Philosophical Discussion with TaiChiBob

[Scott R. Brown]

This thread is about a discussion Bob and I were having on another thread that was becoming WAY off topic. While it is a personal response to Bob, I always appreciate input from anyone who wishes to participate.

This should be considered an intellectual discussion so any participants please try to keep your comments appropriate. That is, no personal attacks please!

As usual my posts are LONG, if you do not like it please don't read them. If you do take the time to read them then don't complain about how long they are, it is your own fault, LOL! :D

Following is the post of Bob's to which I am replying:

Greetings..

Oh boy.. not what i intended with my commentary.. Tao is Tao, nothing more, nothing less.. there is nothing that is not in accord with Tao. Whether it be capitalism or communism, it is Tao.. and, please, do not continue with the mantra of "LAW" of self-interest, there is no "LAW" of self-interest.. there may be an observed principle, but.. i have witnessed far too many altruistic behaviors to accept the notion of a "LAW" of self-interest..

It is without exception that we project our personal perspectives onto whatever discussions we engage in, it is the nature of language and communication.. Scott: i notice that you leave no room for evolution into an altrustic society, it seems that you project your personal perspectives onto humanity's potential.. it has the appearance of manipulating others' perspectives of Tao, excluding certain potentials.. is that your intent?

Scott: We have interacted on these boards for years, and.. over time i have witnessed you become more and more comfortable with absolutes.. a condition i believe to be inconsistent with your stated preference for Tao.. again, that's just my observation, but it has become a consistent observation, and.. i would ask you to re-evaluate your perspectives.. your current line of dialogue has a certain fatalistic flavor, inconsistent with earlier versions of "Scott"..

Now, back to Capitalism vs. altruism.. the core issue.. i have no issue with "altruistic capitalism", a workable social construct.. Capitalism, alone, is as unworkable as is any other single system.. my perspectives are rooted in the belief that the "greater good" is served from an altruistic perspective.. that altruism as a guiding principle is served by self-interest, where self-interest is accompanied by the awareness that we are not separate and individually isolated.. rather, that we, as a civilization, are a symbiotic organism that depends on altruistic guidance.. Capitalism, like "survival of the fittest", ultimately leaves "one man standing".. Capitalism, by its very nature, subjugates and enslaves the weaker and less fortunate.. and, while this is perfectly in accord with Tao, it is contrary to human nature to be enslaved or subjugated.. but, Tao has no interest in the survival of humanity, that is left up to us...

In the mechanical workings of the human experience, altruism can be served by capitalist processes, but.. the contrary not so much, capitalism will suffer from altruistic influences. Altruism is a guiding principle, capitolism is a mechanical process.. Much has been said regarding socialism and communism as "taking by force" or redistribution without consent.. but, i suggest that the visionaries, the altruists, recognize that magnificent social and technical achievements are not necessarily in the interest of the "greater good", certainly Lao Tzu held to that perspective.. the assertion that human nature is inherently "self-interested" is supported by conditions manipulated to favor that notion.. that notion is the fundamental cog in the capitalistic perspective, the elitist element of capitalism utilizes this self-interest notion to ensure the heirarchy of capitalist processes remains viable.. yet, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the self-interested competition for ever greater accomplishments has mutually arising consequences that will subvert the entire process.. i will point to over-population, global climate influences, and global economic situations for reference.. of course, capitalists will rationalize these references and assert that competitive markets will find solutions.. time will tell..

Lengthy dissertations on Tao and presumptous descriptions of the nature of Tao are without merit.. they represent a personal experience held in high regard by the experiencer. Those highly regarded experiences are unique to the experiencer and not very relevant to "why we are at War".. the proximate reason for the war in the middle east is capitalist interests.

Be well..

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Bob,

Thank you for your insightful and well said comments. I am always stimulated by your unique perspective.

Concerning apparent absolute statements:

We have interacted with each other for almost 6 years now. In the past I have qualified my personal style of communicating. It appears it would be of benefit to restate my position for the benefit of you and other readers. This dissertation, however, will be in greater detail.

I have been formally and informally trained from early childhood to think according to rational/philosophical methods. My major in college was Philosophy. Advanced Philosophy course work requires well thought out and reasoned arguments. This is why my posts tend towards lengthy dissertations rather than concise comments absent supportive comments. Supportive comments to illustrate the point are a requirement in Philosophy in order for one to receive an acceptable grade, to demonstrate the validity of an argument and to establish the Truth of a conclusion.

When writing according to the Philosophical method conclusions are derived from premises that may or may not actually be true. An argument may be considered “valid” that is, the conclusion may follow logically from the premises, but the conclusion may in reality be false if the premises are false. In Philosophical discourse it is rare to insert qualifications such as IMO or IMHO. Since it is understood that conclusions will follow from the premises the questions become, does the conclusion follow rationally and are the premises true? It is superfluous to include IMO qualifiers. Either the conclusion rationally follows from the premises or it does not, either the premises are true or they are not. It is not a question of opinion; it is a question of logic and Truth.

Having said that, it should be understood by all that comments on these BBs are those of opinion, including mine, I have stated so on numerous occasions. I had hoped this would be recalled. I consider it superfluous to state IMO to qualify every comment. My posts are long enough as it is without repeated qualifiers!

While all comments are opinions, not all opinions are of equal value. An informed opinion arrived at through reason is of greater value than an opinion that occurs as a consequence of social indoctrination. Most of the opinions voiced by individuals are not opinions arrived at through independent thought, careful consideration, the through and constant questioning of premises and the use of rational thought. Most opinions are arrived at through social indoctrination and by the cursory acceptance of what makes us feel good.

I understand that to have one’s “personal assumptions about life” (worldview) challenged creates discomfort. The tendency of the ego is to cling to our already well established definition of reality. This provides a sense of comfort and security.

We each navigate through and understand the world according to our individual definition/perspective or “worldview”. This “worldview” defines the world for us; it provides us with a sort of map or rulebook for navigating through life and interacting with the world. An unchanging worldview provides us with a secure foundation upon which to build our lives. We are more comfortable when we can accommodate the world to our preconceived notions than to continually modify our worldview in the light of new information. New, unforeseen and unpredictable circumstances frequently cause people discomfort when they do not conform to our preconceived notions. The most common and efficient means of dealing with this discomfort for most people is to cling to their preconceive notions. It is more reassuring to conform their perceptions to their preconceived notions rather than to change their worldview in order to bring it into accord with Reality. Generally, people are more comfortable with an enemy they know and understand than with a friend they don’t know or don’t understand. A “fixed” worldview can be considered a friend or an enemy depending upon one’s perspective and goals for personal growth.

People generally have an emotional investment in their personal beliefs; however something is not True simply because we want it to be True. If something is a Truth it is so for a reason and this reason may be demonstrated through various means. Some Truths may only be demonstrated through direct experience while others may be demonstrated through rational discourse. Truths that may only be demonstrated through direct experience may still be pointed to through the careful application of metaphorical example and illustrative stories, but the Truth must be experienced first hand in order to be accepted and understood. These types of Truth are generally not apprehended if they are not searched for; although spontaneous illumination, however rare, has been know to occur, as you are well aware.

An “opinion” is a perspective, view or belief that is accepted as a Truth regardless of whether it is ACTUALLY True. An opinion is NOT True because it makes us feel good or because we WANT it to be True. A Truth is true for a reason. That is, there are logical and definable reasons it is True. A True belief about reality is True because it defines life/the world as it ACTUALLY IS and many of them may be defined and demonstrated through rational discourse. An Untrue belief about reality is only true in a relative sense according to a specific individual’s choice. It is “considered” true by the individual because it provides a specific benefit even if it is NOT a True reflection/description of reality.

Most people are not able to articulate with effectiveness why they accept their opinions as True. I can and this is what causes some discomfort and displeasure in others when they read my opinions! Even when I have not done so, most or all of my opinions can be supported by a cohesive argument that illustrates why I have come to the conclusion I have and thus why I consider it a Truth. Most people cannot.

In order to demonstrate that my conclusion is False those who disagree with my opinions must either demonstrate the argument is invalid, (the conclusion does not rationally follow from the premises) or that the premises are false to begin with. 99.99% of the time, responses to my comments do neither. Opinions, no matter whose they are, are not False simply because someone else disagrees with them. If they are False they are False for a reason. For a disagreement to be truly meaningful and provide value to other readers it must be reasoned and provide support for the differing conclusion. If a meaningful argument is not provided the opinion may rightly be considered of lesser value. Something is not True or False simply because someone says so or wants it to be so or because it would make us feel good if it were so. It is either True or False for a reason and to be of any real value these reasons must be outlined.

Personally, I would rather read a well supported and reasoned argument that comes to a conclusion I disagree with than a poorly stated opinion that I agree with. The later provides a challenge to grow the former is just an empty opinion providing no real meaningful benefit.

I understand not everyone is rationally trained or rationally inclined. I understand that not everyone cares about discovering Truth in the same manner as I and many are even less interested in formulating a cohesive argument. For some, a BB is merely a place to socialize and have fun. That is ok with me. I don’t expect everyone to take Truth as seriously as I do. I also understand some of my arguments may not be air tight. I understand that some of the premises I begin with may not be True, however without someone to refute my conclusions using cohesive rational argument I am unable to accept differing opinions as of equal value. That is not to say I do not perceive a value to them, however, as I have previously mentioned, an opinion that can be demonstrated carries more weight than an opinion that cannot be demonstrated.

An opinion is NOT True just because we WANT it to be True. There MUST be a reason it is True and this reason MUST be demonstrated or we cannot say we are adhering to a principle or opinion that is necessarily Correct/True. If others are discomfited by my posts there is no reason for them to read them or consider the comments in depth. I don’t regard or respond to everyone and there is no need for anyone to respond to me if my comments cause them displeasure.

If a person has the intention to follow True principles it is incumbent upon them to find a way to determine which principles are ACTUALLY True and which ones are False. If individuals don’t do this they are subject to manipulation through social indoctrination and are more likely to adhere to views and opinions that are in actuality False! Even if they by happenstance come to an opinion that is True, if they are unable to demonstrate for themselves, absent “appeal to authority”, the Truth of the opinion, they are still subject to manipulation and have no way of actually knowing if their opinion is True of False. “Social indoctrination” occurs through the blind acceptance of facts and opinions that are presented through media, peers, teachers, clergy, etc., that is, accepted authority. Commonly, acceptance of social indoctrination occurs because of blind acceptance of authority, because what we hear already coincides with our preconceived notions, and because it makes us feel good. To blindly accept authority without questioning the information presented is dangerous and makes us susceptible to manipulation.

[Scott R. Brown]

If an individual finds that they cannot rationally support their opinions then it seems it would be prudent to educate themselves on proper reasoning and practice questioning and reasoning through their beliefs in order to be able to demonstrate for themselves and others their opinions are founded upon stone and not upon sand.

