What Are the Key Differences Between Realism, Idealism, and Mysticism?

[BoulderHead]

I think I understand now

Yes, check out this definition;

2. In epistemology realism represents the theory that particular things exist independently of our perception. This position is in direct contrast to the theory of idealism, which holds that reality exists only in the mind.

Taken from; http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0841276.html

The claim is made there that Realism is in direct contrast with Idealism, which would by default, place it in a sub-category of Materialism. Yet, failure to address that these sensations originate in material things, to use your words, means that Realism does not in fact belong under Materialism, which would by default place it back under Idealism.

Am I getting the proper understanding here?

There is an interesting boundary between Materialism and Idealism, and when I read of a philosophy which seems to straddle the bridge I cannot help but attempt to place it more on one side than the other.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
2. In epistemology realism represents the theory
that particular things exist independently of our
perception. This position is in direct contrast to
the theory of idealism, which holds that reality
exists only in the mind.

In that case, that is TOTALLY not what I'm
talking about.
I hate assumptions, they just fill your brain
like the grey matter...

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Yes, check out this definition;

2. In epistemology realism represents the theory that particular things exist independently of our perception. This position is in direct contrast to the theory of idealism, which holds that reality exists only in the mind.

Taken from; http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0841276.html

The claim is made there that Realism is in direct contrast with Idealism, which would by default, place it in a sub-category of Materialism. Yet, failure to address that these sensations originate in material things, to use your words, means that Realism does not in fact belong under Materialism, which would by default place it back under Idealism.

Am I getting the proper understanding here?

There is an interesting boundary between Materialism and Idealism, and when I read of a philosophy which seems to straddle the bridge I cannot help but attempt to place it more on one side than the other.

I do think you have the proper understanding of what distinguishes Materialism and Idealism.

On Realism, well if what you say is correct, and some forms of philosophy that present themselves under the name of 'Realism' do in fact acknowledge the fact that our sensations come from material entities that exist outside of our mind, and independend of our mind, it is clear that such a philosophy can be placed under materialism.

However, it can be assumed that under the name of Realism go more then one philosophy, and some of them might take another point of view on that.

I can not judge this, I don't have inside knowledge about all those philosphies that present themselves as Realism.

But I do think it makes clear that for sake of clearity, we should use the better definef term materialism, instead of realism when mentioning the main categories of philosophy.

 

[heusdens]

Look at this definition of Realism:

"realism, in philosophy. 1. In medieval philosophy realism represented a position taken on the problem of universals. There were two schools of realism. Extreme realism, represented by William of Champeaux, held that universals exist independently of both the human mind and particular things—a theory closely associated with that of Plato. Some other philosophers rejected this view for what can be termed moderate realism, which held that universals exist only in the mind of God, as patterns by which he creates particular things. St. Thomas Aquinas and John of Salisbury were proponents of moderate realism. 2. In epistemology realism represents the theory that particular things exist independently of our perception. This position is in direct contrast to the theory of idealism, which holds that reality exists only in the mind. Most contemporary British and American philosophy tends toward realism. Prominent modern realists have included Bertrand Russell, G. E. Moore, and C. D. Broad."

The fact is that what realism is or not is, and how it relates to idealism and or materialism, is confusing.

The idea of Plato (the existence as what is called 'universals') can be considered a form of Objective Idealism. The distinction between 'extreme realism' and 'moderate realism' is that the first claims that 'universals' exist on their own, and the latter claims that 'universals' only exist in the mind of God.

Both ideas, however, contrast the ideas of materialism, in which the world in primary instance has to be understood in terms of matter and motion, and that only in secondary instance mind exist. "Absolute ideas" (wether that of 'universals' that exist outside of the human mind or 'universals' that exist in the mind of God) must be placed as having no material existence, but are just constructs of the mind itself.

Therefore realism is in clear contrast with materialism.

The reason why this philosophy under this name has come up, is to present idealism in another form and under another name, and in order to hide it's actual content (the idea that in primary instance no material world exists, but mind).

