Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Which Point of View is True, Circular or Linear?
Taoist Sex?
Huh? Sure, why not? I’m always writing serious stuff, but, who care about that? Sex is more fun. So first, let's peek at that racy sexual Taoist image... :yy:... Okey, belated April fools. This post is actually about “What is True, What Can We Trust?” But, I may throw a little sex talk down there somewhere.
So, what is true? It depends on one’s point of view. Our point of view breaks down into two archetypes: the linear and the circular. The linear views male on one end, and female on the other end (see, I said I’d bring sex back into this). The circular views male (yang) and female (yin) as two 'edges' on the same circle - [chref=56]This is known as mysterious sameness[/chref]. So, which view is true anyway?
Thus, as an 'Tao fundamentalist' I have to say that,...
[chref=57]I take no action and the people are transformed of themselves;
I prefer stillness and the people are rectified of themselves;
I am not meddlesome and the people prosper of themselves;
I am free from desire and the people of themselves become simple like the uncarved block.[/chref]
Of course, also being a human animal I take 'action, move about, meddle and desire'. But hey, [chref=45]great perfection seems chipped[/chref], right? You, me, everyone, everything -- we are all in the same boat. On the other hand, the 'linear fundamentalists' (be they Christian, Communist, or anything in between) seeks to transform people by having them convert to a [chref=2]beautiful, good[/chref] and true way [chref=1]that can be spoken of[/chref]. And if you don't,... watch out! Now, there's tribal instinct for you!
Okay. Why, I wonder, did humanity end up with these two archetypical points of view, circular and linear. Perhaps it is inevitable. After all, don't [chref=2]the circular and the linear view produce each other[/chref]? It is easy to see how this dynamic plays itself out in our biology. Being social animals we have two powerful and opposing tribal instincts. One I'll call the 'dividing' instinct. It expresses itself as elitist, competitive, parochial and partisan - 'we' vs. 'them'. This unites by differentiating 'us' from 'them'. This instinct enables the group to divide when it gets to big. If not for this instinct, social animals would live together like the 'Borg' (Startrek) in one big hive. The other I'll call the 'uniting' instinct. It expresses itself as empathy, family bonding, cooperation, ecumenical and apolitical. It draws 'us' together by feeling the similarities 'we' share.
In the real world each person embodies a blend of these two instincts to varying degrees. So, while the circular view is Eastern and the linear view is Western, in fact, people are essentially the same everywhere (my conclusion after 15+ years traveling and/or working in 100+ countries on five continents). Thus, I see these circular and linear views as probably just cultural myths. They don't actually end up driving people's actions. Our actions arise from the depths of emotion. Emotion simply being the interplay between our individual genetic inheritance (biology) and life ([chref=51]circumstances[/chref]) - nature and nurture. The view we see at any moment is the one that make us feel best... at that moment. We see what we emotionally need to see (or are unafraid to see).
Of course this site gives voice to the circular view. The circular view is self cancelling; it pops preconceptions and so promises 'nothing' in the end. The linear view reenforces preconceptions and so promised 'something', like hopes for which one can strive. In reality we all use a mixture of both (subconsciously) depending on the situation, i.e., depending on how our emotions need to see things. (Personally I love 'nothing', so I lean increasingly to the circular. Why do I love 'nothing'? Perhaps because I feel so [chref=15]full[/chref], i.e., it's a symptom.)
Why do we lean toward either a circular or linear world view? Perhaps that rests on how social and/or competitive we are. The less socially connected we feel, the more a circular view includes, connects and soothes. Of course if we are both loners and competitive, then we're likely to lean both ways... depending. If we are very group oriented (tribal) and competitive, a linear view feels 'right'. If we are group oriented and cooperative, then we're likely to lean both ways... depending.
Curiously, the comparative wealth modern life offers us all leaves us all feeling less socially connected than before. Thus, more of us probably hunger for a more circular unifying point of view than our ancestors - albeit, not as circular and [chref=23]natural [/chref] as Taoist view! But, our growing ecological sensitivity is at least a step back to nature.
I'm fascinated by how close Topher and my views seem to be in some ways, and how opposite in others - primarily in his 'pro-language' and my 'con-language' position. But, even there I actually agree with him on the extent to which language is useful. One difference may lie in where we think language can take us. I use language in a circular way (especially correlations). So, in my case perhaps 'the tail is wagging the dog', and in Topher's case, 'the dog is wagging the tail', or visa versa...
