Conquer Club

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9 ... te-v3.html

What are your thoughts about this Ancient Chinese philosophical text? I personally find it amazing how so much content is in something that' relatively short by philosophy standards. There are many way to interpret it's content and even its title has multiple interpretations.

If you read it, what are your favorite passages and why? 17 and 57 resonate the most with me.

I'm not quite sure what to make of it. I mean, it's miles ahead of it's contemporary western counterparts, that's for sure but sometimes it seems a bit like Nostradamus, letting you see what meaning you want to see in it.

I like #17, it's oddly reminiscent of The Prince in a way.

#57 is interesting. I'm wondering exactly what meaning you take from this.

If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.

The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.

Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.

So, if we're to take this literally then, if today all world governments were to simultaneously collapse and the whole world would be submerged in anarchy then everything would become just swell.
Really ?

Well that's a good example of the difference between the concept of the Tao found here and that found in the Analects of kungfu-tzu ("Confucius"). For Lao-tzu, the Tao is all spontaneous and mystical, while to kungfu-tzu it is so defined and rigid that his "Tao" is frequently translated "manners".

I think the idea is that ignorant formlessness has to be trained by rigid form before it can advance to enlightened formlessness, but that enlightened formlessness is the goal, at least for Lao-tzu. It's like when I used to study Chinese martial arts: you come into the class ignorantly formless -- all over the place. Then you get rigid training in how to move your body effectively, a lot like Japanese-style karate, but the goal is to escape the rigid form and become spontaneous and flowing, that is, formless again, but now an educated formlessness.

So lao-tzu is talking about letting go of all of those things, but not into ignorance of them, but into transcending them into a mystical thing from which all their virtues come.

What style did you train d1g? Life is a funny thing, I wanted to train BaguaZhang but ended up in a "Shaolin kempo" movie fantasy inspired cult. The grandmaster actually developed his style partially from books. It was quite effective and violent while allways giving lip service to calm. Later he developed a form of transindental[sp] meditation. Oddly enough, he has left a fairly good legacy actually, though it has spintered.

but sometimes it seems a bit like Nostradamus, letting you see what meaning you want to see in it.

The point of the Tao Te Ching, is you are supposed to see diferent things. It is also known as "The book of changes."

It is a tool for attempting to reach for balance in this earthly or physical realm. To use it requires an Oracle. It is a life time pursuit, many feel it requires total immersion and can never be mastered only followed.

I stopped studying when I chose a narrower path, I have since stumbled off of. Unlike some who might turn on it after to tell you, "I was never happy because I was looking for something else when I did it." I will be honest and say it never failed me, it was near perfect. I just found something better.

Taoism is certainly one of my two favorite religions. If I were not a creationist it would beat out any others for me easily.

My other favorite is not Christianity in case some think that. Christianity is my least favorite because even though it should be about following Christ toward God, it instead tends to lead away from them and lacks honesty. I basically am a Christian right now with few of the pious/rightious parts. Even though I would point my other favorite out as the dark side, like any normal creationist it's also a favorite, because the most powerfull/sexy people in the world are part of it. Like everyone, I yearn to be part of that.

I was discussing this with a friend last night. The Tao Te Ching was written for Emperor, Kings, or religious leaders of that time. So to say government should let go of all things isn't necessarily true that takes it to the extreme. What Lao-tzu realized was that there are things that you just can't control. There isn't anything mystical about it. The world is irrational and to put control or rational thinking into you will most likely find yourself becoming frustrated, confused, doing more harm than good, etc. This is why Tao Te Ching and writings of Chuang-tzu seem irrational.

Agreed, look at how life is in the west.

If you were a farmer you might work hard and either be happy or wish you could move to a city, get a cushy job and relax.

Yet look at how irrational most people's jobs are. They spend so much time trying to keep up with things that are there to "save time". E-mails, voice messages, power point, etc. most people are at work for way more time to get so much less done. It's like running on a wheel.

They are typically the same people that think they are indispensible while being a tiny part of some giant corperation that would never notice them gone after a few hours.

Haggis wrote:

The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.

Don't really wanna start the whole gun control debate, but this statement is kinda contradicting. How does one (presumably a leader) rid weapons permanently without enacting prohibitions?

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

Haggis wrote:

The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.

Don't really wanna start the whole gun control debate, but this statement is kinda contradicting. How does one (presumably a leader) rid weapons permanently without enacting prohibitions?

-TG

It doesn't seem like the quote is referencing the elimination of weapons, but that there is a certain futility in weapon aggregation that overall, leads to less security (through abundance it might be suggesting), not more.


