Isn't this precisely what people like Laotze and St. Francis thought they were doing by telling people to stop following worldly ambitions, helping others? — Count Timothy von Icarus

As I understand it, Lao Tzu certainly didn’t.

Or perhaps the list of material goods you have mentioned are simply not the most important things for happiness? — Count Timothy von Icarus

I never said they were. But in my experience with unhappy people, which is extensive, as I work in mental health and addiction - people often forget or overlook how fortunate their situation is and how much they tend to catastrophize. It's amazing how many psychological problems ease or even disappear when individuals have access to material comfort and safety (if they don't have it) or when they are supported to reframe their thinking and experience. But it's just one dimension of psychological health and I wasn't suggesting it was The Answer.

Isn't this precisely what people like Laotze and St. Francis thought they were doing by telling people to stop following worldly ambitions, helping others? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Could be. I've read the former, not the latter. Like the rest of us here, I don't have anything original to say.

Well, fair enough, he might not even have been a real person. The text appears to be an accretion. Siddhartha Gautama might have been a better example.

But in my experience with unhappy people, which is extensive, as I work in mental health and addiction - people often forget or overlook how fortunate their situation is and how much they tend to catastrophize.

Yes, good point. I think that's very true. I think the OP sort of gets at the social forces that lead to that catastrophizing and lack of appreciation. It perhaps misses some others though. The work on deteriorating mental health for women and girls tends to highlight different, although related issues.

I suppose that goes along with the discussion of renunciatory traditions, in that they attempt this sort of reevaluation.

I would say that the amount of material goods one needs will tend to vary by culture and time. For example, to be unable to afford a private vehicle or phone in many contexts is now to be unable to find work in a culture that places a huge premium on work. But I don't think that necessarily means cars and phones do that much for happiness (useful as they no doubt are), at least not as a prerequisite. Or perhaps a better way to put it is that they take on special relevance in a culture where they are almost required for membership and recognition.

You don't think good, or at least adequate parenting, education, etc. are prerequisites for "living a better life," developing self-control, or having the capacity to be a good citizen? — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is a quote I use often when discussing moral issues. It's from the Chuang Tzu, also known as the Zhuangzi - the second founding text of Taoism. This is from Ziporyn's translation.

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

I recognize this might end our conversation, since this is in such obvious contradiction to your understanding and values.

Yes, one is not free to become a "good father," a "just leader," or a "good teacher," without filling social expectations either...

...This is often where "authenticity as freedom" goes off the rails. Authenticity is important, but without reflexive freedom it is just following impulse and instinct. — Count Timothy von Icarus

These are exactly the illusory "norms" discussed in the OP. You can't really get rid of any of them without at least an inkling of getting rid of all of them.

Reflexive Freedom is defined by subject’s freedom relative to themselves. To quote Hegel, “individuals are free if their actions are solely guided by their own intentions.” Thus, “man is a free being [when he] is in a position not to let himself be determined by natural drives.”

This strikes me as close to what Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu are talking about.

Social Freedom then is the collective resolution of these contradictions through the creation of social institutions. Ideally, institutions objectify morality in such a way that individuals’ goals align, allowing people to freely choose actions that promote each other’s freedom and wellbeing.

Taoist principles as I understand them don't forbid following these social rules, but, for a wise person, that behavior is a matter of the spontaneity of their "intrinsic virtuosities," which in ancient Chinese is "Te."

[Lao Tzu] might not even have been a real person. The text appears to be an accretion. Siddhartha Gautama might have been a better example. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Jesus might not have been a real person. The Bible is also clearly an accretion. I chose Lao Tzu because I find his principles compelling. I don't know Buddhist doctrine well enough to judge.

As I said, maybe this is all we have to say to each other on this issue.

I can't disagree with the post to the extent the poster found comfort from his internal struggles by interpreting his world as he did.

For me, I like the chaos of competition and the rush of the chase. I don't like sitting still and could not survive passively waiting for I want.

