Approval seeking and Wu wei

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[rene]

Shhh...You're not supposed to give it away so easily!

 

Paradox is a consequence of our thought process and conventions.

Reality has no problem with paradox, only people do...

 

"Paradox" is a consequence of people wanting control over others. One must create a big secret before the 'Answers!' can be revealed (i.e. Sold). How can I give away what I dont own? The obvious is right there for everyone. Purveyors would disagree.

 

warm regards

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[zerostao]

"Ed - My sig expresses a fundamental paradox of existence"

i have always liked that sig alot.

not sure who ed is, but speaking of paradox,

is wu wei compatible with existentialism?

[Stosh]

Great question Zero !

Wu wei by itself in my opinion

going by the popular definitions of both terms

Is pretty much at odds with existentialism

But when I go by my own understanding

and couple the wu wei with its counterpart

Tzu jan , the two views arent incompatible.

I hope someone else answers that Q as well.

Stosh

[Marblehead]

I hope someone else answers that Q as well.

Stosh

No, I'm not going to get involved in that one. Hehehe.

 

I do agree with your connection of Wu Wei with Tzujan though.

[Stosh]

WW and Tj go together like peanut butter and jelly

But I wouldve rather you leap in on the existentialism Q

After all your posts and silent speculations here on Tb

I figure you might have sound speculation to add.

Stosh

[shanlung]

I just do not know where wuwei end and tzuran start.

I am not even sure if there is a transition from one to the other.

 

 

Might just be different sides of the same coin, or a form of Mobius strip

 

The Idiot

[rene]

I just do not know where wuwei end and tzuran start.

I am not even sure if there is a transition from one to the other.

Might just be different sides of the same coin, or a form of Mobius strip

 

Could be.

Ziran is like spiritual naturalness.

WuWei is the action of spiritual naturalness.

Maybe any difference between them is only found in stillness.

[Stosh]

As I am seeing it the difference is similar to the taijii

One aspect is self assertive

the other is self restraining

Together they make a workable whole.

Stosh

[rene]

Stosh - that's a really interesting idea. Which do you see as which?

[Marblehead]

WW and Tj go together like peanut butter and jelly

But I wouldve rather you leap in on the existentialism Q

After all your posts and silent speculations here on Tb

I figure you might have sound speculation to add.

Stosh

I hesitated because my memory of existentionalism is crappy. Neither of my two Western philosophers (Nietzsche and Camus) can be considered existentionalists so I have no real base of knowledge to speak from.

 

But of the little I think I know I would say that they (wu wei & existentionalism) are compatible.

 

Yeah, I know, weak response. Sorry.

[Marblehead]

Double post.

Edited September 13, 2012 by Marblehead

[steve]

"Paradox" is a consequence of people wanting control over others. One must create a big secret before the 'Answers!' can be revealed (i.e. Sold). How can I give away what I dont own? The obvious is right there for everyone. Purveyors would disagree.

 

warm regards

Totally agree with your points.

I was referring to my observation that the answer usually doesn't help unless we do the work for ourselves and come to insight directly. The answers are dead, it's the questions and the investigation that are valuable.

[steve]

"Ed - My sig expresses a fundamental paradox of existence"

i have always liked that sig alot.

not sure who ed is, but speaking of paradox,

is wu wei compatible with existentialism?

Oops - Ed simply meant 'edited to add...'

[Stosh]

Re existentialism...vs wu wei

 

Im sure youve noticed that the subjective adjectives of good and bad dont really fit with the phillosphy of Tao.

Instead, the conceptry revolves around virtue, describing what exemplifies it, behaviors that maximize it, and where it comes from..etc.

Bear with me a minute here...

The difference between virtue and goodness is that goodness is delineated by the bias of the observer.

For instance ,,The sandwich is 'good' if I like it and 'bad' if it makes me puke.

The problematic aspect of this attitude is that someone else may like the sandwich that makes me puke, which renders its goodness to be entirely subjective.

