Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Taoist Sex and The Tao of Sex
I connect the receding, far away, turning back, with the chapter about hammering things to a point. The more I pursue a particular desire, the more it has me by the throat, the more it's hammered to a point. It's pursued to the point of being way out of balance. But it's very difficult for the point to stay sharp and pointed - life tends to blunt that.
When I'm focused on some desire, if I'm able to let go and turn back to the mysterious sameness in reality, instead of blindly pursuing my desire, I'm more likely to let go of that desire. Without having to fulfill the desire and probably just causing myself more trouble.
This really comes up in my interactions with my 12 yr. old daughter. As she develops more independence, sometimes it's easy to just tell her what to do, not allow discussion, and expect things to happen the way I want them to. And then get worked up and push things, to "hammer it to a point". But if I turn away from that intensity of my individual desire, I open up to the mysterious sameness in life. Which translates to seeing us all as the same, which allows more compassion, more openness to considering her point of view, her desires in the situation.
Let's face it, life's way too murky to think that we can just pursue our individual desires to the exclusion of everything else. That we can nail things down, and that pursuing our individual desire is the "answer" to being "happy".
When I'm focused on some desire, if I'm able to let go and turn back to the mysterious sameness in reality, instead of blindly pursuing my desire, I'm more likely to let go of that desire. Without having to fulfill the desire and probably just causing myself more trouble.
This really comes up in my interactions with my 12 yr. old daughter. As she develops more independence, sometimes it's easy to just tell her what to do, not allow discussion, and expect things to happen the way I want them to. And then get worked up and push things, to "hammer it to a point". But if I turn away from that intensity of my individual desire, I open up to the mysterious sameness in life. Which translates to seeing us all as the same, which allows more compassion, more openness to considering her point of view, her desires in the situation.
Let's face it, life's way too murky to think that we can just pursue our individual desires to the exclusion of everything else. That we can nail things down, and that pursuing our individual desire is the "answer" to being "happy".
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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:
Maybe it works both ways and since we are human and fallible, neither is fool proof in our hands. Perhaps we need to learn to live from either depending on the situation.
I have talked myself into despair when there was no apparent reason for despair. I have talked myself out of despair when there was no apparent reason not to despair.
All I am saying is that there are moments when we can chose what we say or think about life, ourselves, and others and that can produce
And that may not be all. If what you say is true, "being "shifts", knowing "shifts", which then "shifts" my words", then I begin to wonder what are all the ways in which "being" is impacted and which, if any, can I employ for my own use. Perhaps language is one of them. That is something I am still exploring.