While the post suggests his analysis applies universally and is perhaps an objectively correct stance, it's really not, but is just the flip side of those who insist the opposite is the correct stance.

The answer is to your own self be true.

I would say that the amount of material goods one needs will tend to vary by culture and time. — Count Timothy von Icarus

No question.

Or perhaps a better way to put it is that they take on special relevance in a culture where they are almost required for membership and recognition. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think that's very true.

I don't know if it's that much of a contradiction. I suppose that quote, taken alone, could be read in a very Nietzschean or Sartrean light, but I have always seen Taoist notions of freedom set in opposition to the former, often as their polar opposite (although I think they are opposites that might meet at their limit). E.g.,:

In the Taoist philosophy, we find a strikingly different idea of freedom [from the Western one based on the absence of all constraints]. The Taoist conceives of freedom from the very opposite direction: instead of focusing on an
absence of external constraint or coercion, the Taoist focuses on modifying the self that can be in conflict with external constraints. Instead of being critical of the ex-
ternal environment and requesting the environment to give room to the individual's desires or will, the Taoist requires the individual to be critical of him/herself, and to be in harmony with his/her environment.

This Taoist idea of freedom logically starts from a realization that the constrained and the constraints are mutually dependent; without the constrained, the constraints would not exist as constraints. The founder of the Taoist philosophy Lao Tzu says: "Honor great misfortunes as you honor your own person. Only because you have your own person, you will have great misfortunes. Without a person, how could there be misfortunes?" Furthermore, the kind of misfortunes or constraints one has depends on the kind of individual one is. Limitations vary from one individual to another. As Lao Tzu's great follower, Chuang Tzu, says: "Fish live in water and thrive, but if men tried to live in water they would die." This clearly applies not only to the natural limitations of fish and humans, but to all subject-object relations. An individual's particular desires and ambitions also define particular constraints. Any anticipation or desire will bring a set of constraints. To shop-lifters the video monitors
installed in stores are big constraints, but to the rest of us, they are nothing but video monitors. To smokers "No Smoking" signs are constraints, but non-smokers consider them to be protection.

The more one desires or expects, the less one is free, because there are more constraints one has to break in order to have the desires satisfied or expectations
fulfilled. We often think that powerful people have more freedom. But that is not always true, for they usually have more desires and ambitions. My two-year-old daughter has never felt short of money, even though she does not have any; but Donald Trump does...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1561%26context%3Dgvr%23:~:text%3DThe%2520Taoist%2520conceives%2520of%2520freedom,in%2520conflict%2520with%2520external%2520constraints.&ved=2ahUKEwiPwabp45iNAxVUM9AFHfTmOQQQ5YIJegQIFhAA&usg=AOvVaw0pNzCylqHtaoKsyMf_b3Mt

There is obviously a similarity here with Indian thought and with Western pagan thought, with its struggle for ataraxia and apatheia (as well as the fruits of contemplation, e.g. "enlightenment" or "henosis," which have a more positive element).

The emphasis on self-cultivation—and the role of the sage, the daoshi, and the zhenren—seem to follow the intuition of other traditions that the renunciatory move often isn't spontaneous, but rather requires received wisdom, reflexive discipline, and guidance—in a word, cultivation. This is a positive element in freedom though. The very fact that "most people" are too caught up in striving is evidence of how freedom is constrained through a sort of deficient cultivation and pernicious social forces A person doesn't simply attain to renunciation through a natural maturation process. It's just that this move isn't (as much) dependent on external resources (but they still play a role, particularly in the teachings of the sage). This is like how Epictetus claims he became free while a slave, but that most masters are slaves, while he still credits exposure to Rufus's teaching as decisive.

But, I don't agree with purely renunciatory philosophy because it tends to generate a reflexive freedom that actually bottoms out in the contentless negative freedom so dominant in modern Western thought when taken to its logical conclusion. One needs a more robust consideration of man's telos and the notion of the summon bonum to which all goods can be logically ordered.

