Suppose the knowledge you're being kept ignorant of involves the evils of the world?
Knowledge is powerful, but it can also degrade humanity.
That's a load of trite fucking shit, especially coming from a member of the most literate, educated generation in one of the most literate, educated societies this planet has ever produced.
But look at how much there is you don't know! Isn't it astonishing? Let us sit and revel in the beauty of our ignorance.
AresProphet on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Suppose the knowledge you're being kept ignorant of involves the evils of the world?
Knowledge is powerful, but it can also degrade humanity.
That's a load of trite fucking shit, especially coming from a member of the most literate, educated generation in one of the most literate, educated societies this planet has ever produced.
It's misuse of knowledge that degrades humanity, not knowledge itself.
Suppose the knowledge you're being kept ignorant of involves the evils of the world?
Knowledge is powerful, but it can also degrade humanity.
That's a load of trite fucking shit, especially coming from a member of the most literate, educated generation in one of the most literate, educated societies this planet has ever produced.
It's misuse of knowledge that degrades humanity, not knowledge itself.
And therein lies the Tao of it.
A Sage government does not present opinions.
The population is not censored from these evils... nor are they isolated from each other.
But they must seek their own enlightenment, rather than having one forced upon them.
Suppose the knowledge you're being kept ignorant of involves the evils of the world?
Knowledge is powerful, but it can also degrade humanity.
That's a load of trite fucking shit, especially coming from a member of the most literate, educated generation in one of the most literate, educated societies this planet has ever produced.
Over-exposure to evils can be desensitizing. Knowledge of genocide doesn't make it go away. Memories of a previous generation's acts of racism do not improve race relations for modern society.
A society that hasn't been desensitized to the evils of the world would be more inclined to do something productive or positive about it, rather than falling back on the military and the government to solve their problems.
I'll cite the 'War on Terror' as a good example.
Now the reason why people are difficult to rule is because of their knowledge;
As a result, to use knowledge to rule the state
Is thievery of the state;
To use ignorance to rule the state
Is kindness to the state.
Use of lies and propaganda constitutes a use of knowledge, despite the fact that they're preying upon the ignorance of the general public.
No, sorry, you're still an idiot. Knowing about something absolutely does not make one less likely to act on that knowledge. Its logically impossible.
The Cat on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Suppose the knowledge you're being kept ignorant of involves the evils of the world?
Knowledge is powerful, but it can also degrade humanity.
That's a load of trite fucking shit, especially coming from a member of the most literate, educated generation in one of the most literate, educated societies this planet has ever produced.
It's misuse of knowledge that degrades humanity, not knowledge itself.
And therein lies the Tao of it.
A Sage government does not present opinions.
The population is not censored from these evils... nor are they isolated from each other.
But they must seek their own enlightenment, rather than having one forced upon them.
You realize that none of the statements in this quote are halfway coherent, right? They're even less relevant to what we're talking about.
Suppose the knowledge you're being kept ignorant of involves the evils of the world?
Knowledge is powerful, but it can also degrade humanity.
That's a load of trite fucking shit, especially coming from a member of the most literate, educated generation in one of the most literate, educated societies this planet has ever produced.
It's misuse of knowledge that degrades humanity, not knowledge itself.
I think the Taoist argument would be more along the lines of knowledge without self-knowledge is useless.
nexuscrawler on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Suppose the knowledge you're being kept ignorant of involves the evils of the world?
Knowledge is powerful, but it can also degrade humanity.
That's a load of trite fucking shit, especially coming from a member of the most literate, educated generation in one of the most literate, educated societies this planet has ever produced.
It's misuse of knowledge that degrades humanity, not knowledge itself.
I think the Taoist argument would be more along the lines of knowledge without self-knowledge is useless.
I think a Toaist would still use antibiotics, even if they didn't have 'self-knowledge'
Suppose the knowledge you're being kept ignorant of involves the evils of the world?
Knowledge is powerful, but it can also degrade humanity.
That's a load of trite fucking shit, especially coming from a member of the most literate, educated generation in one of the most literate, educated societies this planet has ever produced.
