“Universal truth must apply to everyone… otherwise it is not universal.”
~ The Monk With No Name, Bulletproof Monk
Relativity is bullshit.
With all due respect to Albert Einstein, relativity has distinct applications in the field of science, but in terms of morality and ethics it has to learn its proper boundaries. I am not denying that there are definitely some ethical concepts that will forever be perceived in shades of grey; nor am I denying that there are ideals that some hold to be self-evident truths but are, in actuality, just another attempt to impose one person’s opinion on other people’s lives. But you have to admit that somewhere, at some level, there exists a Truth that is absolute, irrefutable, and unquestionable.
After all, even the most avid proponent of moral relativism holds some beliefs about the way people should act towards other people – not just a general preference for a certain kind of behavior, but a specific set of ideals that define the limits of what people should and should not do to each other. If you don’t believe me, ask such a person if they think that cooking babies alive and eating them is an ethical thing to do. I sincerely doubt that any would tell you, “It’s not the thing for me, but if someone else did it then it would be okay.” You’re much more likely to hear some statement about how people shouldn’t commit such atrocities, especially on innocent babies. And anytime you hear the word ‘should’ or ‘ought,’ it’s more than just a strong feeling about the subject; it’s a statement about a person’s values and beliefs.
So at some level, everyone believes in some set of rules that all people should follow; some unwritten code that defines how we ought to behave. The challenge is figuring out which rules are really absolute and which ones are merely relative.
The Chinese speak of a great thing (actually, I suppose it would be the greatest thing) called the Tao. Literally translated as ‘the Way,’ the Tao is the flow and order of the universe, the way in which all of nature can be ever-changing and yet remain in perfect balance. It also represents the code of behavior that, when followed, sets a person on a path that is in harmony with this natural order. If the Tao is heeded, it leads to a way of life that is good for all people – in other words, it is the sum of all absolute Truth.
But how do we get to know what the Tao is? If you combine the values of every creed, from Islam to Christianity, from Buddhism to Judaism, from Hinduism to Paganism, certainly you’ll find lots of contradictions. But somewhere in the whole mess of things I think you’ll find a set of values that each religion has in common, a code of behavior that all people of all faiths can embrace. I doubt that this alone would reveal the entirety of the Tao… but it sure would be a good place to start.
17 comments:
(I wrote this in the spirit of discourse. If the text format warps my words such that you think I'm being a douche, please remember how I am when we speak in conversation, and how I toss out all sorts of ideas and questions ;) )
"But you have to admit that somewhere, at some level, there exists a Truth that is absolute, irrefutable, and unquestionable."
Well, the first thing I thought at this is "why?" Why do we need to presuppose that there is something that is irrefutable, and if we do, why is it something difficult to determine? Why can't it be simply that we believe there is something unquestionable?
You pretty much answer the first question in your second (or third?) paragraph. IE: How would you like your baby? (Well done, please). Although I would say that for certain cultures, in certain times, given certain beliefs about the value of human life (Pulling an example out of my ass, lets go with human sacrifice in South America), eating babies could be a perfectly acceptable way to conduct oneself. We certainly don't like it, but then, that's us.
As to the second question, there are certainly things we don't question within our culture. So I guess within cultures there are things that are absolute, but is it possible that a culture could take any shape imaginable? I haven't really seen any evidence for or against that, myself. But there can be large variances between culture. Perhaps given enough time and space completely alien cultures could develop? It seems reasonable to me given what we know about evolution of separated species.
My own personal view is that universal truth is: Homo Sapiens make rules and they feel inclined to follow said rules because everyone wants to belong. So the universal truth becomes: People are herd animals. It's not even entirely universal. It's more reserved for humans. I suppose one could also argue that Entropy happens to everything (echoing the Dao). There are things that people internalize in such a deep way that these things become an unquestionable part of their identity (See Christians who freak out when you question their deeply held beliefs). I wonder if Universal Truth, or the belief in such, is of that kind?
Perhaps you're trying to personify the universe? If that were the case, one could take some of the spirit of the Dao and say "The universe is." Perhaps it doesn't teach us anything other than that we like to attribute meaning to stuff? Perhaps the universal Truth is that everything outside of us is a mirror?
To add a more personal flavor to my outlook, basically I currently believe that we create meaning for ourselves, and so people as a whole sort of set the boundaries of Truth. Perhaps it could be summed up by the words: "Truth is a mental concept created by humans." This realization wasn't terribly satisfying for me, but I also embraced it with a fair bit of peace. I'm still open to looking for Truths that are universal, I just don't think they're as profound or interesting as I once did. I find it funny that I still hold this concept of integrity if the above is the case; I guess integrity becomes staying true to ones beliefs.