This leads towards the later Pagan goal of philosophy as "becoming like onto God," present in the Christian tradition as theosis. But whereas the Pagan tradition tends to wash out all human particularity and concern for any telos of history (and so concern for mankind generally), this is not how the Desert Fathers and their descendants saw things. Dispassion means mastery over the passions, but not a constant suppression of the appetites and passions, but rather their purification and reorientation towards what is truly Good, Beautiful, and True (hence the Philokalia, the "love of Beauty" as the ascetic manual of Eastern Christendom, versus philosophy, the "love of wisdom.") This comes out of a more robust notion natures with intelligible final causes, the human telos, and a metaphysics of Goodness. You can see this sort of dynamic in Attar of Nishapur's Sufi classic, the Conference of the Birds, which focuses on the total abrogation of the Self, versus Dante's Commedia, which can combine a robust respect for particularity and history right up to its climax in the beatific vision.

The difference leads to a much more optimistic vision of the chances of "enlightenment" for all individuals and participation in the spiritual life. It also tends towards a broader notion of the cultivation required to develop reflexive and social freedom (the cenobitic monastic community as opposed to the life of the hermit, requires a social focus, even if on the small scale). But this makes perfect sense to me, because these things aren't easy to explain, and do require structure and guidance to be accessible to most people.

Maybe the Incarnation is another important difference. This has infinite being breaking into the finite world, and the Church as the immanent, social, mystical body of Christ realized in history, through the Marian mode of the Church, "man giving birth to God and freedom in thoughts and deeds."

But I don't think this is an outright contradiction. Rather, contradictions in each level of freedom given birth to a higher level (Hegelian style), leading from negative freedom, to reflexive freedom, to authenticity (since self-discipline can be turned against nature), to social freedom, to moral freedom, the capacity of societies to recognize and achieve the human good.

To start, I just wanted to say that it's fun to discuss things with you.

I don't know if it's that much of a contradiction. I suppose that quote, taken alone, could be read in a very Nietzschean or Sartrean light, but I have always seen Taoist notions of freedom set in opposition to the former, often as their polar opposite (although I think they are opposites that might meet at their limit). — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, I think there really is a contradiction, a pretty fundamental and radical one. As for your quote - I didn't read the paper and I am not familiar with author, but without going through it in detail, I don't have any problem with what they've written. But I don't think it's really relevant to the issue at hand. It's true, Taoist principles as I understand them don't call for an aggressive rejection of social standards and focus more on adjusting our self-awareness. As he author of the quote wrote - "The more one desires or expects, the less one is free." I read that as meaning the less one is free to follow their true nature, their Te.

We could go back and forth on this, but I'd rather just point back to the Chuang Tzu quote I included in my previous post. That seems pretty clear and straightforward to me.

There is obviously a similarity here with Indian thought and with Western pagan thought, with its struggle for ataraxia and apatheia (as well as the fruits of contemplation, e.g. "enlightenment" or "henosis," which have a more positive element). — Count Timothy von Icarus

As I understand it, Taoist principles don't really deal with enlightenment much. It's always seemed more down-home and pragmatic than Buddhism to me - keeping in mind the limitations of my knowledge of Buddhism. That's why I'm so attracted to it's ideas. It is the deepest essence of Taoism that there is no goal, only a path.

The emphasis on self-cultivation—and the role of the sage, the daoshi, and the zhenren—seem to follow the intuition of other traditions that the renunciatory move often isn't spontaneous, but rather requires received wisdom, reflexive discipline, and guidance—in a word, cultivation. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Boy, this is really different from my understanding. I admit I do have a very simple relationship with Taoism. I focus on the Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu, although I have read other texts and explications. That, along with introspection, helps me try to follow my own path. In particular, there is no focus on "cultivation" in these texts. Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu have a strong anti-intellectual strain in their writing. There is also no focus on discipline, meditation, or other practice. In "Tao - the Watercourse Way," Alan Watt's has this to say?