It's misuse of knowledge that degrades humanity, not knowledge itself.
I think the Taoist argument would be more along the lines of knowledge without self-knowledge is useless.
I think a Toaist would still use antibiotics, even if they didn't have 'self-knowledge'
This is why a Taoist government rules through ignorance.
Knowing about something but already having your opinion of it colored by the government makes it easier to ignore.
What do you think the entire American empire has been doing for the last century?
are you on crack? a) that's got nothing to do with your previous posts, and b) you're wrong again, because every single external knowledge source in existence 'colours' opinion one way or the other. Its not a trait confined to government. For god's sake, try thinking.
Taoism has very little to do with government actually. You're reading Lao Tzu who's kind of the root of Taoism. not the only writer. You can see the similarities between Lao Tzu and Confucius because supposedly they were contemporaries of one another. Taoism in it's later forms really says next to nothing about government. Chuang Tzu spends damn near half his writings mocking Confucians for being so dogmatic.
Therefore, in the government of the Sage:
He empties their minds,
And fills their bellies.
Weakens their ambition,
And strengthens their bones.
He constantly causes the people to be without knowledge and without desires.
If he can bring it about that those with knowledge simply do not dare to act,
Then three is nothing that will not be in order.
Those who practiced the Way in antiquity,
Did not use it to enlighten people.
Rather, they used it to make them dumb.
Now the reason why people are difficult to rule is because of their knowledge;
As a result, to use knowledge to rule the state
Is thievery of the state;
To use ignorance to rule the state
Is kindness to the state.
Well, I suppose these passages can be justified if you somehow define knowledge as a bad thing. After all, it is true that an educated and skeptical general public is much more difficult to rule.
My translation says that the knowledge referred to here is the self-serving Confucian wisdom and intellect. But these are passages on government ruled by the Sage and whenever I read them I get reminded of Machiavelli.
Apologies. I should have kept this within my post.
Taoism has very little to do with government actually. You're reading Lao Tzu who's kind of the root of Taoism. not the only writer. You can see the similarities between Lao Tzu and Confucius because supposedly they were contemporaries of one another. Taoism in it's later forms really says next to nothing about government. Chuang Tzu spends damn near half his writings mocking Confucians for being so dogmatic.
I disagree. A large section of Lao Tzu is about ruling the government. Going numerically they are chapters: 3, 17, 18, 19, 30, 36, 57, 58, 60, 65, 68. I've left out the chapters simply referencing being an example through Wu Wei. These chapters deal explicitly with ruling, however they are full of interesting ways one applies the Dao. A lot of it deals with making the people "dull and stupid". However this notion of "dull and stupid" is the same one that the Sage uses to describe himself, kind of like an innocence or ignorance of evil. You can separate the Government from the examples of the Dao and Wu Wei, but it's clear that Lao Tsu had a very clear view of how government should be run, including this somewhat Machiavellian verse from chapter 36: Fish should stay underwater;
the real means of rule
should be kept dark.
Then how do you explain Chapter 29 where it basically say anyone trying to actively rule a realm will inevitably destroy it? The Tao Te Ching is pretty music a giant stack of contradictions on the practical level. I think you're kinda cherry-picking some verses that talk about government. However a good half of those attach the ruler to a larger metaphor telling me it's reallly using it as an example of for something else.
Besides like I said Lao Tzu is the root of Taoism not the entire school of thought. Confucius cites Lao Tzu quite a bit too if you remember and in the end the two philosophies are very different. Judging Taoism by the Tao Te Ching is like judging the Bible by Genesis.
Taoism has very little to do with government actually. You're reading Lao Tzu who's kind of the root of Taoism. not the only writer. You can see the similarities between Lao Tzu and Confucius because supposedly they were contemporaries of one another. Taoism in it's later forms really says next to nothing about government. Chuang Tzu spends damn near half his writings mocking Confucians for being so dogmatic.
