Not-doing I think corresponds to the phrase ‘let it be’. It’s about trusting the dynamic of existence, instead of trying to wrest control over everything that happens. — Possibility

It's beginning to sound like that Kenny Rogers song, The Gambler

You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away

This is too deliberate but you may know what I'm saying...

When we act, it’s not always consciously intended, but we’re still responsible for those actions and their consequences, intended or not - sometimes more so than when we act in accordance with logical process or rational thought — Possibility

What do you mean here - 'more so' in what sense?

activists, politicians and celebrities, all well versed in the art of being seen to be acting, assume credit for the progress achieved by wu wei. I think a significant aspect of ascribing to the practise of wu wei is to be okay with that. — Possibility

Do you mean that things change and you can assume credit for that change by being present (assuming the change is in the service the cause)? Riding the energies of Que Sera, Sera. I've gone from Kenny Rogers to Doris Day... sorry.

Non-dualist philosophies generally reject the idea of an absolute distinction between appearance and reality so tend to subvert the rigid categorisation that you find in Aristotelian logic.) — Wayfarer

Thank you. Yes, I think this is a key point for me.

Modern people, meanwhile, tend to measure everything against 'the phenomenal domain' and our conceptual maps of it. Of course this is fantastically powerful with respect to navigating that domain - but the 'nameless' is, by definition, not on our maps, so to speak. That's why Taoism and other Eastern disciplines are much more than simply verbal - they're pointing to a different way-of-being (which is why it is not amenable to 'discursive reason' i.e. discussion). Hence the practices of Tai Chi, meditation, and general spiritual culture (sadhana) which aims at a reconfiguration of cognition (called 'metanoia', in Greek philosophy). — Wayfarer

I'm not sure I can even find a way to process this, it seems so... ineffable... I can only put it like this: I understand what it's not, but I don't understand what it is not, is...

Non-dualism is one thing... effortless action or not doing is something I need to apprehend in place to understand. I am not asking for a diagram or for someone to step it out, I guess I'm wanting to experience it.

In the case of Lincoln, I think of him as a strategic and super crafty political operator, so I am not sure Wu Wei fits my model of him.

I think the point is to recognise its potential in ourselves, and to reflect on whether our intention is to be seen to act or to effect change. I brought up Lincoln because he seems to embody the ambiguity and contradiction of it. But in trying to explain we can only speculate on the intentions of others, and recognise that we desire to justify our own. — Possibility

Let's not clog this thread up further, I don't think it is hitting the mark.

I'm more intrigued by T Clark and Wayfarer discussing that which can't be discussed.

Lincoln’s intentions and motivations aside, he is historically credited with effecting change. — Possibility

Yes, and few politicians were more politically savvy, activist, driven and manipulative than Lincoln. He was no quietist. William Herndon, Lincoln's law partner wrote - “He was always calculating, and always planning ahead..." “His ambition was a little engine that knew no rest.”

I think this idea of acting and not acting is very hard to explain and hard to find in practice. Nevertheless I am sure it can happen.

It would have all come to naught if the thinking of people did not change. — Valentinus

Yes, we need both. The question is, why does thinking change?

In my mind I had Abraham Lincoln — Possibility

My reading of Lincoln is that he was more motivated to hold the Union together.

I agree that there are 'anonymous' people who work back of house to effect change, but usually by working very hard, by lobbying, organizing and with relentless energy.

That's not really the question is it? A false trichotomy.

I would rather a country like Sweden, for all its failings. Or Australia. Mind you I totally recognize there are no utopias.

I agree. Much capitalism appears to be dictatorship by corporations and socialism for the rich.

What 'system'? Laissez-faire capitalism? The 'invisible hand' of the market? Those who can't get by without assistance - leave them to die so 'the system' can return to 'normality'? — Wayfarer

:up:

Probably some people use it in this way. — Jack Cummins

That's all I said and this corresponds to my experience of many others.

here were also many who were criticised for doing nothing or not enough to effect change, yet who possibly had a hand in achieving more for race equality, gay rights, etc than those who earned public recognition as ‘activists’. Wu wei is when effective change cannot be traced back to you as action. — Possibility

I don't disagree but who are you thinking of by way of comparison?

