in the Daoist perspective, The Dao is neither feminine nor masculine. It is beyond/behind feminine and masculine nature.
Water is actually Yin (a concept that somehow encompass the notion of “feminine”). But it’s only one element out of five.
And “element” may not even be the right word here. It’s not a “component”. It’s a transformative process and an interaction matrix. (but all “elements” are, not just water).
if you say “taoist way”, we won’t lose time speaking about something (mostly) unrelated, like buddhism. And we could see (and hopefully show you) how you are using Eastern notions with western biases, to advance western ideas.
[quote]
Talking about specifc terminology wouldn’t do it either. Does anyone on here have any idea what I’m getting at? [/quote]
that, because of its native wisdom, China developed itself in a more “feminine” way than the (obviously patriarcal) West.
I would strongly advise you to NEVER tell that to a chinese male.
I say this with all sincerity; you sir, are a babbling idiot. [/quote]
Aren’t you trying to set up a fight over in GAL for being called a ‘bitch?’ ‘Cherry-pick’ a few more ‘truths,’ as you’ve got a long way to go before you grow up. No, I don’t want your number. Or, to meet you on some turnpike. And no, I’m not interested in reading your responses any more.
I thought you were unhinged…an older man, a father (for crying out loud), trying to arrange a confrontation over the internet after having been internet insulted. Now you’re over here throwing out your own name-calling. Good bye and good riddance.[/quote]
Seriously?? [/quote]
Yes, in the Mayweather thread. I’ve no use for the type of person that would dare someone to insult him to his face (arranging a fight over an internet insult), who then turns around and blatantly insults someone else. “Me solve problem with fists. You insult me, I beat you up. Me insult you and you don’t like it, I beat you up too (undoubtedly, if insulted back).” I don’t associate with them in the real world, and I certainly could care less what their opinion is on any subject. So, ignored. That’s all I have to say.[/quote]
“God” bless you. Please do ignore me. I’m happy we resolved that. I wasn’t even aware of your participation in the discussion; must have missed that. Oh, this was your “participation”. Well played sir.
Kamui- You are still missing my point by a wide mile if you gathered that I brought it up to say that the East has developed in a less masculine way than the West or that Chinese men aren’t masculine.
Just go look at the original conversation you really want.
Maybe it is a language barrier: I am not saying the tao is masculine or feminine. I am using a verse about it as a way of describing what I see as feminine strength. That’s not the same thing as saying that the Tao has any gender qualitites; it more has to do with how Western culture perceives force and strength in connection to gender.
I was trying to describe how feminine power operates, according to the Western ideas.
This conversation may be pointless because I can’t think of a way to differentiate to you the difference between using something as an example for something, and thinking that thing is actually the thing I was using it as an example for.
In it’s context, the verse I used describes all of life; it has nothing to do with gender. However, the people in the thread I was talking to saw it as a description of their idea of how feminine power in motion would work. I do not think the verse was at all related to the feminine, but Westerners can look at it and see their idea of the feminine.
[quote]
This is one translation of the verse I used http://divinetao.com/...dt_08_water.htm . I cannot think of a better way to describe what many on that thread view as a feminine strength (feminine according to western ideals)[/quote]
if a chinese (Daoist) description of water is “the better way to descibe what many (westerners) view as a feminine strength (feminine according to western ideals)” it would only prove that “Eastern Philosophy” and “Western philosophy” have many things in common.
Not that they are essentially different.
I say “if” because your link is NOT a translation of a Tao Te Ching verse. It’s a complete rewrite by “New Thought spiritualists” (as they named themselves on the site - check the “About” section).
So, for now, it only proves that “Dr Suzanne Freeborn” vision of feminity is pretty close to the “western ideals” of feminity (as you understand it).
which i find a bit “surprising” for a New Thought.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
So you’re first saying that Eastern Philosophy doesn’t exist…Then you’re saying that it does exist, but you don’t understand it.
[/quote]
It’s a koan.
You just haven’t thought about it hard enough.
ironcross, you are going to have to learn the kamui is far too clever to confront head on. If you ever want to defeat him, you’ll have to let go.
;)[/quote]
It isn’t about winning for me. Perhaps that’s where I’m going wrong. It does seem like some on here are so concerned about being right that they offer ultimatums about topics which they have little to no knowledge of.
[/quote]
Pardon moi, but I was the one who offered ultimatums about Eastern Philosophy. I do not remember Kam doing this.
The question is, how much have you delved in to it?