I disagree. A large section of Lao Tzu is about ruling the government. Going numerically they are chapters: 3, 17, 18, 19, 30, 36, 57, 58, 60, 65, 68. I've left out the chapters simply referencing being an example through Wu Wei. These chapters deal explicitly with ruling, however they are full of interesting ways one applies the Dao. A lot of it deals with making the people "dull and stupid". However this notion of "dull and stupid" is the same one that the Sage uses to describe himself, kind of like an innocence or ignorance of evil. You can separate the Government from the examples of the Dao and Wu Wei, but it's clear that Lao Tsu had a very clear view of how government should be run, including this somewhat Machiavellian verse from chapter 36: Fish should stay underwater;
the real means of rule
should be kept dark.
Angles against lavender sky
Flung far across heaven's vault.
Unfettered, swallows
Circle back to the nest.
Then how do you explain Chapter 29 where it basically say anyone trying to actively rule a realm will inevitably destroy it? The Tao Te Ching is pretty music a giant stack of contradictions on the practical level. I think you're kinda cherry-picking some verses that talk about government. However a good half of those attach the ruler to a larger metaphor telling me it's reallly using it as an example of for something else.
Besides like I said Lao Tzu is the root of Taoism not the entire school of thought. Confucius cites Lao Tzu quite a bit too if you remember and in the end the two philosophies are very different. Judging Taoism by the Tao Te Ching is like judging the Bible by Genesis.
Ah, then I don't entirely disagree with you. Of Daoism, I've only read Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, which I always assume make up the core of the philosophy/religion. Chuang Tzu was definitely more illuminating and an easier read. Then I am not judging Daosim itself, merely Lao Tzu.
Also, I do not think I'm cherry picking at all. The texts clearly describe how one should rule government using the Dao and Wu Wei: rule by not-ruling, by allowing the people to feel as if they are not being ruled. The reference in chapter 29 probably has much to do with active ruling, i.e. legalism and the use of coercive government powers. If people feel as if they are being ruled they will become dissatisfied and eventually rebel.
I think this is what Rolly Rizla is trying to point out. People who do not feel the government will innately follow what is good without any laws.
Maybe I'm just simply interpreting it wrong but Lao Tzu is advocating the use of subtle machinations (a more active Wu Wei rather than passive quietism) to keep people compliant and unknowing, and that somehow this will allow them to act good naturally. It's like a weird mix of Machiavelli and libertarianism.
Those who practiced the Way in antiquity,
Did not use it to enlighten people.
Rather, they used it to make them dumb.
Now the reason why people are difficult to rule is because of their knowledge;
As a result, to use knowledge to rule the state
Is thievery of the state;
To use ignorance to rule the state
Is kindness to the state.
For fun, an interpretation:
In the past, leaders used the way to influence others, but not by directing them to its path.
Instead, they used it to give themselves the advantage, creating within them an understanding of things that others did not possess, elevating them above those who did not know these things.
The reason people are hard to rule is because their ability to acknowledge themselves makes this so. Their understanding, the very way the see and define the world is influenced by thier own will, by their own self-centered perception, and so there is always pressure to resist the terms and ideas of others.
As a result, to use the self-centered and self-defined nature of people to rule the state, a community larger than themselves, is to take away in part the power of that community. To use what people do not feel personally attached to, in order to guide them as a community, ensures that the community itself remains of paramount importance.
-
An extract, 1 facet of many: In ruling a community effectively, one wants to find a method that does not further or rely on the personal agendas of it s members.
An second: Personal agendas, although easy to manipulate in order to gain power, will always subtract their due from the integrity of the community as a whole.
A Third: Superior understanding is always used by those in power to further their own means of holding power over people. In time however, this understanding is always eventually distributed out to the people, who will no doubt begin to uncover and see the truth behind what those in power are doing. This is why any system of leadership who wishes to maintain power must either control the understanding of its people, or act in a way that will be followed by the people as correct when they too reach that level of understanding.
As the people begin to develop a sense of how to control what is going on around them, they will use this control to help themselves out. So when leading people, it is always wise to have a personally impartial method of leadership to skrit around the issues that occur when personal agendas within the community begin to collide. If one allows their leadership to become corrupted by personal agenda, the same mechanism which allows those agendas to form, exist, and start challenging each other will one day give rise to a collective agenda that challenges the current form of leadership (marked as flawed by its people because of its supporting of particular personal agendas instead of keeping the community as the first and most important thing).
