I don't think we can avoid a human-centered morality, even if we avoid putting what is good for humans at the center. It is human beings who judge questions of morality. — Fooloso4

:up:

I don't think we can avoid a human-centered morality, even if we avoid putting what is good for humans at the center. It is human beings who judge questions of morality. — Fooloso4

As I understand it, Taoism does avoid a human-centered morality. This is from Ziporyn's translation of the Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi).

What I call good is not humankindness and responsible conduct, but just being good at what is done by your own intrinsic virtuosities. Goodness, as I understand it, certainly does not mean humankindness and responsible conduct! It is just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out. What I call sharp hearing is not hearkening to others, but rather hearkening to oneself, nothing more. — Chuang Tzu

You see, even though we agree, you may not think so because words or names for you are static, while for me they are fluid. That is our difference. Whatever word you or i use makes no difference. I mean, even the Tao suggests that we see beyond the names of things down to their essence. — punos


I don't understand. — T Clark

Words are imperfect tools for communication. True understanding comes from grasping the underlying concepts, not just the words used to describe them. Flexibility in interpreting language can lead to deeper comprehension. In essence, i am advocating for a more holistic approach to communication and understanding, one that prioritizes meaning over specific terminology.

I don't see that there is an ultimate puzzle. Each understanding of ultimate reality stands on it's own. It can be interesting and enlightening to compare different religions and philosophies, but that doesn't mean something is missing. — T Clark

There is only one ultimate reality, not a multiplicity of ultimate realities. The structure and content of the diverse understandings throughout history are mostly the result of cross-pollination between different cultures. For example, Buddhism from India significantly influenced and contributed to Chinese philosophy and religion.

Consider the parable of the blind men and the elephant. The parable illustrates the limitations of individual perception and the importance of considering multiple perspectives, including those from diverse cultures. The point is that no single person can perceive the totality of the elephant. However, if they were to come together and combine their perceptions, they would acquire a more complete understanding of what an elephant is, or more precisely, how an elephant is.

Whether or not you capitalize "god" depends on whether you consider it a name or a description. — T Clark

We have a difference in the significance of "God" with a capital 'G' and "god" with a lowercase 'g'. For me, the capital 'G' indicates the primordial source. The word "God" is not a name but a title, and the same applies to "god". Gods have names, just as the President of the United States has a name. "President" is not a name itself. God is not a name, but Jehovah is, and God is his title.

As I understand it, Taoism does avoid a human-centered morality. — T Clark

I don't think that:

...just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out. — Chuang Tzu

is a non-human centered morality, or, for that matter a morality at all.

Ziporyn's translation from The Essential Writings, chapter, 8 is slightly different. Instead of "the' inborn nature is has "your" inborn nature. It is "your own" virtuosity. According to the glossary:

The original sense of term [virtuosity, De] is an efficacious power, in the nonmoral sense, "by virtue of" ...

Light is the left hand of darkness
and darkness the right hand of light.
Two are one, life and death, lying
together like lovers in kemmer,
like hands joined together,
like the end and the way.

― Ursula K. Le Guin, The Left Hand of Darkness.

The left hand of Taoism is Confucianism. Confucianism is conservative, traditional, hierarchical, rule-based, legalistic. It is very much a moral code for the proper functioning of human society. This other hand is dominant in Chinese culture, because it supports the culture.

The Taoist is always a maverick, an individualist, a gypsy, a wanderer in the wilderness not a cultivator of the rice paddy.

As I understand it, Taoism does avoid a human-centered morality. — T Clark

That is my understanding also. But it does not deny it, but offers the 'other hand'. The two work together.

What others teach, I also teach; that is:
"A violent man will die a violent death!"
This will be the essence of my teaching. — Tao Te Ching

_________________________________________________

Argument about God, god, gods, and the supernatural seem out of place to me in relation to Taoism. The supernatural pervades Chinese culture; the Confucian will emphasise the sacred Emperor, and the respect and duty due to the ancestors; the Taoist's supernatural tends more to the magical prediction, spells, charms, blessings. But neither is central to the respective thought system.

To get a better idea of Gods, dragons, and other monsters, have a read, or watch the cartoon of Monkey - Journey to the West.