It is because I vigorously and repeatedly question popularly held beliefs, in order to determine whether they may be reasonably demonstrated to be True, that I state my opinions with confidence. It is this confidence that is misunderstood to be arrogance or an absolutist view. Consider the man from Plato’s allegory of the Cave. When he returns to the cave and with certainty, because of his direct experience, states True facts about reality outside the cave, those inside the cave who have not had his experiences considered him arrogant and intolerant of their opinions/perceptions. The difference between the man and the cave dwellers is, the man has had the experiences of those in the cave while those in the cave have not had the experiences of the man. The man is able to understand the cave dwellers, but the cave dwellers are unable to understand the man. The cave dwellers cannot understand the Truths of which the man speaks until they exit the cave themselves. Therefore, I try to encourage all those interested to exit the cave and see for themselves. One of the methods I use is to challenge popularly held preconceived notions and this causes friction and discomfort in some.

According to the context of demonstrable Truths, I will not accept as True any conclusion that cannot be demonstrated to be True. Most people cannot actually demonstrate their opinions to be True, so I may reasonably disregard their opinions without in-depth consideration when they conflict with my own conclusions. I understand this appears insensitive to the feelings of others, but Truth is not based upon how we FEEL. Truth has a reason it is True, we cannot wish something to be True if it is not True or accept something as Truth just to make someone feel good about themselves.

I have always admired and welcomed any reasoned argument that conflicts with my opinions and you may recall I commonly voice my appreciation when this occurs. My purpose is to arrive at True conclusions/opinions. It is a benefit to me when others are able to demonstrate a flaw in my reasoning process. I do not want to just Think or Believe my conclusions/opinions are True. It is not my intent to conform the world to my preconceived notions. It is my intent to determine what is True and adhere to that Truth because I understand WHY it is True, not because I WANT it to be True or because it makes me feel good. Anyone who can demonstrate the flaws in my conclusions is doing me a favor and this is why I appreciate those who are able to rationally and effectively challenge my conclusions/opinions.

[Scott R. Brown]

Concerning Following the Principles of Tao:

I agree with your assertion that ALL things occur according to the principles of Tao. Balance, excess and deficiency all equally follow the principles of Tao.

Students of Tao (Philosophical Taoists), historically, have attempted to personally apply specific principles of Tao that effect the greatest benefit for themselves and others (The Law of Self-Interest). One of the principles they adhere too is the principle of “Conservation of Energy”. This principle is a center piece in the practice of Tai Chi, Aikido and many other MA arts. The purpose of this principle is to achieve the greatest benefit by expending the least amount of energy necessary to accomplish a goal, or restated, to refrain from wasting valuable energy so that some may always be held in reserve for other applications. The application of this principle is, of course, not limited to students of Tai Chi or Tao; “A penny saved is a penny earned”, “A stitch in time saves nine”, as well as many other aphorisms, teach the same principle.

One of the best illustrations of the principle of “Conservation of Energy” is the example of a man floating down a river. If his purpose is to reach the shore, the most efficient means of doing so, expending the least amount of energy possible, is to accommodate himself to the flow of the river and move at a slight angle. Utilizing this method he expends the least amount of energy which permits the unused energy to be used for other tasks. This of course applies within a specific context.

Perhaps the man’s purpose is to exercise (which is a different context); in this case he may choose to swim against the current in order to challenge himself and improve his stamina; perhaps there are enemies down river or a waterfall that would endanger his life so he must follow a more energy consuming course. In each of these examples the end result is still the conservation of energy. In the first instance, the benefit of exercise is that it permits one to perform energetic tasks utilizing less energy, the more conditioned a person becomes the less energy is required to perform the same task. In the second example, if a person is dead he no longer has any energy available to accomplish other tasks. By going against the current in order to avoid danger, the man still conserves overall energy by preserving his life thus the principle of “Conservation of Energy” is still followed. Each choice will occur according to the specific context at the time. The effectiveness of his decision will be determined by the overall benefit he receives according to that context.

If the man is ignorant of the Principle of “Conservation of Energy” he may expend his energy needlessly which will increase the possibility of detrimental effects. For example, if he needlessly wastes energy to get out of the river and then must defend himself against enemies, he may not have enough energy to fight or flee thus endangering his overall safety. A dead man has no energy available to expend. This man, by not intelligently applying the principle of “Conservation of Energy”, will suffer consequences of greater detriment than if he had effectively applied the principle. While the man is always adhering to the principles of Tao according to a larger context, he has not accommodated himself in a manner that provides him with the greatest benefit according to a specific context. Thus we may say the man was NOT in accord with the principles of Tao.

In each of the above mentioned examples the man has always followed the principles of Tao, he cannot do otherwise. However the intelligent application of specific principles according to specific needs, goals and context provides the man with greater overall benefit. This is what must be remembered and considered when one makes comments concerning Tao and the application of its principles. The intelligent use and application of the principles of Tao provides greater overall benefit to individuals than happenstance application or inappropriate application out of context with the requirements of the circumstance. For the student of Tao (Philosophical Taoism) the question for any goal or purpose becomes, does this action apply the principles of Tao most effectively while expending the least amount of energy necessary to accomplish the specific goal? If it does not then the principles of Tao have not been adhered to effectively and we may say the principles of Tao were not followed according to this context.

[Scott R. Brown]

Concerning self-interest and altruism:

For argument’s sake let us just assume that “self-interest” is a Law. A Law, within this context, may be defined as a principle that cannot not be deviated from even if we try to deviate from it. Within the context of this argument, “self-interest” has the purpose of deriving a benefit from ones actions, behaviors and attitudes. Webster’s defines Altruism as: the unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others. I will accept this definition for the purposes of this argument.

If we accept that all actions are performed from self-interest then there must be some personal benefit derived from altruistic actions. If we are able to demonstrate that a person benefits personally from altruistic actions and this is the motivation for the altruistic actions then we have demonstrated that altruism follows the Law of self-interest.

So here is my argument:

All intentional actions serve a purpose. They are goal oriented. There is a reason we perform them. We do not always recognize or understand our reasons, however. Altruism has a reason and purpose behind it. Its purpose is to address the needs of others in order to provide those in need with a benefit. Generally altruism is considered to be ab idea or concept that seeks the welfare or benefit of others regardless of whether perceived benefits or detriments may be experienced by the giver. In other words, an altruist tends to seek the benefit of others before their own benefit is considered. This is generally considered in a material sense; I contend that there is an emotional benefit that supersedes an individual’s propensity to avoid material disadvantage and discomfort.

It is my contention that it is their own personal benefit that motivates the altruist to provide benefits to others. This may be demonstrated by investigating the concepts of Good and Bad. As humans it is our general purpose or intention to perform actions that we consider Good actions. This is because Good actions make us feel Good about ourselves and result in general approval from peers which also provides us with the benefit of feeling Good about ourselves.

We are taught that Good actions are Good, but not always why they are Good and this is where some confusion arises. An action, behavior or attitude is Good for a reason, the reason it is Good is because it provides a perceived benefit. Something that is considered Bad is Bad because it results in a perceived detriment.

An altruist believes their actions to be Good. This is superficially understood to be because they are providing a benefit for others in need, however upon deeper examination we will find that they ALSO derive satisfaction from the knowledge that they are providing a benefit for others in need. Satisfaction is a pleasant “feeling” that is caused by performing a Good action and we like to feel Good, especially about ourselves. So when I help others I receive a benefit as well as the benefit I am providing for the other in need. That benefit is the satisfaction that I have helped another and this “feels” Good. One may consider this satisfaction to be merely a secondary benefit, however if we turn the table a bit we will discover that this self-satisfaction is actually the primary motivation for acts of altruism.

If an altruist acts in a manner contrary to their ideal, they will experience a feeling of dis-satisfaction. They had an expectation that was not fulfilled, this created discomfort and they feel Bad about it. We do not like to feel Bad; we seek to avoid actions, attitudes and circumstances that cause us to feel distress because the feeling of distress is uncomfortable. Therefore, the altruist, as well as everyone else, is motivated to perform actions designed to make themselves feel Good and avoid actions that make them feel Bad. Both proactive and reactive actions are motivated from self-interest. People attempt to bring their actions into accord with their ideals because to do so provides a benefit and to not do so results in a detriment. The benefit is feeling Good about coming into accord with our ideal, the detriment is a result of a realization that we did not act in accord with our ideal.

If there was no ideal that the altruist sought to adhere too then there would be no perceived beneficial or detrimental consequences that resulted from their actions. Any time we receive a feeling of satisfaction from any of our actions we have received a benefit and this benefit occurred because we performed actions that made us feel Good or attempted to avoid actions that make us feel bad. This IS self-interest!

One may state that our goal should be to provide for the needs of others without attachment to the ideal of altruism. I would agree with this assertion; however that does not mean these altruistic actions are not self-interested. The person who performs altruistic actions without attachment to the results of their actions or attachment to the ideal of altruism is still performing altruistic acts for a purpose, a reason. The reason is because he understands that to provide a benefit to those in need provides a greater overall benefit to mankind in general and this is a benefit to himself as well. His motivation is the objective understanding that helping one provides overall benefits as opposed to the benefit of “feeling of Good”, as experienced by the previously mentioned altruist. The benefits may not always be directly enjoyed in terms of material or emotional benefits by the non-attached altruist; however he understands objectively that altruist actions provide a Good, a benefit and that benefit is an advantage.

The, generally considered, selfish act contributes to the overall misery of mankind while the, generally considered, selfless act contributes to the overall benefit of mankind. What benefits one, benefits all and this is a Good that is experienced as a benefit in some manner by the non-attached altruist, if nothing other than an objective satisfaction. His actions are performed because he perceives a benefit will result, if he did not perceive an overall benefit there would be no need to perform the action and it could not be considered an altruistic act under this context. To benefit mankind is to benefit ourselves, so actions of altruism are motivated by self-interest.

One may ask, “what about the person who sacrifices his life to save the lives of others, this person is making the supreme sacrifice for his actions?” This is true; however the action still adheres to the Law of self-interest. This person freely gives his life because he is conforming to a personal ideal that considers his life to be of lesser importance than the lives he saves. To go against his ideal means he will have to live with the discomfort of not living up to his ideal. He perceives that the consequence of not performing the life sacrificing action to be a greater evil than to lose his own life. His purpose is to live up to his personal ideal and in doing so he is performing an act of self-interest regardless of whether he experiences a loss in the exchange. He must live with the consequences of not taking the action. He determines that the consequences he will experience by not performing the action to be a greater discomfort than to perform the action and lose his life, therefore he performs the action that most conforms to his ideal and this is perceived by him to be a benefit regardless of whether he lives or dies. In other words, this individual would rather die than live with the thought they did nothing when they could have helped. This is may be viewed as the avoidance of discomfort which is an action of self-interest or also as the pursuit of a benefit to others that accords with his overall ideal. Either one results in a benefit to the individual and this is his underlying motivation.

While one could say this individual is pursuing a benefit to others and not avoiding a discomfort to himself. I would say he is doing both. In conforming to his ideal he is experiencing a benefit, we feel satisfaction when we conform to our personal ideals; this feels good and is a benefit to us. By avoiding action that comes into conflict with his ideal he is also experiencing a benefit, the benefit of avoiding the discomfort that results from not living up to his ideal. Regardless he still feels satisfaction that his actions were beneficial to others and this is a benefit as well. The Law of Self-Interest does not state that ones actions may not benefit others, only that the primary motivation for all actions is self-interest. A person who sacrifices for the benefit of others is certainly a person to admire, however that does not mean their action was not motivated from self-interest.