One thing I find helpful when reading Taoist scrit, is to keep in mind that it does not have one meaning or one translation. Each passage holds it its grasp the primary root of a (memetic) tree. This means that there is not one meaning, with one or two shades of meaning, there are a multitude of meanings contained within each passage. Each meaning starts off with a seed concept, and is then meant to be chased down its course by the student.
I like the tree concept when thinking of Taoist writing, because it holds a good idea of what is going on. Imagine a tree, but in the place of each leaf, there exists an idea. How many leaves does a tree hold? Many. Starting at the base of the trunk, how many ways are there to get to each leaf? Only one. The tree holds one path for each idea. Taoism is like this. It gives only the trunk, but how that trunk is made determines the paths and the splits of the branches. It uses your mind like the air, giving a place for the trunk to branch out and have leaves. Then the whole of the tree exists, only as you think about it, and only as you understand it. Within each of us, that tree will be different.
Taoist wiriters understood this concept- that each idea is understand slightly different by everyone, and so they did not bother to give out their own definate conclusions - thier own 'tree' as it were. They didn't care if you understood it 'their way', in fact they would say that such a thing is impossible, so trying is pointless. What the great Taoist masters tried to do was strip away everything but the root, the seed of an idea, and then give it enough form so that it existed outside of themselves (their writing) and could then be absorbed by others.
This is the second (of many) meaning behind 'The written Tao is not the true Tao. The true Tao is about the interplay between the written (or personally taught) work and thoughts of the person thinking (meditating) about that work. The two must come together as a whole to represent the entire thought tree being put into play.
If you read the Daode Jing, it's theores on goverment are pretty radical. Anarchy seems to be a main theme, but not in the modern western concept. A peacful society without 'leaders' or at least a leader who 'hidden' and oneof the people. It states there are 4 types of rules, the one I just mentioned, a type who rules becuase of the love he gets from his people (Lenin, Casto etc..) a leader who rules therough coerseion and fear (Stalin) and the tyrant feared by millions, (Hitler, Pol Pot).
Sneezer on
Available for weddings, bar-mitzvahs and risings of the people against oppressive states.
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited May 2007
I went through a period where I read a whole shit of a lot of philosophical works like this, and I did gain some insights in logic, thinking and some interesting takes on morality and such in Tao, but I simply took out of it what I felt worked for me, and let the rest jump. Like I did with buddhism, the greeks (only Aristotle and the Plato/Socrates dual combo), confucionism and the book of five rings. At that point I decided I'd had enough for now.
I still plan to read more similar works later in life, but I'm rather busy learning modern models of psychology and such right now, especially neuroscience which is fascinating. And really fucking hard, I may not even pass because theres so much to remember.
Perhaps later I will meld them all together into one uber view, but really, if I do, it will only apply to myself.
I don't ever intend to stop learning really.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
1. Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
14 up, 1 down
A rather large creature that likes to eat things.
The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast is so mind-bogglingly stupid that it thinks that if you can't see it, it can't see you. Therefore, the best defense against a Bugblatter Beast is to wrap a towel around your head.
Alas, my great aunt Susan was devoured by a Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal. She did not have a towel handy. And they are very very ravenous beasts.
1. Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
14 up, 1 down
A rather large creature that likes to eat things.
The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast is so mind-bogglingly stupid that it thinks that if you can't see it, it can't see you. Therefore, the best defense against a Bugblatter Beast is to wrap a towel around your head.
Alas, my great aunt Susan was devoured by a Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal. She did not have a towel handy. And they are very very ravenous beasts.
1. Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
14 up, 1 down
A rather large creature that likes to eat things.
The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast is so mind-bogglingly stupid that it thinks that if you can't see it, it can't see you. Therefore, the best defense against a Bugblatter Beast is to wrap a towel around your head.
Alas, my great aunt Susan was devoured by a Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal. She did not have a towel handy. And they are very very ravenous beasts.
Only through marriage.