Collectively there may be consensus about many things and then you get a collective opinion about what is 'good', but there is a problem with the collectivized opinion of goodness as well, and that revolves around 'what is good for an individual is often contrary to the collective good of a group'.

An example would be stealing property (or having personal freedoms). It-they would benefit the individual but the society at large can suffer.

Defining virtue well , allows a less subjective interpretation of what behaviors are beneficial and what are a problem,( but a stubborn dualist can still render virtue back into a synonym for good, just like a stubborn theist can equate Tao with God if they want)Anyway...

Lets say you need to cut down a tree, you want an axe that stays fairly sharp but you dont want one that is brittle and breaks. You want that axe to have a functional axe shape with a handle etc...so the axe that has axe virtue conforms to the expectations one has for an axe, and it will serviceably cut down the tree.

An axe that is a rusty blob of metal with no handle..doesnt have axe virtue, its just not up for subjective debate whether it is 'good' or not. A person could approve of the blob all they want but it just isnt going to be as effective at cutting down the tree as the axe with axe virtue.The point here is..

(The virtue is self fulfilling whereas the goodness is subjective judgement)

Taking this to the next level , what is virtue for humans? Well 1)they should be able to get along with society without creating issues ,and ,2) they should function to their own welfare as well.

Re:1) (Things that allow us to function harmoniously with others...)

are things like ...

minding ones own business

(let nature take its course)

performing the tasks that falls to one

accepting the group dynamic

allowing others to grow and succeed

(do no harm)

You can go on and on inserting your favorites

but..

This general pattern is what I think of as wu wei (as its generally considered to be meant by others)

Re: 2) your own welfare

this is more subjective, but as general policy..

you want to be healthy and happy and free to pursue your own goals and being able to do your stuff, living up to ones internal drives as a human is what I consider TzuJan or ZiRan as regards humans.

Understand please

(I am not at all concerned about the Chinese wording Im just talking concepts here)

Wu-wei suggsets virtue lies in letting other things be what they will be,and you as the individual reap benefits of not being in conflict with stuff around you , extending the respect one extends to others back on onesself (and gaining personal peace, giving yourself a break from your own ambitions or dissatisfactions.)

Ziran on the other hand suggests virtue lies in a thing being that which it is , and being allowed to "march to its own drums"

The indirect benefits go to the stuff around you (or it)and one extends the same respect that one has for self to others.

( being able to express ones personal nature also can help one be at peace! Have a zinfandel for instance)

These two concepts ( which I will be happy to rename some other time if its required,,) have much in common, they can work very similarly or they can be employed in tandem.,,But as It was described to me, the source of virtue , the place where virtue originally resides is in two different sources and/or flows in opposite directions for each of the two concepts.

Cd describes wu wei as letting nature take its course ,and he says Lao-tzu was primarily concerned with avoiding negatives rather than promoting positives. That may be true enough ,I do hate the terminology he favors , but I understand his thought process in this regard enough ,that "I GET " his stance on it.

It was Marbleheads mention of TzuJan which I googled for definition , I came across Wangs description of it. What that did was answer for me the big problem I had with wu wei as translated. Wu wei basically tells you to retreat , that everything else has value in its "being" , just not the one who is aiming at being virtuous! How could a wise man tell me that virtue for me, was to go around trying not to influence anything! That good rulers would do nothing at all to run their province!

also,,

How could I reconcile what all the Tao bums were saying about defending themselves with 'letting everything happen around oneself?' not interfering , not putting ones personal will into the equation? WHEN..

They ALL felt that there was virtue in defending themselves, feeding their family, and acting in various ways to promote things they felt had virtue ,such as rescuing bears, intervening between hostiles on a train , teaching their own world views, eating other living things, Doing their Jobs.

Yes, they made arguments about why they thought these things were permissible, why they thought exemptions were valid..but wu wei by itself ,, to me, doesnt say why these exemptions should be.

Thats why I see it as essential to recognize the source of virtue that lies in oneself and in other things just by 'virtue' of the innate character of the thing or person being that which it is.

