[MD] still going?

[John Carl]

Dan,


> Dan:
> Here is a bit more from The Guidebook to ZMM which seems to resound
> with what we're discussing here:
>
> "Does nature have its way? Does the Tao win out? Does harmony prevail?
> Yes, yes, yes. But also not necessarily, not necessarily, not
> necessarily.

Jc:  I agree.  "it all works out in the end" doesn't really satisfy us
in the now and if you live in the now, as modern culture has
inculcated, then delayed gratification is nonsensical.  Much less the
insight that whatever ego-blame or gratification I might accrue from
circumstance, from the perspective of the whole, time and eternity,
my strivings and problems are all pretty insignificant.  And yet, in
this insignificant slice of time and space, is where we dwell and will
unto action. (have our being)   It's mysterious, and yet right in
front of us at the same time.





>Eventually yes, but at any specific moment not
> necessarily. Eventually, the Tao will see to it that a proper balance
> of yin and yang is restored, but at any specific moment things can be
> more or less out of kilter.
>



Order is.  when things are out of kilter (un-ordered) it carries a
sense of wrongness with it.  But when things become too ordered, there
is another feeling of dis-ease.  Humans, always teetering, always
balancing.



> "The hurricane hits the land and unleashes a torrent of destructive
> power. If you happen to be watching, you are not likely to cry out,
> "What wondrous balance! What glorious harmony!" What you see is
> imbalance, disharmony. There is far too much yanging going on! But
> excessive yanging can't go on forever. Eventually the hurricane's
> power is spent. Calm returns. And in the yin of calm, the myriad
> forces of nature move toward recuperation and renewal. Harmony is
> restored.
>
> "As Lao-tzu put it: "Return is the movement of the Tao" (Tao Te Ching,
> 40; Mitchell translation).

so is return the movement of the yin?  Or is return the movement of
the tao?  Or is Tao the direction of reconciliation between the two.
I don't know.

I do know that in eastern cultures, they don't like conflict.  I think
I'd like that, I don't like conflict either but our culture is driven
by it in all its sports and leisure time entertainment.  We are a
conflictual society and being in such a society, is it following the
tao to be peaceful and quiet - and thus strange and an outcast, or to
just throw oneself into the turbulent burbling rapids of social
conflict and let the strange waters bear you as they may?

I'll have to think upon that.



> But why, you may ask, do things move too
> far in one direction in the first place? Why is there not a balance
> that would make reverse flow unnecessary? Where is the te of the Tao?
> Is it powerless? The answers to those questions turn on the nature of
> the Tao's power, which is not totalitarian, but subtle and unimposing.
> As Lao-tzu put it, starkly and paradoxically: "The Tao never does
> anything, yet through it all things are done" (Tao Te Ching, 37). That
> doesn't mean that the Tao is totally inert. Energy flows continually
> from it, in the currents of yin and yang and in the tendency to keep
> those currents in harmony.
>

It does sound to my western ears, a lot like God talk.  At least some
god-talk, Ellul for instance  His theology sounds a lot like that.


> "But the Tao doesn't impose its energy on things in such a way as to
> take from them their own part in the cosmic drama. The universe is not
> simply the playing out of the internal script of the Tao. The universe
> is Tao and more. What more? Well, there is such a thing as chance in
> the universe, and there is also such a thing as human choice.


Yep, totally right on.

>
> "The hurricane's excessive accumulation and expression of yang energy
> is an example of chance. The Tao does not eliminate the excesses of
> chance; it only mitigates their effects by swinging things back in the
> other direction. The case of human choice is similar. Human beings can
> ignore the need for balance and choose to be excessively yangish or
> yinnish. The Tao won't prevent the excess but it will eventually bring
> about a reversal. Have you ever allowed yourself to wallow in sadness
> to the point where you found yourself bursting into rage? Have you
> ever worked so long and hard and stubbornly that you eventually
> collapsed, physically and emotionally? The Tao does not impose itself,
> but it eventually has its way.
>
> "Perhaps now the basic Taoist prescription for the good life is
> clearer. Be natural. Don't fight the flow of the Tao's energy. Go with
> the flow. If a little more yang is called for, be a little more
> yangish. If a little more yin is called for, be a little more yinnish.
> But don't go to excesses. Keep some yin at the heart of your yang and
> some yang at the heart of your yin. If you refuse to be natural in
> that way, if you ignore or fight against the Tao's flow, it will
> eventually catch up with you, and a turning back will take place. In
> the meantime, though, you can count on a lot of unnecessary
> suffering." [pg. 104-105]
>

Ok, that sounds pretty good to me and along the lines of how I've
lived my life for many years.   But there is, and has been something
vital missing in following such advice, a load of unnecessary
suffering that others feels, and basically impose upon me in one way
or another, at least of the awareness of their suffering.    Gautama
improved upon the wisdom of the Tao, with his insights into suffering.

