image by Joe Shillington via Unsplash
I found myself embroiled in yet another dialogue with sexuality dogma recently.
🤦🏽♂️
Seriously though.... I find it's not so much the content of what these tools argue, moreso that they actually believe that their way is The Right Way.
This is what plays out in the current marriage equality debate too.
And the "gender war".
And the war against Muslims, and anyone that basically isn't white-Anglo.
And politics.
And...... etcetera etcetera ad infinitum
"But Pete," I hear you say, "you bang on about Taoism all the time. Isn't that taking a side?"
No. What I'm drawn to Yin-yang theory and philosophical Taoism for is the inherent pluralism in the idea.
It presupposes the unique nature of EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUAL. And, that this is normal and natural.
Just let that sink in for the moment.
Not only is every individual unique (and that can extend out to all species of life too), but so too will be their experiences, background, thoughts, feelings, and opinions.
Again, just let that sink in.
And it presupposes that 'harmony' comes from allowing each and every individual to able to express and live their uniqueness.
For me, holding to these relativistic and pluralistic ideas is the antidote to dogma, and homogeneity, and hegemony.
Just like i can observe patterns in nature, I can also recognise patterns in groups of people, or in an individual.
But because the universe (in a physics sense, not in a rainbow-pooping unicorn new-age sense) is constantly in flux, that individual may change within the pattern, becoming an exception to the rule.
In the Taoist paradigm, there is no need to concern oneself with Truth (that is, the absolute, static, unchanging truth)..... for in many ways it doesn't actually exist.
I feel OK with uncertainty. And sometimes I don't.
Others struggle with this level of uncertainty. And that's also OK, and valid for them. And maybe sometimes that too will change, in different times, places, and contexts.
Even in saying this, I recognise that what I'm saying is inherently untrue.... that maybe there is a context where plurality and relativity doesn't exist, that there is a static unchanging Truth.
And I'm OK with that too.
Because that's the nature of the Tao.
Some may say, "that's idealistic and unrealistic!"
I say, "what are you afraid to move and think that way for?"
For me, it's not just an idea — it's an application of how I move and engage in the world. My Qi Gong & Tai Chi practice has helped in this way.
Like water, it's hard to grasp: once you think you have it, it slips through your fingers.
😊🙏🏽☯️
Thanks for reading. I invite you to upvote, comment, resteem, and follow @peterloupelis
Something is not quite right with the feed so I'll answer here. Perhaps a little 'leakage' from things I'm writing about.
It's not a long move from spiritual plurality to social plurality. Say, the difference between Wilber's upper left quad and the lower right. Interior of an individual to the social systems those experiences generate.
I'm very concerned about what is happening in Europe and N.A. because it looks to be heading towards civil war. Maybe, 'they' can manage it but my opinion is things are only going to get much worse.
I hope that helps a little in clarifying my thinking.
And that's why if someone says they hate gay marriage, I just tell them not to have one.
My only issue with the plurality you mention, with everyone expressing their individuality, is when it collides with someone else's expression. I mean, maybe someone truly wants to murder someone. And that person truly doesn't want to be murdered. Then what?
But that's the only real flaw I've found with it. I'm a total pluralist at heart. The uncertainty can be scary, but it just feels more natural to me. My favorite professor used to say you have to learn to just embrace the Mystery. He used to say that's his religion, too: Mystery.
I don't know much about Taoism other than the bare basics, so reading this makes me want to look into it again.
Hi... thanks for the comment.
And I’m with you on the inevitable flaws in the notion of plurality (or polyculture). Murder, violence, rape.... what if the murderer’s True Nature is to murder others? Etc.
Interestingly, Confucius and Mencius (later Confucian philosopher) tackled this problem explicitly.
Mencius’ argument was that all people are born inherently good, and it’s family/society/cicrcumstance which adds layers of conditioning which influence their behaviour as an adult. His solution was to educate and cultivate the Virtues so that the true goodness lying within each person could come out.
Confucius (who started all this) brought in the concept of wu-wei, and then later Taoist influenced by Confucian philosophers used this idea to solve the problem of ‘evil’.
Most of us in the west who know of the concept of wu-wei know it be something along the lines of “effortless action”. The idea is that if your true nature is being expressed, then all your actions will be effortless and life will flow.
But what happens when your true nature bumps up against mine? Confucius solved this by stating that part of acting in a wu-wei manner involves also behaving in a manner that does not impede another from behaving in a weu-wei manner.
Confucianism and Taoism make a big deal about relationships, the inherent paradigmatic understanding that everything exists in relationship with other things - it’s very proto-ecologism, hints of systems-thinking.
So you can’t be living effortlessly, unless your true nature is being expressed AND it isn’t being impinged on or impinging upon others.
It’s tricky to live this way.
But I don’t think that makes it somehow not worth trying one’s best.
Thanks for the conversation!
😊🙏🏽☯️
Thank you so much for taking the time to write all of that out! I really appreciate it.
That argument makes a lot of sense to me. I'm really happy to have seen it worked out like you showed. I don't know much about Taoism and Confucianism explicitly, but I do have a good feel for Eastern worldviews, so it makes perfect sense to me. Especially when you throw in that it's all about relationships, too.
Hi, peterloupelis! I just resteemed your post!
I can also re-steem and upvote some of your other posts
Curious? Check out @resteembot's' introduction post
PS: If your reputation is lower than 30 re-blogging with @resteembot only costs 0.001 SBD
It's a good post and I agree with it mostly but there is a problem with immigration. ALL countries have to become plural otherwise there is a massive hypocrisy happening. What shouldn't Japan, China, and Israel open their borders to ALL people at the same rates that immigration is happening in western Christian nations?
Do that and I'll be on your side but until that's done these policies are those of hypocrites!
I agree. Why aren’t they?
I guess I’ve always been brought up with the notion that leadership is best done by example.
😉
Why aren’t they?
Most likely because there are hidden agendas involved.
Maybe.
Maybe not.
If the agenda is hidden, then no one can actually state what the Truth (with a capital T) is except for those people who actually are part of the agenda and actively hiding it. And since they’re hiding it, we’ll never know unless they tell us.
And therein lies the epistemological double-bind.
😊🙏🏽☯️
Sure, but the double bind can be wrapped up in the double-cross of duplicity. There is no reason that I can see that China should not fully open their borders to every single nation and tongue on earth to the same degree it's happening in the west.
Agreed.
Am curious: how do you find the question of immigration relevant to the discussion from my original post.
I’m interested in your conceptual jump.
I've got to say that your response to lilylion above sounds very much like my culture of mastery which is a foundational part of the education system in my G.C.C. It's also similar to my thinking that anarchy can really only be implemented within a culture focused on mastery.
Agreed.