And Now the Sex Talk (or How Biology Hoodwinks Us)
Personally, I've found that simply knowing how things really are is enough - everything takes care of itself from there. The only hitch: 'knowing how things really are'. I got my first hint at how things really are, when, in my early twenties, I noticed my unrelenting interest in women. Of course this is 'normal' for a young fellow, but it felt ironic when I realized there were millions of pretty women out there, and my biology was shouting "mate with them all".
The absurdity of that impulse woke me up to the fact that biology [chref=65]hoodwinks[/chref] us left and right. I felt like a puppet with instinct pulling the strings. Since then I have seen biology's hoodwink everywhere: sports, food, politics, 'love', art, etc. Of course, language plays right into the hoodwinking hands of nature. Emotion (needs and fears) drives us to believe what we think. In a way, language has a stranglehold on consciousness. Like the great dinosaurs whose big body dictated their physical relationship with nature, our big brain and its language dictates much of our 'spiritual' relationship with nature. Most experience is filtered through our pre-conceptions. This colors instinctive needs and fears and produces our ever expanding world of desire. What to do? What to do?
Naturally, biology is here to stay; we are not going to change that or 'control' it. But, understanding what's happening - that we are being hoodwinked at every turn - counterbalances the mind's role in this a little, which helps us [chref=16]return to our roots[/chref]. And, popping some of those pre-conceptions wouldn't hurt either!
A Confession:
Some of the above was originally posted as "Which Point of View is True, Circular or Linear?" I just wanted to edit, polish, and re-post it. Am I running out of things to say,... I wish! No, I just think this is an important issue and wanted to upgrade it some. Besides, it is chilly and rainy outside today.
Oh my, too many words again! Did I even answer the question, “What is True, What Can We Trust?”. If not, here’s an idea, simply [chref=52]trust the light, but give up the discernment[/chref].
And Finally, Is This True?...
When I, you, we, or they believe something is true, it is true for me, you, us, or them. What else can truth be? Truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Of course, many hate this idea, for they think their beliefs are really true... and they have the emotions (plus 'divine signs', Scriptural authority, or science) that 'verify' their convictions. As I look around the world, I see folks constantly [chref=8]contending[/chref] over 'truth'. While the particulars are different enough to battle over, all sides share a common core – the same sense of certainty. Seeing this play out prevents me from joining any side. What to do?... I, and folks like me, have only one alternative: [chref=71]To know yet to think that one does not know is best; Not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty.[/chref] Now, I suppose you could challenge me here. Am I not proclaiming 'a truth' when I say that truth rests in the eye of the beholder? Well, it is [chref=78]paradoxical[/chref] for sure. The difference lies in the fact that this 'truth' is self-extinguishing, similar to the opening statement of the Tao Te Ching: [chref=1]The way that can be spoken of is not the constant way[/chref]. Truths like these [chref=5] lead inevitably to silence[/chref], and I might add, peace.
My word this is a long essay. Probably the only way to stop yapping is to just finish this by quoting myself,... :roll:
Huh? Sure, why not? I’m always writing serious stuff, but, who care about that? Sex is more fun. So first, let's peek at that racy sexual Taoist image... :yy:... Okey, belated April fools. This post is actually about “What is True, What Can We Trust?” But, I may throw a little sex talk down there somewhere.
So, what is true? It depends on one’s point of view. Our point of view breaks down into two archetypes: the linear and the circular. The linear views male on one end, and female on the other end (see, I said I’d bring sex back into this). The circular views male (yang) and female (yin) as two 'edges' on the same circle - [chref=56]This is known as mysterious sameness[/chref]. So, which view is true anyway?
Topher's comment "trust in language" goes to the heart of the difference between a circular world view and a linear one. The linear one, espoused in Western religion, knows good & true, bad & false, as polar realities on opposite ends of a linear continuum. The circular one, like the Taoist view, sees good & true, bad & false, as [chref=56]mysteriously[/chref] intertwined and circularly [chref=2]producing each other[/chref] without beginning or end.[cite] Topher:[/cite]trust in language.
From the circular point of view, neither the circular or the linear are 'true'. Rather, [chref=2]the circular and the linear produce each other[/chref]. They are "two sides of the same coin". Thus for example, from the circular point of view, no one 'goes to hell' because [chref=2]heaven and hell produce each other[/chref] as well. The linear view is quite the opposite.[cite] On the other hand, Topher:[/cite]One thing I am finally dealing with in my own life is that high and low are two sides of the same coin.
