Chuang Tzu Chapter 4, Section B

[Marblehead]

However I suspect Zhuang Zhou would smile with amusement on this Western focus of ours on conceptual 'truth'.  Aren't we thereby trapped in following the Platonic tradition of trying to distinguish what is illusion and what is reality?

True this but the reason I define myself is so that others will better understand why I respond to things said the way I do.  When we define our self we are at that moment placing limits on our self.

[Stosh]

 Aren't we thereby trapped in following the Platonic tradition of trying to distinguish what is illusion and what is reality?  Such an attitude is typical of our whole contemporary, scientific-minded society. For instance, while reading the allegories of the Zhuangzi, there is the temptation to find oneself ‘understanding everything correctly.’ Our temptation is to evaluate, define and explain the thoughts of this ancient Chinese sage and to place them within one or another group of philosophical ideas. But doesn't such way of thinking confine us in the same realm of illusion / reality opposition that Zhuangzi is trying to transcend?

 

Doesn't everyone have a tradition of trying to figure out what is true vs false? 

thats meant rhetorically but  if you think it not to be the case, Should the "West" claim rational consideration and investigation as property? .... Quit being rational people  ! you you .. EASTERN copyright infringers !  

 

IMO it wasnt Zz's goal to keep his people confused about what was illusory or not, if he was even operating towards a known goal ( as it has been suggested to me -he was not) , rather it was to amend some of our self inflicted confusions and woe.

( or Zz's work could at least be considered to potentially applied to that end)

[dust]

When I'm not in Active Discovery mode, I do enjoy reading these conversations

[Stosh]

When I'm not in Active Discovery mode, I do enjoy reading these conversations

Its called not-doing I think:) 

[Geof Nanto]

I was kind of hoping when I came back to this topic that the conversation would have moved on. Instead I now feel obliged to reply to Stosh as well as Rara. Whole books have been written on these subjects and my words can only be meagre in comparison.  Also these Dao Bums threads tend to move fast. Sometimes that’s appropriate but I like to explore in depth topics I’m interested in. For instance, I still plan on returning to ‘The Dream of the Butterfly’ thread.

 

To my mind, our conceptual reality is an ever evolving web of myths created to fill the needs of our human psyche for meaning. At the core of our consciousness we are mythical beings;  hence philosopher John Gray suggests the best a thinking person can do is to recognize the myths (illusions) he or she cannot live without.  (Or perhaps, more modestly, I can only expect to recognise myths I can live without. By necessity those myths I truly depend on must remain hidden beyond the fringes of my awareness. )

 

It’s morning where I live and I have things to do outside. I’ve just made some sourdough bread dough and it will have risen by this afternoon and be ready for baking.  And hopefully by then my replies will also be ready for ‘baking’ in this alchemical cauldron of Dao Bums discussion. Really, I get too caught up in heaviness of ideas and therefore like these words of François Jullien from Vital Nourishment .

 

“Life can escape whatever confines it and regain its freedom, allowing it to remain open to unfiltered transformation. Based on deliberate de-ontologisation  (and de-theologisation), this release from meaning (from dogma, belief, truth) results in a depressurisation of existence, which ceases to be episodic or forced.  The homeostasis whereby life maintains itself is restored, replacing the tension of existence (projecting toward a goal, akin to meaning).”   

Edited May 14, 2015 by Darkstar

[Geof Nanto]

I'm not entirely sure if this is totally relevant what I am about to say because I haven't read what you are referring to. But going by the title, surely precision is key to mastery? How can we not seek precision?

 

Understanding a teaching correctly...for example, in martial arts, cannot be succesful without precision of a strike or form. And the butcher and the Oxen in the Zhuangzi... precision was key. The method, was about feeling and meditation I'm sure, but we have to learn somehow. In the west, grasping the concept in books is a big part of how we process this!

 

I am curious to know what you think to this

 

The precision that quotation was referring to is in the use of language when attempting to describe the Dao. I agree with you that precision is necessary in many areas of life.  

 

Well, provided that Lao Tzu was a person...

 

So Confucious existed later, then Chuang Tzu? Can you point me in the direction of some reference points for their eras? (If they are not wikipedia, that is)

 

But yes, I am curious to know how much Confucianism works with Taoism.

 

Also, do you believe Lao Tzu to be more of a conservative kinda guy?

 

For your research into how much Confucianism works with Daoism, Arthur Waley's Three Ways of Thought in Ancient China could be a good place to start. It's a well written book, not overly long, and contains some excellent translations from the Zhuangzi. The three ways of thought the title refers to are the Daoist, the Confucianist, and the "Realist." of fourth century BC China.  The book underscores the interplay between these three philosophies, drawing on extracts from Zhuangzi, Mencius, and Han Feizi.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Darkstar

[Geof Nanto]

 Doesn't everyone have a tradition of trying to figure out what is true vs false? 

thats meant rhetorically but  if you think it not to be the case, Should the "West" claim rational consideration and investigation as property? .... Quit being rational people  ! you you .. EASTERN copyright infringers !  

