If you've posted in forums you might remember writing some decent responses. I usually spend a lot of time polishing my discussion forum responses depending on the subject or who I am talking to. Often I want to remember what I said about something, but finding the original post can be difficult. So it makes sense to capture the better responses for later review. Welcome to Clint's Reposts.Thursday, February 05, 2004
Taoism (Politics Forum Feb 4)
Forum User Tao wrote: "As a Taoist I should strive to reach a level of "enlightenment" at which I can perceive complimentary forces as not simply flowing into each other, but see them as one unified system. At a certain level of spiritual enlightenment, the distinction between complimentary forces falls away, and what is left is harmony and unity of opposites, or what Lao Tzu called "the true Way"."
Response:
That's well put in the main. It reminds me of why the I Ching is such a good book because it provides images taken from our core human environment (mountains, trees, lakes, rivers, clouds) to reinforce how everything in human interaction is interconnected and perpetually rebalanced in the cosmic sense.
You said:
"but on some situations the opposing view point violates some basic premise which is important to the core Taoist value"
Thats called taking a position. The entire debate here on the politics forum is about personally held positions. We all seek to gain leverage (inject gravity) over each others held position. The constant mistake made, in my opinion, is that we tend to put people into "camps", and think that if anyone from that camp issues some position, then all the people we've labeled into that camp are of the same position. Let's be careful on that.
But to repeat what you said:
"At a certain level of spiritual enlightenment, the distinction between complimentary forces falls away, and what is left is harmony and unity of opposites, or what Lao Tzu called "the true Way"."
Can one hold a position and yet be positionless? I think so. Though I don't consider myself a Taoist, like the individuals who clew to that way, I too can hold basic premises important to my own unique philosphy's core values.
I don't consider my held values to be superior or inferior to the core Taoist values. But because of the "camp" effect, I wonder if most Taoists - the less enlightened ones at least - without admitting it, feel a bit smug, holding that their value system is somehow more enlightened then others. It's a common trap for all humans.
Even Lao Tzu, as wise as he was, could not possibly escape being a man, and therefore being imperfect where human values are concerned. The "Way of harmony and peace", while certainly appealing as a Supervalue is simply unattainable by most humans. Sure, you can practice non violence, but have kids someday and you'll find that harmony and peace can be scarce commodities.
However, "the true Way" philosophy ("what is left is harmony and unity of opposites"), in my mind, represents a priori knowledge in the philosophical sense. Or as Kant said, all knowledge is related to experience, but not all knowledge is a result of experience.
Many of course claim that a priori knowledge is how they know their own philosophy is the "most" valid. But I don't think it works quite like that. To use that as an argument belies an attempt to gain leverage - always a sign of conversionism at work. More likely, either you have the wisdom or you don't, no need to run about flashing it like a badge.
Applied to the posts on this forum, I prefer to hold a position and yet be positionless. For I have faith that things are turning out how they should, and that each person must contribute how they must in order for the true way to even exist.
Clint
Response:
That's well put in the main. It reminds me of why the I Ching is such a good book because it provides images taken from our core human environment (mountains, trees, lakes, rivers, clouds) to reinforce how everything in human interaction is interconnected and perpetually rebalanced in the cosmic sense.
You said:
"but on some situations the opposing view point violates some basic premise which is important to the core Taoist value"
Thats called taking a position. The entire debate here on the politics forum is about personally held positions. We all seek to gain leverage (inject gravity) over each others held position. The constant mistake made, in my opinion, is that we tend to put people into "camps", and think that if anyone from that camp issues some position, then all the people we've labeled into that camp are of the same position. Let's be careful on that.
But to repeat what you said:
"At a certain level of spiritual enlightenment, the distinction between complimentary forces falls away, and what is left is harmony and unity of opposites, or what Lao Tzu called "the true Way"."
Can one hold a position and yet be positionless? I think so. Though I don't consider myself a Taoist, like the individuals who clew to that way, I too can hold basic premises important to my own unique philosphy's core values.
I don't consider my held values to be superior or inferior to the core Taoist values. But because of the "camp" effect, I wonder if most Taoists - the less enlightened ones at least - without admitting it, feel a bit smug, holding that their value system is somehow more enlightened then others. It's a common trap for all humans.
Even Lao Tzu, as wise as he was, could not possibly escape being a man, and therefore being imperfect where human values are concerned. The "Way of harmony and peace", while certainly appealing as a Supervalue is simply unattainable by most humans. Sure, you can practice non violence, but have kids someday and you'll find that harmony and peace can be scarce commodities.
However, "the true Way" philosophy ("what is left is harmony and unity of opposites"), in my mind, represents a priori knowledge in the philosophical sense. Or as Kant said, all knowledge is related to experience, but not all knowledge is a result of experience.
Many of course claim that a priori knowledge is how they know their own philosophy is the "most" valid. But I don't think it works quite like that. To use that as an argument belies an attempt to gain leverage - always a sign of conversionism at work. More likely, either you have the wisdom or you don't, no need to run about flashing it like a badge.
Applied to the posts on this forum, I prefer to hold a position and yet be positionless. For I have faith that things are turning out how they should, and that each person must contribute how they must in order for the true way to even exist.
Clint
