Daoist Reversion Theories“¹—Ç’m

[jun_erh]

just some taoist book reviews and stuff

from a guy on amazon

[Ka]

Originally posted by TaiChiBob

Hmmm.. how much time do you spend in nature, i mean really..

Lots,are you people for real?
Is this like a ****ing contest where I have to say the time spent
in nature to gain crediability?
You may see nature(whatever that is ) as peacefull,but I don't feel it is anything resembling that.

Originally posted by TaiChiBob

i am a professional land surveyor with 35 years of experience in the field.. i have surveyed in some of the most wild and remote places in this country and several foreign countries.. and i marvel at the magnificent symphony of nature's harmony.. what you have done is projected your values on nature

Sort of like what you your're doing right,oh hang on the difference is you're the holder of truth.

Originally posted by TaiChiBob

and failed to experience it without prejudice

So your without prejudice and bias and have no social conditioning that influences your life and social relations?

Originally posted by TaiChiBob

.. it's like calling Florida's hurricanes "bad" (the storms, not the college football team.. that's another story..) a hurricane isn't "bad" it's just a natural event.. inevitable.. beautiful in its display of power and humbling in its reminder of our place in this world..

I didn't refer to the word "bad",its you gents that wish to distinguish good vs bad.Howwever calling a storm beautifull after veiwing it on TV is different from being stuck in one.

Originally posted by TaiChiBob

" Nature is anything but conhesive".. it has supported life on this planet for millions of years, evolved into an intricate network of symbiotic relationships, and you claim it's not cohesive.. Absolutely, Taoists look to nature as a model.. and wise of them to do so.. the last quoted statement is evidence of a lack of awareness regarding the "way" of nature.. it really doesn't add validity to your perspective of Taoism..

Ofcause my lack of awarness,I am constantly amazed at how people demonize others.You see "nature"(of which we are apart) as "good" as a role model(as in better then other,a judgement) I see it as chaotic,nonharmonious,lacking in conhension,this does not refer to good or bad.
So.. surporting life = conhesion

[Ka]

Originally posted by SPJ

De/Te, virtue. There are 3,041 characters. according to texts uncovered in Ma Wang Tui.

Dao/Tao, way. There are 2,426 characters.

Yeh,umm,why have you written this?

Originally posted by SPJ

I am not claiming to be a professor in history. However, I study Chinese literatures since the age of 6.

Wow, you should really consider why you felt the need to post this.Study at 6 huh,let me guess indepth analysis of Ah Q.

[Ka]

Originally posted by mantis108
Wuwei and ziran is not necessarily a mere individual enterprise. The whole idea of Wuwei and Ziran is that it has to come from the grassroot level IMHO; hence; the note in DDJ that the people all claims Ziran. The country is governed "Ziran er ran" - naturally. In otherwords, everyone has a responsibility right down to the weakest link of the society however the society is structured (ie class, caste, republic, socialistic, etc...) It is the coming together not by ****genization nor through amssimilation but by communication and recognition (spontaneously as Ka would put it). In other words, it is not about cause and effect.

Agreed that individual responsibility plays a important role,but how to make individuals embrace social responsibilty?Promoting spontansous action seems to clash with social or moral obilgations.I think we woudl all agree on certain moral and social responses that are considered universal and perhaps needed.

Originally posted by mantis108
Anyway, in this respect Daoist idea is not that far from Confucian. It all starts with individual responsibility. The language might differ seemingly drastic but in essence they are on the same path.

I also see Daoist and Kungzi's thought as being very simular,maybe with differing methods.Although I find that Confucian doctrine clearly marked out procedure for implenmentation into social policy.

[SPJ]

To know;

Even a new born infant knows to cry when in hunger or in need (of changing), to smile or giggle when stimulated.

How more nature can you be?

Yes; at age of 6, you are expected to learn some Chinese characters.

Literatures are words, descriptions or expressions.

If the Dao can be said, it is not Dao.

The Dao may not need words.

Ah Q has nothing to do with knowing the nature or the nature to know.

Or I should say Chinese reading comprehensions or writing for that matter.

How high Ah Q do you need to know you are hungry, you are cold, you feel right or wrong?

Ah Q may be required to learn to say words to describe how right, how wrong or how hungry you are.

All the social or ideology conditioning occur how early in life?

