Filial piety IS the ‘natural’ or basic relationship. — Possibility
To be honest, I think we may have a different understanding of ‘natural’ and ‘conventional’, which probably contributes to the confusion... — Possibility
Yes, in Chinese culture it is of 'supreme importance' as Derek Lin discusses at length.
Out of all the virtues, this is the first and foremost.
He asks the students to consider why this might be so. Interesting responses and good feedback. — Amity
As I noted in a response to Possibility, it is my understanding this is a Confucian view which Lao Tzu was specifically reacting against. — T Clark
[ emphasis added ]Laozi may have been tempted to postulate a perfect dao. It would be a dao with no social contribution.
So the Zhuangzi differs in this important attitude from the Laozi—we need not try to escape from social life and conventions. Conventions underlie the possibility of communication and are, thus, useful. This gives Zhuangzi’s Daoism less of the primitive thrust of the Daode Jing (the term wu-wei virtually disappears in the inner chapters).
The most dramatic message of the Zhuangzi is a theme that links Daoism to Zen (Chan—the distinctively Daoist influenced branch of Buddhism)—the “mysticism” of losing oneself in activity, particularly the absorption in skilled execution of a highly cultivated way . His most famous example concerns a butcher—hardly a prestige or status profession—who carves beef with the focus and absorption of a virtuoso dancer in an elegantly choreographed performance. The height of human satisfaction comes in achieving and exercising such skills with the focus and commitment that gets us “outside ourselves” and into such an intimate connection with our dao .
Yes. I see that the guidance given in the TTC attempts to reverse conventional views held at that time.
It seems to resist a second-order moral way in preference to a first-order 'natural' way.
Can we be sure that this is best for our selves and others? — Amity
What is 'natural' ? Is a question I raised earlier.
Is the TTC with its apparent reliance on natural intuition right for a progressive world ? — Amity
Conventions of some description are necessary. — Amity
So the Zhuangzi differs in this important attitude from the Laozi—we need not try to escape from social life and conventions. Conventions underlie the possibility of communication and are, thus, useful. This gives Zhuangzi’s Daoism less of the primitive thrust of the Daode Jing (the term wu-wei virtually disappears in the inner chapters).
If a country is governed wisely,
its inhabitants will be content.
They enjoy the labor of their hands
and don't waste time inventing
labor-saving machines.
Since they dearly love their homes,
they aren't interested in travel.
There may be a few wagons and boats,
but these don't go anywhere.
There may be an arsenal of weapons,
but nobody ever uses them.
People enjoy their food,
take pleasure in being with their families,
spend weekends working in their gardens,
delight in the doings of the neighborhood.
And even though the next country is so close
that people can hear its roosters crowing and its dogs barking,
they are content to die of old age
without ever having gone to see it. — T Clark
What book is that? So I may explore it for myself. — SteveMinjares
This makes sense to me. As far as I can tell, the TTC is as rich in concepts as it is in metaphors which try to explain them and how the practical aspects of the concepts play out. — Amity
We bring our own experiences to any text as we read and try to relate to it. To see if if has any value to us in the way we lead our lives. If it makes sense. I think that this can work both ways.
For us, as we build on a view which has worked for us and others along the way.
Against us, if we try to fit text in to what we think is right, or our own perspective. Even if we do get beyond our own cages and pick up book which at first glance doesn't hold much appeal.
How would you persuade someone to read the TTC ?
How would you describe how conflicts might 'dissolve in the structure of the TTC' ? — Amity
The loss came from not being able to talk about it as a loss when it was happening. That idea had not been minted yet. — Valentinus
I don't understand. — T Clark
Filial piety IS the ‘natural’ or basic relationship.
