I'll be the first to admit that I have been known to use too many labels. I know what I am trying to convey and it's simply easier to affix a label as opposed to providing a long drawn-out explanation of each point proffered. At times, I'm sure I utilize this stratagem out of laziness and I figure that most readers will understand my general drift.
I understand, however, that labels are imprecise and they mean different things to different people. One of the biggest problems with the use of labels is that many a discussion or debate focuses on how each person defines the various labels employed and not on the substantive matter at hand. While I'm not here to declare that, from this juncture forward, I will never use a label again, in this particular post I will try my best to avoid them.
The purpose of this entry is to allow you, the reader, a closer view of what The Rambling Taoist (Trey Smith of South Bend, WA) thinks and believes. This post particularly is important for newer readers. It will allow you the opportunity to see where my passions lie and the kinds of things that motivate me to write what I write.
Religion
I don't believe in a god or gods. From my standpoint, there is no compelling evidence to indicate that such a being exists. However, if I turn out to be wrong on this point, I am thoroughly convinced that this being is NOTHING like the images presented by the Abrahamic religions. Their depictions of a supreme entity more resemble an out-of-control teenager than a divine being.
I don't believe in the concepts of heaven or hell and I take a very dim view of sin, original or otherwise. I think it should go without saying -- but I'll share it anyway -- that I am no fan of religion, especially institutionalized religion. In my view, religion is responsible for far more minuses than pluses.
I do believe their is some underlying essence. What is it? I have no idea and I'm at peace with the fact that I have no idea. Since I believe that this essence, force or principle is unknowable, I no longer spend any time trying to figure out what, I believe, is beyond human comprehension.
The best I can do is to observe the manifestations of this unknowable Way via the natural world. It is by trying better to understand the nature of nature that I can see the periphery of this unknown essence.
Science
I think science has a lot to offer humankind. As a multi-faceted discipline, it allows our species to study and learn about the world we live in. In a boxing match between religion and science, I would bet the house on the latter every single time!
But for all the importance I place on the scientific method, I do believe it suffers from a severe limitation. Science is good at describing, but not defining, life. We can often arrive at the who, what, where, how and when, but science is just as clueless as religion when we try to answer why.
I think we kid ourselves when we imagine that either science OR religion will one day be able to ascertain the answer to why. As indicated above, I think the answer to this query is beyond the human capability to comprehend.
So, while I do believe that science serves a most useful function in human civilization, I don't think it is the end-all, be-all of life. I would contend that a person can learn as much as science provides by spending a bit of time each day in meditation or deep contemplation.
Political/Social
I support the overall perspective that the programs, initiatives and policies of society should aim to benefit all, regardless of who or what a person is. One of the prime reasons I am staunch supporter of universal health care is that it would serve every member of a given society. Whether an individual was young or old, rich or poor, male or female, citizen or resident, religious or non-religious, black, white, red or purple, they would know that their community cared about their health and that necessary services would be provided.
I realize that one of the chief criticisms of programs that benefit all equitably is that there will be some individuals who others deem are not worthy of receiving such benefits. I won't argue this point. No matter what kind of system is developed, there will always be some people who try to cheat or game it.
Be that as it may, I would much rather allow all the undeserved (a truly subjective designation, mind you) to receive every benefit that is offered than to see one deserving person go without. In my book, that is what compassion is all about.
On another hot-button issue, I don't own a gun nor any type of defined weapon. If I had my way, guns would be outlawed. Yes, I know the argument that guns don't kill, people do, but I can't remember ever hearing of a drive-by knifing or spearing.
I understand, however, that labels are imprecise and they mean different things to different people. One of the biggest problems with the use of labels is that many a discussion or debate focuses on how each person defines the various labels employed and not on the substantive matter at hand. While I'm not here to declare that, from this juncture forward, I will never use a label again, in this particular post I will try my best to avoid them.
The purpose of this entry is to allow you, the reader, a closer view of what The Rambling Taoist (Trey Smith of South Bend, WA) thinks and believes. This post particularly is important for newer readers. It will allow you the opportunity to see where my passions lie and the kinds of things that motivate me to write what I write.