The fact that altruism and life sacrificing actions are motivated from self-interest should not diminish the admiration and respect bestowed upon those who follow these ideals. The actions do provide a benefit to those in need and this should always be considered a Good according to most contexts. Just because the altruist also experiences personal benefits does not detract from the Greater Good of their actions.

There is nothing wrong with self-interest. We cannot avoid self-interested actions. However, life is a series of choices. Some choices provide greater benefits than others. Some choices provide benefits to a greater number of people than others. When faced with two Evils choose the Lesser Evil, but also, when faced with two Goods, choose the Greater Good! This is why altruism is an admirable ideal to adhere too. An altruist chooses the Greater Good of benefiting himself AND others as opposed to just benefiting himself, which is the act of the selfish.

[Scott R. Brown]

Self-interest should not be confused with selfishness. There is a difference. Selfishness considers the benefit of self FIRST, and sometimes ONLY, and frequently disregards the impact of personal actions upon others. Selfishness is self-interest out of balance and is a consequence of emotional insecurities. A true altruist acts from a position of emotional stability and non-attachment, the contrived altruist acts from a position of “outward appearance” designed to make one “appear” benevolent, but only truly seeks personal gain. Jesus’ parable of “The Widows Mite” accurately describes the difference between these two versions of altruism.

[Scott R. Brown]

On Capitalism:

It seems you repeatedly attribute to Capitalism characteristics that are fundamental to Man. It is not Capitalism that “subjugates and enslaves the weaker and less fortunate” it is men doing to it other men! If the flaw was a direct result of Capitalism, we would find that only under capitalism that the weak are oppressed by the strong. This is NOT the case! You must note that through out history, at all times, in all cultures, under all economic systems, the weak have ALWAYS been oppressed by the strong. The problem is NOT Capitalism, it is the inherent nature of Man.

The solution is not to adhere to a system where the strong appear to be oppressed by the weak, which is socialism. In reality this is not the weak oppressing the strong, this is still the strong oppressing the weak. If the system does not address man’s inherent tendency to oppress those who have less power we have not solved the problem, we have merely put the wolf in sheep’s clothing. The question is how do we control the over extension of power by those who wield power. Over-extension of power is an excess that occurs in every society except a very few specific very small tribal societies.

Excesses are most effectively moderated within a free and open society that follows a generally democratic republican form of government and a capitalistic economic system. These provide a means for the weak to address their perceived wrongs. Within this system the economically challenged have the opportunity to work hard and become wealthy and the politically challenged have the opportunity to speak out about their ideas and make them law. When the powerful overextend themselves the weak have the opportunity to respond in the voting booth and/or become wealthy enough to promote their personal agendas. Socialist and communist societies are historically more oppressive than any free and open society. This is because no reasonable person appreciates having what they have taken away by force. In order for the mass of the population to conform they must be MADE to conform. The reason they must be MADE to conform is because these systems go against the Tao of human nature, which is self-interest. Self-interest considers personal needs FIRST and the needs of others SECOND. For one person to confiscate the possessions of another person is almost universally considered to be wrong in nearly every society through-out the history of man. How can this be acceptable for any government? As I have previously stated, this is exactly what you are fighting against. Except you think it is okay, because those who are taken from are wealthy so that makes it fair. No it does not make it fair. What makes it fair is to make sure the all individuals in a society have the OPPORTUNITY to succeed according to their own talents and desires. This is what needs to be focused upon. If there is unequal opportunity then the society is out of balance, if there is equal opportunity then one only has himself to blame for his lack of success.

I will grant that there is a dearth of equal opportunity in our society, however this is NOT due to Capitalism; it is due to the inherent nature of man. Unequal opportunity has existed within all societies throughout history, with the greatest imbalance noted in totalitarian societies of which communist and predominantly socialist societies are a part.

Your understanding of Capitalism is not very good. Capitalism cannot function if there is only “one man standing” and this is not Capitalisms intent this is the intent of power hungry selfish individuals which we must admit exist in EVERY society.

Capitalism is the pursuit of free and open markets that provide goods for others which are priced according to supply and demand. Free and open markets ensure that anyone may enter the market to compete for a market share or innovate by finding a market for new and unique goods. That is, to perceive an unrecognized need and supply the goods that fulfill that need to those who want it.

Competition results in improved quality and service because suppliers of goods must innovate in order to achieve and maintain a profit. Competition motivates change and improvement and this is an overall Good for mankind. Competition provides customers with improved and innovative products that function more efficiently and provide a wider range of functions at a cheaper price. Cheaper prices are a boon to the poor are they not? This is also why nearly everyone can own a computer, cell phone, etc. now. Competition and “relatively” free markets provide for a large pool of companies that compete for market share. Due to competition for market share innovation and improvements in manufacturing reduce the cost of making products which creates a larger pool of customers who can afford the product while also reducing the price.

This type of benefit occurs less frequently in socialistic economies. This is because when profits are confiscated by the government (which is still the powerful oppressing the powerless) there is no incentive to work hard or innovate. If a person makes the same amount whether they work hard or don’t work at all, most people, following the principle of self-interest, will choose not to work hard. But these same individuals will work hard to provide for themselves through the black market capitalistic economy as illustrated by my examples of the L.A. Times article about China 30 years ago and my acquaintance who informed me of how the economy worked in Poland under the communist government. My acquaintance produced little to nothing for the company he worked for; he stole company materials to produce items for sale on the black market to benefit himself. He was following the Principle of Self-Interest as were most of the other people in his country according to his report. He worked hard for himself, but little to none at all at his dead-end, low paying, socially and economically equalizing, factory job! He informed me his actions were common in Poland in order for individuals to get even the simplest items of daily needs. Socialism/communism does NOT make everyone equal; there is still are social and political elite within these societies and these elite control the economic wealth of those countries as well. The separation between these elites and the lower general population is greater than in free and open market capitalist societies. Socialism/Communism does make most of the population EQUALLY MISERABLE and it does not provide adequately for the progress of society!

Within a capitalistic system those who cannot compete do not succeed and must change or perish, that is, find another means to make their living. This is no different than in any other society throughout the history of man, except in communistic societies where production is so low a black market of capitalism develops to support the illusion of a functioning economy.

Self-interest is NOT the consequence of a Capitalistic system, it is the inherent characteristic of man that caused the creation and success of Capitalism. This is because Capitalism follows the principle of Tao that all actions are inherently motivated by self-interest.

People work hardest and most efficiently when they receive a direct benefit from their actions. This is called positive reinforcement. There a two ways to motivate action, through positive reinforcement and through negative reinforcement. When receiving positive reinforcement in direct proportion to ones effort, one is inclined to work hard and more efficiently in order to receive greater reward. While reward is considered a benefit, a GREATER REWARD is a considered a GREATER BENEFIT. When faced with two Goods chose the Greater Good!

When receiving negative reinforcement one is inclined to do only what is necessary in order to avoid the negative consequence. There is absolutely no motivation to work harder or more efficiently when there is no benefit perceived. Why do more when there is no direct benefit received from the effort? When faced with two Evils choose the Lesser Evil. The lesser evil according to this context is to do less work, that is, produce less. This is why socialist and communist economic systems are less productive societies. They do not accord with the LAW of self-interest. The boom in productivity in present day China is directly attributable to the loosening of communistic economic control and the promotion of a more capitalistic system.

[Scott R. Brown]

Concerning “presumptuous descriptions of the nature of Tao [that] are without merit”:

Please note that the statement itself is a presumption and you have fallen into to behaving in the exact manner of which you are criticizing me. You presume you to be right and me to be wrong. The difference is I provide reasoned arguments and use illustrative means to demonstrate my points, so in a sense it is you who are presumptive while I am rationally demonstrating my point.

To you my conclusions are “presumptuous” and “without merit” because you do not agree with them, however that does not mean they are incorrect. If you perceive they are incorrect then demonstrate them to be incorrect by using argument, metaphorical illustration and real world examples of either how I am wrong or how you or others are correct. Doing so will benefit all of us who wish to live in accord with the principles of Tao and provide you with the opportunity to communicate your own opinions in a clear and understandable manner. As a Tai Chi instructor I am sure you understand the value of being able to communicate the principles of Tao in a clear and understandable manner. We will all benefit from your own unique insights even if we do not agree with them. I know I always do!

In any case, the nature of Tao may be directly perceived and understood. If this were not the case we could not know anything about Tao at all. All comments would be fully speculative and therefore completely meaningless flights of fancy.

While our understanding and interpretation of the principles of Tao is directly related to our personal experiences we cannot say that principles of Tao do not exist, are not perceivable and do not occur as absolutes according to specific contexts. Principles of Tao exist and occur for a reason. They are observable and definable and they do not change according to our whim or fancy, although they may be applied differently according to different contexts.

Principles of Tao form patterns that are directly perceivable and may be understood and applied in our lives to our benefit. Just as with the Principle (Law) of Conservation of Energy, each principle provides a benefit if applied appropriately and efficiently according to its proper context. Sometimes the benefit is negligible, other times the benefit received is in direct proportion to our ability to use the principle effectively according to the context.

I am able to provide a meaningful definition and application for every concept I define as a principle of Tao. I do this using careful description, reasoned argument, metaphorical illustration and real word examples. This provides a validate-able demonstration of the principle I assert as truth for anyone willing enough to read with an open mind and who chooses to attempt to apply the principles actively in their own lives. This means what I state may be directly validated by anyone willing to test the principles. This method provides greater meaning and weight to the conclusions I assert than the comments of those who merely repeat without understanding what they have read or what they have been socially conditioned to accept as truth. To a reasonable person, the vague description of a concept, an idea or a principle does not possess the same weight, value and meaning as a well described and illustrated principle.

Truths are Truths for a reason. They have meaning and application in our lives. They are measurable, definable, are communicable to others and they cannot be reasonably refuted or they would not be Truths. They may be ignored or misunderstood, but that does not make them non-existent. Just as a rock always falls when it is dropped, principles of Tao always apply within their appropriate contexts.

My purpose is to observe and test the principles of Tao as I discover and learn about them, then to bring myself into accord with those principles in order to benefit from their application. If I incorrectly apply a principle or misunderstand a principle I cannot utilize it to my benefit. Thus it behooves me to accept and encourage challenges to my opinions in order to test and deepen my understanding and improve my ability to apply principles of Tao.

I always welcome reasoned refutations of my statements concerning Truths, but simplistic refutations stating only, “that is just your opinion” serve no useful purpose. They do not demonstrate my understanding to be flawed and therefore provide no benefit to me or others who pursue the same interests. If one’s purpose is to perceive Truths about reality clearly without obstruction, empty assertions without supportive demonstration that the views are wrong provide no overall benefit. While they may be respected as the opinion of others, they may also be disregarded, possessing little true value.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings...

Hi Scott: First, i deeply honored that you have invested so much of your time and effort in this exceptional reply.. it is worthy of textbook status.. you demonstrate a highly evolved system of analysis and evaluation..