[quote]
This is one translation of the verse I used http://divinetao.com/...dt_08_water.htm . I cannot think of a better way to describe what many on that thread view as a feminine strength (feminine according to western ideals)[/quote]
if a chinese (Daoist) description of water is “the better way to descibe what many (westerners) view as a feminine strength (feminine according to western ideals)” it would only prove that “Eastern Philosophy” and “Western philosophy” have many things in common.
Not that they are essentially different.
I say “if” because your link is NOT a translation of a Tao Te Ching verse. It’s a complete rewrite by “New Thought spiritualists” (as they named themselves on the site - check the “About” section).
So, for now, it only proves that “Dr Suzanne Freeborn” vision of feminity is pretty close to the “western ideals” of feminity (as you understand it).
which i find a bit “surprising” for a New Thought.
I could have great fun in dissecting many of these principles…The problem is, they sound good, but they may or may not be true.
The descriptions of Tao are interesting though. It seems in metaphysical existence, in the layer above forms. What is immediately above it I am not sure. From here I would say psychic energy then religion.
Kamui- lol. I knew you were going to bring up the translation thing. No worries. I’ve read at least 15 different translations of the whole Tao Te Ching. I personally use it as a way of balancing out the way I was raised to see the world and operate in Western culture (and now the one you just posted, which would have worked equally well as a description of the western ideal of how feminine energy operates). It advocates a much different way of operating in the world than I was raised for.
I’m not sure what the point was of the first part of your reply (your comment that the comparison would show the similarities, not differences of Eastern and Western ideas). It had nothing to do with what I explained in the post you were replying to.
Pat- The descriptions you read aren’t about truth and don’t have an inherent ability to be true or false, they are meant as a description, a way of helping people start to fall in line with something that underlies everything.
It’s like gravity. We don’t know what it is, we can only offer comparisons which may or may not help people understand what we mean. But regardless of whether ot not they understand, the pattern is still there.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Pat- The descriptions you read aren’t about truth and don’t have an inherent ability to be true or false, they are meant as a description, a way of helping people start to fall in line with something that underlies everything.
[/quote]
But if they are wrong they are misleading…
[quote]
It’s like gravity. We don’t know what it is, we can only offer comparisons which may or may not help people understand what we mean. But regardless of whether ot not they understand, the pattern is still there.[/quote]
But we are still trying to find out what it (gravity) is. I disagree with the complacency of ‘just is’. It doesn’t progress.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Pat- The descriptions you read aren’t about truth and don’t have an inherent ability to be true or false, they are meant as a description, a way of helping people start to fall in line with something that underlies everything.
[/quote]
But if they are wrong they are misleading…
[quote]
It’s like gravity. We don’t know what it is, we can only offer comparisons which may or may not help people understand what we mean. But regardless of whether ot not they understand, the pattern is still there.[/quote]
But we are still trying to find out what it (gravity) is. I disagree with the complacency of ‘just is’. It doesn’t progress.[/quote]
Lol. There is no separation between progress or complacency- they’re a part of the same thing, as are life and death. What are you trying to progress? It already is.
To be fair, the Tao is most comparable, imo, to the unifying, underlying principle physicists have been searching for. There’s a large argument that one of the problems with mathematics and the other tools we have to “discover” things with are limited by our brain’s preference to form dichotomies. The Tao Te Ching operates in the complete opposite way of dichotomies.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Pat- The descriptions you read aren’t about truth and don’t have an inherent ability to be true or false, they are meant as a description, a way of helping people start to fall in line with something that underlies everything.
[/quote]
But if they are wrong they are misleading…
That’s true, but our knowledge of it hasn’t. We have to discover it, and that won’t happen with out effort. Besides, to say something just is, is circular.
[quote]
To be fair, the Tao is most comparable, imo, to the unifying, underlying principle physicists have been searching for. There’s a large argument that one of the problems with mathematics and the other tools we have to “discover” things with are limited by our brain’s preference to form dichotomies. The Tao Te Ching operates in the complete opposite way of dichotomies.[/quote]
I agree, that the underlying principles behind everything is metaphysical. But I would like you to explain what using the Tao has has allowed you to discover that you wouldn’t have known. To me it sounds like a way to say something and it mean nothing. I have no problem with eliminating dichotomies, but only in the scope where they truly do not exist. You’d be hard pressed to convince me by any form of logic, that dichotomies do not exist anywhere.
As far as mathematics goes, it’s not a flaw, it’s just limited in scope. The theories gleaned from it are inferred, but usually a damn good inference.
Understanding epistemology is the key to getting past our physical limitations.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Pat- The descriptions you read aren’t about truth and don’t have an inherent ability to be true or false, they are meant as a description, a way of helping people start to fall in line with something that underlies everything.