 

Depends what you mean by truth, doesn't it.  The best definition I've come across for ‘truth’ is that truth is what is believed to be true.  In other words truth is something we construct within our society. And, although our Western values with their emphasis on humanism and scientific truth are now almost universally pervasive, that wasn't always the case. Even a cursory knowledge of the different cultures of the world reveals stark differences in values between cultures and within cultures over time.   Sure, all societies make sense of themselves and the world – but they do so in different ways.   

 

As our focus here is on pre-modern Chinese culture, the following  extract from Francois Jullien’s The Propensity of Things: Toward a History of Efficacy in China is informative of such differences.

 

Wisdom or Strategy: Conforming with Propensity

 

Conceiving, as they do, of all reality as a deployment, the Chinese are not led to backtrack along a necessarily infinite series of possible causes. Convinced as they are of the ineluctable nature of propensity, they are not inclined to speculate on ends, which can never be anything more than probable. Neither cosmogonical stories nor teleological suppositions interest them. They are concerned neither to recount the beginning nor to imagine the end. All that exists, has always existed, and will always exist are interactions that are constantly at work, and reality is never anything other than their ceaseless process. Thus, the problem that concerns the Chinese is not that of "being," in the Greek sense (i.e., being as opposed to becoming and the perceptible world); rather it is the problem of the capacity to function: the source of the efficacy that is at work everywhere in reality and the best way to profit from it.

 

As soon as one believes, as the Chinese do, that all oppositions interact correlatively as a matter of principle, any idea of antagonism dissolves; reality can never be dramatic. Even in the case of strategic deployment, in which the conflictual aspect is the most marked (since one is face-to-face with the enemy), the advice of Chinese thinkers is always to aim to evolve, to adapt totally to the movements of the enemy, rather than attack him head on. A general should always act with a view to profiting from the dynamism of this partner, his enemy, for as long as it operates, so as to allow himself to be renewed by it at the expense of his opponent and at no cost to himself. In this way he will maintain his own energy as completely as at the beginning. Any head-on attack will be costly and possibly risky. All one needs to do is always respond and react to the incitement of one's opponent, just as water constantly adapts to the variations in land levels. In this way one can preserve one's own dynamism and remain safe.

 

In China, "practical reason" thus lies in adapting to the propensity at work so as to be carried along by it and exploit it. No initial alternative between good and evil is involved, since the status of both is ontological. It is simply a matter of either "going along with" the propensity and thereby profiting from it or "going against it" and being ruined. For what is valid for the general is also valid for the sage. He does not abstract from some ephemeral codification of reality a norm that can be set up as a goal for his will (e.g., orders and rules of conduct). Instead, he "conforms" with the initiative of the continuous course of things ("Heaven" being seen as the inexhaustible fount of the process) so as to tap into its efficacy. From a subjective perspective, he does not aim to assert his liberty, but simply follows the inclination toward the good that exists in embryonic form in every conscious mind (in a sense of solidarity with all that exists, i.e., the Confucian ren); this leads to perfect morality. Far from seeking to reconstruct the world on the basis of some order or another, attempting to impose his own designs on it and force the course of things, all he does is respond and react to whatever reality prompts within him. And this he does not do partially or at particular moments, when it is in his interest to do so, but in all situations and continuously. In this way his power to change reality is checked by no obstacles or limits. He does not "act," does nothing himself (on his own initiative), and the degree of the efficacy of this behavior is determined by the extent to which he refrains from trying to manage things. His cooperation with reality as a whole results in a power of influence that can be at once invisible, infinite, and perfectly spontaneous.

 

In contrast to action and causality, which are transitive, the only kind of efficacy that is recognized is intransitive, and “Heaven”, set up as transcending the human horizon, is itself simply the totalization, or absolutization, of that immanence.

 

It is therefore hardly surprising that Chinese thought is so conformist. It does not seek to distance itself from the "world," does not question reality, is not even surprised by it. It has no need of myths (and we, for our part, know that the most farfetched myths are always the most powerful) to save reality from absurdity and confer meaning on it. Instead of inventing myths that attempt to explain the enigma of the world through fabulous flights of fancy, the Chinese devised rites to embody and express by signs, at the level of human behavior, the functioning inherent in the world’s disposition. Reality was not regarded as a problem but presented itself from the beginning as a credible process. It did not need to be deciphered like a mystery but simply to be understood In its functioning. There was no need to project a "meaning" onto the world or to satisfy the expectations of a subject/individual, for its meaning stemmed in its entirety, without requiring any act of faith, from the propensity of things.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Darkstar

[Geof Nanto]

I agree that having distinction within Taoism is somewhat barking up the wrong tree. I have often said that I feel that Zhuangzi is shaking his head at religious Taoism.

