Less people who suffer and forced into X system that can be negatively evaluated. If one cares about the ethic, then one advocates strongly for it. There's also a justice thing.. Unjust to bring more laborers, suffering, extend the superstructure because you want it. — schopenhauer1

I'm curious why this matters so much to you. Do you feel you were thrown into the world (apologies to Heidegger) and that this is unfair and has lead to suffering?

Why is a movement against perpetuating the package of social structure and negative evaluation of human activities needed to survive condemned off the bat, but the perpetuation of this package is condoned and praised? Can't there be another point of view? — schopenhauer1

Yes, I remember these points. This is obviously very important to you. The argument seems lacking in focus to me.

I don't think the 'package', as you put it, is praised - the world, our country is in constant tension, disagreement and nascent revolution. And doesn't it make sense that the powerful in a status quo oppose change? Also many if not most people are afraid of radical change for good reasons. You can always make things worse. No one really knows how to make things better. Just look at the culture war over taxation reform or a simple thing like health care.

People see having children as a way to escape from the system. For many people having a child recalibrates who they are and rebuilds the world.

I am saying that by procreating people, you are willing (or unwitting) participants in perpetuating your socio-economic-cultural institutions (including governments, etc.). — schopenhauer1

I understand you think this but why is it a problem?

If you know the right things. I'm hopeful :) — TaySan

How do you know you know the right things?

My thinking is based on Cicero and the notion that we choose the right thing when we know what that is. If you disagree, it would help me form an argument if you say why you do not agree.

Why bother with considering a world without matter? I don't think I would like a world without matter. — Athena

The idea that we 'choose the right thing when we know what it is' strikes me as problematic. I don't understand why someone would say this unless there is a vast scaffolding of philosophy underpinning the phrase 'when we know what it is'.

My understanding of human behavior is that we consistently choose short term pleasures and strong tribal positions and junk food along with junk ideas when we know there are better options and even know most of the time what these better options are.

I've worked with former prisoners over the years - hard core criminals - almost all of them knew the right thing to do. The consistent theme is that they did what they did because something mysterious came over them or 'the knife just went in' or 'before I knew it my fists were hitting her' or 'I snapped'. Their more righteous self temporarily went 'off line'.

I am not big on making all encompassing conclusions from this, but I will say that the difference between choosing to do the right thing and choosing to do the wrong thing is often located in person's sense of self rather than the nature of the action.

Not sure how "subversive" that is. It is contributing, just in a different way and would make the country stronger in the long-run. Don't see how that contradicts the point. — schopenhauer1

I'm not contradicting your point, I am contributing to your point, just not in full support.

What do you think you are trying to achieve in general terms?

Most likely they will contribute to the economy in some way, even if they write some "revolutionary" blogposts and social media posts :D. — schopenhauer1

For sure, but they may do more than play around on social media - they might work in politics, in unions, in activism, in medical care, in civil rights law, in drug law reform, in a range of subversive activities.

when a parent decides to procreate a new child, they are also becoming a witting (or mostly unwitting) participant in keeping that society/state's structure perpetuating and maintained. They become the literal bearers of their country's/state's progeny and duplication. — schopenhauer1

I've known a number of parents who are hoping their child becomes an iconoclast who will help bring down the state's structure. Don't underestimate the revolutionary projects of some would be parents.

Food for thought...why are educators so bent on making learning "fun" and why does "fun" in this case resemble marketing tactics? — TheMadFool

Hmmm.... I can't think of examples of educators making learning fun. I know they try sometimes. For me there's an issue with people only being aware of the things that are marketed at them and almost totally ignorant about anything else. So their choice, partly because of this, is almost always based on a tiny slither of potential experience that is mainstream and foisted on them.

Marketing creates... markets. Often for things of dubious quality. Hence the money spent on it. I learned early on with children that if they see it on TV they want it. If they hear it on the radio, they want it. If it has a cool clip, they want it. If it is in a movie, they want it. Etc.

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

I found this extremely interesting and intriguingly phrased. Thank you.

I suppose with the decline of religion and spiritualism and the rise of the materialstic spirit musicians have had to adapt and explore other avenues of clicking with their audience - politics, social issues, romance, philosophy, etc. all are now game so long as there's a willing audience ready to listen and, most importantly, ready to pay the price for the performance. — TheMadFool

Yes, and I also think that marketing - which has infested everything, including religion and spirituality - plays an instrumental (no pun intended) role.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In my mind I had Abraham Lincoln — Possibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

:up:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes I have heard a similar account from a practitioner.

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

You won’t find it. — Wayfarer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure. We need a new everything.

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

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

It's the version of corporate capitalism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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