Taoism K

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]
[Name]
TAOISM K
() Death and misfortune are inevitable the joy of life comes in accepting things as they are plans to the world only bring more suffering Slabbert, 01 [Jos, Taoist teacher and philosopher, Tao te Ching: How to Deal with Suffering http://www.taoism.net/theway/suffer.htm] Dealing with loss Express yourself completely, then keep quiet. Be like the forces of nature: when it blows, there is only wind; when it rains, there is only rain; when the clouds pass, the sun shines through. If you open yourself to the Tao, you are at one with the Tao and you can embody it completely. If you open yourself to insight, you are at one with insight and you can use it completely. If you open yourself to loss, you are at one with loss and you can accept it completely. Open yourself to the Tao, then trust your natural responses; and everything will fall into place. (Chapter 23) The word "open" is repeated often in this poem. Most people think the only way to handle suffering is to withdraw and to close yourself. The poet is clearly saying in this poem that the opposite is true: If you open yourself to loss, you are at one with loss and you can accept it completely. This openness, a willingness and courage to face reality, is the only way to deal with suffering, particularly inescapable suffering. But the openness the poet is describing is more than just facing reality. It is facing reality in total harmony with the Tao: If you open yourself to the Tao, you are at one with the Tao and you can embody it completely. It is only when you "embody" the Tao that you can face suffering with true equanimity. You will then have the openness that insight into your own nature and the natural way of Tao brings you. The right approach to suffering is only possible when you have reduced your ego to a minimum. The less ego you have, the less you suffer. Facing death with unresolved agendas is a terrible form of suffering. You will have to let go of selfish interests and futile aims to concentrate on dealing with the moment. It is the acceptance of the inevitable that makes suffering bearable. On his death bed, his family mourning, he is serene, for he knows Death, like Life, is an illusion: there is no beginning and no end. There is only the endless flow of Tao. The man of Tao has no fear, for he walks with Tao. (The Tao is Tao, 154) Agendas A good traveler has no fixed plans and is not intent upon arriving. (Chapter 27) Plans, aims, objectives and agendas have become the routes of suffering for so many people, and not only the ambitious. Agendas often take spontaneity and joy out of life. In the process, many people have become bad travelers, concentrating only on their objectives, and arriving at their destinations only to find that even their destinations are not really worth the trouble. Having no fixed plans? This does not sound like survival in a modern technological environment, does it? I mean, who but the extremely fortunate have the luxury of not having agendas running their lives? In most cases, one could justifiably point out, agendas are forced on you by your professional and familial obligations. You do not really have a choice, do you? How could one then become a good traveler through life in this modern world? I think the key lies in the second line of the quotation. One should not be "intent upon arriving". You should adopt an attitude of detachment. The moment your aims become egocentric, your suffering increases. The less your own ego is involved, the less seriously you will take life, and the more you will enjoy the journey. It is easier said than done, though, particularly when the job you are doing seems to be devoid of meaning, and the activities on your agenda tedious. They might even go against what you truly believe. It is clear. To become a good traveler in the modern world often entails more than just a change of attitude. It could also mean changing your life style, even your profession. It could mean taking risks in the process. But liberation has always been a risky undertaking, hasnt it? People are willing to take risks for the most mundane things like profit and possession. Why not take a few risks when your spiritual progress is at stake? Truly good travelers often leave the beaten track and become masters of their own far more adventurous journeys. Tampering with the world Do you want to improve the world? I don't think it can be done. The world is sacred. It can't be improved. If you tamper with it, you'll ruin it. If you treat it like an object, you'll lose it. (Chapter 29) If
[Name]