 

But your second point, I'm not sure. If I am to learn, or "undo" a lot of learning so to speak, I see the value in at least understanding Zhuangzi's message as correctly as possible.

 

Otherwise it is just my already conditioned mind making its own interpretation.

 

I agree with what you're saying here about understanding Zhuangzi's message as correctly as possible. However there's a lot to what that implies. My comments about illusion / reality were on my mind from as yet unexpressed thoughts about 'The Dream of the Butterfly' allegory. Have you been following that topic? In retrospect, I should have left that part of my comment out; those thoughts could best be explored on the 'Butterfly' thread, and that's exactly what I plan to do at some future date.

 

However I can't agree with your observation that Zhuangzi is shaking his head at religious Taoism. For a start religious Daoism (aka organised Daoism) did not come into existence for many centuries after Zhuang Zhou's death. And even so, I don't share the disdain for religion so popular amongst the intelligentsia of our countries.  There's much wisdom in all the great religious traditions of the world outside of dogma, blind faith, and obedience to hierarchies. 

Edited May 15, 2015 by Darkstar

[Marblehead]

 There's much wisdom in all the great religious traditions of the world outside of dogma, blind faith, and obedience to hierarchies. 

Yes, this is something that should be remembered now and again.

[Rara]

@darkstar

 

Thanm you for taking the time to write all this, and I think all you have said is very clear! Please give me some time to digest and I may come back to this thread if I have anything further to say but really, you have pointed me in a good direction here

 

As for the butterfly thread, no, I haven't been following actually but will make time to have a read soon.

[Stosh]

Depends what you mean by truth, doesn't it. 

No.

 

 

The best definition I've come across for ‘truth’ is that truth is what is believed to be true.  In other words truth is something we construct within our society. And, although our Western values with their emphasis on humanism and scientific truth are now almost universally pervasive, that wasn't always the case. Even a cursory knowledge of the different cultures of the world reveals stark differences in values between cultures and within cultures over time.   Sure, all societies make sense of themselves and the world –

See ?  Here we are in agreement , my spin on truth isn't significant. 

 

 

but they do so in different ways.   

 

OH?  Disagreed. Its like the disclaimer,, "The story you are about to hear is true, only the names and faces have been changed to protect the innocent... ."

I don't care for FJ's stereotyping, its bad and wrong.  

[dust]

There's much wisdom in all the great religious traditions of the world outside of dogma, blind faith, and obedience to hierarchies. 

 

Yes.. wisdom is found in most religions.

 

But in my opinion religion (and any particular religious teaching) is defined by dogma, blind faith, and obedience, and so wisdom (and any particular wise teaching) is separated from religion by at least these 3 conditions.

 

In other words: I have a disdain for dogma, blind faith, and obedience, and this is why I could never follow a religion; and if I recognize wisdom in a religious teaching it is not because it is a religious teaching, but despite that.

 

As far as Mr Zhuang... well, however one wants to define 'religion', I think we can mostly agree that his writing is not a passionate defence of dogma, blind faith, or obedience. And whether or not there is such a thing as 'Religious Taoism'; and whether or not we can, in this so-called 'Religious Taoism', recognize any of the 3 aforementioned conditions; and whether or not Mr Zhuang would have recognized it as such; I do believe that he would hold a certain disdain for any teaching that required dogma, blind faith, or obedience.

 

Please ignore the hypocrisy inherent in the fact that my anti-dogma stance is itself dogmatic..;p

[Stosh]

Yes.. wisdom is found in most religions.

 

But in my opinion religion (and any particular religious teaching) is defined by dogma, blind faith, and obedience, and so wisdom (and any particular wise teaching) is separated from religion by at least these 3 conditions.

 

In other words: I have a disdain for dogma, blind faith, and obedience, and this is why I could never follow a religion; and if I recognize wisdom in a religious teaching it is not because it is a religious teaching, but despite that.

 

As far as Mr Zhuang... well, however one wants to define 'religion', I think we can mostly agree that his writing is not a passionate defence of dogma, blind faith, or obedience. And whether or not there is such a thing as 'Religious Taoism'; and whether or not we can, in this so-called 'Religious Taoism', recognize any of the 3 aforementioned conditions; and whether or not Mr Zhuang would have recognized it as such; I do believe that he would hold a certain disdain for any teaching that required dogma, blind faith, or obedience.

 

Please ignore the hypocrisy inherent in the fact that my anti-dogma stance is itself dogmatic..;p

Why don't you just drop dogma as being a thing you rebel at ? You can still always reject the ideas themselves.  