Humanists display weaknesses here because the World throw so many challenges at them. Even religious people struggle to keep faith so why would Humanists do better? — DrOlsnesLea

Religious morality is subjective so there isn't really a difference in terms of foundational strength. Just see how differently people even within one religion, say Christianity, see issues like gay marriage, the role of women in church and society, capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion. They are all over the place on these issues, change with time and base their moral position on their subjective interpretations of what they think God wants.

Don't know. It's been a while.

So, T Clark I guess that's about as sinister as I can reach right now.
Could you expand on how you see it as such ? — Amity

I have to say - 'A cage went in search of a bird' - initially had be thinking it was the start of a Jewish joke. It also sounds like a euphemism for what happens whenever I go to the library...

There’s a scholar, Donald Lopez, who has written a lot about this. — Wayfarer

Cool. I've seen some of his work in passing but not read it. Thanks.

Yes I have heard a similar account from a practitioner.

On a side note, I saw that the Dalai Lama (and yes different tradition) has made several comments on the urgent importance of action on climate change.

You won’t find it. — Wayfarer

I thought not. Mind you using the word progress was a bad word and bound not to fit.

Taoism is traditional and is likely not 'woke' in my opinion. It's generally pretty indifferent to politics, Lao Tzu was anarchist in spirit. — Wayfarer

I understand. I wasn't looking for 'woke' just support of progress.

"So, is Lao Tzu saying we should just sit back and wait for things to happen?" Well.. I guess sort of. For me, not-doing is a reflection of patience and trust in the natural way of things. Letting things take their natural course. Wu wei, acting without acting, refers to action that is spontaneous. — T Clark

My issue with this is how do you apply this approach to creating social change? In relation to progress created by activists in women's suffrage, race equality, gay rights, etc - should they just have waited? Or is there a different nuance to acting without acting?

The relevance is that they don't lose sleep over such things, while philosophers do. Now, who's better off? — baker

It's obvious that if you are unaware of a problem it is unlikely to worry you. If not being worried is your preference then obviously the ignorant are better off. People make that crack all time, inside and outside of philosophy. It doesn't really get us anywhere other than stating the obvious.

What do you make of 'you will get lost'. To me it sounds something like infinite regress.

So, what has your thoughts been around this time of life, being the 30's? Was it a difficult time for you or just kind of finding your place in society by then and getting along with it? My 20's were really the worst period of my life. — Shawn

It's easy to take ideas too seriously. I found that as soon as I stopped thinking and started doing - immersing myself in activities that meant something - I found calm and comparative happiness.

Sure. We need a new everything.

Can I not say it too? In my view in Australia the Hawke/Keating government embraced what was called economic rationalism (now neo-liberalism) which the Howard Government simply took on and ran with. More and more power to corporate interest groups and less power and resources to communities.

It's not capitalism that is at fault. It's simply lack of equity in the distribution of wealth. — Banno

It's the version of corporate capitalism.

In another post, we were discussing the aphorism "To a hammer, everything looks like a nail." I guess we could retread that as "To an anti-natalist, every problem looks like reproduction." — T Clark

Nice. And this could be used for any number of beliefs...

t is true that you would have to have a massive speed and purity in thought even just to understand a piece of what Love is and is capable of. Since love's intelligence is highly intuitional and more direct and vastly quicker than slower thinking and rationalizing. Love is, however, Rational and is possible to be understood somewhat by the mind. So it is best, if you can, to take Love as it is and experience it, live it, bathe in it if you must. For no matter how keen your mind is it is impossible to fully understand Love. — Thinking

That's a claim. I have no way of testing if it is correct. I can only go by what I experience and notice, problematic though that may be. Regardless, I am not making a claim that I fully understand love or even that I understand it a great deal.

Also - The idea of a live hammer searching out nails to smash always makes me smile. I think, most important, the version I quoted is ironic and sinister, which I think is appropriate to it's meaning. — T Clark

I thought there was something sinister about your worldview, TC....