I will begin by asking a simple question, a bit hypothetical, but.. plausible.. Suppose that a group or culture accepts the notion and precepts of communism or socialism and agrees to "willingly" participate.. what if?

Altruism may, for most people, be a matter of philosophy or comparative analysis.. but, for some i have known, it is something inherent to their being, sometimes even to their dismay.. it is an over-riding internal principle.. but, i'll save that for later.. self-interest blurs when someone holds as a "truth" that they are part of a greater whole.. so many philosophical Taoists struggle with their individual identities, their separation from their environment.. but, lets begin this dialogue with this question, what if?

Be well..

[imperialtaichi]

I always welcome reasoned refutations of my statements concerning Truths, but simplistic refutations stating only, “that is just your opinion” serve no useful purpose. They do not demonstrate my understanding to be flawed and therefore provide no benefit to me or others who pursue the same interests. If one’s purpose is to perceive Truths about reality clearly without obstruction, empty assertions without supportive demonstration that the views are wrong provide no overall benefit. While they may be respected as the opinion of others, they may also be disregarded, possessing little true value.

Hello Scott,

I always enjoy your post (your very, very long posts ;) ) and TaiChiBob's, so don't mind if I chip in....

My opinion is that, everyone has their own version of Truth. Depending on how stuck the person is on their version and believe system, they may or may not be able to see what is really going on.

I also realise that I have my own believe system, so no matter how open minded I am in looking at other versions of Truth, I am most probably biased and probably not even aware that I am.

So, this is how I try to live my life: respect everyone and everything; follow my path; accept my destiny; try not to look at rights or wrongs but merely actions and reactions, cause and effect; and most of all, just "be". I know that my intelligence is limited so there are many things I will never understand, so I'll just "be".

Scott, looking at your writings, you are a very logical person. Logic comes from the brain, Truth comes from the heart. I tend to like to let go of logic sometimes, and just be a monkey enjoying his bananas.

Cheers,
John

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Bob,

I too am deeply honored that you were willing to take the time to read my comments. I know it takes some dedication to wade through it all and I appreciate it.

I think the best way to provide assistance to the needy should be to have people WILLINGLY assist those in need. There is no need for governments to be involved in the confiscation of goods for this purpose in most cases. It is when people have an unreasonable amount of their possessions confiscate that a problem arises because they are given no choice in the matter. People generally do not object to giving when they are allowed to freely choose to do so. There seems to be an inherent sense of compassion in humans that does motivate them to provide for the needy. This occurs because we can project what it would be like for us if we were in THEIR shoes, but also those who have weathered trials and tribulations remember what it was like for them and choose to help when tribulations occur to others.

Willing participation of socialist/communal behavior already occurs to a certain extent in every society and it always has. The difference is that in most societies what is given is willingly given according to the individual’s choice and ability to give and no one is demanding or confiscating property for the benefit of others.

It should be considered that there has always been a form of socialistic behavior within groups. My point is that it occurs because it is perceived to provide a benefit. Charity is a behavior that occurs naturally and does not require government intervention in most cases. Regardless most societies throughout history have had some form of socialistic programs for members of their population. It is commonly the religious organizations that perform this function; however it has also been a function performed by guilds and other professional type organizations. Even in ancient Rome bread was provided to the poor as well as public baths and public entertainments. These were provided because an over all benefit was perceived. Many of the benefits provided to the poor in ancient Rome were provide by the wealthy and were not due to government confiscation of property. It must be recognized that rarely, it at all, were these actions performed for strictly altruistic reasons. There was commonly a political benefit received for the actions. But that is again my point, an over-all benefit was perceived and that is why the action was taken. There is an over-all Good or benefit perceived by givers and that should be the motivation for the giving, not the unreasonable confiscation of personal property by the powerful in order to give to that property to others. This is breeds resentment.

I want to also make clear that I do understand that some social system seems to be necessary in the modern world. The complexity of modern society requires some provision be made for the elderly, physically disadvantaged and the mentally disturbed. In general, I am willing to accept the necessity for a minimal assessment on property (taxes) as opposed to a full socialist society where there is an attempt to equalize the distribution of property because this results in an overall detriment of the society. My wife is from the Philippines and the unequal distribution of property there is much greater than in western societies. It would be nice if the private sector could be relied on however, to provide for the elderly, physically disadvantaged and the mentally disturbed, but even I am unconvinced that private generosity could not provide enough funds for these individuals.

The idea of small communal groups was tried, as you know, in the 60’s and 70’s. It was generally a failure. There was a rather large turn-over in group membership in these communal groups. For some background, I have had friends that lived in communes for a number of years and I lived in a communal house when I was in high school and some of my adult life. Very few, if any of the communes from the 60’s and 70’s continue to exist today. If they do exist it is unlikely they have retained all of the original members. It takes a very rare type of person to live in a communal organization. There is still in fighting and social stratification. Resentment is common when some in the group do not appear to carry their fair share of the burden; this is why the turn over is high and the success rate is low. The reason communes tend to not succeed is because they go against the Law of Self-Interest. People resent it when they feel they are doing more work than others who receive the same benefits while doing less work or when they are not receiving enough social status for the amount they produce for the group. Those who produce more tend to believe their vote should count more than those who produce less. Even if a few are found with the maturity to participate in a functioning commune, they do not last.

Communal organization works better in small tribal cultures because of the small size of the group and because it is NECESSARY for survival. This, again, conforms to the Law of Self-Interest. In modern society communal living is not required to survive and there is no necessity, for the sake of survival, to conform to the group rules when we don’t approve of the apparent inequities. All we need do is leave the group when we become unhappy with the inequities. In the times of indigenous tribes, to not be associated with a group could reduce ones life span. An overall benefit is realized by group membership which tends to motivate one to conform to the group’s rules. Once again, the Law of Self-Interest applies. Within tribal groups conformity is enforced through social pressure upon those who do not want to do their fair share according to their abilities. Those who do not pull their weight, according to their abilities, are ostracized from the group because their behavior causes an overall detriment to group cohesion. Since communal group membership in modern society is not necessary for survival there is no need for one to conform, they just leave the group.

My Aunt-in-law donates time to feeding and providing for the poor in her community a number of days a week through her Church. This is a type of socialism. It is voluntary and her time and money are freely given. There are thousands, if not millions, of people in capitalistic societies that provide for those in need. Private organizations generally perform the best and most efficient charitable works. Governments rarely do anything more efficiently than the private sector. The purpose of government should be oversight to ensure that these organizations are not taking advantage of the generous for the benefit of the greedy, taking donated money and using it for the benefit of the administrative officials and not those in need.

It should be noted that the citizens of the USA donate more to charities, including donating to foreign charities, than the population of any other country. During the Asian tsunami of a few years ago the American public, NOT the government, donated almost as much or more than all of the other countries combined and MORE than the U.S. government. So just because a population is opulent does not mean they are self-centered and insensitive to the needs of others.

I would disagree that self-interest blurs when one perceives themselves to be part of a greater whole. It is because these individuals have a rare perspective that they recognize by helping one they are helping all. Since the individual perceives themselves to be a part of the ALL they also benefit. They also benefit by living up to their ideal. If they do not they experience distress. The pursuit of pleasantness and the avoidance of distress are both a personal benefit.

I am not totally unfamiliar with altruistic acts. I have not mentioned some of the experiences that I have gone through in my life on this BB. I took a HUGE bullet for my ex-wife. While we were still married she was raped and experienced a serious mental breakdown. She cheated on me, caroused, and spent a lot of time getting drunk. At the time I had no idea she had been raped. She had blotted the episode from her memory. As a consequence of her behavior I was arrested for trying to protect her from a juvenile criminal element. I lost my job; I went bankrupt; I spent my retirement to support my boys so I could stay home with them for a year, etc. I don’t want to get into a sob story here. However, I sacrificed a great deal and I did what I did for a greater overall GOOD. It was a benefit to my children to not have their mother experience a worse breakdown than she did. What I got out of it was the protection of my ex-wife who ended up divorcing me, and the protection of the emotional state of my boys. The price I paid was legal ramifications, bankruptcy and the possibility I will not have the opportunity to retire in my later life. However, there is a GREATER GOOD that occurred over what I lost, and THAT was my motivation.

My second son was born with a compassion that is rare. Even as a small child, 1-2-3 years old he would never buy himself a toy without taking half of the money allotted for him to spend on himself to buy something for his older brother. So I am also familiar with unique characters who consider the feelings and needs of others as well as their own needs and feelings.

You may recall that I mentioned in a previous post on the other thread that human behavior occurs within a bell curve of variation. Therefore, many individuals will have a natural tendency to be more selfless, that is, thinking of the needs of others primarily and some will have the tendency to be more selfish, thinking more of their personal needs primarily, while most will fall some where in the middle. But all human behavior is directed towards self-interest, even if that interest involves a benefit to others.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi John,

It is always nice to have your participation in any discussion. I deeply appreciate that you have taken the time to read my dissertation as well. Anyone who is actually willing to read it all has my appreciation and admiration. I know it may not be very interesting to many people.

I agree with your post. Our experience of Truth will be directly influenced by what we perceive and how we interpret what we perceive. The greater our perceptive or interpretive obstructions the more flawed our perception of Truth will be. Where direct perception is concerned, we must use intellect to provide meaning and application to the insights received. An insight that does not provide a benefit is not much of an insight. All insights must be integrated into our current knowledge base and this is accomplished by the intellect.

I try to accommodate myself to the principles of Tao by following the example of the balance of Yin-Yang. There is a place for mind and a place for heart. Balance between the two is where the greatest benefit to the individual lies. Insights occur many times as spontaneous illuminations other times through the rational process. Both provide valuable information and/or experience that, when integrated effectively, produce the greatest benefit.

[Vajramusti]

I read at Scott's posts and the fewer ones by TaiChi Bob.
One of the assumptions Scott seems to make is his own conception of the individual self.
Given his assumptions much of his views follow.
In comparative philosophy different conceptions of the self appear.The discussion of those alternative conceptions of the self would be a library, not just a dissertation and certainly more than a thread.
Most societies including ours are quite complex phenomena- and simple ideological labels like capitalism, socialism etc dont quite capture their natures.The "isms" are ok for a 101 class.

joy chaudhuri

[unkokusai]

holy crap, what a waste of bandwidth!

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

"Those that say, don't know.. those that know, don't say".. however trite that saying is, it has some elements to functionality to it.. those that know realize the futility of speaking their 'truths", they simply live it.. the living example says so much more..

