Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
From Birth to Death, Bewildered
Welcome Strange Days,
I read some of Russell's article, enough to make a hopefully informed comment, so here goes...
Basically, this is nonsense. It sounds Taoist, but it ignores a crucial reality. We are natural, we are animals! For example, when referring species extinction, he says "The only logical answer to this situation is that the Taoist sees no action to be required, for he trusts that the world is already operating as it is supposed to be operating, and all human activity ? no matter how well-intentioned ? can add nothing of value to such operation, and can logically only interfere with the course of nature as it is already unfolding."
Certainly, "no action is required". But to say that "action can logically only interfere with the course of nature" is shallow of three counts. (1) Life is action. It is [chref=16]willful innovation [in action] while ignorant of the constant[/chref] that causes the woe - not woe to nature, but woe to the innovator! After all, [chref=5]heaven and earth are ruthless[/chref]. (2) Neither [chref=2]Something [or] Nothing[/chref] can "interfere with the course of nature". The idea that humanity "interferes with the course of nature" is just another symptom of our arrogance - and our sense of disconnection which causes that. Also, "interfere" with who's agenda anyway? The only agenda I notice is humanity's. And true enough, we are always shooting ourselves in the foot. Nevertheless, we are nature even though we feel disconnected in our psyche from nature. We can thank the mind and its "logic" for that. (3) "Logic" is the shallow ripples of thought... [chref=32]names[/chref] and [chref=23]words[/chref] from which our great [chref=18]cleverness emerges[/chref]. Need I say more? No... please... no! :shock:
Forgive me for being so blunt. If I was responding directly to Russell I'd probably be a little more couth.
In my view he gets it half right. He ignores the fact that we, as animals, respond to saving the child floating down river or the species from extinction not because we 'choose' to, but because we feel the need to. Life's action - all life, all action - is driven by emotion (instinct). Curiously, the first thing that 'spiritual' thinkers seem to do is attempt to separate man from animal. You know, God created man in his image, and all that (when in truth the reverse seems the more likely). To top it all off, Russell's view is loaded down with that ubiquitous implied free will we see everywhere, East or West, North or South.
Again, welcome to this space. The points I raise might be a little 'raw', but we might as well get that out of the way, eh mate? By the way, I emigrated to Australia in 1963. Loved it... but itchy feet drove me onward...
I read some of Russell's article, enough to make a hopefully informed comment, so here goes...
[cite] Strange Days:[/cite]... he [Russel] argues, quite successfully I believe, that nonaction is also not taking action to save endangered species or a child from drowning.
Basically, this is nonsense. It sounds Taoist, but it ignores a crucial reality. We are natural, we are animals! For example, when referring species extinction, he says "The only logical answer to this situation is that the Taoist sees no action to be required, for he trusts that the world is already operating as it is supposed to be operating, and all human activity ? no matter how well-intentioned ? can add nothing of value to such operation, and can logically only interfere with the course of nature as it is already unfolding."
Certainly, "no action is required". But to say that "action can logically only interfere with the course of nature" is shallow of three counts. (1) Life is action. It is [chref=16]willful innovation [in action] while ignorant of the constant[/chref] that causes the woe - not woe to nature, but woe to the innovator! After all, [chref=5]heaven and earth are ruthless[/chref]. (2) Neither [chref=2]Something [or] Nothing[/chref] can "interfere with the course of nature". The idea that humanity "interferes with the course of nature" is just another symptom of our arrogance - and our sense of disconnection which causes that. Also, "interfere" with who's agenda anyway? The only agenda I notice is humanity's. And true enough, we are always shooting ourselves in the foot. Nevertheless, we are nature even though we feel disconnected in our psyche from nature. We can thank the mind and its "logic" for that. (3) "Logic" is the shallow ripples of thought... [chref=32]names[/chref] and [chref=23]words[/chref] from which our great [chref=18]cleverness emerges[/chref]. Need I say more? No... please... no! :shock:
Forgive me for being so blunt. If I was responding directly to Russell I'd probably be a little more couth.
In my view he gets it half right. He ignores the fact that we, as animals, respond to saving the child floating down river or the species from extinction not because we 'choose' to, but because we feel the need to. Life's action - all life, all action - is driven by emotion (instinct). Curiously, the first thing that 'spiritual' thinkers seem to do is attempt to separate man from animal. You know, God created man in his image, and all that (when in truth the reverse seems the more likely). To top it all off, Russell's view is loaded down with that ubiquitous implied free will we see everywhere, East or West, North or South.Again, welcome to this space. The points I raise might be a little 'raw', but we might as well get that out of the way, eh mate? By the way, I emigrated to Australia in 1963. Loved it... but itchy feet drove me onward...
Comments
Now, after decades of travel, work, study, exploration, reflection,... on up to this moment, I'm still where I was as a youth - bewildered. No, it's not because I never did read the Encyclopedia! The difference is, back then I wanted to define the [chref=21]indistinct and shadowy[/chref]; now I simply attempt to [chref=65]conform[/chref] to it as best I can. Back then I thought I could 'find out'; now I know that there is no 'out' to find, per se. It is all 'in'. The 'out' is but a reflection of what is 'in'. To correlate it:
illusion = out, [chref=27]clever[/chref], linear, part, knowledge, sound, work, human, life, energy, matter,
reality = in, [chref=27]bewildered[/chref], circular, whole, knowing, silence, rest, animal, death, time, space,
These two groups appear to our senses as polar opposites, thanks to our biology. In truth, they share a [chref=56]mysterious sameness[/chref], which we can only feel from with 'in'. There's that 'in' again. How do we get 'in'? That is easy...
[chref=56]Block the openings;
Shut the doors.
Blunt the sharpness;
Untangle the knots;
Soften the glare;[/chref]
How do we do that? Again, that's easy...
[chref=36]If you would have a thing shrink,
You must first stretch it;
If you would have a thing weakened,
You must first strengthen it;
If you would have a thing laid aside,
You must first set it up;
If you would take from a thing,
You must first five to it. [/chref]
How do we first do 'this' to have 'that'? No problem... If you are alive you are on your way....
[chref=51]The way gives them life;
Virtue rears them;
Things give them shape;
Circumstances bring them to maturity.[/chref]
There, I did it. I solved the 'worlds problems'