— Possibility
It is my understanding that's what Confucius thinks, not Lao Tzu. I think rejecting that view is what this verse is about. — T Clark
This is one of the shortest and most poignant chapters in Daodejing. Here Laozi is posing a direct challenge to his contemporary Confucius on the latter’s approach to social problems. Confucius promotes such ethical values as humankindness and righteousness, filial piety and parental love, loyalty and obedience as the proper remedies to social ills. But Laozi sees these much touted values as mere symptoms of the ills they are supposed to cure. He thinks the root of the problem lies not so much in not abiding by these artificial values as in the abandonment of the great Dao. If everyone embraced the Dao, there would be no need to promote those ethical doctrines. Laozi says in chapter 5, “Heaven and Earth are not humane,” and “The sage is not humane.” Those are his candid statements on the centerpiece of Confucian ethics, 仁 (rén), meaning “humankindness” or “humanity” or “benevolence.”
It is important to remember that most commentators of Daodejing lived in the age when Confucian ethics had been canonized as the orthodoxy such that they would almost take the precepts of humankindness, righteousness, filial piety, loyalty, and so on for granted. This collective consciousness leads people to be on the defensive every time they see Confucian values being questioned by Laozi. This mentality may lurk behind some of the commentaries and textual preferences even to this day. A case in point lies in a recent explanation of the absence of the sentence “When wisdom and intelligence are put forth, there is outrageous falsehood” in the Guodian bamboo script. As the earliest extant script of Daodejing, Guodian understandably carries a good deal of weight when editorial decisions have to be made. But, when Chen Guying adopts the Guodian version, he argues that keeping the expunged sentence as is in the received version and the Mawangdui silk script might associate “humankindness and righteousness” in the previous line with “outrageous falsehood,” thereby unjustly denigrating these indisputable ethical values. According to Chen, “humankindness and righteousness, filial piety and parental love, loyalty and obedience” are the best alternatives when society deviates from the pristine euphoric state and when social relations were in disarray (Chen 2009, 132). Chen’s argument is a good example of the still prevailing resistance to Laozi’s counter discourse. That said, Chen’s adoption of the Guodian version does have a point. Minus the sentence about “outrageous falsehood,” the Guodian chapter consists of three parallel structures, all following the pattern, “When Plan A fails, there is Plan B.” The sentence about “falsehood,” if restored, could be out of sync. We keep it because of its paradoxical content, which is in sync with the rest of the chapter. — Charles Q Wu, ‘This Spoke Laozi’
The way I see it, te is the self-conscious process by which our relation to the Tao produces action/wu-wei/moral behaviour;
— Possibility
Is te self-conscious? I haven't figured that out for myself. I am certainly aware of an experience I interpret as wu wei arising from within me. I've described that before - I feel a well of wordless intention bubbling up within me from beneath the conscious surface. — T Clark
interpreting the TTC as a moral code of behaviour, instead of as a relational structure for experiencing the Tao.
— Possibility
If you are implying I interpret the TTC as a moral code, that's not true. It's one of the ambiguities of the TTC. The moral code that can be spoken is not the eternal moral code. Lao Tzu says "Hey, you guys, there is no good or bad, but you know, etiquette sucks." — T Clark
I am not interpreting the TTC for others and we're all putting judgements in Lao Tzu's mouth. When you come down to it, we're discussing a book that starts out "This book is about something that can't be talked about," and then proceeds to talk about it for 81 verses. We're all allowed some leeway. — T Clark
It can be a barrier, sure. But I think rejecting entire concepts, such as intellect or rationality, is as much a mistake as rejecting knowledge. Rationality can be a barrier only when it excludes affect: when we argue that knowledge and desire are mutually exclusive, or that any action we take can be considered free from affect. But rationality can be a way of structuring information in order to observe affect. One could argue that the TTC is a structure of rationality in itself.