 

[Royce]

wuli etal. I just coined a phrase while revisiting this thread to read the lastest post to define my and possibly BH's and your philosphical positions, "SITUATIONAL PHILOSOPY", as in situational morality or ethics that was so in vogue a number of years ago. Was it the Jusuits that came up with that or were they just blamed for it. Since I just invented it I can call it anything I want and define it any way I want. The biggest advantage to holding to Situational Philosophy is the holder can ligitimately argue any point at any time reguardless of what the topics is, was, or originally intended to be. Situational Philosophers unite! On second thoughts that an oxymoron isn't it.
Sorry I'm in a flippant mood again, must be my medication.

 

[wuliheron]

What you are referring to is usually called Situational Ethics. Personally, I don't believe in situational ethics either. I make no bones about it, I'm an amoral anarchist. My personal thoughts and feelings about things are just that...mine alone and not part of any particular philosophy.

As for your medication bothering you, is that an example of situational ethics on your part?

 

[BoulderHead]

The fact is that what realism is or not is, and how it relates to idealism and or materialism, is confusing.

Yes it is…

The reason why this philosophy under this name has come up, is to present idealism in another form and under another name, and in order to hide it's actual content (the idea that in primary instance no material world exists, but mind).

This is why I mentioned ‘doublethink’ were a philosopher might be lead to hold two conflicting ‘truths’ simultaneously. It would be an aside, but I think this happens all the time, and might explain what happened to the word ‘liberal’…
I am just paranoid and suspicious enough to view some of these happenings as deliberate.

Question is, how are the group of us to proceed from here?

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Royce
...the holder can ligitimately argue any point at any time reguardless of what the topics is, was, or originally intended to be.

And I just hate it when someone does that

Sorry I'm in a flippant mood again, must be my medication.

Oh, don't worry, you are not alone.

 

[Royce]

Actually, wuli. I was just setting up room for plausable denial, a way to escape responsibity if there were any reprecussions or accect credit if ther were any benefits, cudos.

 

[wuliheron]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason why this philosophy under this name has come up, is to present idealism in another form and under another name, and in order to hide it's actual content (the idea that in primary instance no material world exists, but mind).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Yes it is…
This is why I mentioned ‘doublethink’ were a philosopher might be lead to hold two conflicting ‘truths’ simultaneously. It would be an aside, but I think this happens all the time, and might explain what happened to the word ‘liberal’…
I am just paranoid and suspicious enough to view some of these happenings as deliberate.

Question is, how are the group of us to proceed from here?

I did not bring up Realism as a way of obfuscating the issue of Idealism. What utter nonsense, especially in light of the fact that I brought up Idealism as a distinct school.

To imply that Realism is Idealism in a different guise is just plain silly. Certainly Plato originally intended Realism to establish something like Idealism, but Aristotle demonstrated the philosophy's real strength lay in the sciences. Plato's dream had to wait until Hegel expanded upon Aristotle's invention of formal logic to create Idealism.

Being based on observation, Realism can be said to take a minimalistic stance while Idealism takes an infinitely grandios one. Materialism is just one small finite step beyond Realism in that it proposes the existence of matter is real.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Royce
Actually, wuli. I was just setting up room for plausable denial, a way to escape responsibity if there were any reprecussions or accect credit if ther were any benefits, cudos.

I can't help but notice this still doesn't answer the question (LOL).

 

[BoulderHead]

I did not bring up Realism as a way of obfuscating the issue of Idealism. What utter nonsense, especially in light of the fact that I brought up Idealism as a distinct school.

I wasn’t thinking of the matter as you attempting to obfuscate anything, understand that.

There is ‘naïve’ realism, and there is ‘scientific’ realism (and no doubt a thousand other types as well). I hold the view that a ‘mechanical’ materialism and idealism are the two basic philosophical standpoints from which every other point of view has been derived, and that is the best I know how to describe them at present.