Scott has a unique gift for analogy, and i find much value in many of them.. analogies associate common experiences with those we can't quite express on their own merits.. contemplating Scott's recent posts, i am curious as to why it seems so absolute, so immutable.. it is this or it is that.. as a person that finds consistency and functionality in Taoist philosophy, i also find it challenging to assign fixed notions to very nearly anything.. i find that Life is a work in progress, much more than a "this or that"..
To you my conclusions are “presumptuous” and “without merit” because you do not agree with them, however that does not mean they are incorrect. If you perceive they are incorrect then demonstrate them to be incorrect by using argument, metaphorical illustration and real world examples of either how I am wrong or how you or others are correct. Doing so will benefit all of us who wish to live in accord with the principles of Tao and provide you with the opportunity to communicate your own opinions in a clear and understandable manner.
Hi Scott: I do not wish to imply that your concepts are, specifically, without merit.. that would be a bit "presumptuous".. yet, how else do i describe assertions of anyone that would tell others they are "incorrect" in matters of Tao.. and, yes, this is a matter of personal preference, but.. i would use phrases like, "my experience with Taoist philosophies and the application of those philosophies differs from your descriptions"..
I am able to provide a meaningful definition and application for every concept I define as a principle of Tao. I do this using careful description, reasoned argument, metaphorical illustration and real word examples.
While i agree that you have demonstrated a profound understanding of Taoist concepts, i am also of the opinion that your accomplishments in this area are highly self-regarded.. i have a tendency to let others find their own "truths" rather that assert "my" version as their answer.. which is why i find that your "self-interest" arguement is generally functional.. what i am asserting is that there are those for whom altruism is not cultivated nor desired.. it is an inherent quality they wish was different.. there is an acquaintence of mine that feels compelled to act in service to others, often to his own detriment.. he wishes he were able to mitigate this situation more favorably to his own circumstance, but can't seem to do it.. i marvel at his situation, he is quite sincere..

In order to move this dialogue along to more beneficial concepts, i will acknowledge that there is generally an element of "self-interest" behind the vast majority of human deeds.. however, i have been in situations where people acted to their own detriment, even fataly, for the greater good of others.. combat situations, specifically.. without hesitation or regard for self.. i cannot concieve that these people had the opportunity to "think of self", they acted immediately and purposefully.. it would be presumptuous to assume they had a self-interested motive, it is beyond our ability to "know"..

There may not be a perfect altruistic scenario, one devoid of self-interest elements, but.. it is a goal worthy of pursuit, a principle that serves humanity's evolution beneficially. Certainly, if i were of a mind to debate the issues, we could clutter the board for pages of nuanced dialogue.. but, i will concede that my beliefs are that "we are part of a greater whole", and.. as such, actions that benefit the whole, by definition, benefit the self, so.. it is reasonable to assert that semingly altruistic deeds are both altruistic and self-interested.. cripe!! there's that Yin/Yang thingy, again..

As to the capitalist vs. altruist perspective, i personally hold a blended perspective.. intellectually, i comprehend and approve of capitalist processes, and.. i guide my utilization of those processes from an altruistic perspective.. it is "my" preference to apply more effort toward altruistic goals than to supply capitalisic processes with more fuel.. your assertion that perfectly workable capitalism is influenced by the greed and corruption of "self-interested" persons is a functional description of the evidence. i assert, however, that capitalism is an abundantly fertile process for such greed and corruption to flourish.. that the benevolent and idealistic application of democratic socialism would offer a less fertile process.. a process where the "people" adjudicate merit-based incentives while assuring a minimum standard of livability..

The US is a Republic run by democratically elected ( sort of ) representatives that have no further obligation to their constituents other than re-election. We expect/hope they will act responsibly on behalf of the electorate, but.. the evidence suggests otherwise in the case of the US.. What occurrs to me is that the abundantly fertile ground for corruption under a capitalist system is better controlled by altruistic principles AND an education system that demonstrates the benefits of altruistic princples.. a society that expresses, as you noted by the US propensity for charity, altruistic-like principles is more likely to influence other societies toward similar qualities..

In short, i was attempting to mitigate your absolute position on self-interest and capitalism with alternative perspectives.. that seems to my nature :)

Be well...

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

unkokusai: Thanks for noticing!! i see that you find it necessary to contribute your personal bit of "waste"..

Be well...

[jrm]

Nice posts, this forum has been dead for awhile. I also find Scott's message to be absolutist, though I do appreciate his thoughtful posts as well as John's and Bob's (sorry Unkokusai, you'll have to put a little more thought into it).

Reading his posts, it seems that there are Capitalistic countries where freedom abounds and then there are Socialistic/Communistic countries where people are tragically oppressed under the jackboot of tyranny. Though there are a couple of communist countries like that, there aren't any capitalist countries like that and there are hundreds of countries jammed in the middle. I have relatives who live in Ireland where people pay much higher taxes than we do in order to provide services for the whole population. The educational system is very fine, everyone is guaranteed health access, and if you lose your job you're much more likely to land on you're feet than you would if you lived here. If changes to emulate a system like this started happening here, it seems that Scott would consider it a socialist nightmare, but the reality is that people live very contented lives there and their experience of a government lording power over them really isn't that much different than ours.

Does a system of governance like this violate principles of human nature? I don't know. What exactly is human nature? I don't think it is as static and as well understood as Scott suggests. Obviously it is a behavioral byproduct of the biological structure of our brain, but our brain is a phenomenon of nature, and like anything in accordance with nature, or the Tao (had to get a Tao reference in), it is changing. From science we know that our brains are structured to serve both selfish ends and social ends. Our brains vast social capabilities are a large part of what makes it uniquely human. The growth of the neocortex which is the area where language and social skills comes from has exploded in evolutionary time. We also know from science that the effect of culture on behavior is very strong. Cultural memes (to use a Richard Dawkin's term) can be every bit as instrumental in our 'natural' behavior as the biological genes that actually build our brains. Human nature is a complicated subject, so we shouldn't be making sweeping declarations about it.

Will the socialist experiment ever work anywhere? I don't know, certainly not in our lifetimes. I believe that there are structures within our brains that make it harder to work, but in biology, and especially in our biology where cultural memes come into play, nothing is ever nailed down. I do think that this country could do with borrowing some of the European social-support systems (sorry, charity just doesn't cut it). If the president said right now that he would raise the taxes on the richest 10% in this country in order to rebuild New Orleans better than ever (with all of the charitable donations- and it has been A LOT- things are still in shambles down there), I certainly wouldn't cry about how it is wrong that the government is forcing people to cough up some extra funds. It is no tragedy to me if someone has to put off installing their third plasma HDTV until next year in order to meet the demands of their brutally oppressive government. There are bigger tragedies.

Also, in Europe, they've got more time to practice their tai chi because they're not enslaved as much to the acquisition of bio-survival tickets (money). That's gotta be a good thing.

Salud

John (another one)

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Bob,

Thank you for your comments:

It is common for individuals who consider Truths relative and eschew Absolutes to fail to recognize their own the Absolutist view.

"Those that say, don't know.. those that know, don't say".

This quote comes from “The Tao Te Ching” chapter 56:

He who knows (the Tao) does not (care to) speak (about it); he
who is (ever ready to) speak about it does not know it.
He (who knows it) will keep his mouth shut and close the portals
(of his nostrils). He will blunt his sharp points and unravel the
complications of things; he will attemper his brightness, and bring
himself into agreement with the obscurity (of others). This is called
'the Mysterious Agreement.'
(Such an one) cannot be treated familiarly or distantly; he is
beyond all consideration of profit or injury; of nobility or
meanness:--he is the noblest man under heaven.


Translation, J. Legge

This quote provides individuals with a means to not have to support their views. It commonly used by those who are unable to articulate why they believe what they do and when statements are asserted that make them feel like their unique perspective on life/Tao is not accepted. As I have previous commented, not all opinions are of equal value. Informed and reasoned opinions carry more weight because they demonstrate how the conclusions articulated apply in the REAL world. Many if not most people do not truly understand what they believe or why they believe it, therefore in lieu of having to defend their beliefs they tend to use trite aphorisms, which they do not understand, to justify their untenable position.

Individuals who insert this quote into a conversation fail to recognize that in writing of the “The Tao Te Ching”, Lao-Tzu is violating the very principle he asserts! If we accept this quote as is popularly interpreted we MUST conclude that Lao-Tzu does not know Tao. He is “speaking” about Tao by writing about it, and according to the quote cannot be said to understand anything of Tao! Therefore, all his comments about Tao are without merit. If he does NOT know Tao then the quote has no meaning and it may be disregarded.

If we accept that Lao-Tzu was a learned and articulate man concerning the principles of Tao, we can only conclude that those who use this quote do not actually understand it. It is simple, either those who apply the quote do not understand it or Lao-Tzu does not understand it. When in doubt it seems reasonable to accept that it is Lao-Tzu who knows what he means and those who use the quote do not understand its proper application.

Within spiritual teachings it is all too common for individuals to merely TALK about the principles without actually trying to understand them or apply them to their lives. This is what the aphorism is cautioning against. This same principle has also been taught by Hui-Neng and many other great spiritual teachers. This is what Hui-Neng was referring too when he advised to not let the sutra turn the student, but for the student to turn the sutra. He means, “don’t just talk about it, LIVE IT!!”

This quote is not an excuse to avoid intellectually investigating and understanding spiritual Truths! I recommend reading, “the ZEN doctrine of no-mind”, by D.T. Suzuki. As you know Suzuki was an acknowledge Zen Master and wrote numerous works on Zen. He was known as an intellectual as well and he clearly explains Hui-Neng’s and historical Cha’n’s encouragement to study and intellectually understand spiritual Truths. The principle of intellectual understanding is also taught by many accepted Taoist masters as well as the Bhagavad-Gita. What is cautioned is to not get so caught up in the study that we forget to practice what we learn. It is in the practice the value of the teachings are realized!

If we applied this quote to all knowledge we could not say we know anything nor could we teach anything to anyone else.

Material knowledge and non-material phenomenal knowledge can be known and defined. While the definition is NOT the thing, these phenomena may all be measured to some extent and from their recognized patterns of cause and effect future predictions of effects from causes may be anticipated with reasonable certainty.

Direct experiences cannot be directly communicated to others they must be pointed too. Behaviors and attitudes we wish others to live by should be modeled by the teacher because it demonstrates the teachers understanding of the principles he teaches; however teaching is an integral element of learning. Even those who teach the direct experience of reality by pointing to it are teaching a SOMETHING that is definitely knowable and therefore an Absolute according to its context. If it were not an Absolute then the master could never confirm the knowledge of the acolyte because there would be NO definite knowledge to confirm.

If I am attempting to show another person the faces in the old woman/young woman optical illusion there are DEFINITE images that are perceivable/definable within that image. These images will be recognized as being the SAME images by anyone who views them because there are ABSOLUTE measurable characteristics the make the images identifiable as images of an old woman and a young woman. An orange tastes like an orange to all people because there are identifiable characteristics the make the taste recognizable once one has had the direct experience of tasting it. The value of the experience of each of these examples occurs according to ones personal perspective, while the individual characteristics of each phenomenon occur as ABSOLUTES. Once one has tasted an orange, once one has viewed the old woman and the young woman, they will ALWAYS recognize the identical experience when it occurs again in the future. This is because they represent an ABSOLUTE knowledge of the experience even though they are experiences. It is the personal value of the experience that is open to interpretation, NOT the actual principles that ARE the experience.