You're clearly not getting the point. I'll give you a hint. Real evil doesn't function the same way as the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.
1. Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
14 up, 1 down
A rather large creature that likes to eat things.
The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast is so mind-bogglingly stupid that it thinks that if you can't see it, it can't see you. Therefore, the best defense against a Bugblatter Beast is to wrap a towel around your head.
Alas, my great aunt Susan was devoured by a Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal. She did not have a towel handy. And they are very very ravenous beasts.
Only through marriage.
You're clearly not getting the point. I'll give you a hint. Real evil doesn't function the same way as the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.
What is real evil?
Rolly Rizla on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
1. Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
14 up, 1 down
A rather large creature that likes to eat things.
The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast is so mind-bogglingly stupid that it thinks that if you can't see it, it can't see you. Therefore, the best defense against a Bugblatter Beast is to wrap a towel around your head.
Alas, my great aunt Susan was devoured by a Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal. She did not have a towel handy. And they are very very ravenous beasts.
Only through marriage.
You're clearly not getting the point. I'll give you a hint. Real evil doesn't function the same way as the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.
1. Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
14 up, 1 down
A rather large creature that likes to eat things.
The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast is so mind-bogglingly stupid that it thinks that if you can't see it, it can't see you. Therefore, the best defense against a Bugblatter Beast is to wrap a towel around your head.
Alas, my great aunt Susan was devoured by a Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal. She did not have a towel handy. And they are very very ravenous beasts.
Only through marriage.
You're clearly not getting the point. I'll give you a hint. Real evil doesn't function the same way as the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.
1. Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
14 up, 1 down
A rather large creature that likes to eat things.
The Ravenous Bugblatter Beast is so mind-bogglingly stupid that it thinks that if you can't see it, it can't see you. Therefore, the best defense against a Bugblatter Beast is to wrap a towel around your head.
Alas, my great aunt Susan was devoured by a Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal. She did not have a towel handy. And they are very very ravenous beasts.
Only through marriage.
You're clearly not getting the point. I'll give you a hint. Real evil doesn't function the same way as the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.
What is real evil?
Don't be a git.
It is a valid question.
It doesn't exist. The point, though, was that nasty dangerous and distateful things don't act like the RBBT.
Evil that isn't fictional. The evils of the world you're claiming we'll be safer from if we pretend they're not there and cover our eyes and ears and go "LALALALALA IM NOT LISTENING LALALALALA!"
Evil that isn't fictional. The evils of the world you're claiming we'll be safer from if we pretend they're not there and cover our eyes and ears and go "LALALALALA IM NOT LISTENING LALALALALA!"
How many of the evils in modern society are completely fictional?
Ruling through fiction is the same as ruling through knowledge.
People shouldn't be ruled by knowledge.
Knowledge should serve people.
If the next president of the United States was actually Buddha, that would be ruling through ignorance, as the vast majority of the population would most likely be ignorant of his Buddha nature. That form of government is known as the Sage Government.
Ruling through this form of ignorance is considered a kindness to the state. Buddha does not want to be worshipped. Buddha wants to lead by example.
Evil that isn't fictional. The evils of the world you're claiming we'll be safer from if we pretend they're not there and cover our eyes and ears and go "LALALALALA IM NOT LISTENING LALALALALA!"
How many of the evils in modern society are completely fictional?
Ruling through fiction is the same as ruling through knowledge.
People shouldn't be ruled by knowledge.
Knowledge should serve people.
If the next president of the United States was actually Buddha, that would be ruling through ignorance, as the vast majority of the population would most likely be ignorant of his Buddha nature. That form of government is known as the Sage Government.
Ruling through this form of ignorance is considered a kindness to the state. Buddha does not want to be worshipped. Buddha wants to lead by example.
Your counter-argument rests on the assumption "Buddha is evil". Or is irrelevant. One or the other. Also bear in mind that the current president "talks to Jesus" when faced with policy-decisions.
Evil that isn't fictional. The evils of the world you're claiming we'll be safer from if we pretend they're not there and cover our eyes and ears and go "LALALALALA IM NOT LISTENING LALALALALA!"