Just joking. I guess I like Maslow's because I have used it often with students and junior colleagues to great effect.

Or, maybe, without a bird, it's not a cage at all, it's just a box made of wire. — T Clark

That thought also occurred to me. A beautiful, decorated bird cage is just a lovely sculpture paused in the process of becoming a prison.

I get your point too. Sometimes I think we get hung up on words and definitions when all we need to do is live and experience. Love is a poor word because it has been overused and abused and people seem to be afraid of it.

Despite all the noise and bullshit and personal failures of people, I think there is a lot of love around - certainly based on personal experience and on what I have witnessed. But many people are so cynical that they are often incredulous of anything sincere. The most bitter ones tend to deny love exists because no one must have it if they can't.

The biggest difference for me is Heidegger is unreadable, while Wittgenstein is almost unreadable. But I don't doubt their seminal places in Western thought.

"A cage went in search of a bird.".
— New2K2

Two similar ironic aphorisms come to mind:

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

The second is apparently a fake quote attributed to Leon Trotsky by author Alan Furst. — T Clark

My favourite version of the first which I was told was Maslow (but such quotes seem to transmigrate) is this: "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you treat everything as a nail.' Which sharpens it for me.

The limits of a person's world view.

My reading of a cage went in search of a bird is - a cage is pointless without a bird in it. So it describes all the empty people 'cages' in search of their truth 'birds'. When they find it they will trap it and render it a prisoner in their mind - where the meaning no longer soars.

Take logic for instance. It makes a big fuss about proof and avoiding cicrcular reasoning but it turns out it itself can't be proven without resorting to a circulus probando for to justify it is to assume it proven. — TheMadFool

Does that seem equivalent to a black hole?

It's not an accident that our entire economy depends on people buying crap they don't need. It's a deliberate plan. — fishfry

Yes, this phenomenon used to be called, 'Keeping up with the Joneses'. Very mid-twentieth century. Simple consumer capitalism. But I don't see it as described by the OP - suicidal despair if an endless appetite for more is not quenched. That seems like a different spin.

See what happening? People getting burned out? People feeling loss more than gain? That's all pretty basic human psychology if you ask me. — I don't get it

I don't think your point is coherent. Sorry.

They still long for things, and experience loss in life. — I don't get it

Buddhism 101 - attachment leads to suffering.

Every music lover will agree that their favorite music places them in a spiritual, exalted state. This concords with the function of music: to place the listener in a state of spiritual ecstasy, and impart the impression of meaning and significance which the words of the song would not otherwise possess. — hypericin

I doubt this is accurate. I think a lot of people listen to music so they don't have to think. They like the pop music of their time and while the sounds give them pleasure, they never feel a sense of the numinous or much more than a base level tingle.

There is no example we can point to of nothing existing except as metaphor.

Hope I clarified things a bit. — I don't get it

Sorry, Man, no. I rarely see this happening. Except where people are unhappy or have a mental illness.

Still think you need to separate out those things you have described which are necessary for life to exist - food, water, shelter, air.

It's like we desire transcendence, but that desire manifests itself in us as a never ending cycle of constantly trying to improve, and hold on to what we've already got, never realizing that there's really no end game, and that if there was, we probably wouldn't want it. — I don't get it

I don't think everyone feels this or necessarily lives this.

Krishnamurti develops the ideas you have expressed rather well.

Many people I know have almost no interest in material things other than what is necessary. This is of course an inexact idea but that doesn't make it hard to live by.

Things such as air, food, water, shelter, family, friends, praise, affection, acceptance, status, career, land, possesions, not to mention all the personal goals and projects one might be interested in achieving or completing. — I don't get it

You've lumped all these ideas in together and they are not necessarily connected at all. Perspective.

My point is that the theists themselves are not troubled by their circular thinking. — baker

Circular reasoning is a problem in a range of areas and not just confined to theists. You keep coming back to whether people are troubled or not by their logical fallacies. Sorry, but I can't quite work out the relevance. Most people with circular thinking are not troubled by it. Most people are not troubled by their lack of critical thinking in general.