As I understand it, Taoism does avoid a human-centered morality.
— T Clark

I don't think that:

...just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out.
— Chuang Tzu

is a non-human centered morality, or, for that matter a morality at all. — Fooloso4

I agree, it's not a morality at all, so it certainly avoids a human-centered morality. I'm not trying to be cute. I'm being literal.

Ziporyn's translation from The Essential Writings, chapter, 8 is slightly different. Instead of "the' inborn nature is has "your" inborn nature. It is "your own" virtuosity. According to the glossary:

The original sense of term [virtuosity, De] is an efficacious power, in the nonmoral sense, "by virtue of" ... — Fooloso4

I'm not sure what that difference means in the context of our discussion. For what it's worth, the full translation, which I have read, was published after the essential writings.

Words are imperfect tools for communication. True understanding comes from grasping the underlying concepts, not just the words used to describe them. Flexibility in interpreting language can lead to deeper comprehension. In essence, i am advocating for a more holistic approach to communication and understanding, one that prioritizes meaning over specific terminology. — punos

What is there to understanding a concept beyond understanding the words used to describe it? It seems to me that, in Taoism, conceptualizing something is the same as naming it, i.e. putting it into words.

There is only one ultimate reality, not a multiplicity of ultimate realities. — punos

I often say that there's only one world, so all the different philosophies and religions are describing the same thing in different words. I guess that means I agree with you. But to greatly oversimplify, there is only one kind of thing - an apple - yet a multiplicity of ways to describe it. That doesn't mean there is something missing from our understanding of apples. Each culture and tradition describes their experience of ultimate reality, but ultimate reality doesn't exist beyond those descriptions.

We have a difference in the significance of "God" with a capital 'G' and "god" with a lowercase 'g'. For me, the capital 'G' indicates the primordial source. The word "God" is not a name but a title, and the same applies to "god". Gods have names, just as the President of the United States has a name. "President" is not a name itself. God is not a name, but Jehovah is, and God is his title. — punos

Name or title, it's a proper noun and is capitalized. You say "For me, the capital 'G' indicates the primordial source," but that's just how you see it, not necessarily how others do.

I suppose the ancient oriental philosophies & religions were originally Naturalist, in the sense that most aboriginal (uncivilized) societies lived like animals at the mercy of their natural environment : Animism. — Gnomon

An insightful passage on the origin of religion by a Zen teacher and author:

The animal world is a world of pure being, a world of immediacy and immanence. The animal soul is like “water in water,” seamlessly connected to all that surrounds it, so that there is no sense of self or other, of time, of space, of being or not being. This utopian (to human sensibility, which has such alienating notions) Shangri-La or Eden actually isn’t that because it is characterized at all points by what we’d call violence. Animals, that is, eat and are eaten. For them killing and being killed is the norm; and there isn’t any meaning to such a thing, or anything that we would call fear; there’s no concept of killing or being killed. There’s only being, immediacy, “is-ness.” Animals don’t have any need for religion; they already are that, already transcend life and death, being and nonbeing, self and other, in their very living, which is utterly pure.

[In his book, A Theory of Religion] Georges Bataille sees human consciousness beginning with the making of the first tool, the first “thing” that isn’t a pure being, intrinsic in its value and inseparable from all of being¹. A tool is a separable, useful, intentionally made thing; it can be possessed, and it serves a purpose. It can be altered to suit that purpose. It is instrumental, defined by its use. The tool is the first instance of the “not-I,” and with its advent there is now the beginning of a world of objects, a “thing” world. Little by little out of this comes a way of thinking and acting within thingness (language), and then once this plane of thingness is established, more and more gets placed upon it—other objects, plants, animals, other people, one’s self, a world. Now there is self and other—and then, paradoxically, self becomes other to itself, alienated not only from the rest of the projected world of things, but from itself, which it must perceive as a thing, a possession. This constellation of an alienated self is a double-edged sword: seeing the self as a thing, the self can for the first time know itself and so find a closeness to itself; prior to this, there isn’t any self so there is nothing to be known or not known. But the creation of my 'me', though it gives me for the first time myself as a friend, also rips me out of the world and puts me out on a limb on my own. Interestingly, and quite logically, this development of human consciousness coincides with a deepening of the human relationship to the animal world, which opens up to the human mind now as a depth, a mystery. Humans are that depth, because humans are animals, know this and feel it to be so, and yet also not so; humans long for union with the animal world of immediacy, yet know they are separate from it. Also they are terrified of it, for to reenter that world would be a loss of the self; it would literally be the end of me as I know me.