The problem I have with realism is that there are too many variations of what is ‘real’ and what is not. This is not even a possibility in the materialism that I am speaking about, so materialism is more basic and simple. Realism, on the other hand, has to be further defined;

Check this;
“Similar to idealism, realism is also one of the oldest philosophies in western culture and its origin began with the Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) in ancient Greece.”
Taken from; http://www.churchofsatan.org/realism.html

Also this;
For critical realism, the real is ultimately dependent on spirit (from God, or an objective, absolute idea; thus it is an objective idealism).
For internal realism the real is the material of our mental processes, which amounts to a subjective idealism.
Taken from; http://www-vms.physics.umn.edu/~marquit/steig133.htm


I have read your original post again and would like to offer my thoughts on the categories listed, but I felt I first needed to clarify my position on what branches I consider ‘rudimentary’…

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by BoulderHead

There is ‘naïve’ realism, and there is ‘scientific’ realism (and no doubt a thousand other types as well). I hold the view that a ‘mechanical’ materialism and idealism are the two basic philosophical standpoints from which every other point of view has been derived, and that is the best I know how to describe them at present.

The problem I have with realism is that there are too many variations of what is ‘real’ and what is not. This is not even a possibility in the materialism that I am speaking about, so materialism is more basic and simple. Realism, on the other hand, has to be further defined;

That Realism might need to be further defined is not the issue on the table. The topic is what are the rudamentary schools of thought that describe the various positions people posting here take? The first webpage you posted is pretty dubious imo, but without reading the entire manuscript the second one looks a bit more authentic. Both fail to mention paradox and Asian thought in general, therefore excluding half the world from the debate as you are obviously intent on doing as well.

What is an isn't real is, of course, highly debatable. Idealism takes the distinctive stance that the paradoxical concept of God is the ultimate source of reality while materialism takes the distinctive stance that matter is the ultimate source of reality. The only reason I singled out and distinguished Idealism from Realism and not Materialism is because the term realism inherently implies and emphasises Rationalism which the paradoxical concept of God defies. So extreme an interpretation of Realism is Idealism that to equate the two any more becomes absurd.

 

[BoulderHead]

Both fail to mention paradox and Asian thought in general, therefore excluding half the world from the debate as you are obviously intent on doing as well.

Hmm, yes, If I can reduce the definitions into something dualistic, then that is what I want to do; Good/bad, light/dark, yin/yang, true/false, etc, which brings me to a post you made in another thread;

Truth is also the complimentary opposite of falsehood and derived from experience as much as observation. In other words, without the concept of "false," truth has no meaning and taken together the two present a third concept we call "abstraction." Thus, truth is best defined as an abstraction derived from observation or experience.

Here you have done no less, imo, then what I wish to do. If I were to straddle the gap between truth and false would I not find paradox?
Perhaps then my categories would be;

1) Materialism
2) Idealism
3) Paradox

Would that be satisfactory to you?

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by BoulderHead

Here you have done no less, imo, then what I wish to do. If I were to straddle the gap between truth and false would I not find paradox?
Perhaps then my categories would be;

1) Materialism
2) Idealism
3) Paradox

Would that be satisfactory to you?

The problem as I see it is that this is a reductionist approach to definitions which is inherently exclusive. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against reductionism which can be invaluable, but holistic definitions are inherently inclusive and, therefore, reductionist definitions can be extrapolated from them. Hence, my attempt here to define the rudamentary schools of thought in a holistic fashion first.

 

[BoulderHead]

What I’m leaning towards is the view that ‘holistic’ and ‘rudimentary’ are antagonistic towards each other. If rudimentary implies the underlying principles then a holistic approach might not be warranted.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by wuliheron
I did not bring up Realism as a way of obfuscating the issue of Idealism. What utter nonsense, especially in light of the fact that I brought up Idealism as a distinct school.

The statement I made about the intend of Realism (present some obfuscating philosophy, and hiding it's Idealist content) was not pointed directly to you, but was intended to the founders of that obfuscating philosophy.