[dust]

How about...being open to the likelihood that certain dogmas are unavoidable, and potentially harmless, but with a general tendency to avoid dogma wherever possible (as it usually isn't harmless)

 

?

[Marblehead]

Sure, that's good circular thinking.

[Rara]

However I can't agree with your observation that Zhuangzi is shaking his head at religious Taoism. For a start religious Daoism (aka organised Daoism) did not come into existence for many centuries after Zhuang Zhou's death. And even so, I don't share the disdain for religion so popular amongst the intelligentsia of our countries. There's much wisdom in all the great religious traditions of the world outside of dogma, blind faith, and obedience to hierarchies.

Well, what I meant is more the ghost of Zhuangzi shaking his head at organised religion. It's probably for another thread but his words don't appear supportive of structures and dogma to me.

 

I don't dispute that there are some valuable things to learn from institutions, and I haven't been to Taoist temples. I have only seen things on Youtube (mainly Wudang stuff) Yes, I have learnt many things from this, as well as my time spent dipping in to Buddhist temples.

 

In this day and age, religion can be great refuge for people that have lost their way. I just believe Zhuangzi is saying that if we didn't lose the way in the first place, religion, dogma, rules and the like would not be needed.

[dust]

Sure, that's good circular thinking.

 

<<  I like circles

Edited May 15, 2015 by dustybeijing

[Geof Nanto]

I agree that Zhuang Zhou would not want to be part of any organization, religious or otherwise. I also think he'd disdain the label 'Daoist' that's been retrospectively applied to him. (Edit; 'Disdain' is a poor choice of words. I think he'd just inwardly smile and shrug the label off. It wouldn't affect him one way or another.)

 

As to religion - well that's a huge topic. I was brought up without any formal religion and don't belong to any such grouping now. However to my observation we humans have an innate tendency for religion. (Religion definition from Wikipedia: A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.) Those who disdain traditional religions often align themselves with contemporary quasi-religious movements. In my country the Greens are an excellent example. But perhaps the most pervasive quasi-religion centres around science. Whilst the scientific method is undoubtedly a powerful determinant of certain types of truth, faith in its universality amounts to scientism.

 

From Wikipedia…Scientism is a term used to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints. It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society."

 

The other great quasi-religion of our time is humanism which is actually a secular version of Christianity.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Darkstar

[Geof Nanto]

No.

 

 

See ?  Here we are in agreement , my spin on truth isn't significant. 

 

 

 

OH?  Disagreed. Its like the disclaimer,, "The story you are about to hear is true, only the names and faces have been changed to protect the innocent... ."

I don't care for FJ's stereotyping, its bad and wrong.  

 

Stosh, our perspectives on this are too different for any meaningful dialogue. However, I respect your views and like reading your comments. 

[Stosh]

 

Stosh, our perspectives on this are too different for any meaningful dialogue. However, I respect your views and like reading your comments.

You may be right about that..but it does sound a bit preemptive though , no? I like to think theres always hope. ...

Edited May 15, 2015 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

You may be right about that..but it does sound a bit preemptive though , no? I like to think theres always hope. ...

I'm always around somewhere if you need someone to argue with.

[Stosh]

I'm always around somewhere if you need someone to argue with.

I dont want to argue with anyone Mh, its just that what I think is really very obvious, umm may not be from another vantage point. I just cant figure out where the darn disconnections are. !! I figure that to lots of folks it would be a great surprise how much I strive to speak simply. Ive gone back to old posts and damn if they dont look difficult !! It truly amazes me. MYbe I need to slow way way down ,,would it help? Everyone seems to be in such a rush. ... I dunno Edited May 15, 2015 by Stosh

[dust]

I agree that Zhuang Zhou would not want to be part of any organization, religious or otherwise. I also think he'd disdain the label 'Daoist' that's been retrospectively applied to him. (Edit; 'Disdain' is a poor choice of words. I think he'd just inwardly smile and shrug the label off. It wouldn't affect him one way or another.)

 

 

 

 

"the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society."

 

Indeed. I've talked of this with a couple of other members.

 

I know or have met a number of people who have an absolute disdain for 'religion' but in whom an absolutely blind faith in the scientific method, and what amounts to obedience to scientific doctrine, is quite apparent.

 

More dogma, blind faith, obedience. So yes, I agree that "we humans have an innate tendency for religion."

[Stosh]

the assumption of science ,is that its not dependent upon ones individual preference or bias.

[Marblehead]

I dont want to argue with anyone Mh, ...

 

Maybe I need to slow way way down ,,would it help? Everyone seems to be in such a rush. ... I dunno

Yeah, we (I include myself in this) sometimes feel it is so important to present our counter-point that we don't take enough time to properly consider what we are responding to.

 

And yes, there is no place to go; no need to be in such a hurry.