[/quote]
But if they are wrong they are misleading…
That’s true, but our knowledge of it hasn’t. We have to discover it, and that won’t happen with out effort. Besides, to say something just is, is circular.
[quote]
To be fair, the Tao is most comparable, imo, to the unifying, underlying principle physicists have been searching for. There’s a large argument that one of the problems with mathematics and the other tools we have to “discover” things with are limited by our brain’s preference to form dichotomies. The Tao Te Ching operates in the complete opposite way of dichotomies.[/quote]
I agree, that the underlying principles behind everything is metaphysical. But I would like you to explain what using the Tao has has allowed you to discover that you wouldn’t have known. To me it sounds like a way to say something and it mean nothing. I have no problem with eliminating dichotomies, but only in the scope where they truly do not exist. You’d be hard pressed to convince me by any form of logic, that dichotomies do not exist anywhere.
As far as mathematics goes, it’s not a flaw, it’s just limited in scope. The theories gleaned from it are inferred, but usually a damn good inference.
Understanding epistemology is the key to getting past our physical limitations. [/quote]
Why do we need to “discover it”? BTW, I don’t think you really mean that we need to discover it, but rather determine a linear way of describing it to ourselves that will slide into categories. Even if we did this, it would not be the same thing as becoming aware of the experience of being a part of it, which is what the Tao Te Ching alludes to.
The Tao Te Ching has helped me develop an emotional unity between what I’ve observed as broadly continuous and what my education has divided into many deep, dichotomous descriptions. In practice, for me, this has provided a lot of peace and freedom to not subscribe to the need for progress and hence judgement that divides things into good and bad categories.
Progress only makes sense in the scope of human evolution. We are trying to stay around as a species for as long as possible. On a metaphysical level and when using a very wide understanding of things, progress and regression are temporary states of the same thing. It’s basically a circle. Eventually life will shift from human form. We aren’t going to be here forever.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Pat- The descriptions you read aren’t about truth and don’t have an inherent ability to be true or false, they are meant as a description, a way of helping people start to fall in line with something that underlies everything.
[/quote]
But if they are wrong they are misleading…
That’s true, but our knowledge of it hasn’t. We have to discover it, and that won’t happen with out effort. Besides, to say something just is, is circular.
Well we don’t need to, save for an intrinsic desire for understand that which is greater than us. We certainly could live as sheep herders and farmers with no problem. But as a quest for truth it is necessary because we haven’t found it. We already are apart of ‘it’, so we might as well understand in what way, and how much, what ‘it’ is, and whether or not it is subject to will. I really don’t see categories or compartmentalization as an issue. Breaking things down, identifying the unifying factor between things, and categorizing them is not a problem. It helps us understand what things are and what their place is. It’s what we do. It’s how we understand the world.
Good and bad are essentially moral tags. And I argue they do in fact exist and what little I do know about Tao, it recognizes it’s existence as well. That doesn’t mean that everything is a good or bad thing. Somethings have other purposes other than being good or bad. There is one thing that can rattle this other wise peaceful cage and that is despair. Unless you don’t care about absolutely anything, then you are susceptible. I can’t imagine Tao Ching makes you inhuman. Doesn’t mean you will either, I hope you don’t because the level of suck that is, is indescribable. And unless you can cease being human, no amount of Tao can spare you the experience.
[quote]
Progress only makes sense in the scope of human evolution. We are trying to stay around as a species for as long as possible. On a metaphysical level and when using a very wide understanding of things, progress and regression are temporary states of the same thing. It’s basically a circle. Eventually life will shift from human form. We aren’t going to be here forever.[/quote]
Actually, depends on the progress. There actually isn’t necessarily an evolutionary benefit for the search for truth. And since we are talking about philosophy that essentially what we are doing.
I don’t see it as a circle, things repeat, but never in the exact same way. So there is a shift in depth as things repeat.
I cannot predict what life will do in the end, but this planet will certainly not be able to sustain it forever.
Pat- “We already are apart of ‘it’, so we might as well understand in what way, and how much, what ‘it’ is, and whether or not it is subject to will. I really don’t see categories or compartmentalization as an issue. Breaking things down, identifying the unifying factor between things, and categorizing them is not a problem. It helps us understand what things are and what their place is. It’s what we do. It’s how we understand the world.”
How much, what it is, whether it’s subject to will…how will this help you understand something that is intrinsic to EVERYTHING? How can the questions “how much” or “what is it” even apply? The last question- whether it’s subject to will, is also pointless as it is a part of will. That’s like asking if gravity is subject to gravity.