To follow up, I don't think it's difficult to determine the moral distinctions -within- a culture if you are in said culture.
I'd also like to clarify my third paragraph. I said:
"Well, the first thing I thought at this is "why?" Why do we need to presuppose that there is something that is irrefutable, and if we do, why is it something difficult to determine? Why can't it be simply that we believe there is something unquestionable?"
I would like to refine it to say: Well, the first thing I thought at this is "why?" Why do we need to presuppose that there is something that is irrefutable? And if we do need/want to, why is it something that has to be difficult to determine? Why can't it be simply that we believe there is something unquestionable? Why can't it be something simple, mundane, uninteresting, and worthy of little notice? Addition is a simple yet profoundly important concept to mathematics. A foundational truth of it may be 2+2=4. But really, who cares? It's what we build with that simple equation that is important to us. So to with Universal Truths. They are so simple as to be relatively useless (or mundane or uninteresting) for the types of life-defining things you seem to be looking for.
Then again, we as a people generally believe that the foundation is where one can make the most important changes.
Also!
"But how do we get to know what the Tao is? If you combine the values of every creed, from Islam to Christianity, from Buddhism to Judaism, from Hinduism to Paganism, certainly you’ll find lots of contradictions. But somewhere in the whole mess of things I think you’ll find a set of values that each religion has in common, a code of behavior that all people of all faiths can embrace. I doubt that this alone would reveal the entirety of the Tao… but it sure would be a good place to start."
It'd be interesting for sure, but who is to say that what you distilled from all of that would even be 'right' or 'absolute'? What I'm wondering is, who gets to judge what you come up with? If it's you, then it could as easily be me or the next person, and I'd bet that you'd get different answers and variations on that distilled bit of Truth. So either we open it up to lots of interpretations, thereby destroying the distilling work one has done, or we say "Man doesn't have the capacity to judge this well" or "It is a meaningless question as there is no meaning outside of ourselves."
Also! Also! How do we know that what we distill from all the world religions is actually, well, good? Or even that it would be better than the sum of what we started with?
I wonder if we don't need to get closer to the Dao because in trying to find it, we're already on it. Getting closer may just be realizing that trying to find our way is -making- our way. You know, all that "The way cannot be named, but is has a name" stuff. The fact may be that there is indeed something, but we can never know it, so we are left trying to find our way. It is in that that I find my answer. There is no possible way to know the answer, so I merely try my best to be a moral man and to continue seeking to refine myself. I accept that there is no answer (that I can know), so I stop asking the big question. I instead focus on the mundane things I do know and work with those.
Is that at all making sense?
Also!!!
Perhaps trying to find the one true way is looking at the question backwards. Perhaps one needs to choose a way and then change it as discoveries are made?
I blinked, then came back to a wall of text. Give me a few days to read it all and I'll come back to it - I promise!
I've read all that you've asked, my friend, and all the questions seem to come down to this one thing: "Yes, yes, but why do you think that this is the case?"
The answer is simple: I don't know. To believe in the Tao, in a path that cannot be walked because it is defined by Truth that cannot be understood, speaks to a part of me that comes before thought and before emotion.
You're right; my example is flawed because it is a definite way of trying to capture an infinite concept. Anything I can come up with to attempt to illustrate the Tao will fail at some level because the Tao can't be defined. The sum of all religious beliefs will not lead to a complete idea of the Tao, of absolute Truth, because no matter how many people cooperate we are still less than the Tao and thus incapable of comprehending it. But to do so would be far better than this senseless bickering that is taking place in the world today.
I doubt that even the sum total of all human knowledge would lead to an understanding of the Tao.
I also believe that it's not we who define the Tao; it's the Tao that defines us.
My final comments on this: in the end, I believe that there is a Truth that existed before the first of us became self-aware, and will continue to exist after we have driven ourselves to extinction.
Your questions are thought-provoking, as ever - but ultimately they are intellectual questions about matters that exist in the space before thought. I wish I could make this make more sense, but I can't. Call it instinct or intuition or whatever you wish to call it, but I simply know that this kind of Truth exists. I just don't know what it means for me. But that's what this blog is all about.
I admit I'm a bit confused. To pull from your previous post about faith and blind-faith: "But we can never be open-minded about a belief that we don’t understand."
