"Why ought one be good ?"

— dukkha

Possibly going out on a limb here due to the difficulty of the question, so no offense meant to anyone...

If I'm understanding it correctly, the basic idea of the OP seems to be a reasonable question, one that benefits from being examined, dissected, and placed under a microscope so to speak. I sincerely doubt that the questioner is being some kind of Ivan Karamozov (who stated that everything is lawful, even crime).

Of course time and circumstances play large factors. Other factors being equal, to drive through an intersection at one particular moment (when the light is green for you) is all well and good for everyone. To drive through the same intersection moments later when the light has been red, and other cars are crossing in front of you is risking death for many people including yourself. One would "pay the price" in many ways even if the car went through the red light accidentally. I state the obvious to emphasize the factor of timing.

One could define "wrong" (in a very general way) as that which causes harm to someone, directly or indirectly. As well as the factor of timing mentioned above, there are other factors. What is the likelihood of someone being hurt? How many people could be hurt? How badly and in what way? If not people being hurt, how about the chance of an animal being hurt? Or property damaged?

If this is beginning to sound like a courtroom argument that one might hear in a criminal trial, perhaps that is to be expected. There very well may be absolutes (right/wrong, good/evil) somewhere in the universe. And these absolutes or ideals may be perceived by some people to some degree. One could perhaps imagine a world where the "absolute/ideal" realm (cf. Buddhism's Two Truths or Plato's Ideals) are completely perceived, understood, and followed by everyone all the time. But for now, we live in a relative world, full of ever-changing circumstances. Where in the best case scenario, people are trying to discern the ideals present in a situation and act in harmony with them.

Intention plays an extremely large role. If someone was planning to severely harm someone, that would be considered a crime. Conversely, if a person accidentally harmed someone while genuinely trying to help them, that (hopefully) would not be considered criminal.

The question in the original post may be one of the most crucial questions, in terms of ethics. Being so, it can't be answered quickly and easily, or maybe even completely. But certainly a critical question worthy of consideration, imo.

Thanks very much for your reply. No problem whatsoever. Communication will become instantaneous just as soon as everyone is a mind reader! Maybe this could be called the TaoTeChing discussion thread instead. I didn't mean to stifle any opinions that weren't glowingly positive. If a philosophical writing can't take some scrutiny and doubt then it's like a bridge that isn't strong enough to travel over. Though I wouldn't call it strictly theological, due to a lack of a distinct divinity being mentioned. But that is what appeals to me about it. It has the restraint to allow the central mysteries to remain undefined. The circuitous path is taken in describing the way of nature. But since it says that more words count less and those that talk don't know, I'll say no more!

How is any of this philosophy? — Hanover

When starting the thread, it was a coin toss whether to put it in General Philosophy or Philosophy of Religion, if that is what you are referring to. The moderators could move it to the appropriate sub-forum if necessary.

If one supposes the possibility of "teaching without words", then that would seem to point to a "learning without words". Can one listen to Silence? (Capitalized for contrast to the usual meaning, ie. the absence of sound). Can one learn from Silence, and if so what can be learned? Is Silence completely empty? Or is it simply out of the range of the range of hearing (or perhaps comprehension) in some way? Teachings such as the Tao te Ching use words, of course. It is in harmony with silence though, and makes the important disclaimer that it is merely a pale reflection of that which cannot be spoken. The author, one could say, seems to have listened to and been transformed by this Silence and encourages us to do likewise.

The gentlest thing in the world
overcomes the hardest thing in the world.
That which has no substance
enters where there is no space.
This shows the value of non-action. Teaching without words,
performing without actions:
that is the way of the Way.
-chapter 43

What does the world need then? — Agustino

(singing, accompanied by a piano and soft horns)
What... the... world... needs now...
is love... sweet love
It's the only thing, that there's just too little of...

Now, everyone join in! What the world needs now...

(L) O:) (L) (sorry! thanks for playing the straight man. lol)

The yin/yang symbol (or Taijitu) and concept may pre-date the written Tao te Ching, but they seem to be intimately related. And what a concept it is. If all we had was the later-developed dualism of good/evil, our philosophy if not our world would be more impoverished. It is said that one could possibly become enlightened by meditating upon a painting of yin and yang.