Such as the useless tree having virtue simply by extending its shade. Or the butcher who has virtue just by doing his job.Or the homeless dude still having virtue solely because he is still a human being.

Either all things have virtue innate,

or no one can have virtue

(because there would be nothing virtuous in allowing all those non virtuous things to continue!)

I cannot read the Chinese ,and all the translations to english that I have seen are FULLY translated to english, so terms like wu wei and tzu jan etc just dont show up! They arent english terms! The translations attempted to convey sentiments or connotations of the terms ,and so it is from this angle that I approach the subject, I dont consider it to be much of a hindrance to understanding the sentiments or connotations, but I admit there is difficulty in conveying my summations back into terms that Chinese-familiar folks regularly use.. so I am open to better terminology, maybe wei wu wei includes my point on the source of virtue ,I DONT KNOW..yet I consider the logic of the position to be solidly grounded ,because its just not about the terminology , its about needing to extend the source of virtue to include the "Innateness" of it or one would be rendered a zort of zombie, without personal meaning in the objective universe, no role to play, no validity.

I think that would be a horrible perspective, destructive, self defeating, and I refuse it totally.

And thats where I feel one can marry existentiallism to the Ziran-wu wei conceptry, that is, in the aspect of personal worth personal self fulfillment and meaning.

 

Stosh

[Marblehead]

Re existentialism...vs wu wei

 

Im sure youve noticed that the subjective adjectives of good and bad dont really fit with the phillosphy of Tao.

 

Stosh

Yes Stosh, I am very well aware of this.

 

Nice to see you are still thinking on these concepts of yours.

 

Now I will go back and read the rest of your post.

[Marblehead]

Hi Stosh,

 

I have no problem with anything you said above. And yes, all things (people included) have their own virtue - their own "thusness". Subjective judgements are not allowed here.

 

The big question for we humans is: Are we really following our own "Tzujan" (our own naturalness) or are we following what we have been programmed to believe what we are supposed to be?

 

Of course, you know that I do not understand "wu wei" as doing nothing. My understanding is more at doing only what our "Tzujan" drives us to do - being natural. Saving the child because it is the right thing to do, not because we hope to be rewarded for doing so. And consider, some would not save the child! But they still might be consistent with their "Tzujan".

 

Is the 'evil man' evil because he wishes to be evil or is he just naturally evil? No, I cannot answer that question for anyone else but I have my personal beliefs regarding this although I will not share them here.

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[Stosh]

Et , you said

"having personal freedoms - can benefit the individual and the society if the individual chooses wisely."

 

Agreed , no problem, (emphasizing in both our statements the word CAN and assuming the society has a situation amenable to them.

Freedom of speech in a dictatorship is a problem while here in the states its considered our virtuous right.)

 

"Your definition of The virtue for humans requires reconsideration. The virtue for humans resides in enriching the society, the spaces, and the developments by being present. From what I understand Wu wei basically tells to do what needs be done" which may be to do nothing...

 

I do get your point but I see the sentiment as virtue residing in 'what one does for or does not do to others' shifting the seat of virtue away from the individual and it exemplifies the collectivized subjective opinion which I am calling goodness rather than virtue (which is why I spent so much time defining the meaning of my wording.. I was in essence asking you to drop your own definitions temporarily so you could see where I was coming from,, if It works out that you just plain disagree ,,thats fine ,, Im grateful you took the time to read it through and respond anyway.)

 

"on a side note I have a situation where some authority is saying what isn't is rather than accepting their error and correcting it - they maintain what is not to be what is. Most everyone tells me to let it go ( get along with society without creating issues) I claim that will only perpetuate the error and we need better ways to refine society.

 

What I find most appalling is the underlying lesson being cultivated... don't dare question me, I will not hear any of what you have to say... you are creating issues be gone... "

 

I have seen enough of that to know exactly where you are coming from ..whether you choose to hold on and fight for the untruth to be corrected or whether you take the easier route (which is just to let the untruth stand) Is a spiritual choice.

It would make a thread of its own. I fight sometimes, and then sometimes I see that it isnt going to get fixed, and let it go. ..since its Ok to sometimes let the truth take care of itself .