I agree that there is a lot of use in the modern world for compartmentalization, but I disagree that it’s at all helpful in learning how to become aware of the experience of everything.
"Good and bad are essentially moral tags. And I argue they do in fact exist and what little I do know about Tao, it recognizes it’s existence as well. That doesn’t mean that everything is a good or bad thing. Somethings have other purposes other than being good or bad. There is one thing that can rattle this other wise peaceful cage and that is despair. Unless you don’t care about absolutely anything, then you are susceptible. I can’t imagine Tao Ching makes you inhuman. Doesn’t mean you will either, I hope you don’t because the level of suck that is, is indescribable. And unless you can cease being human, no amount of Tao can spare you the experience. "
You cannot have the positive emotions without the negative ones, as to know what happiness is, you must have felt unhappy at some time. Nothing is going to spare you from despair. It’s a part of having this body with it’s ability to feel emotions. It’s the way things are. Both despair and happiness are part of the ability to sense with emotions. To disconnect yourself from either is a problem.
The Tao Te Ching doesn’t really use “good and bad” the way Western sources do (plus the terms are approximations) as in “here is something we’ve clearly defined for you- it’s good. Here is something else we’ve clearly defined- it’s bad.” That’s not really how it works.
If you are really interested in it, I recommend reading a recommended translation every couple days for at least six months on end, really trying to allow yourself to experience whatever there is to be experienced. Talking to me about it is probably never going to satisfy you.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Pat- “We already are apart of ‘it’, so we might as well understand in what way, and how much, what ‘it’ is, and whether or not it is subject to will. I really don’t see categories or compartmentalization as an issue. Breaking things down, identifying the unifying factor between things, and categorizing them is not a problem. It helps us understand what things are and what their place is. It’s what we do. It’s how we understand the world.”
How much, what it is, whether it’s subject to will…how will this help you understand something that is intrinsic to EVERYTHING? How can the questions “how much” or “what is it” even apply? The last question- whether it’s subject to will, is also pointless as it is a part of will. That’s like asking if gravity is subject to gravity.
[/quote]
How do you know it’s intrinsic to everything? What is it? What makes it a part of will?
You said 'it’s a part of will? I can understand this as a level of understanding, but it’s a higher level, metaphysically speaking. Or it’s a force, and granted it may be a unifying force. But in what way? What is that unifying component that unifies all things? I agree this is a contingency of sort. But how does it unify?
K. I wasn’t sure what you meant. That’s fine.
That’s not how it works in the west either. It most certainly isn’t clearly defined as a matter of fact it’s not defined at all. At some level it’s understood.
I am not that interested in it. I am more interested in the discussion. Any dedication to study will be on the western front, not the eastern. That’s were my heart lies. I am just interested in what you have to say and your defenses of it. I think it’s a worth while discussion. I am more interested in understanding of it rather than the it.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Pat- I honestly don’t know the answer to your first couple of questions in a way I can describe.
Fair enough regarding the last part. Thanks for engaging me.[/quote]
Well, is it a force or a thing?..Sorry I kinda dropped this. I got sick as a dog so my mind wasn’t into deep things.[/quote]
I see it as more of a law or a pattern. Sometimes laws of nature cause forces to occur in the interaction of matter, but they aren’t forces, nor are they exactly the things that the forces are acting on. But because those things and forces are a part of the universe where the law exists, they interact accordingly.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Pat- I honestly don’t know the answer to your first couple of questions in a way I can describe.
Fair enough regarding the last part. Thanks for engaging me.[/quote]
Well, is it a force or a thing?..Sorry I kinda dropped this. I got sick as a dog so my mind wasn’t into deep things.[/quote]
I see it as more of a law or a pattern. Sometimes laws of nature cause forces to occur in the interaction of matter, but they aren’t forces, nor are they exactly the things that the forces are acting on. But because those things and forces are a part of the universe where the law exists, they interact accordingly.[/quote]
Let’s go with law, that would make more sense. It’s a law that all that exists is subject to, or just material existence?
I take it by “part of the universe” you mean ‘substance’ rather than geographic location, right? I know it sounds like splitting hairs but is a necessary distinction.
[Edit]: Do you see ‘it’ as part of the universe, or something the universe is subject to?
I know it may go against the grain of the whole ‘Tao’ thing, but I am seeking to identify what it is subscribing to or drawing from. It may not be terribly important to identify ‘it’ but I think it can be done, I don’t think that is left field thinking.