And you could put that in your pipe or bong and smoke it! (lol! :D )

Is this position already known in the literature? — Babbeus

The field of transpersonal psychology would probably be the most scientific examination of these questions. (Whatever what one may happen to think of the results of their research and experiments).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpersonal_psychology

Other related topics would include non-dualistic philosophy, Advaita Vedanta, philosophical Taoism,
and Buddhism. Also, possibly the theory of the Noosphere.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere

A most interesting topic, and a very good question. Thanks for posting it. Some thoughts...

It would seem that most people at some point wonder if the energy of consciousness which they feel flowing through them, is perhaps the tip of an immense iceberg of infinite awareness. Like someone looking at a glass of water and pondering the notion that each of the molecules in that glass have had over a million mile and million year journey through the clouds, oceans, rivers, and puddles. And have been part of the bodies of countless humans and other animals. And hopefully this thought won't make the person too nauseous to take a sip of that water. (lol!)

As for the "one electron universe" theory, the link you provided is intriguing. Pondering Quantum questions seems to dissolve my mind in a wonderful if slightly disorienting way. Like running a race, then after "hitting the wall" of the body's limit, experiencing a "runners high". Whether i understand any of it is another matter entirely. I best stick to familiar terms, like the tribal person gazing up at an airplane, what he calls an "iron bird".

There may be a correlation between consciousness and identity, as concerning human thought and the scope of one's particular awareness. I am wondering about the limits placed on who/what we think we are, and its effect on consciousness. In a recent thread i posted some thoughts on the matter. They may or may not be relevant here:




There seems to be in the human mind some balance of "self" and "beyond self", one could say. Is there an optimal balance point of these two extremes (or a general range at least) where humans may happily dwell, so to speak? Or can each of the levels of personal and transpersonal awareness be adjusted independently in one's mind, in a way like one adjusts the treble and bass levels of a stereo music system? In this analogy, if the personal compares to the treble level and the transpersonal compares to the bass level, has the average current mental state become too "trebley", an isolated cul-de-sac? And if so, what could remedy the possible imbalance?

If there are more questions than answers at this point, hopefully there is some fire behind all the smoke. Thank you for reading these thoughts. I appreciate any responses to them, as well as to the original post.

Thanks for posting that, very interesting! To keep an open mind to foreign cultures and learning their language is hard enough today. Back in Matteo Ricci's day it must have felt like landing on Mars or something. Credit to him and to his Chinese hosts. The search for knowledge and wisdom knows no boundaries or borders. The search goes on...

When a country obtains great power,
it becomes like the sea:
all streams run downward into it.
The more powerful it grows,
the greater the need for humility.
Humility means trusting the Tao,
thus never needing to be defensive. A great nation is like a great man:
When he makes a mistake, he realizes it.
Having realized it, he admits it.
Having admitted it, he corrects it.
He considers those who point out his faults
as his most benevolent teachers.
He thinks of his enemy
as the shadow that he himself casts. If a nation is centered in the Tao,
if it nourishes its own people
and doesn't meddle in the affairs of others,
it will be a light to all nations in the world.

-chapter 61 (from ios app by John Bogil)

"a nation... centered in the Tao". One hopes that it is still possible at this point. May the leaders of the world act in accord with this ideal. To the extent that they do may be our only hope. As for me, removing the Berlin walls in my mind and the barbed wire in my heart is almost a full time occupation. But it's a good start.

Yes, totally understandable what you are saying about studying 6-10 translations minimum to get a fuller effect. And time, lots of time. Maybe since the original Chinese characters/pictographs were broader in meaning than, for example English equivalent words, it is near impossible to capture its meaning in one translation. The deep subject matter makes it more difficult. But that is the beauty of it. By reading multiple translations, one can pick and choose which ones really illuminates a particular verse. Some make me go "???" Some make me think "ok, that's very well put!". And some just blow my socks off and bring tears. But it also depends on one's circumstances and state of mind. (Almost like choosing a fine wine to go with dinner. :) )

There is, one could say, an identity crisis that stretches across civilization and cuts painfully into the pysche of countless people. It is almost immeasurably deep. And, as i see it, the most effective way to counteract it is to "go deep". Deep into your identity. Who or what am i, really? The distinctions of one's race, cultural heritage, gender and gender identity, sexual orientation, social standing, money and possessions, career, etc. are of great importance in developing an identity. It is the framework on which a life is built and lived, so these distinctions are an important part of our very existence.