In making this point I realize that vis-à-vis modern Ch'an (Zen) disciplinarians of the "aching legs" brand of Buddhism, I am a deplorable heretic, since for them za-zen (sitting Zen) and sesshin (long periods of it) are the sine qua non of awakening (or enlightenment) according to their school. I have been sharply reprimanded for this opinion in Kapleau (1), pp. 21-22, 83-84, although the only text he quotes from early Zen literature in refutation is from the Huang-po Tuan-chi Ch'an-shih Wang-ling Lu (before +850): "When you practice mind-control [ts'o-ch'an], sit in the proper position, stay perfectly tranquil, and do not permit the least movement of your minds to disturb you" (tr. Blofeld [1], p. 131). Considering the vast emphasis laid on za-zen in later times, it is strange that this is all. Huang-po has to say about it. The reader interested in the roots of this matter has only to consult Hui-neng's T'an-ching (tr. Chan Wing-tsit [1] or Yampolsky [1], esp. sec. 19), or the Shen-hui Ho-chang I-chi (tr. Gernet [1], esp. sec. 1.111), or Ma-tsu in Ku-tsun-hsü Yü-lu (tr. Watts [1], p. 110). For later discussions see Fung Yu-lan (1), vol. 2, pp. 393-406, and Hu Shih. All this evidence corroborates the view that the T'ang masters of Ch'an deplored the use of meditation exercises as a means to the attainment of true insight (wu, or Japanese satori). I had further confirmation of this view in private discussions with D. T. Suzuki and R. H. Blyth, both of whom regarded compulsive "aching legs" za-zen as a superstitious fetish of modern Zen practice. — Alan Watts - Tao - the Watercourse Way

I recognize this seems to mostly be talking about Japanese Zen Buddhism, but that developed out of Chinese Chan Buddhism, which developed directly from Taoism. Watts certainly intends it's skepticism about cultivation to apply to Taoist practice as well as Buddhist.

To summarize: this entire world we currently live in is primarily built on fear, ego, and greed. These factors affect not just everything we do externally, but especially what happens to us internally. So many people nowadays are mentally unwell, or they live in fear, or suffer from depression, because of the deeply embedded illusions we are falling for. The stories we are telling ourselves and each other right now are deeply sickening and inhuman, which is a great shame. But there is still freedom to be found: you can dispel these illusions, reject the inhuman system, and begin to live authentically and freely. — Martijn

Your writing brings to mind Erich Fromm, a German-American social psychologist, psychoanalyst, sociologist, humanistic philosopher, and democratic socialist. One of his most popular books was The Sane Society. In a nut shell, the book asserts that we live in an INSANE society where sanity and craziness are inverted.

I'm not sure there are any entire societies that are sane. There are certainly communities within societies that are more or less crazy, more or less sane. But sanity in a crazy society is a difficult project.

I'm also not convinced that craziness is a unique feature of our contemporary society (say of the last 125 years). If we go back 10,000 years, won't we find the individual person contending with the demands of the tribe, family, village, local king, priest, etc?

The root of our individual and collective problem is the combination of animal drives coupled with a complex mind. I'm not elevating the mind above animal drives, because they are inextricably combined. Other animals do not live stress free lives by any means, but they don't usually adopt remarkably crazy adaptations to life. For instance, they don't become obsessed with the latest fashion, the latest diet, the latest political theory, the latest and greatest art, their location in the layers of prestige, and so on. That's our specialty.

Do lions and wolves become depressed? I don't know. Briefly, maybe, but probably not for years and years. (I've experienced long periods of depression -- now happily gone in my old age.)

Why am I not still depressed? Because retirement allowed me to get the hell out of the rat's nest and rat race of working. (It wasn't 'the work' per se; it was the negative aspects of the work-system. I flourished in some work places, failed to thrive in most of the others.)