Its an interesting subject, philosophically speaking.  what about
suffering?  What about evil?


> Dan comments:
> Maybe the bit about money either loving it or earning it to the
> exclusion of all else has its roots in the yangish side of the
> universe while the love of art and the mastering of craft has more of
> a yinish flavor. Alongside the analogy of the hurricane we might see
> the excess accumulation of wealth and fame as not only an example of
> chance but the effects of an unbalanced lifestyle.
>

Jc:  Ok, but these balances are not simply personal balances because
we don't live simply personal lives.  We are all social creatures in
some kind of social context that requires us to balance out others -
many who are living unbalanced lives and don't even know it!  In such
an extreme situation, we have to be extreme.  We have to get through
to them and show them that their preconceptions are false.

which sounds good, but does not work in actual practice.  Believe me :)



> Notice how DiSanto states if we fail to follow a natural progression
> of things if we fight against the flow we can count on a lot of
> unnecessary suffering when the tide turns as it eventually will no
> matter how we oppose it. If I'm reading him right suffering will occur
> during the natural flow of things that's unavoidable but by opposing
> the forces of the natural progression of things we are bound to bring
> needless pain upon ourselves until things catch up to us as they will.
> Sort of like running from death. We only end up running to it in the
> end.
>
>

well, it makes even less sense to run Toward death, so in the end I
guess we have to settle for running in place.




> Dan:
> Ah. Edward Abbey. His writings were in part my inspiration in writing
> Apache Nation the first few paragraphs of which I shared here some
> years back.


Jc:  Any friend of Ed Abbey is a friend of mine.  He was a big part of
my philosophical awakening.  He showed how to be deep without taking
yourself too seriously.  One of my favorite passages where he
describes wandering into a small town library, half drunk and slightly
depressed and asking the librarian if they have the Philosophy of
William James and when he sees her looking under "F" in the card
catalogue, gives up and goes outside and falls asleep in the heat,
under his VW.

The man paints a vivid picture of the decline of western civ.

>
>
>> Dan:
>>
>>>
>>> Since recreational marijuana is illegal in the state where I live I
>>> suppose my buddy is breaking the law. Yeppers. I think he might be
>>> breaking bad. But I've seen his setup. Nothing but quality. So when we
>>> talk about doing bad I think we might have to qualify that insomuch as
>>> what exactly is bad?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Jc:  Well you certainly can't look to what is legal, for what is bad.
>> Laws are subordinate to morality because we all know there are bad
>> laws and good laws.   And there are good laws, that aren't good to
>> follow in particular situations.  We know what is good and bad, simply
>> through the process of asking ourself the question and remaining open
>> to the answer.  The MoQ starts thus - What is good and what is not
>> good need we anyone to tell us these things?
>
> Dan:
> Where do we draw the line? If we disregard the legality of certain
> acts then who is to say when to stop?
>

Jc:  Dan, this is where the MoQ ought to have a teaching about faith.
Faith that what is good and what is not good isn't a question you have
to ask any authority, scholarly or legal.  Ask yourself.  If you don't
know, then you're doomed anyway so what difference does it make.



> The lack of money
>> solves many problems also!  For instance, if we couldn't afford cars,
>> we'd stop contributing to global warming!
>
> Dan:
> Now there's a slippery slope! Coal-fired electric plants are the
> primary source of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So do we stop
> using electricity too? Go back to hunting sperm whales for the oil to
> burn our lanterns?
>


Jc:  It's been interesting the way things have played out.  Solar has
really gotten cheap enough to justify.  It's going strong here in
California.  That has fed into the oil glut, as well as the NatGas
boom.  I have a different take on Climate change than most.  Common
sense cost/benefit says don't spend a lot on trying to fix climate
change, spend the money on ameliorating the effects of climate change.

And as far as our lanterns go, don't be ridiculous, man.  Whales are
way too precious to hunt, why in california, they'll probably have
voting rights within a decade.  Hemp, man.  Burning hemp oil, it's the
solution to everything.

You must not be from around here :)


John