But what does this framework stand upon? One could say that the common denominator is "humanity". To identity as a human primarily, prior to and "more existentially" than the above mentioned distinctions, is to realize a common and indissoluble solidarity with every person who has ever lived. And with those yet to be born. That seems to be a significant step in a person's psyche-spiritual development. A step that perhaps some do not take within their lifetime. Maybe that's something to put on the "bucket list".

And beyond that? Or, (if one thinks of going deeper) "below" that? Is there anything below/beyond that in terms of the foundation of our identity? Perhaps. And thankfully, it may not be all that uncommon. To go deeper than one's human identity is to identity with other mammals, and with all living beings. I dare say that someone who has deeply bonded with a pet has possibly transcended a strictly human identity. And this is disregarding the strange, otherworldly hypnotic powers of pet cats. ;) Dog lovers know this, as do those connected with other mammals, reptiles, birds, and fish. And even insects. It is quite an experience to have a praying mantis turn its head toward you, and calmly consider your presence. Your consciousness is connected with its consciousness in way not dependent on IQ.

Perhaps three of the strongest things or forces in this world are gravity, water, and tree roots. Powerful and unceasing. Our roots go down deep, perhaps deeper than can easily be imagined. This is our very strength, since a tree cut through completely at ground level can regenerate itself. Humans have their own kind of heliotropism, growing upward and building higher and higher. Which is as it should be.
Let us not neglect our powerful geotropism, even though it is mostly not visible and might seem to be in the muck and mire of existence.

The high hurdler has much skill, as does the limbo dancer. How low can you go?

The many varieties in the style of Psybient or Psychill. A little more mellow than Psytrance, very engaging. Here's a site (Psybient Grove) with lots of good compilations:

https://m.youtube.com/channel/UC-291oNOFHpRqu0PpJQ7wIg

The Psychedelic Muse is cool too:

https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCAepXw94EhaO0CZV9f5D3fQ

Do I believe in the existence of a parallel universe and Many Worlds?

Sometimes I wonder if this world exists, and is for real. And if it is real, what kind of reality does it have that isn't shifting faster than it can be seen, let alone understood.
(Well maybe not exactly... It's an exaggeration, but only slightly. Occasionally, i feel sympathy with the familiar quote from the Buddha, on how to view the world:

As a lamp, a cataract, a star in space / an illusion, a dewdrop, a bubble / a dream, a cloud, a flash of lightening / view all created things like this.)

Very interesting thread though. Thanks to all. Carry on!

Intuition is a most interesting subject indeed...

From a "belief" point of view, it seems to exist in a zone of its own, so to speak. In other words, one need not be of any particular religious or spiritual viewpoint to accept or understand the basic concept of intuition. It may be one of the few practical areas of overlap between an atheist view and a typically religious one, though they would be explained most differently.

The word "intuition" implies an opening or openness, perhaps to that which may be beyond the individual's current knowledge and ability. How many doors in the mind are yet to be opened? Or have not been opened since one was a child? It could be said that like the landscape around us, the mind has its own roads, paths, forests, walls, doors, windows, etc. A scientist might use terms like synapse and neurotransmitter. And they all serve a function. So perhaps intuition is an ability, which can be improved with certain mental practices. In this way, one could liken the individual mind to a radio receiver scanning different frequencies for a signal. New or relevant signals may be only a dial turn away...

How would you compare/contrast the ideas of "intuition" with that of "instinct"? There seems to be some possible overlap, as when someone speaks of "gut instinct" to mean a hunch, premonition, or intuition. Most animals and insects could be said to have instincts (innate behavior), since the results are visible. How about intuition? It may be more difficult to demonstrate since intuition could be described as a feature of consciousness.