Our system is built on the illusion of pressure, control, and rush. This is everywhere: in academia, at the workplace, in our media, and so on. We are taught, from childhood, that life is competitive and that you must always prove yourself. If you fail, you lose and you should do better. Never mind the fact that millions of people live in poverty, bound to be permanent wage slaves, since it's 'their fault.'

If you LIKE this system, then that's one thing. But don't gaslight people here into thinking that the system is only in my head.

Our system is built on the illusion of pressure, control, and rush. — Martijn

Surely one can note the similarity of such even if one was suddenly hurled into any other physical world, one devoid of any other intelligent or equal being. You'd starve. That's the pressure, first mentally, soon physically. That's the control. And the rush.

Let's not pretend there's some sort of orchestrated plot or cabal of nefarious actors involved (or at least required per necessity) for the basic fundamental realities of the world we live in. Truth may hurt or at the very least be uncomfortable, but, you've yet to explain how food will be plopped into your mouth, drink on your lips, shade upon your head, and so on and so on for all the various needs and desires belonging to even the simplest of humans without some sort of inorganic and therefore fragile framework that requires constant effort and vigilance for it to exist in any shape or form.

As long as man exists, and expects something out of life. There will be a system to ensure, at least in his own mind, said something is most reasonably and efficiently reached. That is to say, that one day will be reasonably similar in positive expectation to the one that follows. We might use whatever word best fits to describe it, be it "philosophy", "religion", or simply "reality". But it's all the same in essence. Without stability, no man lives comfortably. And comfort, at least at face value, is proof of the "worthwhileness" of one's efforts. Sure, a robber may live his or her entire life in a state of wellness, but others may soon object to this. And if they grow in sufficient number, might spell an end to such livelihood. This is why society has progressed into what it is today.

Utopia looks good on paper. But effectively and in practice, doesn't seem to last for very long. But who knows. Perhaps you have the solution that has yet to be implemented. Surely you'd understand why many have their doubts.

Homo Sapiens have existed for roughly 300,000 years. Our system is roughly 12,000 years old. Seems a bit off.

Yes, of course people have to work, almost all life does in some capacity, and there are various strategies that lifeforms use to survive and pass on their genes. Humans are no exceptions. I am not claiming utopia and i'm not promising some fantasy world. What I am claiming is that our world is fundamentally misguided: we fall for an overwhelming number of illusions, especially the illusion of progress. We are also falling for the illusion of 'work' in the sense that work is tied to productivity and hours worked. You simply must work 40 hours, or you are lazy! In reality, for most jobs, you are producing profit for your owner. And most jobs don't need 40 hours of work to do what they need to do. You show up, you perform the required tasks, and then you wait until you are allowed to go home. There are exceptions to this, obviously, but it rings true for millions of jobs today.

There is no nefarious actor directly, but there are loopholes. Loopholes that enable the rise of billionaires while most people struggle, and loopholes that enable some people to be free from any work at all from a young age, simply because they are born into the upper class. You cannot trick me into thinking that all work nowadays is mandatory, important, or even crucial, or else we'd all starve. Some jobs are certainly important, think of farmers and people working in the logistics and so on, but there are way more people than there are mandatory jobs. Yet, all these people need to work, because they need money (and because they fall for the illusion of 'contributing.')

Our world has exponentially opened up, which is why we are now living in a global civilisation, there are 8+ billion people on the planet (unprecedented in our history), we are facing impending climate change disaster, and the list goes on. We lost sight of what truly matters: harmony, community, freedom, peace, and simply the joy of existing. Can people still imagine this? Just happy being alive? Not needing your coffee just to get through a day? I'm sure it exists, but why can't everyone feel like this? Because most people are trapped: enslaved by the system. It's not their fault.