Thus, as an 'Tao fundamentalist' I have to say that,...
[chref=57]I take no action and the people are transformed of themselves;
I prefer stillness and the people are rectified of themselves;
I am not meddlesome and the people prosper of themselves;
I am free from desire and the people of themselves become simple like the uncarved block.[/chref]
Of course, also being a human animal I take 'action, move about, meddle and desire'. But hey, [chref=45]great perfection seems chipped[/chref], right? You, me, everyone, everything -- we are all in the same boat. On the other hand, the 'linear fundamentalists' (be they Christian, Communist, or anything in between) seeks to transform people by having them convert to a [chref=2]beautiful, good[/chref] and true way [chref=1]that can be spoken of[/chref]. And if you don't,... watch out! Now, there's tribal instinct for you!
Okay. Why, I wonder, did humanity end up with these two archetypical points of view, circular and linear. Perhaps it is inevitable. After all, don't [chref=2]the circular and the linear view produce each other[/chref]? It is easy to see how this dynamic plays itself out in our biology. Being social animals we have two powerful and opposing tribal instincts. One I'll call the 'dividing' instinct. It expresses itself as elitist, competitive, parochial and partisan - 'we' vs. 'them'. This unites by differentiating 'us' from 'them'. This instinct enables the group to divide when it gets to big. If not for this instinct, social animals would live together like the 'Borg' (Startrek) in one big hive. The other I'll call the 'uniting' instinct. It expresses itself as empathy, family bonding, cooperation, ecumenical and apolitical. It draws 'us' together by feeling the similarities 'we' share.
In the real world each person embodies a blend of these two instincts to varying degrees. So, while the circular view is Eastern and the linear view is Western, in fact, people are essentially the same everywhere (my conclusion after 15+ years traveling and/or working in 100+ countries on five continents). Thus, I see these circular and linear views as probably just cultural myths. They don't actually end up driving people's actions. Our actions arise from the depths of emotion. Emotion simply being the interplay between our individual genetic inheritance (biology) and life ([chref=51]circumstances[/chref]) - nature and nurture. The view we see at any moment is the one that make us feel best... at that moment. We see what we emotionally need to see (or are unafraid to see).
Of course this site gives voice to the circular view. The circular view is self cancelling; it pops preconceptions and so promises 'nothing' in the end. The linear view reenforces preconceptions and so promised 'something', like hopes for which one can strive. In reality we all use a mixture of both (subconsciously) depending on the situation, i.e., depending on how our emotions need to see things. (Personally I love 'nothing', so I lean increasingly to the circular. Why do I love 'nothing'? Perhaps because I feel so [chref=15]full[/chref], i.e., it's a symptom.)
Why do we lean toward either a circular or linear world view? Perhaps that rests on how social and/or competitive we are. The less socially connected we feel, the more a circular view includes, connects and soothes. Of course if we are both loners and competitive, then we're likely to lean both ways... depending. If we are very group oriented (tribal) and competitive, a linear view feels 'right'. If we are group oriented and cooperative, then we're likely to lean both ways... depending.
Curiously, the comparative wealth modern life offers us all leaves us all feeling less socially connected than before. Thus, more of us probably hunger for a more circular unifying point of view than our ancestors - albeit, not as circular and [chref=23]natural [/chref] as Taoist view! But, our growing ecological sensitivity is at least a step back to nature.
I'm fascinated by how close Topher and my views seem to be in some ways, and how opposite in others - primarily in his 'pro-language' and my 'con-language' position. But, even there I actually agree with him on the extent to which language is useful. One difference may lie in where we think language can take us. I use language in a circular way (especially correlations). So, in my case perhaps 'the tail is wagging the dog', and in Topher's case, 'the dog is wagging the tail', or visa versa...
Well good luck on that one! I may experience just the opposite, i.e., as my being "shifts", knowing "shifts", which then "shifts" my words.[cite] Topher:[/cite]...power to me is mastering your own "being"... ... Being exists only in language. I have experienced my own being shifting by my word alone. Oh, what it would be to master my speaking and therefore master who I am being.
And Now the Sex Talk (or How Biology Hoodwinks Us)
Personally, I've found that simply knowing how things really are is enough - everything takes care of itself from there. The only hitch: 'knowing how things really are'. I got my first hint at how things really are, when, in my early twenties, I noticed my unrelenting interest in women. Of course this is 'normal' for a young fellow, but it felt ironic when I realized there were millions of pretty women out there, and my biology was shouting "mate with them all".