Religion
I don't believe in a god or gods. From my standpoint, there is no compelling evidence to indicate that such a being exists. However, if I turn out to be wrong on this point, I am thoroughly convinced that this being is NOTHING like the images presented by the Abrahamic religions. Their depictions of a supreme entity more resemble an out-of-control teenager than a divine being.
I don't believe in the concepts of heaven or hell and I take a very dim view of sin, original or otherwise. I think it should go without saying -- but I'll share it anyway -- that I am no fan of religion, especially institutionalized religion. In my view, religion is responsible for far more minuses than pluses.
I do believe their is some underlying essence. What is it? I have no idea and I'm at peace with the fact that I have no idea. Since I believe that this essence, force or principle is unknowable, I no longer spend any time trying to figure out what, I believe, is beyond human comprehension.
The best I can do is to observe the manifestations of this unknowable Way via the natural world. It is by trying better to understand the nature of nature that I can see the periphery of this unknown essence.
Science
I think science has a lot to offer humankind. As a multi-faceted discipline, it allows our species to study and learn about the world we live in. In a boxing match between religion and science, I would bet the house on the latter every single time!
But for all the importance I place on the scientific method, I do believe it suffers from a severe limitation. Science is good at describing, but not defining, life. We can often arrive at the who, what, where, how and when, but science is just as clueless as religion when we try to answer why.
I think we kid ourselves when we imagine that either science OR religion will one day be able to ascertain the answer to why. As indicated above, I think the answer to this query is beyond the human capability to comprehend.
So, while I do believe that science serves a most useful function in human civilization, I don't think it is the end-all, be-all of life. I would contend that a person can learn as much as science provides by spending a bit of time each day in meditation or deep contemplation.
Political/Social
I support the overall perspective that the programs, initiatives and policies of society should aim to benefit all, regardless of who or what a person is. One of the prime reasons I am staunch supporter of universal health care is that it would serve every member of a given society. Whether an individual was young or old, rich or poor, male or female, citizen or resident, religious or non-religious, black, white, red or purple, they would know that their community cared about their health and that necessary services would be provided.
I realize that one of the chief criticisms of programs that benefit all equitably is that there will be some individuals who others deem are not worthy of receiving such benefits. I won't argue this point. No matter what kind of system is developed, there will always be some people who try to cheat or game it.
Be that as it may, I would much rather allow all the undeserved (a truly subjective designation, mind you) to receive every benefit that is offered than to see one deserving person go without. In my book, that is what compassion is all about.
On another hot-button issue, I don't own a gun nor any type of defined weapon. If I had my way, guns would be outlawed. Yes, I know the argument that guns don't kill, people do, but I can't remember ever hearing of a drive-by knifing or spearing.
re: "I do believe their is some underlying essence. "
ReplyDeletehave you ever researched perennial philosophy?
Perennial philosophy
Perennial philosophy [...] is the notion of the universal recurrence of philosophical insight independent of epoch or culture, including universal truths on the nature of reality, humanity or consciousness (anthropological universals). [....]
The term was popularized in more recent times by Aldous Huxley in his 1945 book: The Perennial Philosophy.
re: "In a boxing match between religion and science, I would bet the house on the latter every single time!"
depends on what you're betting. if you're betting that science is closer to the truth, you're probably correct. if you're betting that the masses of people will believe it in your lifetime, you just might lose your money. ;-)
Vatican Rewrites History On Galileo
After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right: It Moves
so ya might have a bit of a wait to collect your bet! ;-)
--sgl
I think you're begging for comment and dialogue here, so...
ReplyDeleteReligion...I think is largely about metaphor, even internal alchemy/neidan instruction (which my teacher said is all metaphor), but unsophisticated people (what the TTC sometimes calls ordinary people) take it at face value to their detriment.
Science...as many terrible things are unleashed by science (and its cousin technology) as by practitioners of organized religious zealots.