In the midst of this essential human loneliness and perplexity, which is almost unbearable, religion appears. It intuits and imagines the ancient world of oneness, of which there is still a powerful primordial memory, and calls it The Sacred. This is the invisible world, world of spirit, world of the gods, or of God. It is inexorably opposed to, defined as the opposite of, the world of things, the profane world of the body, of instrumentality, a world of separation, the fallen world. Religion’s purpose then is to bring us back to the lost world of intimacy, and all its rites, rituals, and activities are created to this end. We want this, and need it, as sure as we need food and shelter; and yet it is also terrifying. All religions have known and been based squarely on this sense of terrible necessity. — The Violence of Oneness, Norman Fischer

¹ My bet is the first artefact that was consciously possessed was a stone tool. And that this could have been many hundreds of thousands of years before the appearance of h.sapiens.

Agnosticism of the Buddha — Gnomon

And what do you think that might be? ‘Buddha’, after all, means ‘knowing’ or 'one who knows' whereas ‘agnostic’ means ‘not knowing’. How would you reconcile that?

What is there to understanding a concept beyond understanding the words used to describe it? It seems to me that, in Taoism, conceptualizing something is the same as naming it, i.e. putting it into words. — T Clark

It would appear that way, but certain concepts are too big for words, apparently. When something is too vast, pointing at it becomes ambiguous. Some concepts are very mercurial and appear one way in a certain context, yet differently in another, much like how different colors appear to change depending on the surrounding and framing colors. Have you ever thought or felt something you couldn't say or even name? That is what is most interesting to me.

Each appearance is given a name, but these names are just facets of one overarching concept. I think it is actually very simple, but the complexity arises from the cultural implications of the words we use. I believe everything of consequence can be expressed in one way or another, but it's not always easy. The correct approach, in my opinion, is to use words as containers of meaning that can be poured into other containers. Deep meaning must be triangulated with the assistance of other meanings to ascertain the ineffable. One will never be able to do it with a single word, just as you can't describe the universe with a single number. We should use all available perspectives to hone in on the source which has no name.

I often say that there's only one world, so all the different philosophies and religions are describing the same thing in different words. I guess that means I agree with you. — T Clark

As i suspected. :smile: ... But my point is not really to get you to agree with me per say, but to help each other see more than we can by ourselves.

But to greatly oversimplify, there is only one kind of thing - an apple - yet a multiplicity of ways to describe it. That doesn't mean there is something missing from our understanding of apples. — T Clark

Before we understood what cells were, we were not able to describe that aspect of an apple. Similarly, before we had the idea or concept of atoms and molecules, we were incapable of describing an apple in those terms. A person who has only ever seen a red apple will have an incomplete description compared to one who has seen both red and green apples. The fact that apples can be green is missing from the first person's apple model. There are many layers and levels of description, and each one adds to the completeness of the meaning.

Each culture and tradition describes their experience of ultimate reality, but ultimate reality doesn't exist beyond those descriptions. — T Clark

Unless it is an attempt at fiction, i do not know what the point would be to describe anything that has no existence beyond the description itself. The real thing is what we are trying to describe, not the description. The description, like the name, is not the thing itself.

I agree with this:
Ziporyn argues that Daoism believes in no ultimate purpose, intention, principle, morality. — Joshs
However, some translations of the TTC appear to suggest that there is a goal, with aims. An example: — Amity

The Tao Te Ching does not specify a purpose to the natural world, but its metaphor of "flow" does bring to mind the course of a river that simply follows the path of least resistance from mountaintop to valley to sea. In the natural world the engine of flow is Gravity, which affects all things equally. Rivers meander against environmental resistance, in the closest possible approximation of a direct line toward peaceful equilibrium in the bosom of the ocean. But galaxies & planets influence each other and flow endlessly in circles around the center of gravity of the system. Seeking, but never reaching, parity with gravity.