anything, the Twentieth Century will be called the century of social engineering. Simplistic ideologies, like fascism, were used to try to change the world, with terrible consequences inducing suffering on a scale never seen before in the history of the human being. A savage economic system based on greed capitalism - has ravaged the world. Yet, the human being has not learnt from this. Still, politicians show their ignorance by tampering with the sacred. It is the age of management, that euphemistic word for manipulating society. It is still happening. What else are many political programs but tampering with the sacred and ruining it in the process? It is the source of endless suffering. Forcing issues Whoever relies on the Tao in governing men doesn't try to force issues or defeat enemies by force of arms. For every force there is a counterforce. Violence, even well intentioned, always rebounds upon oneself. The Master does his job and then stops. He understands that the universe is forever out of control, and that trying to dominate events goes against the current of the Tao. (Chapter 30) Understanding that the universe is out of control is the key to wisdom and patience. No amount of tampering with the universe will change this. In fact, the more we tamper with it, the more damage we will do. () The 1ACs rationalist attempt to anticipate the effects of foreign policy will fail. Emptying oneself of being is a prerequisite to true understanding. Ralph Pettman, Professor in the School of History, Philosophy, Political Science and International Relations at Victoria University of Wellington, 2005 (Taoism And The Concept Of Global Security, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Volume 5, Number 1, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Oxford Journals Online, p. 72-75) How does moving onto Taoist ground, and immersing ourselves in Taoist experience, play out in practice? Our section on mapping the concept of global security began by highlighting the making of modernity. If we start with this general project, and cast it in the light of the general Taoist knack for sacral spontaneity, we see at once how little this knack has to do with the rationalist way of thinking or being. Where the modernist/rationalist talks of empirical logic and scientific representation, the sacralist/Taoist talks (in Grahams terms, at least) of the rejection of empirical logic, and an infinite regress, testing by tests which in the end are themselves untested (Graham, [end page 72] 1981, pp. 10, 11). Where the rationalist talks of the hypothetico-deductive method, the Taoist talks (again in Grahams terms) of an understanding of the mysterious order which runs through all things, and the universal motion of chi energy (Graham, 1981, pp. 12, 1920). Where the rationalist talks of a detached and individuated intellectual vantage-point, separate from society, where reason can be given free reign to cogitate and communicate, the Taoist talks (in Hansens terms this time) of heart-minds (Hansen, 1992, pp. 53, 85 86). Taoists respond to the situation they are in by unfocusing, that is, by allowing themselves to act with the immediacy of an echo, rather than the self-consciousness of someone who applies general principles. (Graham, 1981, pp. 6, 12, 14). They invite, in other words, the kind of recognition the heart gives when the mind is silent (Krishnamurti, 1972, p. 34). This is metaphorical language, but we are not, after all, trying to ascertain what is scientifically true. We are trying to locate scientific truth-finding within its sacral context. 8 Faced with global security planning, Taoists highlight the way rationalist attempts to anticipate a particular foreign policy can only reach so far. Taoists highlight how those who really know what they are doing tend to eschew conscious thought to attend instead to the total situation. This knack, like a feel for the way a bacterium works, or for how to play a musical instrument, is not one that can be ultimately explained (Graham, 1983, p. 7). Taoists also compare the way they face the future with the way it is faced by those who promote the national interest, for example, or the relevant capitalist/corporate, politico-social, bourgeois, or masculinist interest. The rationalist entertains options A, B, and C, and plays out each one in advance, in a bid to anticipate what will turn out the best. Except that it is not possible to anticipate what will turn out the best. In choosing one policy option, the others cease to exist. Once, for example, option B is chosen, options A and C have no chance of happening. Option A
[Name]
might have been better, or might have been worse. Likewise option C. With the B policy chosen, these alternatives are no longer alternatives. Which is why contemplating such alternatives was futile in the first place, and making decisions on the basis of such contemplations makes no sense at all. It is not possible, that is, to know rationally what is in the national interest. To rely on rationalism is, therefore, to overplay rationalism, which is to underplay Taoism in turn, and to underplay sacral spontaneity (Graham, 1981, p. 14). [end page 73] Modernist proponents of global security demur. Enough people in the world live as if modernist conceptions of global security ought to prevail, they note, for most of these conceptions to prevail in practice. Enough people behave as if world order is made up of sovereign states, for example, for this way of ordering world affairs to be a tangible, global reality. The same applies to liberal marketeering, global modes of making civil identity, the global formation of capitalist classes, the global advent of social movements, and the global advent of gender-specific practices. There is a self-fulfilling quality to the modernist project, and we must deal with its global consequences, they argue, whether the Taoist critique of the rationalist cause is valid or not. This is not to say that the people of the world live in the best of all possible worlds. Perhaps there is a preferred alternative, though perhaps (and this is the Taoist thought) there is no preferred alternative