The absurdity of that impulse woke me up to the fact that biology [chref=65]hoodwinks[/chref] us left and right. I felt like a puppet with instinct pulling the strings. Since then I have seen biology's hoodwink everywhere: sports, food, politics, 'love', art, etc. Of course, language plays right into the hoodwinking hands of nature. Emotion (needs and fears) drives us to believe what we think. In a way, language has a stranglehold on consciousness. Like the great dinosaurs whose big body dictated their physical relationship with nature, our big brain and its language dictates much of our 'spiritual' relationship with nature. Most experience is filtered through our pre-conceptions. This colors instinctive needs and fears and produces our ever expanding world of desire. What to do? What to do?
Naturally, biology is here to stay; we are not going to change that or 'control' it. But, understanding what's happening - that we are being hoodwinked at every turn - counterbalances the mind's role in this a little, which helps us [chref=16]return to our roots[/chref]. And, popping some of those pre-conceptions wouldn't hurt either!
A Confession:
Some of the above was originally posted as "Which Point of View is True, Circular or Linear?" I just wanted to edit, polish, and re-post it. Am I running out of things to say,... I wish! No, I just think this is an important issue and wanted to upgrade it some. Besides, it is chilly and rainy outside today.
Oh my, too many words again! Did I even answer the question, “What is True, What Can We Trust?”. If not, here’s an idea, simply [chref=52]trust the light, but give up the discernment[/chref].
And Finally, Is This True?...
When I, you, we, or they believe something is true, it is true for me, you, us, or them. What else can truth be? Truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Of course, many hate this idea, for they think their beliefs are really true... and they have the emotions (plus 'divine signs', Scriptural authority, or science) that 'verify' their convictions. As I look around the world, I see folks constantly [chref=8]contending[/chref] over 'truth'. While the particulars are different enough to battle over, all sides share a common core – the same sense of certainty. Seeing this play out prevents me from joining any side. What to do?... I, and folks like me, have only one alternative: [chref=71]To know yet to think that one does not know is best; Not to know yet to think that one knows will lead to difficulty.[/chref] Now, I suppose you could challenge me here. Am I not proclaiming 'a truth' when I say that truth rests in the eye of the beholder? Well, it is [chref=78]paradoxical[/chref] for sure. The difference lies in the fact that this 'truth' is self-extinguishing, similar to the opening statement of the Tao Te Ching: [chref=1]The way that can be spoken of is not the constant way[/chref]. Truths like these [chref=5] lead inevitably to silence[/chref], and I might add, peace.
My word this is a long essay. Probably the only way to stop yapping is to just finish this by quoting myself,... :roll:
[cite] Carl:[/cite]The more tentative we believe in what seems to be, the less any particular 'this' or 'that' is truth, yet on the other hand, the more 'all' becomes truth. So do I believe that I've proven we can "really experience reality as it is"? No! Simply said, [chref=1]the name that can be named, is not the constant name[/chref]. The words subtract from the reality.
That must sound like nonsense. Here's another way to see this...
Look at a spider on the wall. If you see a 'spider' you are not seeing reality, but only an illusionary shadow of reality. When you experience... you experience. Hmm, that's not so good either. Time for bed! And, as they say, when you're in a hole, stop digging!
Comments
From the circular point of view neither the circular or the linear are 'true', i.e., [chref=2]the circular and the linear produce each other[/chref]. They are "two sides of the same coin". Thus, from the circular view no one goes to hell because they see things differently. The linear view is understandably quite the opposite.
For example, being a 'Taoist fundamentalist',...
[chref=57]I take no action and the people are transformed of themselves;
I prefer stillness and the people are rectified of themselves;
I am not meddlesome and the people prosper of themselves;
I am free from desire and the people of themselves become simple like the uncarved block.[/chref]
Of course, also being a human animal I take action, move about, meddle and desire. But hey, [chref=45]great perfection seems chipped[/chref]! - you, me, everyone, everything. We are all in the same boat. On the other hand, the 'Judeo-Christian-Islamic (or Communist, etc.) fundamentalist' seeks to transform people by having them conform to a [chref=2]beautiful, good[/chref] and true way [chref=1]that can be spoken of[/chref]. And if they don't, off to hell they go. (Now, there's tribal instinct for you!)