Our system is built on the illusion of pressure, control, and rush. — Martijn

you LIKE this system, then that's one thing. But don't gaslight people here into thinking that the system is only in my head. — Martijn

My post didn't say anything about the dictates of reality, but then condescendingly suggesting you can feel free to live under whatever delusion you wanted.

I offered the platitude of the Bard, and I said to be true to yourself. That you've read that as me monkeying with your head is on you.

You, on the other hand, present the position of intellectual transcendence, as if you stand above the fray and can see it as it is, a social contrivance, designed to enslave.

My point wasn't to enter the capitalist/Marxist debate that looms obviously in this discussion, but just to point out that I would find it as profoundly unfulfilling to live in stable security without highly variable successes and failures as you apparently find the opposite.

Candidly, I encourage those who don't wish to compete not to compete. Races are easier to win with fewer contestants.

Why am I not still depressed? Because retirement allowed me to get the hell out of the rat's nest and rat race of working. (It wasn't 'the work' per se; it was the negative aspects of the work-system. — BC

You are exactly right. I often tell people that many of our problems can be solved simply by retiring. 30 year olds with two children rarely find this useful. Generally they recognize I am joking. Sometimes they even laugh.

It strikes me you are conflating two different but related issues. The first involves the personal, psychological, and spiritual path you have followed to a more satisfying life. The second involves a social and political approach to addressing the problem for society as a whole. There’s no reason you can’t be involved with addressing both issues, but, as I noted, they are different and require different stratagies and mindsets.

There is a very good reason WHY people have to be paid to work.

I spent quite a few years trying to find a way to get payed at jobs I didn't like much and at the same time pursue a psychologically and spiritually satisfying life. I did not find such a way. Sometimes I worked at jobs which I very much liked, and which provided some of the satisfactions I was seeking. Then it was fairly easy to enjoy life on and off the job. But that was not the usual experience.

Another approach I used was saving money so that I could afford unemployment (which on its own wasn't quite enough). The periods of not working for 6 to 9 months were very helpful. But, one has to be single and live simply to pull this off.

A critical difference between a life-deflating job and one that is life enhancing is the will of management (usually in a specific person) to dominate and control VS encourage innovation by individuals to reach the goals of the organization. There were two jobs which featured the latter approach: the first was at a university library unit that served media users (a la 1970s). The Library boss was extremely controlling, while the subunit where I was working was run by an innovator. The second was 10 years later at an urban AIDS project where the education group was all about inventing novel (and effective) means to increase knowledge and reduce risk taking. Again, the agency boss was, among other things, an arbitrary and capricious controller, while the head of education was a professional MPH who recognized the need for fairly off-beat ways to reach target populations.

The amount of pay was somewhat inverse to the level of enjoyment. The worst jobs I had tended to be the highest paying. "More pay, more shit." Up to a point, anyway. I didn't reach the "high pay low shit" experience.

In my experience, the lowest paying jobs were the most soul-draining. Intense micromanagement and a seemingly endless supply of work to do. If you get higher up and the pay increases, the amount of actual work you have to do decreases. Not universally true, of course, but still.

To start, I just wanted to say that it's fun to discuss things with you.

Thanks, you as well.

I have mostly read stuff on Taoism that is tied to its contemporary formulations, so that might be the discrepancy. I don't know much about the historical development and it's quite possible that the focus on self-cultivation comes through later thinkers and cross-pollination between Confucius' tradition and Buddhism, both of which have a sort of virtue ethics.

I've seen Chuang Tzu presenting as laying out a sort of model for self-cultivation in some anecdotes. So for instance, there is a butcher who becomes incredibly skilled in his trade and it is because he has ceased to try to implement a sort of false constraint on his art, or even to "see a cow" (IIRC), but has instead learned to "flow" totally with nature. This interpretation might rest on later additions though.