--Andy

The advice is an example of marginalism.

So, it reads as such:

as the government increases its weapons, its people become less secure.
as the government enacts more prohibitions, its people become less virtuous.


In other words, there's some optimal point between government provision of security and the people's security--and between government prohibitions and the virtue of the people.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.

So, if we're to take this literally then, if today all world governments were to simultaneously collapse and the whole world would be submerged in anarchy then everything would become just swell.
Really ?

Anarchy is not the goal, from what I read is if you let go of human laws, as they are artificial and are a cause for dispute, you will have less dispute if people follow the Dao instead of laws.

Crazyirishman wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.

So, if we're to take this literally then, if today all world governments were to simultaneously collapse and the whole world would be submerged in anarchy then everything would become just swell.
Really ?

Anarchy is not the goal, from what I read is if you let go of human laws, as they are artificial and are a cause for dispute, you will have less dispute if people follow the Dao instead of laws.

An alternative way of reading this, albeit somewhat simplistic, is to say that if you get rid of the rules, then no-one can break them.
I'm certainly all behind the approach of getting rid of religion

Haggis, you should remember that Lao Tzu lived like five billion years ago. While I agree with a lot of his philosophy, a lot of it is sort of outdated.

My personal favorite is

Governing a large country
is like frying a small fish.
You spoil it with too much poking.

clangfield wrote:

Crazyirishman wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.

So, if we're to take this literally then, if today all world governments were to simultaneously collapse and the whole world would be submerged in anarchy then everything would become just swell.
Really ?

Anarchy is not the goal, from what I read is if you let go of human laws, as they are artificial and are a cause for dispute, you will have less dispute if people follow the Dao instead of laws.

An alternative way of reading this, albeit somewhat simplistic, is to say that if you get rid of the rules, then no-one can break them.
I'm certainly all behind the approach of getting rid of religion

Haha, it's kind of like that, but there's a difference between laws and rules for the purpose of establishing and maintaining order. In some cases, laws--as legislated and enforced by the state--aren't necessary for order to establish itself. Sometimes, even laws (formal laws, i.e. codified laws) among a community aren't needed for maintaining order since the rules (i.e. informal/unwritten laws) are implicitly modified and enforced to sufficiently provide order.

The Dae De Jing seems to note an appreciation of such circumstances regarding state laws, local laws, and informal (bottom-up) rules, hence:

Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.

Army of GOD wrote:Haggis, you should remember that Lao Tzu lived like five billion years ago. While I agree with a lot of his philosophy, a lot of it is sort of outdated.

My personal favorite is

Governing a large country
is like frying a small fish.
You spoil it with too much poking.

I'd argue that he was pointing states and politicians into the right direction--which was unfortunately not profitable for those leaders who had their own interests in mind and were in the unique position to achieve their own goals through the power of the state and its institutions.

Lao Tzu's insights are still relevant; they just need more revamping--namely, clarification and rigorous defense.

Therefore the Master says:
...
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.

By implication, politicians attempting to establish the common good achieve the outcome of not promoting the common good.

Crazyirishman wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.

So, if we're to take this literally then, if today all world governments were to simultaneously collapse and the whole world would be submerged in anarchy then everything would become just swell.
Really ?

Anarchy is not the goal, from what I read is if you let go of human laws, as they are artificial and are a cause for dispute, you will have less dispute if people follow the Dao instead of laws.

Anarchy is a worthy goal if you understand it properly. ANarchy means "without rules". It does NOT mean "break all the rules just for the sake of it". It does not mean "f*ck your rules I'm all right Jack". It means "I will examine your rules and I will decide if they are worth following. Make a new rule and I will obey it if I feel it's moral. "
The anarchist will not obey an unjust law, nor will they justify an immoral act just because there's no law against it.
Anarchy works and is the ideal state if you have decent people.
If you don't have decent people you need laws. Unfortunately you then need to have decent people making the laws, which is why I'm an anarchist.

Oops, got too serious. But I mean it.

Incidentally a prime example of an anarchist statement is "No taxation without representation".
That was noble idea, in opposition to all the laws at the time, but which seemed morally obvious.
It was not obvious to those who had made the laws up to that point.

I think Jonesy could be my father.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:I think Jonesy could be my father.

-TG

Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:I think Jonesy could be my father.

-TG

If you can cook and you can't drive, I'll check back in my diary to see where I was at about the right time.

jonesthecurl wrote:

Crazyirishman wrote:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.

So, if we're to take this literally then, if today all world governments were to simultaneously collapse and the whole world would be submerged in anarchy then everything would become just swell.
Really ?

