What do people think about the Tao Te Ching?

[fractionMan]

In addition to the Tao Te Ching I've been reading some Chuang Tzu at http://www.taoism.net/ which is a pretty decent resource. I think it becomes clear it's not so much about primitivism as balance and an understanding of the merits of both ways.

 

[ska invita]

The Tao Te Ching is pretty great - some lovely passages in it, if you're into that kind of thing (and on the whole I am). Dont agree with all of it.I find the I Ching more interesting though, for whereas the Tao Te Ching is concrete, the I Ching leaves it to the individual to find their own answers.

I had an I Ching 'workbook' - a good translation/interpetation, and went through a phase of referring to it. I found it pretty useful at the time, and it provided real insight into the 64 archetypal, for want of a better phrase, life situations (existential states or processes is probably better description) you may find yourself in.

The whole Trigram system is really a thing of beauty when you look into its meaning and symbolism. (couldn't find a nice explanation on the net that doesnt sound like mumbojumbo - if you're interested its worth picking up a book on it - the one i have is great: The I Ching Workbook by Wing).

Worth noting that the Western approach, with its 'translations', is to treat the I Ching as a self help system/book with quite concrete advice given. The original Chinese approach is utterly open ended, with no text included, just symbols, and a one word title for each of the 64 states/experiences. The idea is to provide a very sophisticated and tidy system of considering relatively abstract concepts within a cohesive structure on which to meditate. It really is one of the high points of human civilisation IMO.

 

[revol68]

Tin-openers, too. So that's roads, computers and tin-openers ...

However, as with roads it depends on how you look at things. They've been very useful to humans but we're only one species, again. Just because we think we're the only important species it doesn't mean we are - we need to look at benefits to the environment as a whole. Perhaps if we'd not had as many roads we wouldn't have bred so much and done so much damage. Computers are most likely just accelerating the scale of the damage we can do.

I know this approach got me a facepalm earlier but it comes down to what your measure is of a civilisation or even a species. I'd say it was its effect on the environment round it.

oh fuck off with your pseudo profound hippy bullshit.

if you are so fucking desperate to de-privilege humanity why don't you go fucking kill yourself, y'know put yourself back into nature, decentre yourself into worms, soil and fungi.

 

[two sheds]

oh fuck off with your pseudo profound hippy bullshit.

if you are so fucking desperate to de-privilege humanity why don't you go fucking kill yourself, y'know put yourself back into nature, decentre yourself into worms, soil and fungi.

you've not come across the idea of sustainable development before, then?

 

[Drone Module]

Tin-openers, too. So that's roads, computers and tin-openers ...

However, as with roads it depends on how you look at things. They've been very useful to humans but we're only one species, again. Just because we think we're the only important species it doesn't mean we are - we need to look at benefits to the environment as a whole. Perhaps if we'd not had as many roads we wouldn't have bred so much and done so much damage. Computers are most likely just accelerating the scale of the damage we can do.

I know this approach got me a facepalm earlier but it comes down to what your measure is of a civilisation or even a species. I'd say it was its effect on the environment round it.

not to be imitate revol's response entirely... but if you want to have sustainable development or are working from a view that anthropocentrism is an illegitimate position to work from you have to remember that having humans and non-humans on a par...or at least recognising the mutuality of their existence...doesn't mean forgetting humans.

de-centering humanity doesn't mean ignoring or relegating it to a position of nonimportance or, as you are in danger of doing, making out to be some kind of Agent Smith-esque "cancer."

you are lacking nuance or any level of dialectic between the human and nonhuman in what you're saying. humans have done alot of damage to the world but we've also done a hell of alot of good. and be aware that to be non-anthropocentric means recognising that humans are not simply in the world but are of the world...no matter how much we'd like to think consciousness separates us.

to talk about humans damaging the world is also to talk about humans damaging humans, an element of the world damaging others.

 

[kyser_soze]

you are lacking nuance or any level of dialectic between the human and nonhuman

Which is why the Tao, and similar stuff, isn't really that helpful as an aid to understanding...

 

[Drone Module]

Which is why the Tao, and similar stuff, isn't really that helpful as an aid to understanding...

wouldn't knock all of it... some spiritual texts do have a dialectic like that... its more the Westernisation, New Age Industry vulgarisations that tend towards a 'human bad...nature good' dichotomy

 

[Drone Module]

Come on then, apart from the roads what have intellectuals ever done for us?

jesus raving buggery christ!

sir, are you a loon?

 

[revol68]

you've not come across the idea of sustainable development before, then?

yes but sustainable development is about sustainable environment for human needs and desires, there's simply no escaping anthropocentrism, nor should we wish to. Even in our desire to protect certain species and habitats we are anthropocentric, infact in many ways we are even more so as we are taking it upon ourselves to impart meaning and symbolism against the nihilism of the universe, after all nature doesn't give a shit about the Panda, we do.

 

[Drone Module]

yes but sustainable development is about sustainable environment for human needs and desires, there's simply no escaping anthropocentrism, nor should we wish to. Even in our desire to protect certain species and habitats we are anthropocentric, infact in many ways we are even more so as we are taking it upon ourselves to impart meaning and symbolism against the nihilism of the universe, after all nature doesn't give a shit about the Panda, we do.

we aren't separable in the last instance from nature, so in effect nature does give a shit or rather...one element of it does.

is that still anthropocentric?