This is, at first glance, very different from the Western focus on knowledge of intelligible forms, but I don't think it's quite as different as it would seem. Aristotle is, for instance, in very many ways, creating a process metaphysics in the Physics. Unchanging form is an abstraction (and in later formulations, only "static" in the infinite, simple being of the Logos, but never in the world of nature). And there is also the very strong conception of nature as a whole, substantial forms only being what makes things relatively more or less wholes, unities, and intelligible, and the goal of action in harmony and accord with nature (which tends to slip out of modern ethics).

Candidly, I encourage those who don't wish to compete not to compete. Races are easier to win with fewer contestants. — Hanover

Would that the race were so provincial that one could opt out of it -- as it is I'd bet on convincing the guys at the back it'll be easier to just take the prize than win the race.

Would that the race were so provincial that one could opt out of it -- as it is I'd bet on convincing the guys at the back it'll be easier to just take the prize than win the race. — Moliere

The game may be immoral or objectively unfair, which could be a reason to opt out, but, saving those concerns, victory favors the competitive. If being stronger wins, they get stronger. If playing the victim wins, they play the victim.

Hrrmm -- now how to get it to where "if everyone wins then you're the extra-special winner"

I have mostly read stuff on Taoism that is tied to its contemporary formulations, so that might be the discrepancy. I don't know much about the historical development and it's quite possible that the focus on self-cultivation comes through later thinkers and cross-pollination between Confucius' tradition and Buddhism, both of which have a sort of virtue ethics. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I am not a student of Taoism. I focus my attention on the Chuang Tzu and Tao Te Ching, although I do read other documents and commentaries sometimes. Since they were written 2,500ish years ago, Taoism has grown and branched in many different directions. The Chuang Tzu and Tao Te Ching, as I understand them, are philosophical, not religious, texts. The Taoist religion which grew out of these documents as well as others has ten million or so adherents, mostly in China and Taiwan. I know very little about that or other philosophical branches which have grown up and very little about Taoist practice. I do practice Tai Chi in my own halting manner, but I find that more a physical than a spiritual practice. I try to be clear what the limited basis of my understanding of Taoist principles is.

I've seen Chuang Tzu presenting as laying out a sort of model for self-cultivation in some anecdotes. So for instance, there is a butcher who becomes incredibly skilled in his trade and it is because he has ceased to try to implement a sort of false constraint on his art, or even to "see a cow" (IIRC), but has instead learned to "flow" totally with nature. This interpretation might rest on later additions though. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The story of the butcher is one of the most famous from the Chuang Tzu. This is from Brook Ziporyn's translation

The king said, “Ah! It is wonderful that skill can reach such heights!” The cook put down his knife and said, “What I love is the Course, going beyond mere skill. When I first started cutting up oxen, all I saw for three years was oxen, and yet still I was unable to see all there was to see in an ox. But now I encounter it with the imponderable spirit in me rather than scrutinizing it with the eyes. For when the faculties of officiating understanding come to rest, imponderable spirit like impulses begin to stir, relying on the unwrought perforations. Striking into the enormous gaps, they are guided through those huge hollows, going along in accord with what is already there and how it already is. — Chuang Tzu

If anyone is interested, here's the entire entry. I'll hide it so it doesn't take up too much space.



I can see why you would say this is a description of cultivation. It took the cook many years of practice before he rose to the level he did. Similar examples you often hear describe musicians and artists who reach a level of skill where they no longer think about what they are doing. Their work arises spontaneously from inside them without effort. I have had similar experiences. I, and I think Chuang Tzu, see it a bit differently. As the story says "when the faculties of officiating understanding come to rest, imponderable spirit like impulses begin to stir." The emphasis is on the surrender of intellectual understanding to our inner nature, our Te. This is known as "wu wei," acting without acting. It's something that can be used, that we all use, on a daily basis in our lives.

Many people would agree with you that some sort of cultivating practice is required to follow Lao Tzu's way. One of the reasons I resist that is because I am fundamentally a lazy person. Taoism is, or at least can be, a lazy man's spiritual path.