The flow of a river has only one purpose : to fulfill its attraction to gravity, by journeying to the center. Meanwhile, humans adapt the river's flow to their own purposes, like hobos hitching a train. So it is with Nature : no apparent purpose, only thermodynamic flow. Yet humans prosper when they "go with the flow" as far as it will take them toward their own goals.

Perhaps Energy (causation), which is neither created nor destroyed, is the invisible God of Taoism. :smile:

And what do you think that might be? ‘Buddha’, after all, means ‘knowing’ or 'one who knows' whereas ‘agnostic’ means ‘not knowing’. How would you reconcile that? — Wayfarer

Perhaps the way to Buddhahood is to know what you don't know. :cool:

Rumsfeld : there are knowns, known-unknowns, and unknown-unknowns.

Perhaps Energy (causation), which is neither created nor destroyed, is the invisible God of Taoism. :smile: — Gnomon

This is akin to the Zero-Point Energy that isn't zero and causes everything.

There! We have named the Tao!

Perhaps the way to Buddhahood is to know what you don't know. — Gnomon

Not something you're demonstrating in this thread :-)

Some concepts are very mercurial and appear one way in a certain context, yet differently in another, much like how different colors appear to change depending on the surrounding and framing the color. Have you ever thought or felt something you couldn't say or even name? That is what is most interesting to me.

Each appearance is given a name, but these names are just facets of one overarching concept. I think it is actually very simple, but the complexity arises from the cultural implications of the words we use. I believe everything of consequence can be expressed in one way or another, but it's not always easy. The correct approach, in my opinion, is to use words as containers of meaning that can be poured into other containers. Deep meaning must be triangulate with the assistance of other meanings to ascertain the ineffable. One will never be able to do it with a single word, just as you can't describe the universe with a single number. We should use all available perspectives to hone in on the source which has no name. — punos

Hope you don't mind me chipping in on this point. Insight into fundamental religious and existential realities may not be easily amenable to conceptual analysis. Maybe to throw light on that, consider what is amenable to conceptual analysis. Many examples might be provided by science. After all a main goal of scientific analysis is conceptual clarity, and isomorphism between symbolic expressions and predicted outcomes or observations. But science begins with precise definitions, what is included and what is excluded in the domain of enquiry. That is both its strength and its weakness, although it's only a weakness when those axiomatic choices are forgotten or taken for granted as being self-evident.

But when it comes to value systems or existential philosophies, the terms and matters being considered are much larger and, and so, harder to define. You say 'Deep meaning must be triangulated with the assistance of other meanings to ascertain the ineffable'. That resembles disciplines such as comparative religion and hermeneutics. I think that's a very insightful approach.

But there's another dimension to consider, and that is the sense in which deep spiritual or existential enquiry is necessarily first person. There are states of being, or states of understanding, which can only be realised in the first person. They can be conveyed to another, only in the event that the other has realised or has had access to insights of a similar nature. So that kind of insight is non-conceptual or non-discursive, so to speak - beyond words, which is the meaning of ineffable. But real, and highly significant, regardless.

Hope you don't mind me chipping in on this point. — Wayfarer

You have always been welcome to do so dear Sir. :smile:

But there's another dimension to consider, and that is the sense in which deep spiritual or existential enquiry is necessarily first person. There are states of being, or states of understanding, which can only be realised in the first person. They can be conveyed to another, only in the event that the other has realised or has had access to insights of a similar nature. So that kind of insight is non-conceptual or non-discursive, so to speak - beyond words, which is the meaning of ineffable. But real, and highly significant, regardless. — Wayfarer

I absolutely agree, and that is precisely why in these cases language must take on a new active function, as opposed to the passive function of merely transporting concepts. Other methods may also be incorporated, such as the esoteric initiations practiced by the ancients. Drugs ("sacred plants") can achieve this, as can art, theater, adventure, and more in the correct context. Language, as the ancients recognized, is a kind of magic. The real magic. Language can be used to affect consciousness, and even perception making you believe things, see things, and behave in certain ways. Thus, language is able to influence the first-person experience of another if used skillfully and with knowledge of the art (rhetoric). Hitler is an excellent example of this power, yet it can be used for good as well as for deception. It can make you see what is not there, or make you not see what is there. Everything has its active and passive form, including language.

