OldDog

I like what you have to say here. It is a notion that is probably worthy of a whole discussion thread of its own. As we discuss how to deal with the vagaries of life ... social, political, etc ... I am always looking for how the understanding that I have developed on body, mind and spirit can inform my actions in life. I see that as an essential part of becoming a developed, enlightened person. Hence, my interest in your ideas on spirit and intelligence. But there are two lines of investigation possible. One being how we develop as individuals and then other how we develop collectively. Individual development is the context that TDB is usually involved in ... and has considerable insight with. Where we begin to have difficulty is when we try to talk about collective behaviour. It would seem that when social and political topics come up, we are no better off than the average non-Bum. If we are going to have those kind of discussions, we should undertake to understand how we behave collectively.

Fair enough. So let's talk a little about it ... even at risk of drifting off topic a bit. No doubt the part of the country you describe has been hit very hard and the result is almost a complete social collapse into a drug culture. Where to look for blame. Who to look to hold responsible? Certainly one could look to big business ... industry ... for accountability. They produced the jobs to begin with ... then brought in the technology to do the work more efficiently (think cost/benefit) ... and where technology could not acheive just the right ratio, moved the business off shore where labor was cheaper. So, what role government. I would posit that government has not been affective in addressing these situations ... neither before the fact or after the fact. Yes, before the fact. Could a more enlightened government have foreseen some of these things and acted to mitigate. What do we expect of government? But it would appear our government has not had the desire to act preemptively. Why is that? Who have we placed in government and what have we mandated of them? An interesting thought occurs to me at this point ... the ancient notion of the mandate of heaven. Hmmm? I may have carried this exploration a bit far. To bring it back around to the topic of knowledge ... Who do we listen to when we talk about government and policy? The discussion ... conversation ... space is taken up by heated rhetoric full of emotional content that addresses issues superficially ... shallowly. The conversation shifts away from how best to address an issue to who to hold accountable ... either individually or collectively ... and who is better suited to be in control. At this point meaningful content is lacking. I think the linked article is trying to make a case for how this comes about and gives clues as to how to break out of this mindset. It trys to get us to ask ... How do we know what we know? Where does our knowledge (about society and governing) come from? How sure are we that what we think we know is reasonable? But coming out of a space where dialog is driven by name calling, demonization of others, hate speech, accusation, ad nausea ... you cannot begin to answer these questions.

I like the concept, as well. But a number of questions arise. How does one recognize that they are in need of a reboot? Are they willing to undergo the isolation ... separation from friends and group support ... necessary to begin working on beliefs? Rebooting is lonely work.

You may be right ... But I don't think it is because it is "them" that are taking the jobs away as much as it is that the nature of jobs is changing. It takes less people to produce due to technological advances. It is technology that is displacing workers. So, yeah, I can see your point of scarcity. Scarcity of sufficient work to engage the number of people we have to support.

Scarcity can certainly be a motivator and group affiliation can help address that. But scarcity, at least in American society is not huge an issue as it may be in other countries. I tend to think sometimes that there is some sort of mass identity crisis going on. Perhaps scarcity in the sense that many people do not have enough faith or trust in their own individuality, their own capability. They seek an outside source of identity through group affiliation. They need to belong because finding themselves is such hard work.

... been thinking about migrants a lot lately ...

Sean, I agree a lot with what Taomeow had to say. I kinda like having the purist area and would not want to see an environment that, even if unintentional, set up for one group to dominate. I suspect that one of the reasons folks come here is to find like minds to share understandings. I typically have found most activity in Daoist Discussion ... though it's been a little thin lately ... and General Discussion, which I think already has the kind of cross pollination you were tying to promote. Two things I would like to see developed/improved are: 1. Improved navigational tools. Moving from one area to another without having to backtrack to a common juncture. Individual ability to bookmark locations might help there. Something like that. 2. Tighten up rules regarding unacceptable behaviors. Clear violations subject to escalating disciple rules should be based on how posts are conducted rather than content. Btw .... I assume that forum stats are helping you see where there is activity and where there is not. Not thst stats alone should drive decissions. Thanks for soliciting input.