To imply that Realism is Idealism in a different guise is just plain silly. Certainly Plato originally intended Realism to establish something like Idealism, but Aristotle demonstrated the philosophy's real strength lay in the sciences. Plato's dream had to wait until Hegel expanded upon Aristotle's invention of formal logic to create Idealism.

Aristotle also argued against the ideas of Plato, because they were too abstract. Categories, like horses, don't exist without real horses, for example.

Realism can not be seen as a form of materialism because they fail to recognozize that a material world exists independend of our observations.

Being based on observation, Realism can be said to take a minimalistic stance while Idealism takes an infinitely grandios one. Materialism is just one small finite step beyond Realism in that it proposes the existence of matter is real.

Idealism does not recognize even this very finite step, but proceeds from 'Absolutes'. But since these 'Absolutes' have no way of having tested themselves against the real world (since such a an independendly of the human mind existing material world, is not recognized as such) this is a kind of knowing that can not be testified. Absolute Knowing meats Absolute Ignorance there...

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
What I’m leaning towards is the view that ‘holistic’ and ‘rudimentary’ are antagonistic towards each other. If rudimentary implies the underlying principles then a holistic approach might not be warranted.

Reductionist thought is inherently antagonistic not only towards holistic thought, but other forms of reductionism as well. It's what is normally called fundamentalism which is notorious for its aggression. Holistic thought, on the other hand, leans more towards inclusivity as I already said which makes it less antagonistic.

This is very apparent in the distinctions between eastern and western religions particularly. In Asia the religious tend to claim they are all talking about the same thing, just using different words. In the west, they all tend to claim everyone else is going to hell and anyone who fights the good fight is going to heaven.

 

[Royce]

I've been reading the lastest post again this morning. I seem to agree with you again, wuli, but that is only natural due to my Platonic leaning. Odd how they are so similar to Asian thought. That may be why I'm Semi-Platonic. I prefer to take a holistic few of things also. I don't believe that we can understand anything by reductionism unless we use it as a tool to discuss one particular point in one particular frame of reference. That may be useful at times but IMO has little to do with the reality in which we live, the forest and the tree thing again.
As for my medications, I really don't think Tylanol Allergy, insulin, and a diuretic are mood altering or require Situational Ethics. There I answered your question so quit trying to put me on the spot. I'm a moral Libertarian in my mind so I guess that put me a little left of you unless your so far right that your on my left or surround me being both left and right as on a circle. Probably deep in my heart of hearts I'm an anarchist too as I hate and mistrust all government.

 

[BoulderHead]

I’d like Wu Li and Royce to read the following link and tell me what they think about it;

http://www.kheper.net/realities/speculation.htm

When I kick a rock I ask myself; is this rock ‘real’ (meaning strictly material). If it isn’t just a piece of matter, then what is it? I am still leaning toward only two basic options; Materialism and Idealism. If there is another alternative (Holistic?) then I need to have it explained to me.

Now they say, and this probably completely not we’re talking about here;

Eastern monism has thus come to represent a third alternative for those who find Materialism and Monotheistic dualism options that are two shallow and limiting
Taken from; http://www.kheper.net/topics/eastern/appeal.htm

I have found a claim (above) that a third alternative is being said to exist. I look at this, however as a misunderstanding because this ‘monotheistic’ business is really just a form of idealism to me. So, who can help clear things up for me?

[edit]
I would edit that to clarify that while there is of course a difference between religion and philosophical idealism, any placing of 'god' outside the bounds of a tangible 'material' existence does not lend this viewpoint as being Materialist in nature. It might, however support god as something idealistic, who created the material world. Seeing only the two options from my western biased position, this begs the question of what god would be comprised of, and if god is some conscience entity that does not require a physical shell to exist inside of, then just what is going on here?

What exactly is the ‘holistic’ stuff, if not a mix of Materialism and Idealism?

