Trey Smith
(This is the final installment of this brief series. If you missed them, you might want to read Parts I, II, III & IV first.)
I've provided you with a brief glimpse of some of the factors that have coalesced into the makeup of my personality. For better or worse, I am a rebellious freethinker who tends to chafe under autocratic authority. I am also a nonconformist who long ago gave up caring too much about what others think of me -- mainly because I tend to guess incorrectly anyway.
I became this way due to my upbringing and my weird brain chemistry mixed, of course, with my various experiences in life. But isn't that true of each of us?
There really is no such thing as a normal or average life. Each of us faces challenges of one sort or another. Each of us erects hurdles that impede our progress. Each of us possesses blind spots and each of us must struggle to make heads or tails out of the wealth of information that we can never expect to fully comprehend.
At this point in my life, it seems natural that I would have chosen philosophical Taoism as my worldview framework. Much of Taoist thought is at odds with the modern world. The two most notable sages -- Lao Tzu and, particularly, Zhuangzi -- come across to me as nonconformists and there is a certain bit of anarchy in the system they espouse.
Most importantly, unlike almost every religion I know, there is no strictly orthodox position. There is no creed one must swear allegiance to. There are no rituals one must follow day-in and day-out. Philosophical Taoism stresses the notion that we each must discover our own paths on our own terms; it's the perfect belief system for a freethinker like me!
And, let's be honest. Whatever belief system[s] each of us adopts throughout our lives must necessarily meet one or more of our needs. It must match up somewhat with the structure of our personality. There must be some sort of intrinsic reason that we identify with it.
And so, I find it very unremarkable that, once I discovered and studied philosophical Taoism, I would embrace it. It's not part of the American mainstream and neither am I! For the western mind, it is far afield and I have lived my life far afield. It stresses a form of introspection and I am a very introspective individual.
When you add all this together and then you factor in Zhuangzi's rebellious anti-authoritarianism, it fits me like my own skin.
While I understand what you mean by "fiting like my own skin" the challenge of Taoism is not just to fit in, but to change and develop (spiritually, if I may say so). My question is did you change or grow in any way because of Taoism, or did you just settle into what you were in the first place. Without Taoism, would you be any different?
ReplyDeleteThat is an excellent question that we should each be asking ourselves. Philosophy should be life changing, not life enabling. Thank you Baroness Radon for this thought provoking comment of yours. I now need to go within my closet of prayer and ask that question to myself.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Baroness asks a good question. I think the discovery of Taoism helped me to formulate where I was at, philosophically speaking. It provided a framework to take a bunch of disparate ideas and notions that seemed to be bumping around in my head without much rhyme or reason.
ReplyDeleteIt has provided me with a focus and, the deeper I have delved into it, it has challenged me to look at some issues that I might not have explored otherwise.
Now Sean suggests that philosophy should be life-changing. Says who? That in and of itself is a value statement. It suggests to me that his own philosophy wasn't doing much for him and so he has set off to find something different.
Sean, if that is the path YOU have chosen, then great. I'm happy for you. That doesn't mean that everyone else must follow the same path you have chosen for yourself.
Those last two paragraphs should reference Shawn, not Sean. My brother's name is Sean and so I'm used to spelling it that way without even thinking of it. No offense intended, Shawn.
ReplyDeleteHey Trey, I am not offended. I agree with you Trey regarding anyone can choose whatever path they wish. Observing the lives of human beings, that is quite obvious. I personally have a little Zen background that leads me to think in the terms of challenging our way of thinking. Zen exercises tend to takes us out of our box or skin, not the other way around. And you are correct, dissatisfaction with my skin lead me to question my skin. Dissatisfaction, typical is a normal process of spiritual growth. Even the Buddha one day was met with dissatisfaction that lead him on his search out of his box.
ReplyDeleteCertainly the "explanatory" qualities of a philosophy (or religion) are important. When something makes sense of reality (as for me the concepts of Taoism serve to) that is the first step. But then what? I know there are some here who will object, but Taoism as a whole (beyond Lao-ism and Zhuang-ism) does challenge us to cultivate, to become realized people. In western terms I would call that "flourishing". I see a lot of people who find in Tao an excuse to withdraw and "do nothing" and "float."
ReplyDeleteMy point is, you don't find a philosophy that "fits"; you find IN philosophy the impetus to take positions, to self-correct, to refine yourself (and I make an oblique reference to alchemy here), to have a life of meaning, and then be able to let it go.
Of course we make value statements! Trey makes them all the time through his ongoing Marxist critique of politics and the economy, the world of competing values manifest. By assessing them--our assumed values and statements about them-- we refine our own values. I make such statements too, as my own Tao pursuit is of a spiritual nature, and not in the world of red dust.
I find statements like "That's a value statement!" as annoying as the phrase "It's all good". I want to continue with this, but it is getting off topic and may be the seed for a full post.
I never claimed that I don't make value statements. My point is that Shawn made his as an objective fact and I was merely pointing out that his statement was nothing more than his subjective opinion.
ReplyDelete"Philosophy should be life changing, not life enabling." I do not interpret that as a statement of "objective fact." I think it is quite clear that it is his opinion, one which I happen to share, more or less, although I would say AND life enabling.
ReplyDeleteI am a little surprised that no one has challenged MY statement about "settling into what you were in the first place," which is of course a certain Taoist principle. The trick is determining what that is, because it's not what you think it is. It is peeling back all the acquired conditioning and congenital burdens to find your "true self." Some people might call that enlightenment; Taoists call it return. It is the wisdom we find only in silence.
"I lift my eyes to Coleskop and fear no evil But if I don't watch my step I will fall into an aardvarkgat."
ReplyDeleteQuoted from the blurb of "Stoep Zen"["stoep" is Afrikaans for veranda (& patio); "aardvarkgat" literally earth-pig-hole or the hole made by the digging of an anteater type animal found in Africa].