 

[revol68]

we aren't separable in the last instance from nature, so in effect nature does give a shit or rather...one element of it does.

is that still anthropocentric?

Yep, we are part of nature but even in the act of recognising this we elevate ourselves some what above it.

 

[Trufflepig]

nature doesn't give a shit about the Panda, we do.

I don't, if they want to stave themselves with their fussy eating habits, leave em to it I say.

 

[revol68]

I don't, if they want to stave themselves with their fussy eating habits, leave em to it I say.

it's not their eating habits, it's their fucking habits.

it's awesome though, the Panda's probably don't give a fuck, they've embraced the nihilism of the universe and don't give a shit for articles of bad faith as the 'survival of the species', and through this they've found a brilliant way of being pampered and waited on hand and foot.

No wonder the fuckers have such dark eyes, they are the ultimate teenage goths.

 

[two sheds]

not to be imitate revol's response entirely... but if you want to have sustainable development or are working from a view that anthropocentrism is an illegitimate position to work from you have to remember that having humans and non-humans on a par...or at least recognising the mutuality of their existence...doesn't mean forgetting humans.

I'm not putting humans and non-humans on a par - I'm pointing out that non-humans are normally totally ignored.

de-centering humanity doesn't mean ignoring or relegating it to a position of nonimportance or, as you are in danger of doing, making out to be some kind of Agent Smith-esque "cancer."

i agree again - when we say, for example, medicine has brought 'great benefits to people' we normally mean 'great benefits to we relatively rich people'. Mind you, I think the 'cancer' reference has some validity. Take a look at a satellite map of cities: not a lot grows on concrete. It's uncontrolled, large-scale development that I have a particular problem with.

you are lacking nuance or any level of dialectic between the human and nonhuman in what you're saying. humans have done alot of damage to the world but we've also done a hell of alot of good. and be aware that to be non-anthropocentric means recognising that humans are not simply in the world but are of the world...no matter how much we'd like to think consciousness separates us.

when you say 'dialectic' are you meaning it's not susceptible to argument (the dictionary definition i saw)? I'd disagree - it's difficult admittedly - but that's true when you talk about the environment anyway. How do you weigh the value of a human life against that of any other lifeform - as in how do you do any environmental cost/benefit analysis? The way decisions are normally made by humans is just to ignore non-humans.

I'm quite happy to argue my corner, it's revol who's doing the yah-booh stuff if you'll notice . I'd say the ideal way for people to behave would be to evaluate the options and their possible effects before we make a decision, then plan what we need to do, do it, then check whether what we've done has had the results we wanted, and finally incorporate any lessons we've learned for next time. That's the basis of how we believe we act as rational beings, and is also pure business theory - it's just that we hardly ever act like that.

When you say 'done a hell of a lot of good', a lot of that is in repairing the hell of a lot more damage we've already done. Some examples that have done a lot of good for other species? I'm not totally sure you can improve on nature myself, but I'm willing to learn.

to talk about humans damaging the world is also to talk about humans damaging humans, an element of the world damaging others.

yes agreed, particularly humans with power damaging humans without power.

 

[revol68]

shut up you inane hippy fuck.
long live the cartesian subject.

 

[two sheds]

jesus raving buggery christ!

sir, are you a loon?

 

[two sheds]

yes but sustainable development is about sustainable environment for human needs and desires,

i think you need to look up 'sustainable'. And what we think is good for humans isn't always good for humans. It's seen as very 'good' for humans that we're cutting down huge areas of rainforests - very sustainable until it's all gone when i suppose we just look for another source for furniture.

Interesting that you seem to be perfectly happy with the wholesale slaughter of other species, though.

there's simply no escaping anthropocentrism, nor should we wish to. Even in our desire to protect certain species and habitats we are anthropocentric, infact in many ways we are even more so as we are taking it upon ourselves to impart meaning and symbolism against the nihilism of the universe, after all nature doesn't give a shit about the Panda, we do.

So you don't even try to see the world from any perspective other than of benefit to humans?

And nature doesn't give a shit about us either - how does that help us?

 

[revol68]

go away simpleton.

 

[two sheds]

Yep, we are part of nature but even in the act of recognising this we elevate ourselves some what above it.

Or in doing so separate ourselves from it and place ourselves some what below it .

 

[revol68]

Or in doing so separate ourselves from it and place ourselves some what below it .

and why would it matter if we are above or below it, why does it matter if Panda's snuff it for good, why does global warming matter?

 

[two sheds]

and why would it matter if we are above or below it, why does it matter if Panda's snuff it for good, why does global warming matter?

if you are so fucking desperate to de-privilege humanity why don't you go fucking kill yourself, y'know put yourself back into nature, decentre yourself into worms, soil and fungi.

Ahhhhh so you were talking to yourself in your earlier post then, sorry i thought you were talking to me.

And you started it with the 'above' and 'below', panda killer.

 

[revol68]

Ahhhhh so you were talking to yourself in your earlier post then, sorry i thought you were talking to me.

And you started it with the 'above' and 'below', panda killer.

you really aren't grasping this shit.

 

[two sheds]

Well, we could try it again but without the abuse .