You dont have to accept the weight of the whole world all on your own shoulders all by yourself. Each has a responsibilty to themselves ,to verify for themselves ,the stuff they hear, before accepting it , and if they neglect that responsibility , they will deal with any consequences that arise.

Stosh

Edited September 14, 2012 by Stosh

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts

[Stosh]

 

Is the 'evil man' evil because he wishes to be evil or is he just naturally evil? No, I cannot answer that question for anyone else but I have my personal beliefs regarding this although I will not share them here.

 

Mongol General: Wrong!

Conan! What is best in life?

Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women .

 

 

Obviously Conan is taking an entirely subjective stance on what is good and it contrasts with the evil that his enemies would see in such an event.

 

I think is ubiquitous for folks to have some sort of conceptry regarding good and evil , so it falls into the category of natural , or human nature or normal, objectively speaking.

That doesnt change the subjective aspect of determining what is going to be the contents of that category for each individual,, Nor does it guarantee that societies will always come to the same exact collective assessments of what constitutes good or evil.

In the end the collective assessment becomes law or common morality , and the subjective assessment remains with the individual to deal with.

 

A person can naturally-innately be (or behave), that which you subjectively deem evil.They can still have human virtues of brain and language and body ,(exemplify the human condition in their own way) and for all that, can still be warped into a barely recognizable hostile destructive nutcase.

I see no paradox there because the human condition is very flexible when it comes to behavior.

 

Stosh

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2012 by Stosh

[Stosh]

Stosh,

 

for what it is worth... That statement demonstrates to me that you did not get my point :-)

 

Thats what I was thinking about You!

 

 

BTW I agree with you on the notion of virtue being an objective notion independent of subjective appreciations... hope you now see that ' to do what needs be done' is also a case of the objective notion that is independent of subjective appreciations.

 

Hmmm ,maybe , but I just have an issue with the decision making , who does it and what decides what need means

I dont see any self limiting aspect which points to an optimization of need meeting (versus going too far or too short)

 

I could buy a new Corvette on a company card and claim I need it to drive around in.

My boss would say I didnt need it , I shouldve rented a hatchback.

but a car with car virtue will suit driving me around regardless of my bosses opinion.

 

BTW I realize that this issue applies also to some of the stuff going on here... though evidently some do have those abilities a bit more developed...

 

Yeah it does , but its normal anywhere , dont sweat it.

Stosh

 

 

Edited September 14, 2012 by Stosh

[Stosh]

The big question for we humans is: Are we really following our own "Tzujan" (our own naturalness) or are we following what we have been programmed to believe what we are supposed to be?

 

 

Well , for following Tao that sure is an important question !

But I personally figure that line to be very blurry.

There appears to be conceptry and behavior patterns which exist in us inherently

but are not manifest until we deal with the world in a relatively 'normal' way.

For instance learning of language is expected and easy for most of us.

Parents speak ,and the kids pick it up right along with grammar and syntax .

Go past a certain age without the exposure to spoken language

and forever that child will have difficulty with speech.

 

The language itself is not predetermined like dogs always barking.

It could be any language ! any words, any vocal sounds even!

Another example is that Its just human nature to walk upright ,

to develop concepts like good and evil

maybe even to look for spiritual inspiration.

But the particulars of what a person finally assimilates are often unique.

It is our interaction with the external objective world in a social context which

finalizes our development in a way which fits the world.

 

I liken it to shelves in a store room , the shelves are labelled , there are

particular KINDS of things that will end up on particular shelves ,

but the exact contents will vary in the end.

 

Thats one reason why I dont care for that nature non-nature division.

I just dont think there is a clear dividing line between them.

My solution is to look at the paradigms of behavior we have picked up

and personally assess as adults , which of them are doing us good

and which of them are bad paradigms learned too well.

Like approval seeking

 

Stosh

Have a nice weekend

Edited September 14, 2012 by Stosh

[et-thoughts]

.

Edited December 11, 2012 by et-thoughts