As I've related to you many times before, one of my most cherished activities is going to a desolate beach to meditate with the ocean. However, I don't spend all my time mesmerized by the waves; I also spend time examining and contemplating sand.
Every expanse of beach contains untold numbers of grains of sand and no two of them are exactly the same. That by itself is rather mind-boggling. Yet, while each grain is different, they fit together to form this thing called a beach. When mixed with a certain amount of water, they bond together to allow a human, horse or vehicle to travel across the beach as if it was concrete.
I was thinking today that it's a good thing that sand doesn't behave like humans. If it did, it might become next to impossible for people like me to frolic in it.
If sand behaved like humans, certain grains would up and announce that all grains needed to look and behave the same way. Of course, there would be a plethora of such "schools" and so each grain would have to decide which belief system to join. In time, the grains would migrate to those areas where the other grains looked and acted as they do.
Some areas of the coast might be devoid of sand, while other areas would pile up so high as to look like a skyscraper. There would also be a question of sand that doesn't occupy a beach near the ocean. Could the sand of a river or a pond join with ocean sand? Would such grains be excluded because they didn't possess the right pedigree?
In time, each similar band of sand would begin to form territories with barriers to keep out unwanted immigrants. Some of these "nations" would attack other "nations" because they valued their enemy's location or climate. There would be major sand wars and each group would court the ocean -- the sand God -- to curry favor as each sought to vanquish the other.
What human would have the courage to venture out unto beaches at war? Every step might mean sinking to the bowels of the earth or sliding into the ocean where the waves would take you out to sea. Our beaches would become off limits and the few brave souls who ventured out would do so at their own peril.
Needless to say, I'm glad that grains of sand have chosen not to mimic humans and, instead, embrace the Way.
Every expanse of beach contains untold numbers of grains of sand and no two of them are exactly the same. That by itself is rather mind-boggling. Yet, while each grain is different, they fit together to form this thing called a beach. When mixed with a certain amount of water, they bond together to allow a human, horse or vehicle to travel across the beach as if it was concrete.
I was thinking today that it's a good thing that sand doesn't behave like humans. If it did, it might become next to impossible for people like me to frolic in it.
If sand behaved like humans, certain grains would up and announce that all grains needed to look and behave the same way. Of course, there would be a plethora of such "schools" and so each grain would have to decide which belief system to join. In time, the grains would migrate to those areas where the other grains looked and acted as they do.
Some areas of the coast might be devoid of sand, while other areas would pile up so high as to look like a skyscraper. There would also be a question of sand that doesn't occupy a beach near the ocean. Could the sand of a river or a pond join with ocean sand? Would such grains be excluded because they didn't possess the right pedigree?
In time, each similar band of sand would begin to form territories with barriers to keep out unwanted immigrants. Some of these "nations" would attack other "nations" because they valued their enemy's location or climate. There would be major sand wars and each group would court the ocean -- the sand God -- to curry favor as each sought to vanquish the other.
What human would have the courage to venture out unto beaches at war? Every step might mean sinking to the bowels of the earth or sliding into the ocean where the waves would take you out to sea. Our beaches would become off limits and the few brave souls who ventured out would do so at their own peril.
Needless to say, I'm glad that grains of sand have chosen not to mimic humans and, instead, embrace the Way.
Uh, I guess that means that when a species finds one ecosystem not convenient to live in, or when different species struggle over the same habitat, or when two male animals fight over a female or over territory, they're not embracing the Way.
ReplyDeleteBeware making the Way something human.
Why would you ask that? Each life form has its own nature. The nature of sand is different than the nature of humans which is different from the nature of lions which is different from...
ReplyDeleteIn your post, you say:
ReplyDelete"I'm glad that grains of sand have chosen not to mimic humans and, instead, embrace the Way"
You imply that humans acting according to human nature do not embrace the Way.
According to your comment, you should simply let humans fulfil human nature and sand fulfil sand nature, since both are thus embracing the way.
I would disagree that most humans act according to our nature. Our actions tend to derive from our egos which places a barrier between the essential individual and the Way.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you about what essential human nature is. Suffice it to say that while I'm not going to give an entire argument as to why in this comment due to time restrictions, you don't give an argument for your view of human nature in the post either.
ReplyDeleteQuote: If sand behaved like humans, certain grains would up and announce that all grains needed to look and behave the same way.
ReplyDeleteLike leftists, communists, etc., do by default.
Thank God we have grains of sand to look up to as role models.
CB,
ReplyDeleteWhile you are indeed correct that this specific post does not explain my view on human nature, I think the body of my blog does. What do you think I've been writing about for the past 5 years? It was one of the key underlying theses.
Crow,
Your response indicates to me that you don't understand communism, socialism or leftist thinking. What part of Marx's great thought -- from each according to his ability, for each according to his need -- do you not understand?
RT I feel the same way about you.
ReplyDeleteI can not imagine which intellectual vacuum you inhabit.
I understand leftism far better than you do, since I have been subjected to its reality for many years. I despise it.
Your own view is purely theoretical, since no advanced state of leftism exists in the USA. Not yet, anyway.
That you can imagine Tony Blair to be a rightist shows beyond any doubt that you are very, very ill-informed.
It might be best if you left this subject alone.
No good can come of it.
Leftism - as you are now demonstrating - does nothing but divide.
Whereas taoism, uninterpreted by a leftist view, does nothing but unite.
I notice that you didn't answer the question.
ReplyDeleteYou are right: I had mistaken this marxist blog for a taoist one.
ReplyDeleteHad I initially realized it was actually marxist propaganda, I would never have dropped by.
The only thing I have to observe about leftism in general is that in its wake, millions die and there is nothing but hatred of man for man.
Not opinion. Fact.
And still the deluded fail to see the delusion.
What do you mean by "millions die"? Sweden -- heck most of Europe -- is far to the left of the US and they have a higher standard of living, higher life expectation, lower infant mortality and full health care coverage. They work less hours, but have comparable productivity and they receive more services to boot.
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't sound like "hatred of man for man" to me.
OK RT. My argument in brief: you think it's not true human nature to struggle and to be particularistic. Yet we see that nature everywhere exhibits struggle and particularism. You think man's egoism is at the root of his warring. I say man's egoism is at the root of finding struggle objectionable, because his egoism makes him overly concerned with preserving himself, i.e. his own ego, at the expence of the beauty of the whole.
ReplyDeleteI thought the recent post on which I left the comment with the excerpt from Nietzsche's Zarathustra illustrated this well.
RT--Also, it is arguable that Marxism does require an unnatural state of concordance amongst all human beings. Remember the concept of species-being--Gattungswesen. Marxist theory can only be fulfilled if everybody freely decides to do what is necessary for the community. Think about it: Marx once said that in communist society, I can hunt in the morning, fish in the evening, criticise in the afternoon, etc. I can do anything I want. But he assumed that just as many people would hunt as would be needed to fulfil the community's need for dead animals, and so forth. There is no call for assuming this. Another example: there will be no ownership of the means of production. The state will wither away. This, again, requires some sort of magical human concordance. The history of humanity is the history of struggle amongst human particularities. The only thing that could instantiate Marx's vision is terror. (And as for the Swedish example, remember that eventually Marxist theory encompasses the entire world. As long as Sweden is rich and Haiti is dirt poor, we are nowhere near realising Marx's vision.)
ReplyDelete