— Possibility
Let's try this out - there is a fundamental and unavoidable conflict between intellect and wu wei. I don't know if I believe that or not. — T Clark
But it’s more than this: Lao Tzu is commenting on the prevailing culture - what was commonly accepted as ‘truth’. My point was that it was not simply an alternative of possible points of view. — Possibility
This interesting commentary from Charles Wu’s 2013 translation of verse 18 (thanks again for the Terebess website): — Possibility
I’m not implying that you interpret it this way. I only mention it because I have noticed this interpretation in a number of translations. ‘Do this, don’t do that’ is not the structure of the TTC, despite how many translation are structured. I think Lao Tzu says ‘etiquette is not a something to strive for in itself, good or bad’. — Possibility
But to assume he’s passing judgement, declaring something as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, is a mistake. — Possibility
in every action we take - whether it’s interpreting the TTC on a public forum or in our private behaviour - we are still responsible for how it impacts on others. — Possibility
I’m not sure what you’re ‘trying out’ here. — Possibility
Rationality is what the TTC is, in itself, prior to any relation to it. Isolated, it is nothing. Only when we embody its structure can we relate to the Tao.
— Possibility
I don't see this. The TTC is not rational or irrational. It's non-rational. There is no structure. The structure that can be structured is not the eternal structure. Sorry. — T Clark
But it does tempt us to exclude affect and focus on the 10,000 things in isolation
— Possibility
But affect is one of the 10,000 things. — T Clark
I suggested written music as an analogy (not a metaphor) for the TTC. Written music is an arrangement of variable sound quality into a rational structure. There is no affect in a written piece of music.
I compared this to music performance, in which one cannot clearly delineate between structure or quality (contributed to a performance by the score) and affect (contributed by either the musician in interpreting the score or the observer in interpreting the performance). — Possibility
I can't tell if we're disagreeing or not. I don't think I understand the difference between interpretation and the structure of the TTC. — T Clark
Thinking and waiting in hope - bad. Stop trying to understand it and simply allow the Tao to work through the emptiness of a meditative mind - good. — T Clark
I think any use of language is an attempt to retain an intellectual illusion of control. Or maybe I don't think that. — T Clark
The TTC is one of those books that reflects the saying: ‘when the student is ready, the teacher will appear’. It was pretty poetry to me for a long time - a collection of metaphors, which ‘spoke’ to me of a flow to existence that I wasn’t in a position to understand...yet. Later reading of it seemed to me a profound, intuitive truth - I could see that it made sense but not how, and sensed that embracing the truth could eliminate resistance, conflict and barriers in the way I related to the world...somehow. — Possibility
Words have meaning inclusive of their value and potential based on qualitative aspects of our past experiences. So we can’t simply remove ‘emotion’ from a concept, or ignore the way we subjectively attribute value and significance to concepts. When we do that, we discard information. — Possibility
I’m not suggesting we abandon any talk of concepts or metaphors, only that we’re conscious of the obscurity that comes with it. So, when we talk about ‘knowledge’, for instance, we recognise that the TTC is not referring to the entire concept of knowledge, including our overall evaluation of it as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, but only one qualitative aspect of it, and any affect or judgement of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is our own or the interpreter’s. — Possibility
I used confusing language. I was saying there is a fundamental and unavoidable conflict between intellect and wu wei. — T Clark
I keep coming back to this - Lao Tzu doesn't make judgements about good and bad or even good and ok. Except that he does. I don't think he's changing his mind, I think he's being ambiguous. That's how things are set up in the TTC. I have a feeling that it's found in the original documents and is not just an artifact of translation. I will be disappointed if I find out I'm wrong about that. — T Clark
I think it’s important to point out that I’m not referring to the Tao here, but to the TTC, which (as I mentioned) claims to be the disembodied (eternal) Te, which is not the Tao. To argue that the TTC has no structure is ridiculous. It’s not ineffable, it’s a text. — Possibility
My use of the term ‘affect’ here is not in reference to a ‘thing’, but to our influence in the flow or distribution of energy (chi). — Possibility
Is wu wei better than benevolence and etiquette? Of course not!!! We don't make that kind of judgement. (whispering - Of course it is!) — T Clark
in every action we take - whether it’s interpreting the TTC on a public forum or in our private behaviour - we are still responsible for how it impacts on others.
— Possibility
Not sure that I understand. Are you saying I'm responsible for the impacts my interpretations of the TTC have on others? That doesn't make sense. — T Clark
The structure of the TTC is the original structure, consisting of Chinese characters (each signifying the quality of an idea) arranged in a particular logical sequence. Interpretation is how we rearrange this structure, ie. in English. — Possibility
This judgment is your interpretation. The structure includes a number of options, including thinking and waiting in hope. — Possibility
I used confusing language. I was saying there is a fundamental and unavoidable conflict between intellect and wu wei.
