Victorian period or the earlier chastity belts (which were uncomfortable indeed!). While it would be wrong to say that these factors didn't play an important role in these atrocities, it would be equally wrong to full place the blame for these actions at the feet of the philosophies. While their conservatism did nothing to stop these cultural practices, they were not the cause.
I think I understand the great body of what’s been said (which must mean I’ve learned Buddhist thinking earlier without knowing it, or that I don’t really understand), but I have a question about opposites. The word itself, aside from being a word with all of its ineffectualities, implies a perspective, a definition, and ultimately a semantic relationship; “opposite” isn’t a word that we use to talk about reality directly, but rather a word we use to talk about other words’ relationships to reality.
For example, when we say up is the opposite of down, we’re talking about our perception of the words, not the actual directions; up and down only oppose one another given a certain perspective of them, that is, our perspective. Further, even within our own perspective, “opposite” can apply differently; one could say that “no direction” is the opposite of “up” simply by thinking about it differently.
So, my question is: When you’re talking about everything being opposites, and things existing in pairs, are you talking about the way we must understand reality, or the way things objectively are? The latter seems to be contradictory to me.
Yes, we often enjoy our rather jungle like yard. Sure we have a pool. along with ferns, Lilies of the Nile, a huge lemon, umbrella and two honeysuckel trees, along with a monster Boston Fern, etc. Plants galore, and chock full of lizards, humming birds, finches, fly catchers, a pair of hawks overhead, etc. We often sit on the patio or in the pool and watch the birds battle over one lousy blossom when there are a few thousand others to choose from. The lizards playing grab ass. The often jump from their home, rush over to us, about 3 feet then rush back, similar to a child on a dare. It is quite entertaining. Sometimes a whole tree or bush will shake with bird battles, or bird songs. The Japanese beetles fly about, along Dragon Flys, then there are the Preying Mantis that will actually jump off a bush and onto my hand or arm when I am watering.
There is a animal park in Oak Glen. We often picnic there, and periodically the peacocks and hens escape. Totally tame critters that come over for food. They love the shepherd’s bred, and will actually walk over and start pecking at the loaf, or a chunk of bread in our hands, if we do not give them as much as they want.
Granted, the above is not totally “nature” but it is fun, and I think I am beginning to understand regarding life force, the connection between us and all around us.
However, I do not trust my fellow humans enough to accept the anarchy part in their regards, at least as I am understanding it we accept this and do not try and control it. I can accept the anarchy part of the universe and nature. Try understanding quantum mechanics, and how physics. Ouch, my head hurts. It is sublime, both beautiful and dangerous.
Very insightful posts. First, my connecting the words spirit and qi was from a western pov. I could be (probably) wrong, but the typical western explanation of spirit seemed to match qi, or at least as close as I understand the use of both words.
Agreed that meditative practices have nothing to do with Tao De Jing, but are commonly sought in attempts to still the mind, or in some of the most common practices such as Tai Chi.
The depth of your reading and understanding of the language far surpasses anything I have managed to acrue. Watch me, and by all means, correct my statements when I bumble.
Yes, the historical back goround of Tao De Jing is obscure. The gatekeeper story is romantic, but questionable. It seems more plausible to assume that what is Taoism is the collected wisdom and concepts from even earlier times than the first appearance of what is considered Tao De Jing text.
I like the contrasting of Daoist thought and formalism. Many chapters of Tao De Jing are almost pure polemical warning or rejection of formalism and is probably a distinction worth exploring in the cultural east-west differences.
I didn’t mean to imply otherwise; I’m asking whether the opposite nature of things is deemed reality–is objective–by Taoist thought or it is deemed a fundamental part of how we interpret reality.
