Follow nature

[wandelaar]

4 minutes ago, Cobie said:

Ime (in the Netherlands) the atheist mainstream wants to impose their morality (as opposed to the preceding Christian one). And they are extremely judgemental. Any ‘transgression’ of their taboos is severely punished, backed by strict laws (Christians are fair game).

 

Any examples?

[S:C]

I understand your preference and frustration with relativists, @wandelaar.

To your question and the interesting article (thanks), - a follow up question: who in your opinion is supposed to have the interpretational souvereignty or prerogative about matters of truth or expertise?

 

—

 

4 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

a more specific reason to deny morality is its  extinction in the west. "we dont judge over here. ok?"

 

But westerners DO judge if people (also other westerners) judge for themselves now, don’t they?

This is probably unfortunately much too generalized now to contain significance. 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2023 by S:C

[wandelaar]

44 minutes ago, S:C said:

I understand your preference and frustration with relativists, @wandelaar.

To your question and the interesting article (thanks), - a follow up question: who in your opinion is supposed to have the interpretational souvereignty or prerogative about matters of truth or expertise?

 

No need to invest anyone in particular with the authority to decide about matters of truth or expertise. That would only lead to some form of religion or cult. Do you think that we need anyone to decide if there is or is not an internet site called The Dao Bums on which we are in fact currently having a discussion? And I don't mean as a question of absolute truth, because you could of course argue that maybe it was just dream, or an illusion created by a demon, etc. Those options are all irrelevant to our daily live in which matters are decided by common sense, observations, arguments, etc.

Edited December 14, 2023 by wandelaar

[S:C]

19 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

And I don't mean as a question of absolute truth, because you could of course argue that maybe it was just dream, or an illusion created by a demon, etc. Those options are all irrelevant to our daily live in which matters are decided by common sense, observations, arguments, etc.

¿Are they really? [rhethorical question]

[ChiDragon]

On 8/13/2023 at 9:45 PM, Mig said:

I keep reading in different texts to follow nature, emulate water and be connected to nature and I am wondering did they think or do they still think nature is all good. When you look at nature, there is always something going on, not for the best for humans but to survive as nature is not clement. So why don't they mention the bad side of nature, the cruelty of nature and the disasters we see every day and in the wilderness nature has no benevolence (DDJ Ch 5). Why is so important to obtain the Dao if Dao is related to nature? Just wondering and you can probably can help me to understand better the idea behind "nature"

 

Thanks

人法地: human follows earth

地法天: earth follows sky

天法道: sky follows Tao

道法自然: Tao follows its own nature(own-self).

I didn't see anything in the TTC says to follow nature but not to interfere with nature. Let nature take its course(無為). To obtain Tao is simply means to observe the principles of Tao. Tao is not related to nature. Tao overlooks nature to assure things are run properly on their course. Good or bad, nature has no mercy.

 

[Maddie]

10 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

人法地: human follows earth

地法天: earth follows sky

天法道: sky follows Tao

道法自然: Tao follows its own nature(own-self).

I didn't see anything in the TTC says to follow nature but not to interfere with nature. Let nature take its course(無為). To obtain Tao is simply means to observe the principles of Tao. Tao is not related to nature. Tao overlooks nature to assure things are run properly on their course. Good or bad, nature has no mercy.

 

 

This is a good point. I always hear people saying Taoism is about following nature, when the Tao Te *cough cough says to follow the Tao, not nature. 

[wandelaar]

39 minutes ago, S:C said:

¿Are they really? [rhethorical question]

 

Still no answer to my question. Do you consider it an undecided (or even undecidable) problem if we are in fact currently having a discussion on an internet forum called The Dao Bums? And again I don't mean this as a question concerning absolute truth. One can endlessly discuss or doubt anything one wants to. Which leads nowhere.

Edited December 14, 2023 by wandelaar

[NaturaNaturans]

This is an edited post i made on another forum, but i belive i can make it relevant.

 

I listened to a podcast about one of nietzches lectures on pre-platonic philosophy. The reason he used this term, instead of the more common pre-socratic, was that before Plato, philosophy was not yet a dicipline. It was a bunch of unique «searchers/explorers/seekers of knowledge,» presenting their own view of the world, and not like later philosophy, often described as «a bunch of fotnotes to Plato.» 

This i found very interresting, because it led me to think that true and valuable understanding comes from one true self, not social programming or books. It is more about forgetting then learning. 
 

Everyones fav pre-platonic philosopher, Heraclites, encaptures this well. His emphasis on Logos, witch to me seem almost identical to the Dao, for one thing. His idea of fire as the fundemental element, symbolizing the unity of all and  how everything is in constant flux.