If all Truths were relative then the masters such as Lao-Tzu, Chuang-Tzu, Liu-I-Ming, Hui-Neng, etc. would have nothing to teach us. There would be no reason in Cha’n to have one’s realization confirmed by a Master. If there was no definite information to transfer there would be no learning from others and everyone would have to start from scratch to learn anything.

i am asserting is that there are those for whom altruism is not cultivated nor desired.. it is an inherent quality they wish was different.. there is an acquaintence of mine that feels compelled to act in service to others, often to his own detriment.. he wishes he were able to mitigate this situation more favorably to his own circumstance, but can't seem to do it.. i marvel at his situation, he is quite sincere.

While I admire your friend’s altruistic behaviors, his dilemma seems to reflect an emotional imbalance and therefore a questionable motivation. Frequently the NEED to help or fix others is created and motivated by a co-dependant up bringing. These characteristic tend to occur in individuals whose parents were abusive or were substance abusers. I would point your friend to some introspection into his past to discover what events influenced his apparent need to help others to his own detriment. A lack of insight into his personal reasons for his behaviors is not an indication that they do not exist, it is an indication that he has no insight/understanding into the why or how of it. Introspection is the means to gain this understanding; this is basic human psychology.

If his actions were truly altruistic his interpretation of the negative consequences would not be experienced as a negative. The fact he is unable to control is actions reflects an emotional attachment that is apparently unrecognized. To the unattached there is no gain and no loss from an emotional stand point even if there is an objectively recognized benefit or detriment perceived.

your assertion that perfectly workable capitalism is influenced by the greed and corruption of "self-interested" persons is a functional description of the evidence. i assert, however, that capitalism is an abundantly fertile process for such greed and corruption to flourish.. that the benevolent and idealistic application of democratic socialism would offer a less fertile process.. a process where the "people" adjudicate merit-based incentives while assuring a minimum standard of livability..

I understand your point. I would state it a bit differently. Capitalism provides the opportunity for the exercise of greed for a larger segment of the population (that is, greed is more widely distributed with the society; the opportunity for the exercise of greed is somewhat equally dispersed.) while within most socialist societies the opportunity for the exercise of greed appears to be the a privilege only permitted to the ruling elite. Within capitalism all individuals are “presumably” responsible for their own actions and therefore are not as controlled by the ruling elite. While in socialism the ruling elite presume to decide what is best for the people and force compliance. This provides for less personal responsibility to succeed or fail on ones own.

I think I have already conceded the benefits of your last point! Some kind of balance between the two provides for the enjoyment of the benefits of both perspectives while somewhat ameliorating their negative aspects.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Hi Scott: I am aware of my own "absolutist" perspectives.. i am certain (absolute) of the principle of "Change".. i have found no instance of an absolute except "change".. i do acknowledge principles that are remarkably consistent, absent of contradiction, but.. i can logically conclude conditions that would violate the principle..
If all Truths were relative then the masters such as Lao-Tzu, Chuang-Tzu, Liu-I-Ming, Hui-Neng, etc. would have nothing to teach us. There would be no reason in Cha’n to have one’s realization confirmed by a Master. If there was no definite information to transfer there would be no learning from others and everyone would have to start from scratch to learn anything.
Contrary to the notion that they would have nothing to "teach", they would have MORE to teach.. rather than confirm "absolutes", the teachings would be more along the lines of "how" to acquire understanding, rather than "what that understanding is".. teach people how to think, not what to think.. a bit like, "give a man a fish and you've fed him for a day, teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime".. "fishing, like life, is a dynamic process.. there are few, if any, absolutes in the art of fishing OR Living.. indeed, there may be numerous consistencies, but.. locking the mind into absolutes excludes our abilities to respond to exceptions..
Many if not most people do not truly understand what they believe or why they believe it, therefore in lieu of having to defend their beliefs they tend to use trite aphorisms, which they do not understand, to justify their untenable position.
Again, there is a certain elitist perspective evident in this passage, as if someone's disagreement with the reality structured from your personal perspective has less value.. almost a dismissal of those without your personal level of educated oratory skills, or without your level of structured logical thought processes.. i am reminded of a story by one of my mentors, we were at a Tournament and marveling at some of the masters and Sifu said, in his comical broken accent, "ahhh, not so much.. i see fisherman weaving net while talking to others, his skill so much that he master of Life".. it has long been my belief that my perspectives are subject to revision and change based on new evidence/experiences, that to hold to "absolutes" rejects potential.. again, i respect and honor consistency, i simply do not assume anything as "fixed"..
What is cautioned is to not get so caught up in the study that we forget to practice what we learn. It is in the practice the value of the teachings are realized!
THAT is the whole of my assertion.. that the teachings, that your dissertations, that my perspectives, are ALL secondary to Life itself.. although i think i have interacted with you enough to believe that you understand this, it is the presentation of your understandings that are troubling.. when we first interacted on this forum there were moments of inspired insight, dialogue that evolved and grew into passages that inspired so many others to respond with gratitude for our illuminating matters that had previously eluded their comprehension.. those early exchanges were without absolutism, they were dynamic and poetic.. they shaped my perspectives with beneficial results.. i am curious as to how your perspectives became so rigid.. or, why you are inspired to persent them as such..
Even those who teach the direct experience of reality by pointing to it are teaching a SOMETHING that is definitely knowable and therefore an Absolute according to its context. If it were not an Absolute then the master could never confirm the knowledge of the acolyte because there would be NO definite knowledge to confirm.
I perceive this situation differently.. pointing at an experience for the acolyte is not followed by a confirmation of "absolute knowledge", it is followed by an acknowledgement that the acolyte has obtained wisdom from the experience.. what that wisdom "is", is unknowable to the master.. the master observes the acolyte's application of the "wisdom" to Life and confirms the acolyte's appropriate understanding.. each acolyte will differ in their understanding and each will apply it somewhat differently.. if the result is appropriate within a range of results consistent with harmony and a "greater good", the master's confirmation is also appropriate..
An orange tastes like an orange to all people because there are identifiable characteristics the make the taste recognizable once one has had the direct experience of tasting it. The value of the experience of each of these examples occurs according to ones personal perspective, while the individual characteristics of each phenomenon occur as ABSOLUTES. Once one has tasted an orange, once one has viewed the old woman and the young woman, they will ALWAYS recognize the identical experience when it occurs again in the future. This is because they represent an ABSOLUTE knowledge of the experience even though they are experiences. It is the personal value of the experience that is open to interpretation, NOT the actual principles that ARE the experience.
One of my favorite quotes is, "Truth is the experience itself.. not the words, labels and descriptions we assign to it".. here's the thing, regardless of how many people have this exact experience, no two of them will have identical interpretations, no two of them will expand their belief systems by the same understanding of the experience.. and, we must agree, here..each human being has a unique interpretation of "reality", however similar it may be to another interpretation, we each "know" a different reality.. since we cannot share "identical" realities, there must be room for agreement.. acknowledging the "truth" of the experience while understanding uniqueness of the experiencer.. You contend that someone will "ALWAYS recognize the identical experience".. i will point out exceptions: amnesia, pure forgetfulness, neurotic or psychotic denial, evolution of perception, to name a few.. my parents reminded me that in my youth i "absolutely" rejected seafood, to the point that it was not even a part of our diets.. years later, i tried shrimp and was profoundly amazed at the delicious treat, now, seafood is a staple of my diet.. i had "absoltely" no recollection of tasting seafood, i simply rejected it on principle.. at the insistance of others, i was benefitted by a "new" food experience.. i'm certain that there will be a psychological cause and effect issue raised, but.. in "my" reality the subsequent tasting of seafood had no connection to a past experience..
While I admire your friend’s altruistic behaviors, his dilemma seems to reflect an emotional imbalance and therefore a questionable motivation. Frequently the NEED to help or fix others is created and motivated by a co-dependant up bringing. These characteristic tend to occur in individuals whose parents were abusive or were substance abusers.
Sometimes, things simply escape our NEED to explain them in accordance with our beliefs.. sometimes, a person simply expresses their "nature".. sometimes, a rock is just a rock, not a magic crystal..
Regarding the capitalist vs. socialist vs. communist dialogue, if it is appropriate to support capitalist shortfalls by referencing the human self-interest factor, so then, it is equally appropriate to suggest that socialism and communism, in their conceptual virginity, are plausible and represent viable alternatives.. it is possible, given the time and evolved human consciousness, that either socialism or communism can produce prosperous societies.. when society, as a whole, feels its best interest is being served by a benevolent group of organizers.. where is the incentive to compete? is there not a "mutual arising" of common purpose/common benefit?

To deviate a bit from the academics.. it feels a bit melancholy to reject Utopian ideals by denying their possibility based on human nature.. in the realm of absolutes where possibility is rejected in the name of "human nature", it seems a bit short-sighted.. there was a time when "human-nature" rejected many things we take for granted, now..

I am a huge fan of the scientific method, measurement and observation are cornerstones of expanded understandings, but.. too often, they are used to support someone's comfort-zone, someone that is less comfortable in the realm of relativity.. relativity is the existent condition of human interaction, to reduce it to "ones and zeros", white and black, on and off.. is to truly misunderstand "human nature".. mankind thrives on the exploration of Life, the dynamic processes.. reduce it to absolutes and you impose artificial boundaries of consciousness..

Be well...

[mantis108]

Hi All,

First and foremost, I see both TCB and Scott as heavy weights in philosophical UFC. ;) It's definitely great to just watch them taking on each other. :D

I think both side's arguements have merits although I have to admit that I am partial to Scott's approach. I appreciate his thoroughness and his methodical discipline a lot.

I believe his take on that particular Lao zi's passage is bang on and I believe he has demonstrated the essence of that passage time after time because he understood the meaning of it really well. IMHO Philosophical Daoism is not about whether or not we speak of or rather use langauge to describe God/Dao. It is rather that we don't treat it as pursuit of practical knowledge or improving intellegence of the subject, which language often lead us to do. I find that Scott's command of language, which essential becomes the servant of his discipline (for less capable hands it would be the other way around), often does it really well especially when it comes to shattering preceived knowledge and intellengce.

I am in agreement to his position on the Absolute also.

I have no interest in the debate of the merits of ideologies, so I would just leave it as that. I am not inclining to place value on either side's approach. I think every one should do that on their own free will.

Just a few comments.

Warm regards

Mantis108

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Hi Mantis108: In so many ways, i also agree with Scott, and.. thanks for joining the discussion.. The primary difference between our perspectives seems to be at the level of absolutism.. you are quite correct regarding Scott's command of language, it serves him well, and.. it is beneficial to the rest of us, too.. Scott has added much to my own understandings for which i am always grateful..
IMHO Philosophical Daoism is not about whether or not we speak of or rather use langauge to describe God/Dao. It is rather that we don't treat it as pursuit of practical knowledge or improving intellegence of the subject, which language often lead us to do.
Complete agreement!! In no way do i suggest that language is not a valid tool for pursuing understandings of Taoist philosophy, only that the language is not the "thing" it describes.. Scott's presentation of his understandings is not evidenced by a balanced perspective between the "formlessness" and indescribable nature of Tao, and the practical application of that formlessness.. it has a certain sterile quality. Scott's lengthy admonishment for his percieved misuse, by me, of Lao Tzu's quote missed my point. Both he and you, though, reference my point in the rebuttal of my position.. that in the pursuit of the experience, language and definition are less than the experience itself.