[SPJ]

The needs of a society;

The needs of a individual;

The needs of a ruler;

The needs of the universe;

The needs of a defined ideology;

The needs of a "nation';

The needs of a family;

How much schooling or Ah Q do you need to explain?

[SPJ]

Even a DNA or RNA virus;

Even a single cell bacterium;

They all know to get close to benefit and avoid detriments.

How high Ah Q does a virus or a bacterium possess?

Do they read Chinese?

Do they know DDJ?

Do they know Dao? May be not De?

[SPJ]

My point is that people know what they need to know.

Any ruler should be on the same side of the people and lead.

Do not enforce your own agenda over those of the people.

That is how you may go back to the nature of the people.

[Ka]

Originally posted by SPJ
Ah Q has nothing to do with knowing the nature or the nature to know.

Or I should say Chinese reading comprehensions or writing for that matter.

How high Ah Q do you need to know you are hungry, you are cold, you feel right or wrong?

Ah Q may be required to learn to say words to describe how right, how wrong or how hungry you are.

SPJ, the reference to Ah Q is not a misspelling of IQ rather a reference to Lu Xun's The True stories of Ah Q. A text that anyone with even a little knowledge of chinese lit would be well aware of.

Originally posted by SPJ
Any ruler should be on the same side of the people and lead.

Do not enforce your own agenda over those of the people

Yes I can see how you believe this to be the core of Daoist policy.As I have repeatively asked I am after a little more then rehashing of common analysis.I would like to hear how you would place this into action.But please don't bother,as I said, I really shouldn't have posted here.

[SPJ]

Sorry. My education in Taiwan and in the States do provide me enough understandings of politics.

However, I promised not to meddle in the current political affairs. Politics seems to be a dirty word. I have to resist the temptation of getting involved constantly.

Here is a good example.

President Bush just appointed a guy as the new chair for the Dept. of Commerce.

He escaped from Cuba in 1960. He started out as a truck driver for Kellog. He then became the executive for Kellog and turned the company around from red ink to profit. He enjoyed a lot of respects from the business community.

This is a good appointment.

On the other hand, if a Harvard scholar is appointed and he never works even as a bus boy. He tries to enforce a lot of agenda based on theories?

[SPJ]

If you elect a lot of people from the circles of people, then the government will be very close to the people.

Dr. Sun Yet Sen said election or appointment is to elect people that has the qualification or capability.

Xuen Xien Yu Nen.

If the policy is based on the needs of the people, it certainly would have the support of the people.

And the leader is following the Dao.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Ka:

Qoute_____________________________________________ __Lots,are you people for real?
Is this like a ****ing contest where I have to say the time spent
in nature to gain crediability?
You may see nature(whatever that is ) as peacefull,but I don't feel it is anything resembling that.
__________________________________________________ _

LOL, no that was a rhetorical question.. and, yes, i do see nature as very peaceful, organized, symbiotic, and as an excellent role model.. but, that is a matter of perspective which we don't share..

Sort of like what you your're doing right,oh hang on the difference is you're the holder of truth.

.. well, yes.. i am the holder of "my" truth, just as you are the holder of "your" truth.. and, our "truths" differ.. what i did not do is come in here asserting that "nature" is chaotic and a poor role-model and not cohesive.. what i did do, with a little sarcasm, is suggest that nature has remarkable lessons for humanity and its social order.. interesting how this theory has survived thousands of years and countless affirmations, could it be that all this experience is in error?

So your without prejudice and bias and have no social conditioning that influences your life and social relations?

Hardly, i am as prone to prejudice and indoctrination as the next person.. but, i have devoted a substantial amount of time and experience to meditative practices that minimize that influence.. and, in that state and from that perspective nature functions far better than human contrivances.. examine the evidence, it's quite obvious..

I didn't refer to the word "bad",its you gents that wish to distinguish good vs bad.Howwever calling a storm beautifull after veiwing it on TV is different from being stuck in one.

Please pay attention to my location, Orlando Florida, we have just experienced 3 serious hurricanes real time.. and, yes, even the destruction has a natural beauty to it.. for your information, i have no solid concept of "good/bad".. i sense that there are only consequences, and our arbitrary labels of "desirability"...

