As you say, wu wei is spontaneous and natural. But it's not random. There is no thought of avoiding recognition or credit, only of acting without consideration of them. Wu wei is something very simple. You're just doing things without trying to do them. — T Clark
I'm more intrigued by T Clark and Wayfarer discussing that which can't be discussed. — Tom Storm
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
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've been in discussions about whether or not it is appropriate to bring Buddhist ideas, such as "illusion," into discussions about Taoism. I generally say "yes," keeping in mind that while I have spent time with the TTC, I have only flitted around Buddhism. One important thing they have in common is the focus on awareness of internal experience rather than ideas and rational thought, which is how most western philosophy works. That focus makes it possible to find common ground between Taoism and Buddhism — T Clark
.He (the Dalai Lama) made the memorable statement in his book on philosophy of science, Universe in a Single Atom, that any Buddhist principles overturned by scientific discovery must give way. — 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. — Tom Storm
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
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
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
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... — Tom Storm
What do you mean here - 'more so' in what sense? — Tom Storm
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. — Tom Storm
Western philosophy has a deep concern for logic, an aspect of the mind that's of preeminent importance if we are to, according to it,discover any knowledge worthy of the name. Western philosophers have developed rigorous and exact logical systems (categorical logic, sentential logic, predicate logic, etc.) to the extent that such can be achieved with the aim of perfecting logic so that we can be reasonably confident in the results when it's employed. With logic now more or less under its belt Western philosophy brings it to bear on any and all matters, one of them being the mind/the self. The way this is done is by resorting to a divide and conquer tactic - the mind is broken up into "manageable" chunks like personhood, consciousness, understanding, intelligence to name a few, probably because these facets of the mind are worlds in themselves and need undivided, dedicated attention and study.
In addition, Western philosophy has science as an important collaborator as the latter has constructed a library of empirical knowledge which can't be ignored or, more accurately, must be given due consideration when philosophizing about anything, the mind/the self included. It might seem that science is more of a hindrance than a help in this regard because it seems to invariably place empirical obstacles for philosophers of mind but what we should not forget is that science provides instruments like fMRI, EEG, etc. that can be very useful in probing the brain - the seat of consciousness. Plus, the brain could be "it" you know.
Buddhism and Taoism, on the other hand, lacks these features in their philosophies. Logic is not treated to in-depth analysis and has only a functional role i.e. it's used but not studied. This was probably because logic as it existed back then during the times of the Buddha and Lao Tzu could comfortably handle the ideas of Buddhism and Taoism - there was no felt-need to put logic under the microscope. Science didn't even exist those days and neither its opposition nor its assistance were available to the Buddha and Lao Tzu. Perhaps it didn't/doesn't matter but I recall Wayfarer saying:
He (the Dalai Lama) made the memorable statement in his book on philosophy of science, Universe in a Single Atom, that any Buddhist principles overturned by scientific discovery must give way.
— Wayfarer
.
I don't have anything on Taoism along similar lines and that's what's interesting - Taoism has no beef with science and the question of how Taoism is incompatible with science never ever came up.
Last but not the least, returning to your comment, "...awareness of internal experience...", it's quite clear that all three - Western philosophy, Buddhism, and Taoism - have achieved this milestone in human thinking viz. meta-cognition but there are differences as I attempted to, as best as I could, outline in the preceding paragraphs. — TheMadFool
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. — Tom Storm
What the heck is wu wei really? Last I checked it means something along the lines of "doing without doing" but nec caput nec pedes as far as I'm concerned. — TheMadFool
What the heck is wu wei really? — TheMadFool
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. — Tom Storm
There's no Taoist equivalent to Buddhist Maya (illusion) unless one interprets the innate drive of humans to view reality in terms of fixed generalities, something that figures prominently in the West and in Buddhism, as the most perniciously persistent illusion of all. — TheMadFool
I'm not as certain about this as I'd like to be but "...awareness of internal experience..." is a part of Western philosophy as well — TheMadFool
This was probably because logic as it existed back then during the times of the Buddha and Lao Tzu could comfortably handle the ideas of Buddhism and Taoism — TheMadFool
In addition, Western philosophy has science as an important collaborator as the latter has constructed a library of empirical knowledge which can't be ignored or, more accurately, must be given due consideration when philosophizing about anything, the mind/the self included. — TheMadFool
Effortless action or not-doing is similar but not identical to wu wei, and I think T Clark and I agree more readily here. 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
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
the problem that occurs when we do act without acting: 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. — Possibility
As we've discussed before, I think this is a misleading interpretation of wu wei. To me, it doesn't have much to do with avoiding fame and fortune, only with not taking those factors into account when you act. This is from Chen's translation of Verse 63 - "The Master never reaches for the great; thus she achieves greatness." — T Clark
What you've written above sounds to me like we wei is the same as going with your gut feeling. It's not that at all. And, yes, clearly, we are just as responsible for our actions as we are with our more familiar way of acting. Wu wei is not irrational, it's non-rational. Most of the day to day things we do we do without reflection. That doesn't mean those actions are somehow less reliable or that they don't take what we know about a situation into account. — T Clark
"two" opposing forces, with the interaction being a process of mutual chaotic cancellation and thus arriving at an ordered equilibrium — TheMadFool
I understand greatness here to be more associated with an internal sense of mastery and control, not an external appearance of autonomy and influence such as fame and fortune - — Possibility
I think you might be misinterpreting me here - I’m not saying to practise wu wei is to avoid fame and fortune - I’m saying in a modern, Western context ‘greatness’ suggests fame and fortune, but I think this aspect of greatness is more likely to elude those who practise wu wei particularly in a modern, Western setting. — Possibility
Well, I don’t see it as gut feeling - that still implies conscious intention, and I think you’ve been clear about its absence here in your interpretation. I agree that non-rational is more accurate than irrational, and I also agree that action without reflection still takes what we know into account. I don’t think I suggested otherwise with what I wrote. — Possibility
This runs counter to earlier verses in the TTC that suggest a clearer understanding of the Tao is achieved when we are free from desire (affect). Why would Lao Tzu encourage action that can never be determined free from desire? — Possibility
Have you ever experienced a moment when you have felt 'at one' with the world. You felt at peace.
I have and wanted to capture that essence in a bottle so I could take it out and sniff later.
To regain a sense of balance. Most of the time, I swing about...if you know what I mean... — Amity
There's a lot of stuff that seems contradictory in the TTC. — T Clark
I have a rather ambitious theory that this forced ‘disconnect’ is unnecessary - that we can strive to understand the mental processes in relation to our actions and vice versa, and develop a scientifically sound methodology that enables us to consciously align our conceptual and sensory realities, rendering oneness with the Tao an effortlessly intellect-driven process. For me, the key to that is affect. — Possibility
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.