I like the way Alan Moore described magic.

Profound. His remark about the 'magic' employed by advertisers to mould the populace's thoughts is spot on. (Queue Edward Bernays.) Also, 'as long as you're doing the will of the Universe, then you can do no wrong.' Also the desire to obliterate the Self, because the responsibility of recognising it is too great a responsibility to bear. 'The way that people immerse themselves in alcohol and drugs, in television, in any of the addictions that our culture throws up can be seen as a deliberate attempt to destroy any connection between themselves and the responsibility of accepting and owning a higher self.' Thanks for sharing.

Yes, it gave me goosebumps when i listened to it again. I hadn't seen it in a while, but the conversation reminded me of it. I'm glad you enjoyed it. :smile: :up:

It would appear that way, but certain concepts are too big for words, apparently. When something is too vast, pointing at it becomes ambiguous. Some concepts are very mercurial and appear one way in a certain context, yet differently in another, much like how different colors appear to change depending on the surrounding and framing colors. Have you ever thought or felt something you couldn't say or even name? That is what is most interesting to me. — punos

I'm not sure what to say about this. I've already gone out on a limb a bit, being too definitive in rejecting your point of view. Maybe too rigid is a better way of saying it. It just sort of rubs me the wrong way, which I recognize is not much of an argument.

Deep meaning must be triangulated with the assistance of other meanings to ascertain the ineffable. — punos

I don't think meaning of any kind can "ascertain" the ineffable. The Ineffable that can be ascertained is not the not the true ineffable.

I'm not sure what to say about this. I've already gone out on a limb a bit, being too definitive in rejecting your point of view. Maybe too rigid is a better way of saying it. It just sort of rubs me the wrong way, which I recognize is not much of an argument. — T Clark

I know that feeling. The only thing left to do then is to discover why it rubs you the wrong way. What you do with the result of that analysis is up to you. We can leave it alone for now if you like.

That is my understanding also. But it does not deny it, but offers the 'other hand'. The two work together. — unenlightened

Yes. I agree.

Perhaps the way to Buddhahood is to know what you don't know. — Gnomon
Not something you're demonstrating in this thread :-) — Wayfarer

I assume you are implying that I am "demonstrating" my own ignorance. But this thread is not attempting to "demonstrate" anything about Buddhism or Buddahood. I'm sorry if some of my incidental references to Buddhism offend you. But as I said in the OP : "Since Axiarchism is new to me, I may have misunderstood its meaning. And my understanding of Taoism is superficial". Likewise, my knowledge of Buddhism is lacking in depth. Yet, I'm learning more about oriental "philosophical religions" from your posts on TPF. Please forgive my ignorant blunders. :worry:

No offense taken, but sometimes care is warranted.

"Since Axiarchism is new to me, I may have misunderstood its meaning. And my understanding of Taoism is superficial". Likewise, my knowledge of Buddhism is lacking in depth. — Gnomon

Typically, ignorance makes people less eager to give their opinions.

I will say something about the connection between Buddhism and agnosticism.

First, 'agnosticism', as I'm sure we're all aware, was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley, 'Darwin's Bulldog', in the thick of the theological disputes following the publication of Origin of Species. Agnosticism says that one cannot, and should not claim to, know things for which one there is no evidence. 'Of moral purpose I see no trace in Nature. That is an article of exclusively human manufacture – and very much to our credit', he said.

Now, as for the 'agnosticism' of the Buddha. This in all likelihood refers to the Buddha's refusal to respond to the types of questions that are often associated with what we in the West would call metaphysics (although noting there is no equivalent word in the Buddhist lexicon.) These 'unanswereable questions' are described in this wikipedia article and include questions such as whether the world (or Cosmos) is eternal, whether it is spatially limited, whether the soul is identical with the body (again caution is warranted as there's no word for 'soul' in Buddhism). And so on. There are ten such questions (and their variants) in the earlier texts but as is typical with these lists, they became more elaborated over time.