Yesterday, I learned that an old friend had passed away. That same day, i had encountered this ... Death defines the limits of life. Within those limits, there is structure upon which to base one's decisions. Whenever one deems that one's life has been fulfilled, one can utilize death as the portal away from this existence. - Deng Ming-Dao

I have to admit, I felt somewhat the same as @Walker ... a certain anxiety about being targeted by one side or another if my views did not align decidedly left or right. For me the feeling comes from the style of rhetoric that I sense at an emotional, intuitive level. Harsh language, accusative tone, denigration of people or ideas often reach me at an emotional intuitive level before I am really cognizant of what is going on. This can occur on either side of the political spectrum.

Yes, that was my initial critique of the linked article, as well ... and the author does give a nod to that. To throw away everything can quickly lead to an existential crisis ... who can survive that. Knowing that going in, one is somewhat prepared for the sense of nihilism and despair and can understand that is the necessary consequence of turning your worldview upside down. But, as you found out, it is survivable ... and can return you to a state of better self control ... self reliance ... self understanding. For me the key was the word everything. I had to ask myself: How much of my world view is invested in an echo chamber. That's when I realised that there were multiple echo chambers at work. And to break out of one did not necessarily mean giving up everything. I could choose leave the ones that were causing distress and remain in the ones that were helpful. The process could be incremental. Isn't that what we call development ... cultivation?

Maybe not so alone. One of the things I see as a lesson of Daoism is learning to see the world as working through sets of complementary qualities which are dynamic rather than fixed. Along these line, we are constantly receiving input in the form of what we feel/sense and what we can deduce/reason. I see the mind as active, probing and inquiring, discriminating among the things it observes through the senses ... seemingly yang qualities. The other side of input I think comes from the heart, which receives what is out there and responds through feelings ... seemingly yin qualities. I like the imagery of the notion of heart/mind because it encompasses both feeling and reason. And, as a practice connects well with the Nieye. For purposes in this thread, what we can feel and what we can deduce are both sources of what we know. The linked article is suggesting that we be more critical of where the active, probing mind is obtaining its information. It is suggesting that we evaluate based on trust, a strong component of which sensing the goodwill content of our source. This may be closer to feelings than reason.

One of my favorites

Would you expand on the spiritual aspect some? Not sure I see it. I guess what I do see is that there must be some sort of mass psychology at work that accounts for why we divide into camps, begin demonizing one another and lose ourselves in the ensuing chaos. The linked article begins to explore that. If there is a spiritual dimension thst needs to be considered, I would like to hear it.

Indeed, one could spend a lifetime on Carl Jung alone. Interestingly, he was highly influential in a number of areas besides psychiatry. It's not uncommon to find references to him when studying physics, in the form of philosophy of science. He was quite influential among leading thinkers of his time and his work continues to inspire thinkers today. He was very influential in the work of Richard Wilhem (sinologist and translator of the I Ching), the two having collaborated extensively. He wrote the forward to the Wilhelm/Baynes I Ching and his influence is especially seen in Wilhelm's lectures on the Book of Changes ... perhaps excessively so. Most all of Jung's work is an exploration of the indiviual psyche. What I find interesting and relevant to today's situation are the contributions of the social psychologists, such as the article cited in the OP.

@wandalaar Agree that one cannot be driven solely by reason but am somewhat surprised, old friend, that you would state as much. I had always understood you to be a very reasoned, logic oriented person. Clearly, I have misread you. Perhaps we should explore other sources of input.

I am experiencing pretty poor response time this morning. Keyboard latency us as much as 5 sec. Same is true for page response. Don't think that this is a local phenomena as response times to other sites is normal. What's up?