It is my experience that absolutism confines the experiences.. the river may be described in varying forms of absolute qualities, but.. the river is "formless", regardless of our discection of its various qualities.. it moves according to its environment, it changes as change occurrs.. in high school i was a diver on the swim team, i equate absolutism with the platform.. i used the platform to get me to the place where i could have the pure experience of diving.. so it is with absolutes, they describe the "known".. as J. Krishnamurti explains in his book, "Freedom From The Known", that it is the "known" that impedes our experience of the unknown.. while a solid grasp of intellectual skills and familiarity with classic references to Taoist philosophy makes a good platform, i keep in mind that it is the experience of the dive that is the goal.. lead your students to the scholastic "platform", then.. push them into the dive, "their" dive, not "your" dive..

This is the main contention i have with Scott's presentation.. too much focus on intellectualism, too little encouragement to abandon the "known".. a brief review of Scott's posts over recent months show little encouragement to "just LIVE IT".. certainly, Scott uses the phrase, he says the words, but.. there is a continual return to academia, a procession of instruction as to what is "meant" by the classics.. a condition not unlike the preacher that tells the congregation what to believe.. when, it is my understanding, the words of the bible or Lao Tzu are better left to the individual's understanding.. that "God" or Tao are self-evident.. without question, academic discussions regarding matters of philosophy or politics or religion are necessary and beneficial, but.. each such discussion deserves balance, that without the reference to spontaneous experience we risk further condensation into purely academic interests, knowledge for the sake of knowledge..

The most beneficial learning is often acheived without the benefit of language.. both external and internal.. where internal language is represented by the "monkey mind", that incessant chatter in one's mind.. where a compilation of knowledge about something can be studied at length, it is not until we have the experience that the knowledge is revealed.. i know it seems a bit picky to dwell on this issue, but i have spent too much time in the company of academics for whom the reading and discussing are sufficient.. for whom pictures replace the experience.. sometimes, i think Scott's command of language and his skill at brilliant analogy will decieve observers into believing they have had the equivalent of the experience itself.. i'm here just to suggest that the experience cannot be replaced by its description..

Scott should, rightfully, admonish me for this post.. he does frequently indicate the same notion, that the experience is the goal.. but, with such a display of academic skill, it is his deeds that express an "apparent" favor for academics.. and, it is deeds that observers identify as one's "truths".. i sense that Scott's ability to communicate so well is founded solidly in his own vast body of experiences, it is only his presentation that i question..

Be well..

[imperialtaichi]

...level of absolutism...

Hello TaiChiBob, Scott and Mantis,

My background in scientific training leads me to value the concept of absolutism, precision, and the ability to describe in absolute language.

However, my search for truth leads me to reckonize the difficulty of knowing the absolute; for example, even scientifically, we know only the behaviour of sub-atomic particles when we are observing them. But what happens when we are not looking at them? Can we be absolutely sure that they behave the same way?

What about our eyes, ear, nose, tongue, body, brain? Just a bunch of neuro-electro impulses being interpreted physiologically. Can we trust them fully? Are our brains capable of understanding everything? Are we that much smarter than a goldfish?

These days I am not even sure that 1 + 1 always equal 2 anymore....

Cheers,
John

p.s. just for laughs... I use to compare my intelligence to monkeys.... now I have lowered my standard to comparing myself to goldfish :D

[unkokusai]

Ugh...two-bit philosophizing is hard to stomach.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi All,

I apologize for my tardiness. I do not have the time I used to in order to reply so I will be somewhat intermittent in my participation. I will of necessity be required to cherry pick what I respond to as well. I appreciate all the meaningful comments shared so far. Please feel free to continue commenting.

Hi Bob,

I am aware of my own "absolutist" perspectives.. i am certain (absolute) of the principle of "Change".. i have found no instance of an absolute except "change".. i do acknowledge principles that are remarkably consistent, absent of contradiction, but.. i can logically conclude conditions that would violate the principle..

Absolutes occur, although they occur according to context. Change the context to one where a specific absolute no longer applies and you have not eliminated the absolute only changed the context to one in which another will apply. You may recall I have addressed this principle in a past dissertation.

As I recall, your disagreement concerning what you have referred to as an “absolute” proposition made by me concerns the innate condition of man to be motivated by self-interest and my comment that this is in accord with the principles of Tao. It appears that acceptance of this notion would create a disequilibrium within your own belief system. Yet to adhere to any other position, including a relativistic one is also adhering to an absolute, and this is my most recent point. To say with confidence that something is NOT SO is just as absolutist as to say with confidence that something IS SO, which is just as absolutist as saying something IS SO SOMETIMES and NOT SO AT OTHER TIMES.

You appear concerned at the confidence or certainty with which I make my assertions, however you do not appear to recognize that your disagreement is presented with equal confidence and certainty. I have defended my assertions with reasoned argument and illustrative metaphor as I always have. You have not effectively refuted my assertions and the conversation is now diverted to whether I may reasonably state my assertions with a confidence that may give the impression of certainty. Whether I am certain and confident in my assertions or not has no bearing on their truth or falsity. They are either true or they are not based upon what IS. However, my reasoned argument and use of illustrative metaphor give reason for the conclusions I assert. This provides evidence that must be refuted in order to demonstrate my assertion to be inaccurate. Whether my assertion is an absolute or not is unimportant, whether it is true or not IS important.

If something IS then it IS for a reason and it may be demonstrated to BE according to specific qualities of reason and perception. This is what must be addressed in order to determine if an assertion is true or false. In other words, truth and falsity should be evaluated on the merits of the evidence and not the manner in which the evidence is presented. When we blindly accept certain principles to be true without a demonstration or understanding of their proper context and if we cannot demonstrate evidence using reason and metaphor, how are we to determine the truth or falsity of any assertion?

To insist that some actions are inherently altruistic in the sense of “not involving self-interested motivation” is itself an absolutist position, and an incorrect one at that. Anytime we assert anything to be a truth we are asserting an absolute condition and it is this absolutist perspective to which I refer when I mention that your own attitudes are absolutist as well. We must understand that absolutes do exist, but that they exist according to a context. Within every context occurs some form of interdependent absolute and this cannot be avoided. To criticize the absolutist views of another without recognizing our own does a disservice to our ability to recognize the errors of our position. In short, it is best avoid the criticism of a perceived absolutism of another when we are unable to recognize, accept and understand our own absolutism.

I must once again point out that I have made reasoned arguments as well as used illustrative metaphor to demonstrate the truth of my assertion and you have not adequately refuted them. My assertions come into conflict with your own preconceived notion that there should be no absolutes or at the very least, limited absolutes. Rather than address my assertions on the value of the argument you are caught up in whether it is an absolutist view or not. I contend that all views, including yours, are absolutist and therefore an accusation of absolutism cannot be used as evidence of the falsity of an assertion. We must conclude that absolutism is appropriate at times since it occurs quite naturally of itself whether we recognize it or not. It then behooves us to address the truth or falsity of an assertion and become less concerned with its apparent absolutism or not. If something is a Truth it is an absolute according to its context, otherwise it could not be considered a Truth and NO actions behaviors and attitudes could be judged according to any merits at all.

Therefore, my contention is that your own disapproval of what you consider my “absolutist” comment is also inherently absolutist and therefore cannot be used as evidence to demonstrate my original assertion is false.

When it comes to humans, I have asserted that actions are inherently and quite naturally (according to the principles of Tao) motivated by self-interest. Because this condition is natural and inherent to man it follows that this is how it is supposed to be and may therefore be considered an overall GOOD. When this conclusion is asserted it makes some people uncomfortable because they have pre-existing conditioning that creates a resistance to the acceptance of a seemingly naturally occurring “selfish” attitude by mankind. That is, they don’t want mankind to be inherently selfish/self-motivated because they consider this characteristic odious. Not wanting it to be so has no effect on the reality of the condition, only on whether we will allow ourselves to perceive the reality of it or not. If we begin with the preconceived notion that “self-interest” is BAD we inhibit our ability to fully understand how this principle occurs naturally according to the principles of Tao.

The “inherent self-interest” of man either occurs, or it does not occur. I have explained in detail why I have come to the conclusion that it occurs. I did not start with an idealized concept of how I want mankind to be, nor was I conditioned by socialization to come to this conclusion. I introspected and reflected into my own mind, I have observed and considered the actions of others, I have read and considered the thoughts and ideas of others concerning the same matter and then conformed my belief/attitude/conclusion to the evidence. At times it appears that you allow your idealized beliefs about how you “want” things to be or how you think things “should” be to cloud your ability to consider conclusions that conflict with your ideals.

If we start with a fixed ideal we will tend to conform our experiences and perceptions to that ideal and ignore information and ideas that conflict with the ideal. If we start with a more flexible attitude, an inquisitive mind and are willing to constantly challenge our personal beliefs and apparent perceptions and then modify our conclusions accordingly we are more likely and willing to conform ourselves to Tao/Life/the facts than to insist that Tao/Life/the facts conform to how we want it to be.

Your basic premise, indicated from your previous comments, implies you consider self-interest to be a lesser quality of mankind and that this is BAD. If we begin with the preconceived notion that selfishness is BAD, then it is understandable why one would find my assertion odious. I contend that self-interest is both nature and good and is in accordance with the principles of Tao. I have also contended that cooperative behavior provides a balanced manifestation of this self-interest. I have also asserted that cooperative behavior/altruistic behavior is motivated by self-interest. We enjoy, consciously or sub-consciously, a benefit from our behaviors and that is why we perform them.

My premises are:

1) All phenomena occur for a reason/ with intention.

2) This “reason/intention” occurs as an element in a Cause and Effect relationship. That is, I INTEND to perform an action for the PURPOSE of achieving a beneficial result. I Cause an Effect for a purpose; this purpose is the reason for my action which has the end purpose of providing me with a benefit. This benefit may manifest itself in a material way, an emotional way, a philosophical way, etc. and may be consciously or subconsciously enjoyed.

3) Cause and Effect relationships are illustrated by Yin-Yang.

4) Yin-Yang reflects a dynamic interdependent relationship between complimentary and contrasting, (not necessarily opposite) principles.

5) Yin and Yang principles motivate each other in a Cause and Effect manner according to specific contexts and these occur with a purpose, that is, with an intended end result.

6) As a consequence of the dynamic interaction of the principles of Yin and Yang a balance occurs that is not a still point, but a rhythmic alternating dominance and submission of each principle which, in turn, creates an OVERALL balance between the two principles. This overall balance may occur on a macro-level, over millions of years, or on a micro-level, over seconds or less according to context.

7) We consider specific Effects GOOD because they provide a perceived benefit. We consider specific Effects BAD because they provide a perceived detriment.

[Scott R. Brown]

Following these premises:

If we accept that “selfishness/self-interest” is BAD, we must ask, “Why is it BAD?” If it is BAD, it must be BAD for a reason. That is, there must be an overall negative/unpleasant consequence that results from the cause and effect relationship between the “selfish action” and the consequent “BAD result”. If the BAD result is merely experienced by others and NOT by the “selfish person” what is his motivation for performing a GOOD act? He has none! He benefits from his self-interested action and is unaffected by any negative consequence that occurs to others. He has no motivation to change his behavior or attitude. This type of behavior is observed in tyrants. Since their control is absolute they do not perceive any negative consequence to their behavior and therefore have no motivation to change it.