To me it seems you don't understand what you know. Is that not blind-faith by your definition? If you just state "I believe [the end[" have you really explained the "why" to your belief? *puzzled*
Yes and no? *grin*
I see why you're puzzled, and I'm not sure how I can best answer you. The problem I have is that I do know why I believe in the Tao as an absolute, but I (obviously) can't express it in words.
Or maybe I don't really know and my lack of expression is the proof of my lack of understanding.
Or maybe both are equally and wholly true.
Let me try one more time: Some people believe in God. Some people don't. But regardless of what people believe, either there is a God or there isn't one; the answer is absolute regardless of what people actually believe or even think about the subject. I believe in God (see my previous post), but I am open to changing this belief if the Truth says otherwise. It is this Truth I refer to as absolute, and this Truth I believe in.
I really don't know how I can make it more clear after that... but if you're still confused, I'll certainly try.
As an aside: I want to make sure that you know that I appreciate all of your comments. They make me consider ideas in new light, and that's always a good thing. But words sometimes fail me, and what I would ask of you is to leave semantics behind and consider not what the words say but what I am saying. It's as if my words are a two-dimensional expression of a three-dimensional idea. I don't want to get mired in the words when it's the idea behind the words that matters.
You've always been a good friend and one who pushes me to clarify my thoughts. That is a quality beyond measure, and I want you to continue to do that. I might not be able to answer you in kind, but know that you're still making me think (and rethink) and that I'm better as a result.
In essence: Thank you. And keep commenting!
Okay, two major things I want to say here. One is in response to your two posts, the other is a thought from last night.
1) ---------------------
"But words sometimes fail me, and what I would ask of you is to leave semantics behind and consider not what the words say but what I am saying. It's as if my words are a two-dimensional expression of a three-dimensional idea. I don't want to get mired in the words when it's the idea behind the words that matters."
I think the first thing I would say to this is I understand not being able to express an idea fully. The second thing I would say is "do we really know what we're talking about if we can't express an idea?" I don't have an answer to that myself, not anything definitive anyway. Third, the previous two don't entirely matter; if we can't figure out what we both mean, how in the world can we communicate effectively? This is why I get so frustrated when someone says "it's just semantics." The fact is, without semantics I don't think that people who think differently can actually understand eachother (which pretty much goes for everyone anyway, except for something I'll speak about below). Everything comes down to semantics. There is no leaving semantics behind because it's foundational to the creation of language and thought. (read on before you form a response to that statement. I think further down I will satisfy what you're saying to me)
Also, in terms of languages, words -are- ideas. At least I think so. There really can't be complex ideas without language; they're bi-conditional. So when you say "See the words behind what I'm saying" my response is sorta one of desperation. It's that I don't know how to do what you're asking. If you can't show me what you mean I'm mostly lost. It's like you're asking me to see the "three dimensional idea" when that idea is still unformed. In the realm of communication-between-minds there isn't anything to look at.
Now I will admit there are those people one speaks to that just -get- you (or me). These pairings think similarly, so there's less need to go into depth. I think that connection is what you're asking me to establish, and I'm down with attempting that, but in order to do so I need understand how you think. That, my friend, I'm open to learning how to do. I think that process occurs naturally when people spend time with eachother anyway.
So perhaps you're not asking me to leave semantics behind, but to see the forest that the trees make (instead of focusing on the individual trees). If that's the case, I'd say you're interested in me helping you create meaning, which is sorta exciting! Collaborative effort hooo! I'll just need your help every now and then to look up from the tree and broaden my perspective.
2) ---------------------
I don't think the entirety of what I was saying comes down to "yes yes, but why?"
I think one thing I was trying to communicate was the simplicity and mundane nature of the Dao. And if the Dao is the universal truth there isn't anything particularly profound in understanding it. It's not anything overly exciting. It's very basic. There are concepts that have a name and cannot be filled (infinity), and there are filled things that have names (Tree/boat/city/love). One would not be what it is if we could understand it, the other we can grasp. I think what the Dao is encouraging us to do is accept that there are things we cannot understand; to accept that we cannot define these things and that we will get no special knowledge or wisdom from attempting to. In essence, what is is, and that's the end of the story. One need know no more. It sort of connects to what you were saying about being child-like. If you accept all that is as a seamless whole then it opens the mind to perceiving in a different way. One need not fill and categorize in this state, one can simply accept.
