Axis of Taos

[Straw Dog]

Greetings!

The Taoist sage Zhuangzi tended to downplay the notion of wu-Wei and instead focused on the equally paradoxical notion of shi-fei. It can be translated as this/not this, right/wrong, or being/nonbeing. It involves how we label things. We have to select what is "this" (the label) and what is "not this." This naming is also "right" relative to the label or this "is (label)" and the rest "is not (label)." It's a contrast theory of language. Every judgment is a shi-fei judgment and neither can be abandoned.

Zhuangzi talks about an "axis of Taos" from which the possibilities of shi-fei assignments are endless. Anything could be classified as a shi and anything as a fei. No judgment can be made from the axis itself. However, once one is made we step off the axis and commit to a path which guides and constrains all future shi-fei judgments. For Zhuangzi, the making of definitive distinctions, such as between "right" and "wrong", is utterly futile since all possibilities are possible, depending on one's situation or viewpoint.

Groovy!

 

[DreadFish]

Good stuff man, thanks for that post.

This is something I must observe!

 

[DreadFish]

Do you have any online resources that would be good for reading Chuagntzu?

 

[Iti oj]

Soo all things nature are in the situation and not in its state....?

 

[DreadFish]

Soo all things nature are in the situation and not in its state....?

Along the lines of reality lacking static objectively factual dichotomies.

 

[Straw Dog]

Soo all things nature are in the situation and not in its state....?

There is no perspectiveless perspective. Meaning is relative to an individual's point of view and particular shi-fei grid. The Great Tao is on a level beneath the level of distinction making so nothing absolute about it can be said. Even saying "The Great Tao is on a level beneath the level of distinction making" distorts it and makes it into two things.

 

[Straw Dog]

Do you have any online resources that would be good for reading Chuagntzu?

Sorry, I'm unable to share links at the moment. I'm mostly drawing from texts I have. Perhaps later I can find some to share.

 

[Iti oj]

Thats what i thought, one of the things i loved about Tao

 

[crossfire]

Do you have any online resources that would be good for reading Chuagntzu?

Here's one I use
The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu translated by Burton Watson, Terebess Asia Online (TAO)

 

[DreadFish]

Here's one I use
The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu translated by Burton Watson, Terebess Asia Online (TAO)

Ah, the complete works; this will do well. AND they have a neat little acronym for their organization

 

[crossfire]

Ah, the complete works; this will do well. AND they have a neat little acronym for their organization

you might get some strange pings from it

 

[Straw Dog]

Here's one I use
The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu translated by Burton Watson, Terebess Asia Online (TAO)

Thanks for sharing!

 

[Straw Dog]

It can be quite difficult trying to properly understand and convey notions from one culture and language into another. The notion of shi-fei can take time to grasp as some of its translations may be misinterpreted. It's definitely taken me some effort, and some non-effort, to let it sink in. For instance, when translated as 'being/ non-being', it may carry connotations to a Western mind of existence/ nonexistence, but it has more to do with definition, labeling, naming, contrasting, and distinguishing between objects or actions from a particular perspective. Shi can be used kind of like the word 'believe' except that you believe statements and you shi objects or actions, such as the right object to use in a situation or the right behavior. All 'judgments' are shi-fei judgments and not other meanings of the term. This certainly makes it tricky to discuss in English.

Anytime we step off the axis of Taos we engage in making shi-fei judgments that define our reality and determine all future judgments about objects and actions. At first it may seem ideal to always be on the pivot of the Tao. If there's any place where the mind may find solace from contending with a shifting reality it is in the center of consciousness. Presumably this would be accomplished by ceasing to pass any judgment on objects or actions, but that would involve making a judgment not to make judgments or a judgment that judgments are wrong. The mystical fallacy is either believing in or attempting to force a permanent pivot. This conflicts with human nature however as language and judgments are natural. We may have moments of rest, re-creation, insight, etc. on the pivot but we always must return to the cycle, even if that involves judging the pivot to be 'good' and all judgments to be 'wrong'. There is nothing so grandiose as seeking an absolute cosmic Enlightenment in philosophical Taoism. That sounds exhausting.

This can be contrasted with the other extreme end of hyper-rationalism. This approach judges that we should have a perfect judgment or to create a conceptually flawless theory of everything. It build distinctions upon distinctions in hopes of uncovering a perfect Reason. The problem arises in creating artificial notions when language becomes increasingly abstract and displaced from the direct context of experience. It takes on a reality of its own and it can take one far off the axis. I'm still working on how this reflects on science's search for the unified field theory. I could speculate that we could end up with many, if not hundreds, of different yet equally viable theories of everything which explain the empirical evidence, more or less, to the same degree from different perspectives. Even if a cosmic perspective was possible, it would be irrelevant to our personal perspectives since it would be so far removed. At any rate, too much trivial abstract knowledge may make our thinking way too uptight if we don't figure out a way to let it float around more freely.

The middle way involves making judgments when necessary in order to facilitate one's inner nature, but never grasping at them or getting lost in abstract judgments beyond the context of experience. The sage always lets go of her judgments after they've served their purpose and returns to the pivot to rest and recharge, or start anew. When it is time to act once more, she doesn't cling to the axis either and revolves naturally around it again. She does what needs to be done and then returns to rest. She is aware that all things are in flux and that she must work with her nature in the flow of things. This involves avoiding confusion in overly abstract notions without a contextual/relative basis as well as avoiding the temptation to become attached to a cosmic philosophy with promises of a perfect Reason or a perspectiveless perspective.

As far as I can tell, this seems to be Zhuangzi's perspective. So far I have to say I think that crazy old Chinese dude may have been on to something.

I. Dictionary Entry