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Royce
I've been reading the lastest post again this morning. I seem to agree with you again, wuli, but that is only natural due to my Platonic leaning. Odd how they are so similar to Asian thought. That may be why I'm Semi-Platonic. I prefer to take a holistic few of things also. I don't believe that we can understand anything by reductionism unless we use it as a tool to discuss one particular point in one particular frame of reference. That may be useful at times but IMO has little to do with the reality in which we live, the forest and the tree thing again.
As for my medications, I really don't think Tylanol Allergy, insulin, and a diuretic are mood altering or require Situational Ethics. There I answered your question so quit trying to put me on the spot. I'm a moral Libertarian in my mind so I guess that put me a little left of you unless your so far right that your on my left or surround me being both left and right as on a circle. Probably deep in my heart of hearts I'm an anarchist too as I hate and mistrust all government.

Diuretics definitely are mood altering substances, nothing like a good dump to start your day off on the right foot. However, I was not trying to put you on the spot, my sense of humor can be pretty earthy if you haven't noticed yet--I live on a commune where we compost everything. :0)

Amoral Anarchists are as far left on the political spectrum as it gets, so you are a bit to the right of me. That is, unless you live in a communist country where the scale is reversed and Amoral Anarchists are considered to be as conservative and far to the right as you can go. Of course, being an anarchist I see myself as a-political and outside such catagorization altogether.

Plato was an interesting fish who defined the qualitative tone of western fundamentalism still evidenced to this day. His pupil, Aristotle, later defined the quantitative logistics of western fundamentalism. Together they established the philosophical and scientific foundations of western civilization that led to the development of the modern world.

 

[Royce]

A diuretic is to help get rid of excess water which can cause high blood pressure, but your point is well taken a good pee is almost as good as a good dump.
Of course I knew it was humor or at least what passes for humor to us. I was just responding in the same vein.( is that the word I want or just misspelled?)
As far as the circle is concerned I'm even more confused than before as I'm sure you meant me to be. You are intensionally hard to pin down even on the circumference of a circle, just as I am; but, I still think that you have me surrounded, outflanked and covered where we over lap.
I find it amazing that after all these centuries of thought that we can still trace the roots right back to Plato and Aristotle and still have to argue and debate the merits of each view depending on the circumstanses. Talk about getting down to basics.

Boulderhead: I read it. I even regonized some of the words. I'm afraid it is far too deep for me to understand or contemplate. I am much more down to Earth and my reality is much simpler than that. That obviously puts me way down at the bottom of the chart. I'm afraid I took Buddha to heart when I read that he said to let God and Heaven take care of themselves and live the here and now in the moment. I'm far too busy surviving and trying to come to terms with myself and my own thoughts and ideas to go that deep into spiritual cosmology though I know the Spiritual and Physical Cosmology are one in the same but different aspects or faces or levels of it. I am not that familiar with Hindu or Indian thought to give an opinion. I would have to read it several times and contemplate it and meditate on it for a while; but, I don't see that any of that matters at all to us lowly evolving beings. Maybe much later when we reach much higher levels of consciousness it will matter and we will understand it. Right now it is far to esoteric for me to even consider. But, thanks. I did enjoy reading it and being exposed to it. I liked the way he brought Hinduism (if that's the right word) and Buddhism together.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Royce
A diuretic is to help get rid of excess water which can cause high blood pressure, but your point is well taken a good pee is almost as good as a good dump.

Better out than in my grandfather used to say. :0)

As far as the circle is concerned I'm even more confused than before as I'm sure you meant me to be. You are intensionally hard to pin down even on the circumference of a circle, just as I am; but, I still think that you have me surrounded, outflanked and covered where we over lap.
I find it amazing that after all these centuries of thought that we can still trace the roots right back to Plato and Aristotle and still have to argue and debate the merits of each view depending on the circumstanses. Talk about getting down to basics.

I really don't intend to be difficult to pin down, it's just the nature of the subject. Rather than being a simple issue that can be easily related in non-vague terms such as "The table is black", my philosophy focuses on attitude as all Asian thought does. Hence, it is not so much the complexity of the issue that makes it difficult for many people to understand, but their own attitudes.