In order for the “selfish person” to change his attitude/behavior he must understand HOW and WHY the selfish act results in a BAD consequence for himself otherwise there is no motivation to change. Conversely, he may perceive a personal benefit resulting from a GOOD act and this may be his motivation. In either case, he is motivated by self-interest.

Further, we may perform GOOD acts that benefit us, or others we care about, that also create a negative consequence for others. The determination of whether this GOOD act is GOOD or BAD occurs as a consequence of the personal and group values of those making the determination. Two or more groups may come to differing conclusions based upon the differing foundational values used as a measure. That is, the determination of the overall GOOD or BAD of the action here, is a relative determination according to the context of the results experienced by each individual or group. The action is GOOD according to the context of those who enjoy benefits and BAD according to the context of those who experience detriments. Regardless, the determination of GOOD or BAD is based upon self-interest.

For those who suffer from another individual’s “selfish act”, they consider the act “selfish/BAD” because they perceive a negative consequence/effect either to themselves directly or to others whose welfare they are concerned about. Either condition IS an act of “selfishness/self-interest”.

To consider our selves and how phenomena affect us is an act of self-interest. If we do not perceive an action as affecting us negatively, we have no reason to disapprove of it and the action would not be considered BAD and the motivation for the act not selfish.

If I perform an act that affects no other person or group in a detrimental manner is the action a BAD action? No, it is not, because there is no attending negative consequence even though that act was clearly self-interested. Conversely, if an act is performed that provides a detriment to others yet benefits me, those who experience the detriments would consider my act selfish because I appeared to not consider how it would affect them negatively. Since they are thinking of themselves and their own experience and placing their own enjoyment or discomfort over my own, their consideration is just as much self-interested as my own. This is not intended to be a justification for this sort of act, but merely a demonstration of self-interest on the parts of all involved.

According to the above example, to consider how a phenomenon affects others adheres to the idea that life and the conduct of others should conform to “our own” ideal. This is again, an act of selfishness, and an absolutist attitude I might add. It places our “own” ideals above the ideals of others and this is self-centered/self-interested. Is it the responsibility of others and Tao/Life to conform to our personal ideal of how we think it should be? No, it is our own responsibility to live up to our own ideals. When the ideals of others come into conflict with ours we have the right to defend and promote our own ideals. But even if we convince ourselves that our own ideals provide for a seemingly “greater good” we must recognize that they are still motivated by self-interested.

If we insist, prefer, or promote conformity to our ideal we are behaving with selfishness by presuming our own ideal is the best GOOD for ourselves and mankind. Throughout the history of mankind all cultures have considered their own values to be the BEST good. This occurs because humans perceive a benefit from the adherence to their traditions and a detriment to non-conformity and this, once again, is self-interest.

[Scott R. Brown]

Me:

If all Truths were relative then the masters such as Lao-Tzu, Chuang-Tzu, Liu-I-Ming, Hui-Neng, etc. would have nothing to teach us. There would be no reason in Cha’n to have one’s realization confirmed by a Master. If there was no definite information to transfer there would be no learning from others and everyone would have to start from scratch to learn anything.

You:

Contrary to the notion that they would have nothing to "teach", they would have MORE to teach.. rather than confirm "absolutes", the teachings would be more along the lines of "how" to acquire understanding, rather than "what that understanding is".. teach people how to think, not what to think.. a bit like, "give a man a fish and you've fed him for a day, teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime".. "fishing, like life, is a dynamic process.. there are few, if any, absolutes in the art of fishing OR Living.. indeed, there may be numerous consistencies, but.. locking the mind into absolutes excludes our abilities to respond to exceptions..

It is important to learn how to understand, however if there is understanding there is something definite/absolute to be understood, if there is perception there is something definite/absolute to be perceived; this “thing” that is understood/perceived can be considered a Truth, an Absolute, Tao. If it was not definable it could not be named or understood; it could not be confirmed by a teacher because the teacher could not know for sure that what the student perceived was an accurate representation of Truth/Tao! If the measure is merely the ability of an individual to understand there could be no measurable value without something specific to understand.

For Tao/Absolute/Truth to be recognized it must possess persistent (absolute) recognizable characteristics. If these characteristics varied then Tao could not be recognized and realization could not be confirmed by another who claims realization. I must qualify here, I accept variation, however there is a consistency to the variation that provides for persistent and recognizable characteristics that allow for a clear definition. Variations in definition are attributable to variations in ability to clearly perceive and abilities to communicate accurately what is perceived by each perceiver. The more obstruction from ego the less accurate the reported characteristics are.

What is learned is NOT just to “how to acquire understanding”, but also how to recognize clear perception of Tao which is clearly a definite THING, an Absolute, with variable yet recognizably persistent characteristics. Careful reading of the religious texts clearly indicates this. Within the tradition of Ch’an there is a clear and definite something to perceive and when one apprehends this “Thing” with unobstructed perception it has been confirmed by another who is able to perceive without obstruction.

How one comes to the understanding is of lesser importance and this is clearly stated by Hui-Neng within the text of his sutra. He admonishes his followers to teach each student according to their ability to understand and according to a context that has meaning for each student. The method is of less importance than the final purpose. Any method is usable and permissible if it results in the achieving the final purpose. But the final purpose is a recognizable “something” with persistent qualities that define it according to a context.

There is no indication in Taoist writings or my personal experience that “understanding”, as a separate quality, is the goal. Understanding “Tao” is the goal and applying its principles for personal benefit is the student and master’s intent. For there to be principles of Tao that work to our benefit there must be “actual” principles that exist. To know, understand and apply these principles they must possess persistent and recognizable characteristics that separate them from other principles according to context. We call this a definition, even if we do recognize that a definition is NOT the thing itself.

Principles of Tao must be uniformly applicable according to their context or they provide no benefit. In order to apply a principle effectively we must recognize it is a principle and understand its proper function and application. In order for us to do this it must also actually exist as a principle. If it is a principle that may be effectively applied then we must be able to recognize its persistent characteristics and how these characteristics interact with other principles and phenomena.

Therefore, we may state certain principles are real and possess persistent characteristics that provide the individual with consistently recognizable benefits. That is the effects follow from the causes according to a context that is predictable and repeatable. If this did not occur then there would be no principles to follow of any kind at all and no benefits to enjoy or detriments to avoid. If the benefits from applying the principle were not consistently predictable and repeatable we could not say we understand the principle. This is a description of an Absolute condition according to context.

[Scott R. Brown]

Me,

Many if not most people do not truly understand what they believe or why they believe it, therefore in lieu of having to defend their beliefs they tend to use trite aphorisms, which they do not understand, to justify their untenable position.

You,

Again, there is a certain elitist perspective evident in this passage, as if someone's disagreement with the reality structured from your personal perspective has less value.. almost a dismissal of those without your personal level of educated oratory skills, or without your level of structured logical thought processes.. i am reminded of a story by one of my mentors, we were at a Tournament and marveling at some of the masters and Sifu said, in his comical broken accent, "ahhh, not so much.. i see fisherman weaving net while talking to others, his skill so much that he master of Life".. it has long been my belief that my perspectives are subject to revision and change based on new evidence/experiences, that to hold to "absolutes" rejects potential.. again, i respect and honor consistency, i simply do not assume anything as "fixed"..

The elitism you perceive is a consequence of you processing what I have said according to your own preconceived notions. This is not a criticism; it is a statement of fact that accords with all of us. We all process information according to our own experiences and preconceived notions.

Please remind yourself of other pertinent facts that have repeatedly occurred that might conflict with your conclusion here. Primarily, I always entertain and address respectful disagreements with reasoned and thoughtful responses, regardless of how well, or poorly, the disagreement is worded. My style has always been direct and this is what some find offensive, arrogant, etc. I understand this and accept the consequences of my actions.

There is more value to be placed on reasoned responses/arguments than random opinion. Informed opinions provide the possessor with greater benefit than opinions that are randomly held due to social indoctrination and blind acceptance without questioning. I contend that to demonstrate as clear a reasoning method as I am able will provide a greater benefit for those who wish to learn to think clearly and thoughtfully than the detriment that occurs to those who get their feelings hurt. Those who get their feelings hurt by my direct manner are responsible for themselves. They will receive a greater benefit when they adjust themselves rather than attempting to adjust the things they don’t like about the world in general.

I understand that as a student of Tai Chi you are somewhat conditioned to prefer a soft pliant mannerism and presentation of yourself over a direct and consequently, somewhat harsher presentation. This follows the general principles of Tai Chi. I appreciate this about you and I find you generally succeed very well at this form of personal presentation. While I appreciate and admire this manner of personal presentation, I adhere to the representation of Tao that is reflected within Yin-Yang. I prefer neither Yin nor Yang over the other. At times I am just a comfortable being aggressive as I am at being passive, assertive as submissive, forceful as compliant. There is a time for each according to context. It would be of greater personal benefit to bring oneself into accord with all the principles of Tao and seek to avoid over specialization in one aspect or principle over another.

Concerning opinions:

As I have previously stated, not all opinions can be accorded the same value. On an emotional level we may adhere to a form of polite discourse that is preoccupied with not offending others. However, it is my contention that to be overly concerned with the feelings of others is to water down facts and to avoid important information for the sake of not upsetting another. I do not perceive this to be a greater good under some conditions; therefore one will witness a variety of response methods used by me according to the context at the time.

If an individual believes fire is not hot and I avoid insisting to them it is hot because I don’t want to hurt their feelings, I may indeed help them to feel better about themselves and less foolish for the moment, but to what overall good? By saving their feelings it may make them feel better temporarily, but they lose the benefit of the truth of the matter and risk greater embarrassment and harm when they discover their original opinion was false.

I do not just state an opinion; I give reasoned and thoughtful evidence for the opinion. This is of more value than a belief held for no understandable or demonstrable reason. I never insist that others accept my conclusions, but that does not mean I will not defend them either. A conclusion that cannot be reasonably defended with reasoning and metaphorical illustration cannot be considered of the same value for a thinking person as one without apparent foundation. There is no way to determine the truth of an opinion that cannot be demonstrated and therefore its overall value cannot be accurately determined. Do we want to adhere to principles that work and are in accord with True facts or are we just as happy to believe anything that makes us feel good at the time? Some prefer the happy feelings and that is good for them according to their own purposes, but to insist that others adhere to this foolishness is also an absolutist view, which you appear to wish to avoid, and does not provide for the greater good under most circumstances/contexts.

We must ask ourselves what is more important, saving someone’s feelings or pointing to true facts about Tao. Truth is more important than feelings. Once we understand the Truth our hurt feelings dissipate and we enjoy greater overall benefits. Sometimes the truth hurts, we don’t like it, but it is of greater overall benefit to understand truth than to live an illusion.

You may ask, well how can I be so sure my conclusions are true? I would respond, how can you be sure th