Anyway, when the Buddha was approached to adjudicate such questions, he would generally decline to respond. The analogy of the poison arrow was sometimes given, comparing speculation over such questions with a wanderer who had been shot by a poison arrow, wondering what the arrow was made of or what direction it came from, instead of seeking to have the arrow removed and the wound treated, and dying as a result. That conveys the sense of urgency sorrounding the quest for resolution, and the dire consequences of frittering time away in speculation.

So would the Buddha agree with T H H that there is 'no trace of moral purpose in Nature?' Perhaps - but then, the diagnosis of Buddhism is that there is a cause of suffering, which can be traced back, through the causal chain of 'dependent origination' which enmeshes beings in the state of avidya/ignorance. So the question of whether 'moral purpose exists in nature' as a kind of disembodied principle, may well be relegated to the domain of unanswerable questions. But insight into, and liberation from, the chain of dependent origination, the end towards which the whole moral discipline (Sīla) of Buddhism is directed, is another matter, one of real and cogent urgency. So I don't know if that sense is really commensurable with Huxley's agnosticism, but then, the cultural contexts are very far apart.

I will say something about the connection between Buddhism and agnosticism. — Wayfarer

Thanks. I didn't mean to characterize Gautama as a doctrinal Agnostic, but merely as one who didn't claim to have knowledge of gods or supernatural beings. In modern terms, a secular teacher instead of a religious priest or preacher*1. Ironically, some of his followers seemed to imagine him as something like a demigod*2, who founded a religion instead of a Zen-like (or stoic-like) philosophical practice. I view the Mahayana Buddhists as similar to the imperial Catholic Church, which departed from the humble & local Jewish mission of Jesus.

Although I am open to the logical possibility of a transcendent First Cause, that caused the cosmological Big Bang, I have no experiential or revealed knowledge of such a hypothetical notion. Hence, I am a secular agnostic, who includes transcendence in my philosophical worldview. I suppose Hindu-born Gautama assumed the physical world itself was eternal & cyclic, and saw no need to speculate on the original Cause of space-time. :smile:

*1. Secular Buddhism—sometimes also referred to as agnostic Buddhism, Buddhist agnosticism, ignostic Buddhism, atheistic Buddhism, pragmatic Buddhism, Buddhist atheism, or Buddhist secularism—is a broad term for a form of Buddhism based on humanist, skeptical, and agnostic values, valuing pragmatism and (often) naturalism, ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Buddhism

*2. Is Buddha considered to be a God?
Was Buddha God or Human? - Tricycle: The Buddhist Review
What then is the status of the Buddha? Technically, he is a human, among the five other rebirth destinies (sadgati) in samsara: gods, demigods, animals, ghosts, and denizens of hell. But he is unlike any other human, both in his relation to the gods and in his physical and mental qualities.
https://tricycle.org/article/buddha-god-human/

Typically, ignorance makes people less eager to give their opinions. — T Clark

Has that been your experience in this forum? I started this thread by announcing my ignorance of a new-to-me philosophy. And I suppose most of the posters who lent their opinions were also ignorant of Axiarchism. But that didn't stop them from adding their invited opinions to the thread. Most of those proffered thoughts may be based on familiarity with analogous concepts such as Taoism. But I have learned, from some of those erudite opinions, related ideas to fill-in the gaps in my ignorance of the "Ruling Values" of the Cosmos. :smile:

Ignorance & Opinion :
A fact is information minus emotion. An opinion is information plus experience. Ignorance is an opinion lacking information. And stupidity is an opinion that ignores a fact. Which of these do you think might apply in this scenario?”
https://sjrnews.com/my-cave-my-view/fact-opinion-ignorance-stupidity

From the net : "Opinions are like farts; everybody has them, and their's stink".

Most of those proffered thoughts may be based on familiarity with analogous concepts such as Taoism. But I have learned, from some of those erudite opinions, related ideas to fill-in the gaps in my ignorance of the "Ruling Values" of the Cosmos. — Gnomon

Have you read the Tao Te Ching? It only takes a couple of hours.