The vast majority of humanity suspects the validity of their own feelings and attitudes and, to a certain extent, rejects them in favor of abstract thoughts. In a very real sense, this is an inherent and acquired habitual pretense. There ain't nobody home but us chickens and to reject the validity of our feelings is, ironically and humorously, to assert their validity.

As often happens in the case of pretenses and habits, they can backfire on us when reality slaps us in the face. This is the essential mistake of the website BoulderHead has posted as well, it attempts to interpret Asian thought purely in abstract intellectual terms when the issue on the table is attitude. I laughed out loud when the author started calling certain viewpoints "stupid", it was an example of the "pot calling the kettle black."

Another example, the author of BH's website describes reality as ineffable. This is often something that perplexes westerners about Taoism: If the Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao, then why do Taoists talk about it? Likewise, if the author of BH's website believes reality is ineffable, why does he persist in writing about it? The answer is that reality is not ineffable nor is the Tao, but they are as difficult to explain to someone whose eyes are closed to them as anything else. Lao Tzu expressed this situation with his characteristic dry humor-that-is-not-humor:

. Imperceptible

When the great man learns the Way,
He follows it with diligence;
When the common man learns the Way,
He follows it on occasion;
When the mean man learns the Way,
He laughs out loud;
Those who do not laugh, do not learn at all.
Therefore it is said:
Who understands the Way
Can seem foolish;
Who progresses on the Way can seem to fail;
Who follows the Way can seem to wander.
For the finest harmony can appear plain;
The brightest truth can appear colored;
The richest character can appear incomplete;
The bravest heart can appear meek;
The simplest nature can appear inconstant.
Love, perfected, has no climax;
Art, perfected, has no meaning.
The Way can be neither sensed nor comprehended:
It transmits sensation
And transcends knowledge.

 

[BoulderHead]

if the author of BH's website believes reality is ineffable, why does he persist in writing about it?

Hmm, yeah that seems a good point. I thought the first page was better spoken. He didn’t seem as prejudiced there to me when he started off with;

Reality by its very nature is inconceivable and indescribable

Even this I suppose might be making too much of a claim, yet compare that statement to;

The Way can be neither sensed nor comprehended:
It transmits sensation
And transcends knowledge

Are there not some similarities?

Hence, it is not so much the complexity of the issue that makes it difficult for many people to understand, but their own attitudes.

This reminds me of a line from a movie; “I seek not to know the answers, but to understand the questions” I always thought that was a good statement to make me turn inwards and look at myself.

As often happens in the case of pretenses and habits, they can backfire on us when reality slaps us in the face.

Yes, but this ‘reality’, I’m still trying to understand all the options. Perhaps this is something I will not be able to do.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Even this I suppose might be making too much of a claim, yet compare that statement to;

The Way can be neither sensed nor comprehended:
It transmits sensation
And transcends knowledge

Are there not some similarities?

Yes and no, there are similarities but they are not exact by any stretch. For example, the Tao is not ineffable (ie unspeakable) and can be inferred from nature.

This reminds me of a line from a movie; “I seek not to know the answers, but to understand the questions” I always thought that was a good statement to make me turn inwards and look at myself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As often happens in the case of pretenses and habits, they can backfire on us when reality slaps us in the face.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but this ‘reality’, I’m still trying to understand all the options. Perhaps this is something I will not be able to do.

That's putting it mildly! There is just no way to understand all the possibilities! In order to hear the question, much less understand the question, requires acceptance. When we are without doubt, without hesitation, without conflict, preconceptions, or preoccupations then the questions and answers arise naturally and harmoniously. In fact, this is what distinguishes sincere questions from rhetorical ones.