Won't admit to being a leftist but in a part of the country where the right prevails it is easy to be seen as leftist. I, too, try to adhere to a neutral process ... One of examining each issue on its own merit, relying on fact finding to help define the issue. But on any issue, both the left and right stake out their positions and truth is hard to see. I'd bet that if you challenged a left leaning or a right leaning individual why they have adopted the position they have taken, they would be hard pressed to provide a coherent well reasoned response. They are not driven by reason. The drivers are buried deep, where the intellect has difficulty probing. I believe that there is some truth on both sides of the issue and that finding a way through any issue involves recognizing those truths and formulating a direction that addresses those truths.

Glad you are back. I did not get to participate in many of the threads with you before you left. I read enough earlier threads where you were present to know the site was deminished by your absence. I look forward to your renewed presence. Kind regards.

Ha! I laughed out loud! Because I found my first DDJ at a university bookstore sale at the end of the school year where they were reducing stock and selling books that weren't moving. It's funny how providence steps in just when you need it. When the student is ready ....

C'mon, FH. You're cherry picking. There was not a whole lot of Bible around in the first century ... But Christianity spread anyway. As for a Sunday sermon ... I enjoy a good dose of hell, fire and brimstone as much as anyone. I learned a lot from those sermons. I also found those sermon raised, for me, more questions than they provided answers. But i dont disvalue any of that. And I grew beyond that. At the tender young age of 20, I discovered the DDJ... and it has been my perennial companion since. I am never far from that text. There are about 6 sitting on my bookshelf. I have 4 e-versions on my tablet ... even one from Flowing Hands! And I find value in all of them.

Thanks, I ... needed that!

I am going to indulge in a short rant. I grow weary of being told that because I have not taken instruction from a bonafide tradittion holder, that I can't possibly have a valid understanding. Under those conditions, understanding always seems to be just beyond reach. I am what I am ... and I find value in Laozi, Chuangzi, Leizi and others. Those teachings help me to learn and grow ... and I dont mind sharing what I have understood with others and hearing what others have understood. That's why I came here. Somebody hit me with a bucket of cold water.

The value in being a Daoist is not in having read Laozi any more than having read the bible makes one a Christian. It is in the application and practice of the principles that is significant. Christianity did not spread because of the bible. It spread because, in its time, people found value in the application and practice of the principles expounded by Jesus. And it continues to do so ... Although the principles may have shifted some over the millennia. And so it will be with Taoism. Those who find value in Daoist principles won't be denied that value. They will find a way to reconcile beliefs.

I know, it almost sounds contradictory ... probably my lack of being able to express the idea clearly. Daoism, if it is to spread ... grow ... will have to do so in places where there are people influenced by other belief systems. For cultural reasons, there are no tabla rasas, for all practical purposes. So, in that sense Daoism will have to compete on its own. But Daoism, as I have been exposed to it, does not seek to deny or overturn any other belief system. Daoism simply is a set of observations about the way things are. It presents notions about existence and change. It simply puts these ideas out there to be accepted or not. I don't see Daoism as putting itself in opposition to anything. Of course, you understand , I approach Daoism from a more philosophical point of view. But I was raised Christian. If I have to take an exclusionary point of view ... Christianity vs Daoism ... then I end up in a dialectical struggle and am not really open to a new ideas. The argument becomes the point. (Not unlike what has happened in TDB) So, I defer any such temptation. Besides, if it is the case, as I believe, that there is one unified existence and that all belief system derive from it, then eventually all will be reconciled.

Let's take a little different reading on Ch 27. A good numer leaves no track. A good speech leaves no flaws for attack. A good reckoner makes use of no counters. A well-shut door makes use of no bolts, And yet cannot be opened. A well-tied knot makes use of no rope, And yet cannot be untied. Therefore the Sage is good at helping men; For that reason there is no rejected (useless) person. He is good at saving things; For that reason there is nothing rejected. This is called stealing the Light. Therefore the good man is the Teacher of the bad. And the bad man is the lesson of the good. He who neither values his teacher, Nor loves the lesson, Is one gone far astray, Though he be learned. Such is the subtle secret. - trans. Lin Yutang I sought this out because of the previous translations interpretstion of the bad man being the good man's job. But other parts seemed to stand out once I re-read it.