Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Introduction
There is memory and memory, just like there is smell and smell, vision and vision, direction and direction. Memory to us is what smell is to a dog, vision to an eagle, direction to a homing pigeon (or monarch butterfly). Each species surpasses the others in its particular niche.[cite] Lynn Cornish:[/cite]Seems to me that animals remember.Memories are the stuff of language.
1) So either animal lack emotion or have thought. Which shall it be?[cite] Topher:[/cite]1)... I think all emotion is preceded by thought.
2) ... maybe [animals] have a rudimentary language that allows them to have some thought and emotion. Their reactions might not all be instinctual..
Dogs don't suffer as much as humans because they can't keep the story of their suffering alive without language.
2) So you really equate thought and emotion? And instinct is neither in your view, I assume. Your view exemplifies the species centric perspective I'm often ranting about. The distinctions an animal perceives in the world around it always fulfills the underlying purpose of advancing its own agenda. For example, when it makes its way through the jungle and draws a distinction between a stick and a snake. Our brains permit us to take this one step further: we draw a specie-centric human hierarchical-instinct-driven distinction between 'animal instinct' and 'human thought / intelligence'. It is pure fantasy aimed at making us two legged primates with a big brain feel 'extra special' - 'God's creation'. Among animals, we are like the opera divas in being deluded by our own sense of importance. But, that said it is not our fault. We can't help it. We have no free will, and only a slight ability to [chref=61]take the lower position[/chref] and see ourselves as we are, i.e., biologically speaking - essentially no different than the rest of life on earth.
And that is why we suffer more than dogs. We see ourselves, not as we are, but as we think and wish we were, which leaves us feeling perpetually disconnected from the rest of creation - Eden lost.
Good one![cite] Lynn Cornish:[/cite]Then you've never had PMS.I think all emotion is preceded by thought.
Perhaps we can gang up on Topher. 
Comments
I'm intrigued to find a Taoist "church" right here in my back yard!
Taoism is the only philosophy I can relate to, other than the non-religious philosphical parts of Buddhism (Zen and Tibetan). I don't care for ritual and ceremony, and I do not look to authorities for answers, no matter what robes they wear.
I find comfort in the Dao de Ching, though I don't read it much, as such. All is self-evident in daily life; the book merely codifies what we already know. If you meet the Tao in a book, burn it.
I find more church and worship in walking in the woods, working in the garden, hiking the mountains and the beach. My daily walks and bicycle rides are my dharma, all of life my sangha, Buddha and Lao Tsu, my teachers.
And then, to be of any use, my philosphy must be engaged in the world, else it is mere bubbles in the bath tub.
Nice to meet you all.
Hayduke
... About the "book": I see its value lies in reminding us what is self evident. And it puts into [chref=70]words[/chref] what we feel, but cannot express in thought. After all, we are stuck with our big brain, its mind, and the thoughts that bubbles up from it. Most thought is driven by emotion... instinct. Maybe nearly all. The irony is that biology [chref=65]hoodwinks[/chref] us,... the survival instinct, the sense that 'more is better' and such. The book shines light on what is not emotionally obvious, like "weakness is the means the way employs". We're instinctively awed by 'strength' and terrified by 'weakness' and the 'death' to which it will surely lead. Simply put, the 'book' supports the larger view: a soft darkness in a world blinded by the bright glare of difference; voice of reason in a world of insanity (insanity = instinct + civilization: its paradigms, and its tools). Phew! I finally got that off my chest... :roll:
... I see church as mostly a social experience, like playing music together or sitting down with family to eat. Although, when you start poking around in the Tao Te Ching some curious things can pop up.
I disagree that we are "stuck in our brain," that thoughts are mostly driven by emotion, and that biology hoodwinks us.
Our brain is part of our self-arising being. Without our brain and our minds, we could no more be aware of the Tao than can the mice of the fields or the deer of the forest. Biology is our description of the processes that bound all life. They function well as descriptions as long as we don't fall into the trap of believing they are real. No description can approach the reality of that which is described.
I don't know that there is a survival "instinct." Certainly, we defend ourselves against threats to our individual lives, but "survival" is a cultural concept that differs from group to group, as does the sense that more is better. Since these are culturally determined values, they cannot bear any relationship to a universal human nature.
I am not "awed by 'strength' and terrified by 'weakness' and the 'death' to which it will surely lead. Therefore, these are not instincts. These are mere cultural affectations that deny the obvious lessons of life.
No book can approach the essence of the Tao, and, therefore, too much reliance on any book serves as a crutch to deny us the experience of the Tao in fullness. "That which can be described is not the Tao," is one of the greatest truisms of the Tao Te Ching, applying to the TTC as to any human effort.
I'm glad you're here in Santa Cruz. I'm surprised our paths have not yet crossed. perhaps they already have... !
Hayduke
2) I suppose that goes without saying. Nevertheless, here we are [chref=56]speaking[/chref] to each other.
3) "culturally determined values"? Tell that to my ducks, and the racoons which attempt to eat them.
4) I suspect that you have not experienced war in person.
5) We rely on that which we need. Simply put, reliance is a symptom of need. We rely on a crutch when we break our leg. We rely on 'spiritual' things when our connection to [chref=39]the One[/chref] is broken. It is no accident that the Tao Te Ching, Buddha, Moses, Jesus and the others all show up more or less coincident with the iron age. Iron has been key to 'progress' of civilization over the last 3,000 years. This religion 'upgrade' over the pagan stone and bronze age religions is symptomatic of humanity's disconnection with [chref=6]the spirit of the valley.[/chref] Those pagan religions where likewise symptomatic of a fundamental disconnection caused by [chref=23]words[/chref] and [chref=32]names[/chref], and the increasing use of language that followed. Now, with the dawning of the electric age throughout the 20th century,... well, we ain't seen nothing yet! Hold onto you hats. We're in for quite a ride... before we [chref=80]return to the use of the knotted rope[/chref], that is.