Anarchy is not the goal, from what I read is if you let go of human laws, as they are artificial and are a cause for dispute, you will have less dispute if people follow the Dao instead of laws.

Anarchy is a worthy goal if you understand it properly. ANarchy means "without rules". It does NOT mean "break all the rules just for the sake of it". It does not mean "f*ck your rules I'm all right Jack". It means "I will examine your rules and I will decide if they are worth following. Make a new rule and I will obey it if I feel it's moral. "
The anarchist will not obey an unjust law, nor will they justify an immoral act just because there's no law against it.
Anarchy works and is the ideal state if you have decent people.
If you don't have decent people you need laws. Unfortunately you then need to have decent people making the laws, which is why I'm an anarchist.

I think you either misinterpret CI or taking anarchy comment to serious. What I think Lao tzu is saying in this chapter is to let go of clinging. You can punish people for breaking laws but you may find that you are making martyrs. Also, saying don't do this because it's not right, you make people want to do it more or you give them the idea.

daddy1gringo wrote:I think the idea is that ignorant formlessness has to be trained by rigid form before it can advance to enlightened formlessness, but that enlightened formlessness is the goal, at least for Lao-tzu. It's like when I used to study Chinese martial arts: you come into the class ignorantly formless -- all over the place. Then you get rigid training in how to move your body effectively, a lot like Japanese-style karate, but the goal is to escape the rigid form and become spontaneous and flowing, that is, formless again, but now an educated formlessness.

I like this. I think it applies to many things (though I always thought of it as one of those sticks that helps trees grow the right way till they're strong enough to not need it anymore, at which point, if not removed the stick can become a liability).

The question then becomes. Is the tao te ching a description of the world in the "enlightened formlessness" stage or a guide as to how we might reach that stage. Because, while I think it might be a good description I don't see it as an effective guide.(unless perhaps if it's just the very first step of a guide, i.e. the step that gets people to think outside the box and realise there is stuff outside our immediate perception and everyday life)

The main flaw of it as a guide is that, for it to work, something like 95% of the people on earth would have to simultaneously adopt it. Otherwise, if just one nation/group did all of those things it would simply be overpowered and taken over by another nation/group (especially if we take into account the period in which this was written).
This seems similar to the problem communism faces, where it would theoretically work great if everyone suddenly developed the right characteristics(putting the group above the self, etc), but unfortunately, that's not gonna happen.

Disclaimer: Above post contains late night ramblings based on inadequate knowledge of eastern philosophy and communism.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:The question then becomes. Is the tao te ching a description of the world in the "enlightened formlessness" stage or a guide as to how we might reach that stage. Because, while I think it might be a good description I don't see it as an effective guide.(unless perhaps if it's just the very first step of a guide, i.e. the step that gets people to think outside the box and realise there is stuff outside our immediate perception and everyday life)

I feel that Dao functions more as a guide, most likely as a first step, and in a similar fashion to the Buddhist 8 fold path, you eventually have to let go of the thing that taught you how to let go in order to progress to that final stage.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:
I like this. I think it applies to many things (though I always thought of it as one of those sticks that helps trees grow the right way till they're strong enough to not need it anymore, at which point, if not removed the stick can become a liability).

The question then becomes. Is the tao te ching a description of the world in the "enlightened formlessness" stage or a guide as to how we might reach that stage. Because, while I think it might be a good description I don't see it as an effective guide.(unless perhaps if it's just the very first step of a guide, i.e. the step that gets people to think outside the box and realise there is stuff outside our immediate perception and everyday life)

The main flaw of it as a guide is that, for it to work, something like 95% of the people on earth would have to simultaneously adopt it. Otherwise, if just one nation/group did all of those things it would simply be overpowered and taken over by another nation/group (especially if we take into account the period in which this was written).
This seems similar to the problem communism faces, where it would theoretically work great if everyone suddenly developed the right characteristics(putting the group above the self, etc), but unfortunately, that's not gonna happen.

Disclaimer: Above post contains late night ramblings based on inadequate knowledge of eastern philosophy and communism.

Haha, nice disclaimer!

RE: Communism and that 95% adoption rule. Yeah, that's spot-on, but tao te ching is much more humble about the 'path to utopia' because there's no clear, one path to it--a point with which communists would (likely) disagree.

The tao te ching is kind of like a guide, but it cannot give you a 1, 2, 3-step by step program on attaining enlightenment. It can get you somewhat started, but perhaps the main lesson is that you have to take things as they go. So, trial-and-error and marginal changes become optimal and necessary in order to find that middle ground, the balance, the sweet spot.