In response to last night's Tao Bible post, a commenter attempted to take me to task for my statement that the development of hierarchies solely is a human methodology. (This is not the first time someone has quibbled with me over the use of this word.)
One of the chief points that both Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu return to again and again and again is that Tao is impartial. Tao treats the ten thousand things as straw dogs. Another way to state this concept is to say that Tao gives everything equal value which, of course, negates the idea of value in the first place.
For value to hold meaning, certain things must be valued more or less than certain other things (e.g., I value my friendship with Steve MORE than I value my friendship with Doug, but I don't value it AS MUCH as my friendship with Igor). Consequently, a hierarchy is comprised of elements in which some components are valued more or less than others depending on a set of criteria chosen by the being making the valuation.
An impartial being values all of creation equally which means that the impartial being "values" nothing.
As far as I have been able to determine, the ONLY beings who utilize valuations are humans. Therefore, I stand by the point I made in the previously cited post.
With all due respect, you seem to have a problem with the word hierarchy. Hierarchy doesn't mean that one is "better" than the other. It is just the organization of nature with all parts being equal. Consider ants. What organizes them into a natural hierarchy? Why is there a queen, army-dudes, and workers? Hierarchy doesn't equal evil or non-harmonious. It is just what it is in the Tao. Again, I think you have a moral concept in your mind on what the Tao is suppose to be like. It appears that in your mind hierarchy has no place in nature because you think this reality should not morally exist in the harmony of the Tao. In your mind hierarchy represents non-harmony but it is harmony.As I noted in my response to this comment, it appears to me that the commenter is confusing the word, hierarchy, with the word, order.
hierarchy:I fully accept the notion that the cosmos is in order; each piece falls into place. But order is differentiated from hierarchy because the latter requires valuation, while the former does not!
1. A body of persons having authority.
2.
a. Categorization of a group of people according to ability or status.
b. The group so categorized.
3. A series in which each element is graded or ranked.
4.
a. A body of clergy organized into successive ranks or grades with each level subordinate to the one above.
b. Religious rule by a group of ranked clergy.
order:
1. A condition of logical or comprehensible arrangement among the separate elements of a group.
a. A condition of methodical or prescribed arrangement among component parts such that proper functioning or appearance is achieved
b. Condition or state in general.
One of the chief points that both Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu return to again and again and again is that Tao is impartial. Tao treats the ten thousand things as straw dogs. Another way to state this concept is to say that Tao gives everything equal value which, of course, negates the idea of value in the first place.
For value to hold meaning, certain things must be valued more or less than certain other things (e.g., I value my friendship with Steve MORE than I value my friendship with Doug, but I don't value it AS MUCH as my friendship with Igor). Consequently, a hierarchy is comprised of elements in which some components are valued more or less than others depending on a set of criteria chosen by the being making the valuation.
An impartial being values all of creation equally which means that the impartial being "values" nothing.
As far as I have been able to determine, the ONLY beings who utilize valuations are humans. Therefore, I stand by the point I made in the previously cited post.
well, it depends. animals also value their own lives and the lives of their young to be more valuable than the lives of other animals. anyone who interacts with wild animals or livestock or even pets can see that this is true... the lion kills the zebra, even though neither animal is inherently more worthy of life, but the lion values her survival more than the zebra's. the zebra, too, avoids being killed even though his sacrifice would mean another animal's survival. (but it is also my opinion that nature is composed of competitive harmony, not simply harmony OR competition)
ReplyDeletethe difference is that humans are the only ones who see some species/classes/races/genders, etc... as INHERENTLY more valuable. personally, i don't think a human life is worth more than an ant's, except that my perspective makes me biased in favor of my own life. other humans, however, will often argue that an ant is lesser than a human simply because humans are better. to me that is a very flawed perspective.