Health care...I worked for a few years for Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Hawaii. Unfortunately health care is an economic problem, and in our more or less socialist state there are substantial , if not perfect, safety nets. Still the question is how do we pay for all this? When I was a kid, I once wondered why people had to buy food. "Couldn't everyone just get what they need by doing what they could?" My mother just raised her eyebrows and smiled at her Marxist-Leninist baby . So now we have food banks, McD's and Holy Foods...not TOO many people starve, although nutrition is another story, which leads back to health care.
Still the question, how is this paid for? I do know a former Hughes Aircraft engineer who moved to Sweden for the health benefits, which suggests an answer. But I don't expect the US to realign its budget priorities any time soon to support this model.
Guns -- yes, people kill people. But didn't someone just stab a bunch of children in a school somewhere. It's Chinese-style school-shooting.
So long as the government has guns, everyone should be able to have them. I am still hoping for a revolution, you know... ;)
ReplyDeleteHuge topic, unfortunately my head hurts, so I cannot address them all.
ReplyDeleteBut regarding guns, most drive-by shootings, particularly those that are gang related, involve unregistered firearms, that is, illegally obtained firearms. Outlawing guns would not prevent criminals from obtaining them, it would only deter law abiding citizens from obtaining them, just the sort of people who are less likely to misuse firearms in the first place.
As long as guns exist, criminals will always find a way to obtain them, whether they are legal or not, because the last I checked a criminal is not too concerned with law and order to begin with. I'm not a huge fan of guns, but restricting all gun ownership to military and law enforcement sounds like the makings of a police state, the kind of situation you would find in a fascist dictatorship, and I'm not too keen on that idea either.
I've been thinking about similar things lately.
ReplyDeleteI do not consider science's lack of prescription or suggestion as a flaw, because I don't expect those things from it. It simply tells us how.
I don't agree with your last statement about it. Contemplation, theorizing and even extensive observation alone cannot contribute the knowledge necessary for the technological advancements we've made. Theories, no matter how well formed, are regularly shown to be false and scientists are frequently surprised by their findings. We must actually experiment to learn more about the world, because we can't know many of its details and functions otherwise.
This does not need to be done. We don't need to add that much complexity. However it has greatly improved the quality of many of our lives.
Personally, I view Tao as a complement to science that can provide insight about living efficiently. I'm writing about it all right now.
Guns. They do make damage more accessible, but people will do damage regardless if they want to, through whatever means available. In an ideal world, people would all master acceptance, release desires, and pacify anger. While I think people are much more capable of that than they display today, that world will never be wholly realized. There will be people who stray and don't care, and who will be dangerous. I won't limit my own options for self-defense.
I admire understanding nonresistance even in the face of harm, but would advise self-defense. Life is a condition necessary for understanding, wisdom and their having purpose altogether. Without it one can't contemplate what course of action or response to take at all.
Look forward to reading more of yours.
I was just watching a new Donnie Yen movie (Legend of the Fist: The Return of Chen Zhen), in which he takes out a German WW1 machine gunner with a dagger and some great kung fu skill. Sure, it's choreographed fantasy, but the idea is so cool. There's something so elegant about Donnie's Yen's self defense, against the scientific machine-gunner. It's a metaphor, and probably goes back to Sun Tzu.
ReplyDeleteInteresting movie.
SGL,
ReplyDeleteIsn't ALL philosophy perennial?
Baroness,
In my view, life itself is a metaphor.
As to science, it's the same as with guns: Science doesn't kill, people use it to kill.
Brandon,
Personally, I favor the Gandhian model of revolution.
Cym,
Yes, criminals will always have access to guns. So what? They also have access to bombs. Does that mean every citizen should have one too?
How 'bout we include self-defense classes in schools? Teach children the martial arts.
Bane,
When I meant to write is that meditation can achieve a similar class of insight as that of science. It's just of a different realm.
Do you have a blog?
I do. It can be found at ithiary.blogspot.com. The quality is inconsistent, but I've been making efforts to improve it.
ReplyDelete