 

[Royce]

Wuli and BH, I can remember the first time I read the Tao. I was as I said before in my late teens and of course a product of western culture in unfamiliar with asian thought. It was incomprehensable to me. Try as I might I couldn't gab a hold of it and study it to better understand and know. I knew, I guess intuitively that there was something of great substance and importance there but I just couldn't gett a hold of it. Finally, I just gave up. I think now that some of Tao was sinking in despite my western tendency to wrestle it to the ground and disect it. I quit trying to undstand it and make it make sense to me and I simplt read it. I read it over and over again, at least some passages unil I knew without understdanding or wrestling or trying. I loved and still love that book.
Much later when an adult with a family and having a pretty good grasp of Zen at least by western standards, I read Tao again. What a difference, what a happy, funny, joy. I laughed out loud at times, chuckled quitely to myself at others but always had a smile on my face and in my heart and soul, especially when I remember how I struggled vainly with it the first time when I was so young. I will soon read it again after I finish Alan Watts's Tao The Watercourse Way.
I'm not bragging; trying to impress you with how enlightened I am.
Just the opposite, I'm trying to illustrate how hard it is for us westerners to get it. That the hardest thing for us to do is let go and let it happen. Read the book enjoy the book and let it happen.
We can't make it happen we can't even get a good hold of it muchless wrestle it to the ground.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Royce
I'm not bragging; trying to impress you with how enlightened I am.
Just the opposite, I'm trying to illustrate how hard it is for us westerners to get it. That the hardest thing for us to do is let go and let it happen. Read the book enjoy the book and let it happen.
We can't make it happen we can't even get a good hold of it muchless wrestle it to the ground. [/B]

Actually, wrestling with the Tao Te Ching is what it is for. It is written in a particular style that encourages those of argumentative disposition to argue with the text. Eventually the reader realizes subconsciously at least that it is futile to do so, that the text really doesn't assert anything but just describes, and has great depth.

I did the same thing and some Asians say I shouldn't be talking about this aspect of the Tao Te Ching--its like giving away the ending to a good movie. :0)

 

[Royce]

From "Tao The Watercourse Way" by Alan Watts.

"However, a one-sidedly literary and academic approach to the Tao gives nothing of its essence, so that to understand what follows the reader must now, and each subsequent reading, allow himself to be in the proper state of mind. You are asked - temporarily, of course- to lay aside all your philosophical, religious, and political opinions, and to become almost like an infant, knowing nothing. Nothing, that is , except what you actually hear, see, feel, and smell. Take it that you are not going anywhere but here, and that there never was, is or will be any other time than now. simply be aware of what actually is without giving it names and without judging it, for you are now feeling out reality itself instead of ideas and opinions about it. There is no point in trying to suppress the babble of words and ideas that goes on in most adult brains, so it if won't stop, let it go on as it will and listen to it as if it were the sound of traffic or the clucking of hens.
Let your ears hear whatever they want to hear; let your eyes see whatever they want to see; let your mind think whatever it wants to think; let your lungs breathe in their own rhythm. Do not expect any special result, for in this wordless and idealess state, where can there be past or future, and where any notion of purpose Stop, look and listen... and stay there awhile before you go on reading."

I guess that your saying that only by wrestling with it can we learn that wrestling with it is futile. That we have to let go and let it happen. Reminds me of what a lot of Christians are say now-a-days; " Let go. Let God."

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Royce
I guess that your saying that only by wrestling with it can we learn that wrestling with it is futile. That we have to let go and let it happen. Reminds me of what a lot of Christians are say now-a-days; " Let go. Let God."

Exactly, it is what is usually called surrender and what philosophical Taoists often prefer to call acceptance. Whether God or just our natural spontenaity it always arises from a calm and relaxed serene attitude that allows us to take in existence as it presents itself.

Quiet

Great perfection seems incomplete,
But does not decay;
Great abundance seems empty,
But does not fail.
Great truth seems contradictory;
Great cleverness seems stupid;
Great eloquence seems awkward.
As spring overcomes the cold,
And autumn overcomes the heat,
So calm and quiet overcome the world.

 

[Royce]

Hush, listen, there it is again.

It can plainly be heard above the din,

Of cannon roar and dropped pin,

Hush, listen, let the silence come in.