How many of the evils in modern society are completely fictional?
Ruling through fiction is the same as ruling through knowledge.
People shouldn't be ruled by knowledge.
Knowledge should serve people.
If the next president of the United States was actually Buddha, that would be ruling through ignorance, as the vast majority of the population would most likely be ignorant of his Buddha nature. That form of government is known as the Sage Government.
Ruling through this form of ignorance is considered a kindness to the state. Buddha does not want to be worshipped. Buddha wants to lead by example.
Your counter-argument rests on the assumption "Buddha is evil". Or is irrelevant. One or the other. Also bear in mind that the current president "talks to Jesus" when faced with policy-decisions.
Quick to misunderstand.
Where did I say that Buddha was evil?
I only stated that it was a kindness to be ruled by Buddha without him declaring himself as Buddha... or Lord and Master of All Humanity, etc.
As for the President talking to Jesus... is that ruling through knowledge or ignorance? He puts out the knowledge that he talks to Jesus. He does not say "Jesus tells me to bomb Iraq."
Evil that isn't fictional. The evils of the world you're claiming we'll be safer from if we pretend they're not there and cover our eyes and ears and go "LALALALALA IM NOT LISTENING LALALALALA!"
How many of the evils in modern society are completely fictional?
Ruling through fiction is the same as ruling through knowledge.
People shouldn't be ruled by knowledge.
Knowledge should serve people.
If the next president of the United States was actually Buddha, that would be ruling through ignorance, as the vast majority of the population would most likely be ignorant of his Buddha nature. That form of government is known as the Sage Government.
Ruling through this form of ignorance is considered a kindness to the state. Buddha does not want to be worshipped. Buddha wants to lead by example.
Your counter-argument rests on the assumption "Buddha is evil". Or is irrelevant. One or the other. Also bear in mind that the current president "talks to Jesus" when faced with policy-decisions.
Evil that isn't fictional. The evils of the world you're claiming we'll be safer from if we pretend they're not there and cover our eyes and ears and go "LALALALALA IM NOT LISTENING LALALALALA!"
How many of the evils in modern society are completely fictional?
Ruling through fiction is the same as ruling through knowledge.
People shouldn't be ruled by knowledge.
Knowledge should serve people.
If the next president of the United States was actually Buddha, that would be ruling through ignorance, as the vast majority of the population would most likely be ignorant of his Buddha nature. That form of government is known as the Sage Government.
Ruling through this form of ignorance is considered a kindness to the state. Buddha does not want to be worshipped. Buddha wants to lead by example.
Your counter-argument rests on the assumption "Buddha is evil". Or is irrelevant. One or the other. Also bear in mind that the current president "talks to Jesus" when faced with policy-decisions.
It is only a human perceptin, evil. Does a shark know it's evil if it eats hundreds of fish?
It isn't, so I hope not. It wouldn't be nice for the shark to give himself a complex.
How do the hundred fish feel in this equation?
They probably don't, they're really not any smarter than the shark. They do the same thing it does anyway, swim around eating and trying to mate until they die.
ViolentChemistry on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
It is only a human perceptin, evil. Does a shark know it's evil if it eats hundreds of fish?
It isn't, so I hope not. It wouldn't be nice for the shark to give himself a complex.
How do the hundred fish feel in this equation?
They probably don't, they're really not any smarter than the shark. They do the same thing it does anyway, swim around eating and trying to mate until they die.
Posts
But look at how much there is you don't know! Isn't it astonishing? Let us sit and revel in the beauty of our ignorance.
It's misuse of knowledge that degrades humanity, not knowledge itself.
And therein lies the Tao of it.
A Sage government does not present opinions.
The population is not censored from these evils... nor are they isolated from each other.
But they must seek their own enlightenment, rather than having one forced upon them.
No, sorry, you're still an idiot. Knowing about something absolutely does not make one less likely to act on that knowledge. Its logically impossible.
You realize that none of the statements in this quote are halfway coherent, right? They're even less relevant to what we're talking about.
What do you think the entire American empire has been doing for the last century?