Quote:____________________________________________ ___
Ofcause my lack of awarness,I am constantly amazed at how people demonize others.You see "nature"(of which we are apart) as "good" as a role model(as in better then other,a judgement) I see it as chaotic,nonharmonious,lacking in conhension,this does not refer to good or bad.
So.. surporting life = conhesion
__________________________________________________

No one is demonizing anyone, LOL.. are you feeling persecuted?.. we are having a dialogue.. What i see is that nature does support life quite well, i see that humanity challenges this harmony in so many ways that it may begin to not support life as we know it for much longer.. humanity is the new kid on the evolutionary block, and we are not contributing very well to the neighborhood.. as i said, i don't have a solid concept of "good/bad", and i don't see nature as either.. what i do see is a model of symbiosis, harmony and cohesion.. this model has supported life on this planet for hundreds of millions of years.. Now, humanity arrives with its great plan to control nature, and for the the first time in the planet's history, a single species has the ability to terminate millions of years of natural harmony.. you see it one way i see it another.. go figure..

Be well....

[Ka]

Then perhaps you might consider the label of enviromental relativist.

Going back to the original Q, then anaylsis of Ziran,which I think for you is a direct reference to nature.
And so you see many of the passages within the DDJ embracing nature as a role for government.

I contend that this is a common misinterpretation
Another translation is refering to the true nature of humans(the natural as W Bi often refered to) in the context of debate between Xunzi and Mengzi (Confucians who debated that Human nature was either inherently bad or good)
The natural state of humans.What is this? How do we foster this?
Possibly through non interferrence(non intentioned action/wuwei) form of government.
How to implentment this?
As I said I think the focus here should return to De virtue and its importance within Daoist(and other of the period) writings.
A ruler rules by fostering virtue, virtue of true human nature(reversion to authentic nature),How does one do this?
Do some more later

[SPJ]

Excellent post and Q's.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Then perhaps you might consider the label of enviromental relativist.

Why? Why do i need a label? I seldom let the "label" define the situation.. things are what they are, labels only confine the experience to preconceived notions.

As I said I think the focus here should return to De virtue and its importance within Daoist(and other of the period) writings.

And, here is another problem with "labels".. we do what we do to preserve harmony, insure survival, and foster a sense of security (not necessarily in that order).. we are being "human".. just like when a wolf howls at the moon it is being a wolf.. wolfs work together in packs to insure their survival, humans form groups for largely the same reasons.. we run into problems whenever we seek to confine basic common experiences to cultural ideals, particularly where "labels" are concerned.. the individual perception of the meaning of a label differs from person to person.. the common basic experience is consistent, then it is distorted by the preconceptions of labels.. so, to approach the "natural" label from a Taoist, or Confucian, or Muslim, or Native American "label" alters the naturalness of the experience, it colors the experience with the notions held by the particular beliefs of a label.. so that a Muslim, a Taoist and a Native American have differing perspectives of Natural..

In my own experience and with my own use of language i favor Taoist philosophies.. and one reason was the simplicity of its intended meaning in "labeling".. Tao, the way, simply, the "way" things are.. nature being nature, and not a contrived notion according to structure of human involvement with nature.. Yet, it is precisely the natural inherent cognitive reasoning skills of humans that "naturally" assign labels and categories to the broad range of experiences and perceptions of those experiences.. so, here we are, using inherently natural reasoning skills to debate the meaning and consequences of using "nature" as a model for society, paradoxical, huh?

A ruler rules by fostering virtue, virtue of true human nature(reversion to authentic nature),How does one do this?

Minimally. Growing up i was confused by such nonsense as "etiquette", generally superficial rules for "orderly behavior" of society.. such as which side of the plate to set eating utensils, or what colors go with what other colors, such as wearing a tie for particular situations/events.. all of which are contrived minutia that serves only to complicate the simplicity of living.. of course there are guidelines for social interaction, but they should be excruciatingly minimal.. too much intervention by rules of "preference" will surely set aside the intended result.. The Tao Te Ching says, with simple elegance, "people will find their natural balance without ritualized enforcement and prosper from their own social creativity... where a government of ritualized standards will lose its creativity and prosperity as the people feel less capable of controlling their own destiny".. its kind of like water, it goes where it naturally goes.. humans build great works to control the movement of water, but.. ultimately, water goes where it naturally goes..

Be well..