Okey. Why, I wonder, did humanity end up with these two archetypical points of view, circular and linear. On one hand I could think it inevitable. After all if [chref=2]the circular and the linear produce each other[/chref], then if half the world aligned with one view, then the other half would naturally align with the other. Still, this seems a bit far fetched even for me.
Seeing these views as based in biology is easier to swallow. Being social animals we have two powerful and opposing tribal instincts. One I'll call the 'dividing' instinct. It expresses itself as elitist, competitive, parochial and partisan - 'we' vs. 'them'. This unites by differentiating 'us' from 'them'. This instinct enables the group to divide when it gets to big. If not for this instinct, social animals would live together like the Borg in one big hive. The other I'll call the 'uniting' instinct. It expresses itself as empathy, family bonding, cooperation, ecumenical and apolitical. It draws 'us' together by feeling the similarities 'we' share.
In the real world each person embodies a blend of these two instincts to varying degrees. So, while the circular view is Eastern and the linear view is Western, in fact, people are the same essentially everywhere (my conclusion after 15+ years traveling and/or working 100+ countries on all continents). Thus, I see these circular and linear views as probably just cultural myths. They don't actually end up driving people's actions. Our actions arise from our individual genetic inheritance (biology) and life (circumstance) - nature and nurture. The view we see at any moment is the one that make us feel best... at that moment. We see what we need to see - And, what we need to see is determined by individual genetic inheritance (biology) and life (circumstance).
Of course this site gives voice to the circular view. The circular view is self cancelling; it pops preconceptions and so promises 'nothing' in the end. The linear view reenforces preconceptions and so promised 'something', like hopes for which one can strive. In reality we all use a mixture of both (subconsciously) depending on the situation, i.e., depending on how our emotions need to see things. Personally I love 'nothing'(*), so I increasingly lean to the circular.
Why do we lean toward either a circular or linear world view? Perhaps that rests on how social and/or competitive we are. The less socially connected we feel, the more a circular view includes, connects and soothes. Of course if we are both loners and competitive, then we're likely to lean both ways... depending. If we are very group oriented (tribal) and competitive, a linear view feels 'right'. If we are group oriented and cooperative, then we're likely to lean both ways... depending.
Curiously, the comparative wealth modern life offers us all leaves us all feeling less socially connected than before. Thus, more of us probably hunger for a more circular unifying point of view than our ancestors - albeit, not as circular and [chref=23]natural [/chref] as Taoist view! But, our growing ecological sensitivity is at least a step back to nature.
(*) Why do I love 'nothing'? Perhaps because I feel so [chref=15]full[/chref].
Well good luck on that one! I may experience just the opposite, i.e., as my being "shifts", knowing "shifts", which then "shifts" my words.
Personally, I've found that simply knowing how things really are is enough - everything takes care of itself from there. The only hitch: 'knowing how things really are'. I got my first hint at how things really are, when, in my early twenties, I noticed my unrelenting interest in women. Of course this in 'normal' for a young fellow, but it felt ironic when I realized(*) there were millions upon millions of pretty women out there, and biology was saying "mate with them all".
The absurdity of that impulse woke me up to the fact that biology [chref=65]hoodwink[/chref] us left and right. I felt like a puppet with instinct pulling the strings. Since then I have seen biology's hoodwink everywhere: sports, food, politics, 'love', art, etc. Of course, language plays right into the hoodwinking hands of nature. Emotion (needs and fears) drive to believe what we think. In a way, language has a stranglehold on consciousness. Like the great dinosaurs whose big body dictated their physical relationship with nature, our big brain and its language dictates much of our 'spiritual' relationship with nature. Most experience is filtered through our pre-conceptions. This colors instinctive needs and fears and produces our ever expanding world of desire. What to do? What to do?
Naturally, biology is here to stay; we are not going to change that or 'control' it. But, understanding what's happening - that we are being hoodwinked at every turn - counterbalances the mind's role in this a little, which helps us [chref=16]return to our roots[/chref]. And, popping some of those pre-conceptions wouldn't hurt either!
(*) Now perhaps you see words as the catalyst for my "realization"? In my view, my "being" had to know before my mind could "realize". Knowing is the cause, the words are the effect. Otherwise we could teach wisdom to kids in school and humanity could live happily ever after. (That's not to say that kids raised in environments where deeper wisdom reigns don't have a head start on the path to [chref=51]maturity[/chref].)