Funny thing is he lived in the 6th century bc (i belive),

somewhat around the time of the historical Buddha. I am way to ignorant on eastern philosophy, but these qoutes from heraklit seem pretty «oriental» to me:

 

Heraclitus, a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, is known for his cryptic and profound aphorisms. His work survives only in fragments, quoted by later authors. Some of his most famous quotes include:

"

Quote

 

Panta rhei" (Everything flows)**

"No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man."**:

"The path up and down is one and the same."

"You cannot step twice into the same stream."

"War is the father of all and king of all."

The only constant is change.»

"Nature loves to hide."

 

 

And then we have the famous inscriprition from Delphi: Know thyself 

 

The two following texts i have shared probally 2-3 times before, so forgive me:

Hymn to Zeus, Cleanthes ca. 200bc

Spoiler

 

Translated by Stephen Hanselman

Most honored of immortals, many-named one, ever omnipotent,

Zeus, prime mover of nature, steering all things by your law,

Greetings! For it is proper for all mortals to speak to you:

For we all descend from you, bearing our share of your likeness

We alone, of all mortal creatures that live and move on earth.

So, I shall make song of you constantly and sing forever of your might.

Truly, this whole universe, spinning around the earth,

Obeys you wherever you lead, and willingly submits to your rule;

Such is the servant you hold in your unconquerable hands,

A double-edged, fiery, ever-living thunderbolt.

For by its strikes all the works of nature happen.

By it you direct the universal reason, which pervades all things

Intermixing with the great and small lights of the heavens.

Because of this you are the greatest, the highest ruler of all.

Not a single thing that is done on earth happens without you, God,

Nor in the divine heavenly sphere nor in the sea,

Except for what bad people do in their foolishness.

But you know how to make the crooked straight

And to bring order to the disorderly; even the unloved is loved by you.

For you have so joined all things into one, the good and the bad,

That they all share in a single unified everlasting reason.

It is shirked and avoided by all the wicked among mortals,

The wretched, who ever long for the getting of good things,

Neither see nor hear God’s universal law,

By which, obeying with understanding, they could share in the good life.

But instead they chase after this and that, far from the good,

Some in their aggressive zeal for fame,

Others with a disordered obsession with profits,

Still others in indulgence and the pleasurable exertions of the body.

[They desire the good] but are carried off here and there,

All the while in zealous pursuit of completely different outcomes.

But bountiful Zeus, shrouded in dark clouds and ruling the thunder,

Protect human beings from their ruinous ignorance;

Scatter it from our souls, grant that we might obtain

True judgment on which you rely to steer all things with justice;

So that having won honor, we may honor you in return,

Constantly singing of your works, as it is proper

For mortals to do. For neither mortals nor gods have any greater privilege

Than to make everlasting song of the universal law in justice.

Chapter •Three Metamorphoses,• from Thus 

spoke Zarathustra, Nietzche

Spoiler

Three Metamorphoses

THREE metamorphoses of the spirit do I designate to you: how the spirit becometh a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a child.

Many heavy things are there for the spirit, the strong load-bearing spirit in which reverence dwelleth: for the heavy and the heaviest longeth its strength.

What is heavy? so asketh the load-bearing spirit; then kneeleth it down like the camel, and wanteth to be well laden.

What is the heaviest thing, ye heroes? asketh the load-bearing spirit, that I may take it upon me and rejoice in my strength.

Is it not this: To humiliate oneself in order to mortify one's pride? To exhibit one's folly in order to mock at one's wisdom?

Or is it this: To desert our cause when it celebrateth its triumph? To ascend high mountains to tempt the tempter?

Or is it this: To feed on the acorns and grass of knowledge, and for the sake of truth to suffer hunger of soul?

Or is it this: To be sick and dismiss comforters, and make friends of the deaf, who never hear thy requests?

Or is it this: To go into foul water when it is the water of truth, and not disclaim cold frogs and hot toads?

Or is it this: To love those who despise us, and give one's hand to the phantom when it is going to frighten us?

All these heaviest things the load-bearing spirit taketh upon itself: and like the camel, which, when laden, hasteneth into the wilderness, so hasteneth the spirit into its wilderness.

But in the loneliest wilderness happeneth the second metamorphosis: here the spirit becometh a lion; freedom will it capture, and lordship in its own wilderness.

Its last Lord it here seeketh: hostile will it be to him, and to its last God; for victory will it struggle with the great dragon.

What is the great dragon which the spirit is no longer inclined to call Lord and God? "Thou-shalt," is the great dragon called. But the spirit of the lion saith, "I will."

"Thou-shalt," lieth in its path, sparkling with gold- a scale-covered beast; and on every scale glittereth golden, "Thou shalt!"