I think it's that simplicity I was arguing for. If we take the mental framework of the Dao (as I understand it) and apply it to what I perceived your post to be pointing at, I think the following: you may never know what/if there is an irrefutable Truth because something of that nature cannot be categorized. It's like infinity, it's not meant to be understood, simply accepted as part of the universe. So with universal Truth there may be no need to strive to know it. You cannot know it (perhaps aside from it existing), you just accept that it is there and it defines all of the normal truths you do know. So in essence, the universal Truth may not matter at all to your spirituality except in one way. It's a mirror. You can't really see a mirror, just your reflection in it. ;)
I also am curious if you are trying to define the indefinable. If you are, and you wish to follow the Dao, I think what the Dao suggests is to let go and accept. Thoughts?
Also, this is getting to be a long section of posts. When would you like to define a thread as done?
"I see why you're puzzled, and I'm not sure how I can best answer you. The problem I have is that I do know why I believe in the Tao as an absolute, but I (obviously) can't express it in words.
Or maybe I don't really know and my lack of expression is the proof of my lack of understanding.
Or maybe both are equally and wholly true."
I think this is another case of hyper-cognition. The end result is there, but not the concepts that fill it. In my case I don't understand a concept until I know what fills it. (Emptiness filling a concept is a valid filling, by the way ;) )
I would indeed say you lack understanding of the concept, as it can't be communicated (but that's a semantic distinction on "understanding." I don't intend your conviction about the reality of it would/should be altered by the statement). I would say you know there's something important there in your mind regarding this.
However, and it's a big however, I think the understanding of it is in there somewhere and can be teased out. At least, if my experience with you and your intuitions is any indicator, this is the case. It's funny, because to me it's like building backwards.
The irony in this discussion here, my friend, is that I also believe that the Tao is a very simple thing - the fact that what is, is - and that it is, essentially, unknowable. I have accepted that and am wholly at peace with it. It occurs to me that, once again, we're at the same place and talking about it in opposite ways. *grin*
The one point where I disagree is that I will strive to know as much of it as I can anyway - it is a quest that is impossible, because I'm trying to know the unknowable - but I also know that what I will gain in the trying is worth infinitely more than not-striving.
The other thing is that I'm not sure if I agree that words are ideas. At least, not the way my mind works... I have the ideas first and the words fill them in later. But then that might be just a fundamental difference between you and me.
I don't think I'm saying don't strive. I think I'm talking about a posture directed at the unknown thing. I think I'd be dead if I didn't strive. But those things one strives for are never going to be the whole because, as we both know of the Dao (I think), you can't name the unnamed.
"The other thing is that I'm not sure if I agree that words are ideas. At least, not the way my mind works... I have the ideas first and the words fill them in later. But then that might be just a fundamental difference between you and me."
I was actually thinking about this at lunch, and you know I can't prove it in my own mind either. I know that it is what some philosophers of mind are positing these days, though. I can think of many times where I can't give words to my thoughts.
I will ask you, though, if you have ideas before words, how in the world do you understand the ideas? (I realize you may not be able to explain in a way I can understand, but I'm still very curious)
Ah, and another thing I forgot to post:
"The one point where I disagree is that I will strive to know as much of it as I can anyway - it is a quest that is impossible, because I'm trying to know the unknowable - but I also know that what I will gain in the trying is worth infinitely more than not-striving."
I've read commentary on the Dao claiming that the position of The Sage is to eschew all worldly desires. This includes things like love, desire for wealth, and even desire for knowledge. If that's an implicit message of the Dao, how do you reconcile that with striving to know?
It's not something I can swallow, personally, as knowledge is so important to me. I'm curious what your thoughts are on that.
I really can't explain how I perceive the ideas that are before words. It's something that transcends language, in a sense; it's like seeing a picture and being asked to describe it in words of one syllable or less, but even more so because I don't even think in images. The idea simply is and my mind perceives it before I attach words or values to it. Sorry, my friend, but that's the best I can do for you there! *sheepish grin*
As for the Sage that puts away the desire for knowledge... I suppose the way I reconcile it is to say that I'm not necessarily desiring knowledge because I know that true Knowledge is unknowable... it's more that I maintain a constant state of openness, such that any fragment of knowledge that comes to me will be received as what it is.
The other way it can be looked at is the understanding that even the best of us tend to seek only the answers that we want to hear. So be emptying ourselves of desire for knowledge we become open to learning what is really there regardless of what we actually want.
That's my take on it, anyway. I'm also going to write up a corollary entry that you've inspired me to write. It'll get posted sometime in the next couple days.
Thanks again for your input and inspiration! You're a good friend to have, and I really value that.
Post a Comment