— T Clark
I don’t agree with this. I think intellect that assumes a linear causal relation between potentiality and action is bound to conflict with wu-wei. But this is neither unavoidable nor fundamental. I think intellect that understands the dimensional or many-to-one relational structure between potentiality (or more specifically intentionality) and action has no conflict with wu-wei. — Possibility
I’d like to explore your evidence for this. I would argue that what looks like ‘changing his mind’ stems from the choice of concepts in the English translations, not from Lao Tzu being deliberately vague. I think if that were the case, he would not be so repetitive with characters. — Possibility
Your interpretation is that wu-wei is better than benevolence and etiquette. That makes sense from your experience and understanding of the world, and from my personal experience I would agree with you. But it’s not a judgement made by the TTC, and so I think it’s irresponsible to claim that the TTC or Lao Tzu makes this judgement, because it doesn’t: we do. — Possibility
You’re responsible for the choices you make to block or enable the flow of chi in the world. This is not about what others do with the information you provide, but about your capacity to inform/deny, connect/isolate, and collaborate/exclude. Wu-wei is about recognising your influence of chi at the level of potentiality: the changes you effect without action; the influence you have on the world that cannot be directly attributed to you in a linear causal relation. — Possibility
With great power comes great responsibility. — Possibility
Just because no-one can blame me for misinformation, does not absolve me of responsibility - not according to wu-wei. If that means the TTC appears to lack confidence or seems ambiguous, I’m okay with that - it’s consistent with the example of the old masters. I don’t think it IS ambiguous, I think he’s being more accurate, not less. — Possibility
I appreciate your explanations and would be grateful for an example of how it changed the way you relate to the world... also T Clark. — Amity
So, does the TTC have a structure? Am I mixing the TTC up with the Tao? First off, of course the TTC has a structure - 81 verses. First 37 are about Tao. 38 through 81 are about te. — T Clark
Another question. I think it's a different one - does the TTC provide an intellectual structure by which we can comprehend the Tao? I don't think it does. I don't think it can. There is no intellectual structure by which we can comprehend the Tao. Do I really believe that? Vehemently, fiercely, indisputably! Most of the time. — T Clark
I've tried to be clear about when I think something is true and when I think Lao Tzu thinks its true. Generally, I think I've been pretty successful in keeping the two separate both in my writing and in my own mind. In this case, I think wu wei is better than benevolence and etiquette and I think Lao Tzu does to. I might be wrong, but how could I possibly be "irresponsible?" — T Clark
I don't think I have any strong, rational evidence for this, but I don't feel as if I need any. Call it a conceit on my part if you want. I don't think it detracts from my understanding. I like it. It makes me feel like Lao Tzu is joking around with us. That Lao Tzu, what a character. — T Clark
There is an important concept in engineering - consequences of failure. If I'm going to make an important decision that will cost lots of money and may put people at risk, I have to be very careful about my justification for the action I'm going to take. On the other hand, if nothing bad will happen if I'm wrong, then who gives a shit. I don't have to be careful. I can take more risks. My interpretations of the TTC definitely come under the who gives a shit standard. — T Clark
It sounds like you're saying I should withhold my opinion because you think I'm wrong. Not just wrong, but, somehow, irresponsibly wrong. Don't make me bring out my Ralph Waldo Emerson quotes again. — T Clark
[emphasis added]This judgment is your interpretation. The structure includes a number of options, including thinking and waiting in hope.
— Possibility
Yes, of course it's my interpretation, one that I think I have good justification for. Waiting in hope? As I've said several times, in my understanding, Lao Tzu does not think hope is a good thing. — T Clark
What matters is that you take responsibility for whatever inaccuracies you might be putting out there - that you claim them as your own, not attribute them to the TTC or to Lao Tzu. — Possibility
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.