The values of a thousand years glitter on those scales, and thus speaketh the mightiest of all dragons: "All the values of things- glitter on me.

All values have already been created, and all created values- do I represent. Verily, there shall be no 'I will' any more. Thus speaketh the dragon.

My brethren, wherefore is there need of the lion in the spirit? Why sufficeth not the beast of burden, which renounceth and is reverent?

To create new values- that, even the lion cannot yet accomplish: but to create itself freedom for new creating- that can the might of the lion do.

To create itself freedom, and give a holy Nay even unto duty: for that, my brethren, there is need of the lion.

To assume the ride to new values- that is the most formidable assumption for a load-bearing and reverent spirit. Verily, unto such a spirit it is preying, and the work of a beast of prey.

As its holiest, it once loved "Thou-shalt": now is it forced to find illusion and arbitrariness even in the holiest things, that it may capture freedom from its love: the lion is needed for this capture.

But tell me, my brethren, what the child can do, which even the lion could not do? Why hath the preying lion still to become a child?

Innocence is the child, and forgetfulness, a new beginning, a game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea.

Aye, for the game of creating, my brethren, there is needed a holy Yea unto life: its own will, willeth now the spirit; his own world winneth the world's outcast.

Three metamorphoses of the spirit have I designated to you: how the spirit became a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a child.Thus spake Zarathustra. And at that time he abode in the town which is called The Pied Cow.

 

 

[Mig]

9 hours ago, ChiDragon said:

人法地: human follows earth

地法天: earth follows sky

天法道: sky follows Tao

道法自然: Tao follows its own nature(own-self).

I didn't see anything in the TTC says to follow nature but not to interfere with nature. Let nature take its course(無為). To obtain Tao is simply means to observe the principles of Tao. Tao is not related to nature. Tao overlooks nature to assure things are run properly on their course. Good or bad, nature has no mercy.

 

I think the problem is about the translation and the use or misuse of the word "nature". And most likely it comes from a sentence from the  淮南子 原道訓:

...修道理之數，因天地之自然，則六合不足均也。 the man who conforms to the art of the Tao, in accordance with the natural way of Heaven and Earth, would find it easy to manage the whole world.

I am pretty sure that my inquiry has been made in the past or for thousand years and my observation is that it gives me the impression is that if Daoist say follow nature is idealistic and chose arbitrarily images or concepts to make sense of their message. Unfortunately hippies, post hippies and then new age people have used it as a porte manteau word to sell whatever idea that sounds cool

[S:C]

19 hours ago, wandelaar said:

Do you consider it an undecided (or even undecidable) problem if we are in fact currently having a discussion on an internet forum called The Dao Bums?

I would consider it a matter of probability (and paradox, maybe, but you want to exclude ‘absolute truths’).

Spoiler

This observation occurs under several conditionals, which could all be questioned, yes, but not all conditionals ‘need’ questionings in the same intensity (in my opinion):

“Is there really a human being named wandelaar with appearingly green eyes (and little hair and a long downward mustache ) , who is interested in that question?” - “Is what is replying instead an AI, a bot? Or someone who is more interested in the question of someone else’s sanity or at winning an argument than the philosophical question at hand?” -“Is the internet real or is it just a fake software where I am lead to believe I am talking to strangers, but only receive the information that I caused or called for?” - “We have had a break of 18h discussion, can that still be called ‘currently’?” “Which assembly of cells of my self gives me the voice to type what I do? Can that really construe a separate identity? (Of course it can, but it is a philosophical thought.)”

 

(…) I could go on but will agree with your conclusion; trick to effective and enjoyable living is to question the right conditionals, and maybe even none sometimes.
 

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2023 by S:C

[wandelaar]

Quote

(…) I could go on but will agree with your conclusion; trick to effective and enjoyable living is to question the right conditionals, and maybe even none sometimes.

 

I agree, except that it's not a trick but common sense. If you keep on questioning without end you will eventually go insane. Unless that is what you are after, than the more reasonable option is to provisionally believe what appears to be true and correct until you find (concrete not speculative!) reasons to change your opinions in a direction that again provisionally looks more reliable. That's what curious and inquiring people usually do, and that is what in a systematic manner science and philosophy are all about.

 

Not knowing anything for sure doesn't point in any direction in particular, and so there is no reason not to follow the road of provisional truth and make the best of that. In a sense you are back at square one, but now with a greater freedom to adept your provisional opinions to relevant (concrete not speculative) contrary evidence.

Edited December 15, 2023 by wandelaar

[Nungali]

22 hours ago, Maddie said:

 

This is a good point. I always hear people saying Taoism is about following nature, when the Tao Te *cough cough says to follow the Tao, not nature. 

 

Is Tao the 'natural way' of things ?