I think the Taoist argument would be more along the lines of knowledge without self-knowledge is useless.
I think a Toaist would still use antibiotics, even if they didn't have 'self-knowledge'
This is why a Taoist government rules through ignorance.
People aren't forced to be ignorant.
They must seek knowledge themselves though.
Form their own opinions.
are you on crack? a) that's got nothing to do with your previous posts, and b) you're wrong again, because every single external knowledge source in existence 'colours' opinion one way or the other. Its not a trait confined to government. For god's sake, try thinking.
Apologies. I should have kept this within my post.
I disagree. A large section of Lao Tzu is about ruling the government. Going numerically they are chapters: 3, 17, 18, 19, 30, 36, 57, 58, 60, 65, 68. I've left out the chapters simply referencing being an example through Wu Wei. These chapters deal explicitly with ruling, however they are full of interesting ways one applies the Dao. A lot of it deals with making the people "dull and stupid". However this notion of "dull and stupid" is the same one that the Sage uses to describe himself, kind of like an innocence or ignorance of evil. You can separate the Government from the examples of the Dao and Wu Wei, but it's clear that Lao Tsu had a very clear view of how government should be run, including this somewhat Machiavellian verse from chapter 36:
Fish should stay underwater;
the real means of rule
should be kept dark.
Besides like I said Lao Tzu is the root of Taoism not the entire school of thought. Confucius cites Lao Tzu quite a bit too if you remember and in the end the two philosophies are very different. Judging Taoism by the Tao Te Ching is like judging the Bible by Genesis.
Angles against lavender sky
Flung far across heaven's vault.
Unfettered, swallows
Circle back to the nest.
Ah, then I don't entirely disagree with you. Of Daoism, I've only read Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, which I always assume make up the core of the philosophy/religion. Chuang Tzu was definitely more illuminating and an easier read. Then I am not judging Daosim itself, merely Lao Tzu.
Also, I do not think I'm cherry picking at all. The texts clearly describe how one should rule government using the Dao and Wu Wei: rule by not-ruling, by allowing the people to feel as if they are not being ruled. The reference in chapter 29 probably has much to do with active ruling, i.e. legalism and the use of coercive government powers. If people feel as if they are being ruled they will become dissatisfied and eventually rebel.
I think this is what Rolly Rizla is trying to point out. People who do not feel the government will innately follow what is good without any laws.
Maybe I'm just simply interpreting it wrong but Lao Tzu is advocating the use of subtle machinations (a more active Wu Wei rather than passive quietism) to keep people compliant and unknowing, and that somehow this will allow them to act good naturally. It's like a weird mix of Machiavelli and libertarianism.
For fun, an interpretation:
In the past, leaders used the way to influence others, but not by directing them to its path.
Instead, they used it to give themselves the advantage, creating within them an understanding of things that others did not possess, elevating them above those who did not know these things.
The reason people are hard to rule is because their ability to acknowledge themselves makes this so. Their understanding, the very way the see and define the world is influenced by thier own will, by their own self-centered perception, and so there is always pressure to resist the terms and ideas of others.
As a result, to use the self-centered and self-defined nature of people to rule the state, a community larger than themselves, is to take away in part the power of that community. To use what people do not feel personally attached to, in order to guide them as a community, ensures that the community itself remains of paramount importance.
-
An extract, 1 facet of many: In ruling a community effectively, one wants to find a method that does not further or rely on the personal agendas of it s members.
An second: Personal agendas, although easy to manipulate in order to gain power, will always subtract their due from the integrity of the community as a whole.
A Third: Superior understanding is always used by those in power to further their own means of holding power over people. In time however, this understanding is always eventually distributed out to the people, who will no doubt begin to uncover and see the truth behind what those in power are doing. This is why any system of leadership who wishes to maintain power must either control the understanding of its people, or act in a way that will be followed by the people as correct when they too reach that level of understanding.
