What would you say are. . .

TommyO

Nice Blog.
I will read more when I get time.

TommyO

What would you say are the most important aspects of Taoism for you?

Carl

First, I'm not too keen on the word Taoism. The Taoist point of view is sooooo non-ism-ish. But to answer the question...

The Taoist world view points to the [chref=43]benefit of resorting to no action [and to] the teaching that uses no words[/chref] with a minimum of contradiction. It cuts through much of civilization's bull_ _ _ _! Which is also why [chref=65]of old those who excelled in the pursuit of the way did not use it to enlighten the people but to hoodwink them[/chref]. We the people [chref=18]cleverly[/chref] use the bull_ _ _ _ to rationalize (justify) our own desires, and judge and fault their desires. :oops:

Such hypocrisy is the natural result of believing in teachings that use words.

TommyO

Where did you get that addition? I have never read this.

But I can see how this can be done.

I use Tao-"ism" for lack of a better word. As I understand it Lao Tsu used "Tao" for lack of a better word. But he was speaking about "something" and I am too. There is a goal in my madness.

In my world I run almost completely against the flow. When I announce that which I seek to accomplish I am met with bewilderment. But day by day I discover clues to the way I am to take. Tao leads me. Yet it does not change but does what it has always done. Nothing and everything. As I await its movement I am carried this way and that.

For me the most important aspects of Taoism are first of all its observance and acknowledgement of dualism (yin/yang) in this world. Second would be its references to nature as a sort of guide for ourselves. Since we are nature we can learn about how to be. There is more but this is the begining for me.

As a student in environmental conservation I was regularly disturbed by the intentional dismissal of humans as a part of the ecosystem. While refering to humans as animals we were regularly ignored as if we were ghostly observers.

From your reply I take it that Tao-"ism" cuts through the bull---- for you. (why do we not write that word here?-is there some rule?) anyway. I think this aligns well with my statement about dualism.

But I do not gain a second aspect from you.

Carl

[cite] TommyO:[/cite](1) I use Tao-"ism" for lack of a better word. As I understand it Lao Tsu used "Tao" for lack of a better word. But he was speaking about "something" and I am too.

(2) In my world I run almost completely against the flow.

(3) For me the most important aspects of Taoism are first of all its observance and acknowledgment of dualism (yin/yang) in this world. Second would be its references to nature as a sort of guide for ourselves.

(4) As a student in environmental conservation I was regularly disturbed by the intentional dismissal of humans as a part of the ecosystem. While refering to humans as animals we were regularly ignored as if we were ghostly observers.

(5) From your reply I take it that Tao-"ism" cuts through the bull---- for you. (why do we not write that word here?-is there some rule?) anyway. I think this aligns well with my statement about dualism.

(1) Of course I feel you and I are 'on the same page' with all this. I use the 'ism' in Tao-ism just to high light the issue. Essentially my view is that 'words', while allowing us to "speak about something" on one hand also get in the way. We have no trouble with doing the former, it is the later that tends to be 'hidden', and which the TTC addresses - from Chapter 1 onward.

(2) Ha! A-men. I suppose that is why someone would be attracted to Taoism. And it is also why most people won't be. Most (more than 50% anyway) go with the flow of their culture's paradigm (which is transmitted through teachings that use word).

(3) The yin/yang thing is ironic. It 'nails' how our brain works; to convince our brain it is 'true', it has to appear real, yet dualism is an illusion. Nature is 'One'. Of course even saying that contradicts the 'mysterious sameness' that Nature embodies. I'm using words to point beyond the word. It's like getting blood out of a turnip. It is silly, but fun and harmless as long as we remember it is silly and fun (which we don't usually). The word all too easily becomes The Word. Of course, we can only notice this when we are "going against the flow", as you put it. When we are "flowing" within the paradigm it all feels real (as much as anything which isn't can). And, we are instinctivly driven to hold on to what feels real. Another vicious circle. This is so nicely exemplified by how real 'I', the illusion of self, feels.

(4) Isn't is remarkable how on one hand we acknowledge we are animals (due to science), but few people really accept this at a gut level. The whole myth of free will blocks this deeper realization. It is all 'talk'. I guess it's not so remarkable after all; it just feels that way.

(5) Maybe bull _ _ _ _ drives home the point better than saying bullshit. Also, stearing clear of the four letter words is the next best thing to using no words. (that would sure make this site boring, eh?)

There is actually little reference to dualism in the TTC. My sense, anyway, of the TTC is that it mostly points to the value of knowing, turning back, the uncarved block, and such. Dualism is the 'carved block'. Words, names, education, and word based knowledge do the carving. The teaching that uses no words points to the consciousness that lies behind the duelist brain. This is what we all yearn for - Eden before Eve went and ate the apple of knowledge of good and bad, beauty and ugliness.

Most of humanity's ticket back to this primordial simplicity seems to lie through making one set of words the 'truth' to which everyone 'should' believe in to gain salvation (be they religious, political, scientific, artistic,...). The unique thing about the TTC is that it points out that this is essentially bull_ _ _ _ (I just love that word ). Beginning with chapter 1's [chref=1]The way that can be spoken of is not the constant way; the name that can be named is not the constant name[/chref], all the way to chapter 81's [chref=81]Truthful words are not beautiful; beautiful words are not truthful. Good words are not persuasive; persuasive words are not good. He who knows has no wide learning; he who has wide learning does not know[/chref]. ( Well, I tried to get through this whole reply without resorting to linking to the TTC, but I just couldn't resist. )

TommyO

Thanks Carl.

You have given me a lot to think about.