Well, back to work... I wonder what part of our discussion here is simple misunderstanding and what part is otherwise?... i.e., you may have a more dignified view of the 'Tao' and such, while I may tend more toward heresy. But if you keep coming back here I'll wear you down!
I find it hard to deal with the blue references to Tao te Ching. I prefer to talk in real terms, and leave the biblical references to religion.
3) Ducks and racoons have no concept of survival. They live, they eat they die. Survival is strictly a human concept.
4) This is what happens when one "suspects." I am a Vietnam veteren, and a veteren of the Exxon Valdez oil spill; one a war between humans and humans, the other a war between humans and Life.
All should know that I am an anthropologost by academic training, so I have a rational, fact-based view of human history. Religion is not at all associated with "the iron age," as all cultures have some sort of religion, at all times in history. Religion is human-controlled spirituality, often serving as jusitification of political and economic hegemony. I do not consider Taoism to be a religion, nor do I associate myself with any religion or religious views.
Taoism is a rational philosophy, based on observation and verification. In our world today, it is called science, albeit carried into the furthest reaches of quantum physics.
Hayduke
1) Certainly the [chref=23]words[/chref] we use to dance around tao's bush are of the human brain and mind. But, those words point [chref=40]back[/chref] to the [chref=5]silence[/chref] before words 'overwhelmed' consciousness and cut the [chref=15]uncarved block[/chref] into its 'belief' pieces. These two make the point:
* [chref=32]Only when it is cut are there names. As soon as there are names, one ought to know that it is time to stop.[/chref]
* [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] ... to put it bluntly, the Tao is not the tao.
2) Curious. I feel these references often put the real as [chref=78]straightforward[/chref] as possible, considering that [chref=56]one who knows does not speak[/chref]. Real is a curious concept. What is real in your eyes? Is real that which you [chref=71]think that [you] know[/chref]? Oh, and you need not "deal with the blue references" - just ignore the color and its link, as you wish.
3) How great is the difference between experiencing survival and 'cutting that experience' into a word, ('survival') to dwell on as we experience survival? The duck has no word; we have a word. Do both ducks and we experience the same gut level reality? or is our 'fight or flight' experience different?
4) As an anthropologist have you not noticed that religions reflect the circumstance in which they play themselves out? Religions evolve in step with their epochs.
5) So humans are in control of 'things', eh? Is that what makes us 'special' animals? Or,.. is not religion just a symptom of a deeply felt human need to connect socially with each other, and with [chref=4]the forefather of God.[/chref]. Perhaps we are, in our fumbling awkward way, simply longing to [chref=16]return[/chref].
6) That sounds to my ears like a fairly strong 'religious' statement you're making here. Ironic, eh? :?
7) More subtle perhaps is how religion and science may [chref=2]produce each other[/chref], like two sides of some coin. Though, perhaps this can best be understood through the [chref=43]teaching that uses no words[/chref]. So, I'll stop yapping now - :oops: - and listen.
1) There's no response to this. These aphoriams merely refer back to more words in a book. My point is that the concept of Tao is the product of human brains and mentation.
2) Reality is what hangs around when we stop believing in it. Reality is intricately entwined with consciousness, yet is not dependent on human consciousness for its existence.
3) This is a semantic argument that has no conclusion.
4) Religions do not evolve. Species evolve. Religions change in response to the cultures within which they arrise and in response to human intent. Religions are very often used, as in our present energy wars, to justify the desires of governments, groups and individuals.
5) Humans are in control of human culture. Innate human spirituality is manipulated and formed to the desires of those who seek to contrl human behavior, often for for pofit, economic and political.
6) It's not necessary to be patronizing. And it does no good to twist the meaning of words to one's own intent. Religion is organized, institutionalized belief. I do not accept any religious belief. Saying this is a religious belief is silly, pandering semantics that avoids the point. I get this from Christian religious zealots all the time.
7) No, religion and science do not produce each other; they are antithetical. Religion is based on faith, science is based on evidence. They are two opposite way of describing the Universe. Science is replicable and subject to change by observation. Religion has no factual basis and cannot be verified.
The reason I resonate with Taoism and no-religious Buddhism (Zen), is that they are experiential-based world views, not based on faith. They require no central authority, have a set of precepts that are immediately verifiable and lend themsleves to solitary practice and exploration.
I'm sorry you feel I'm "twisting" your words around
Now forgive me if I foist one more 'blue reference' out here. It is something I'm sloooowly learning the hard way, 'hapless' fellow that I am...
[chref=5]Much speech leads inevitably to silence. Better to hold fast to the void.[/chref]
/~\
carl
Following Tao is counter intuitive.
Peace,
Tom
Of course it's difficult to discuss these things with silly old words. That's why philosophers are so clever with words - don'tcher know!
One important thing is not to gety all grump about it.
Now then, Hayduke: I'm sure that's right about there being no concept of the Tao outside of a human brain - but the concept is not the same as the thing itself. There was a Way long before there were folk to write poems about it. The way (not sure whether to capitalise this) is... - and I'm not even sure about that. What I meant to say is that the discussion above - and several others I've browsed here (in my horrid know-it-all fashion) - seems to assume that Taoism (like some other isms) is to be judged as a thing to run your life by - as if it were dianetics or vegetarianism. Not sure about that.
excuse me now - I must get back to plowing my furrow.
Best,
BlackSheep.