As the people begin to develop a sense of how to control what is going on around them, they will use this control to help themselves out. So when leading people, it is always wise to have a personally impartial method of leadership to skrit around the issues that occur when personal agendas within the community begin to collide. If one allows their leadership to become corrupted by personal agenda, the same mechanism which allows those agendas to form, exist, and start challenging each other will one day give rise to a collective agenda that challenges the current form of leadership (marked as flawed by its people because of its supporting of particular personal agendas instead of keeping the community as the first and most important thing).
One thing I find helpful when reading Taoist scrit, is to keep in mind that it does not have one meaning or one translation. Each passage holds it its grasp the primary root of a (memetic) tree. This means that there is not one meaning, with one or two shades of meaning, there are a multitude of meanings contained within each passage. Each meaning starts off with a seed concept, and is then meant to be chased down its course by the student.
I like the tree concept when thinking of Taoist writing, because it holds a good idea of what is going on. Imagine a tree, but in the place of each leaf, there exists an idea. How many leaves does a tree hold? Many. Starting at the base of the trunk, how many ways are there to get to each leaf? Only one. The tree holds one path for each idea. Taoism is like this. It gives only the trunk, but how that trunk is made determines the paths and the splits of the branches. It uses your mind like the air, giving a place for the trunk to branch out and have leaves. Then the whole of the tree exists, only as you think about it, and only as you understand it. Within each of us, that tree will be different.
Taoist wiriters understood this concept- that each idea is understand slightly different by everyone, and so they did not bother to give out their own definate conclusions - thier own 'tree' as it were. They didn't care if you understood it 'their way', in fact they would say that such a thing is impossible, so trying is pointless. What the great Taoist masters tried to do was strip away everything but the root, the seed of an idea, and then give it enough form so that it existed outside of themselves (their writing) and could then be absorbed by others.
This is the second (of many) meaning behind 'The written Tao is not the true Tao. The true Tao is about the interplay between the written (or personally taught) work and thoughts of the person thinking (meditating) about that work. The two must come together as a whole to represent the entire thought tree being put into play.
I still plan to read more similar works later in life, but I'm rather busy learning modern models of psychology and such right now, especially neuroscience which is fascinating. And really fucking hard, I may not even pass because theres so much to remember.
Perhaps later I will meld them all together into one uber view, but really, if I do, it will only apply to myself.
I don't ever intend to stop learning really.
Tao explores the seam where they overlap.
Only through marriage.
You're clearly not getting the point. I'll give you a hint. Real evil doesn't function the same way as the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.
What is real evil?
It is a valid question.
It doesn't exist. The point, though, was that nasty dangerous and distateful things don't act like the RBBT.
Evil that isn't fictional. The evils of the world you're claiming we'll be safer from if we pretend they're not there and cover our eyes and ears and go "LALALALALA IM NOT LISTENING LALALALALA!"
How many of the evils in modern society are completely fictional?
Ruling through fiction is the same as ruling through knowledge.
People shouldn't be ruled by knowledge.
Knowledge should serve people.
If the next president of the United States was actually Buddha, that would be ruling through ignorance, as the vast majority of the population would most likely be ignorant of his Buddha nature. That form of government is known as the Sage Government.
Ruling through this form of ignorance is considered a kindness to the state. Buddha does not want to be worshipped. Buddha wants to lead by example.
Your counter-argument rests on the assumption "Buddha is evil". Or is irrelevant. One or the other. Also bear in mind that the current president "talks to Jesus" when faced with policy-decisions.
Quick to misunderstand.
Where did I say that Buddha was evil?
I only stated that it was a kindness to be ruled by Buddha without him declaring himself as Buddha... or Lord and Master of All Humanity, etc.
As for the President talking to Jesus... is that ruling through knowledge or ignorance? He puts out the knowledge that he talks to Jesus. He does not say "Jesus tells me to bomb Iraq."
...you have no idea what I just said.
Ignorance?
Bliss.
Tao is in your bed
Exploring your girlfriend
It isn't, so I hope not. It wouldn't be nice for the shark to give himself a complex.
How do the hundred fish feel in this equation?
They probably don't, they're really not any smarter than the shark. They do the same thing it does anyway, swim around eating and trying to mate until they die.
Fuck
No.
Well I'm sure they are happy to be eaten then.