either, at least of a rationally accessible sort. Perhaps it is a matter of standing back to look at this cosmos that we are all in, then standing close to listen, then feeling as best we can for how it moves, before standing back to look once more. Perhaps we might even learn something in taking ourselves through such a process, something we might need to know if we are to understand global security. () No one knows what is good and bad. Reject the affs judgments, even if we lose all life on earth Kirkland, 98 [Russell Kirkland, Associate Professor of Religion (and Asian Studies), "Responsible NonAction" In a Natural World: Perspectives from the Nei-Yeh, Chuang-Tzu, and Tao-Te Ching, 1998, University of Georgia,http://kirkland.myweb.uga.edu/rk/pdf/pubs/ECO.pdf] Why It Is Wrong to Resent Unexpected Changes In Chuang-tzu 18, we find two famous stories in which a man experiences a sudden and deeply personal transformation, a transformation that strikes others around him as deeply troubling.5 In one, the philosopher Hui-tzu goes to offer his sympathies to Chuangtzu upon the event of the death of Chuang's wife. In the next story, a willow suddenly sprouts from the elbow of a fictional character. In each story, a sympathetic friend is shocked and dismayed to find that the first character in each story is not shocked and dismayed by the unexpected turn of events. In each story, the first character patiently and rationally explains the nature of life, and counsels his companion to accept the course of events that life brings to us, without imposing judgment as to the value of those events. In each case, the reader learns that it is foolish and inappropriate to feel emotional distress at such events, for a proper understanding of the real nature of life leads us to accept all events with the same equanimity, even those events that might have once sticken us as deeply distressing. In the Taoist classic Huai-nan-tzu, one finds a famous story of a man who suddenly finds himself the unexpected owner of a new horse. His neighbors congratulate him on his good fortune, until his son falls from the horse and breaks his leg. The man's neighbors then act to console him on his bad fortune, until army conscriptors arrive and carry off all the able-bodied young men, leaving the injured young man behind as worthless. The lesson of the story is that when an event occurs, we are quick to judge it as fortunate or unfortunate, but our judgments are often mistaken, as later events often prove.6 And one of the most heavily stressed lessons of the Chuang-tzu is that humans quickly judge events on the basis of what we accept on the basis of simplistic assumptions e.g., that life is inherently better than death and that the wise person learns to question and discard such assumptions, and forego such judgments regarding events. When Chuang-tzu's wife died, Chuang-tzu does not argue that the world is a better place for her absence, or that his life is improved by his sudden new freedom. In fact, there is no issue in the passage
[Name]
of whether the world is better off with Chuang-tzu's wife alive or dead. The only issue in the passage is that people are born and that people later die, and to ignore that basic fact would display culpable stupidity. The very same lesson is impressed upon the reader of the previous passage, regarding the sudden transformation of a character's elbow. What we are taught in that passage is that life is a process of ineluctable change and transformation, and that humans would be profoundly wrong and clearly silly to object to such change. Another element of the lesson is that the nature of human life is not separate from, or other than, the nature of nonhuman life. When one says that "life is ineluctable change, and we must accept such change with serenity," one is speaking about "life" in such a way that it clearly involves the lives of individual humans just as fully as it involves the events that occur in the broader world, and vice versa. Imagine the story of the death of Chuang-tzu's wife involving, instead, the death of the species we call whooping cranes: Chuang-tzu would, in that case, patiently point out to his deeply caring but deeply shallow friend that he had indeed felt grief to see such beautiful birds come to their end, but had gone on to engage in appropriate rational reflection upon the nature of life, and had come to accept the transitory nature of all such creatures, just as in the present story Chuang-tzu had come to accept the transitory nature of his own spouse. If one must learn to accept with serenity the death of someone we love, someone without whose life our own life would have never been what it is, wouldn't the author urge us to accept that the death of some birds, birds that have never played a role in our lives the way that one's deceased spouse had done, is an event that we should accept with equanimity? If change catches up with us, even to the extent that the planet that we live on should become permanently devoid of all forms of life, the response of the author of these passages would logically be that such is the nature of things, and that crying over such a sudden turn of events would be very silly indeed, like a child crying over a spilt glass of milk, or the death of some easily replaceable goldfish. The only reason that a child cries over the death of a goldfish is that he or she has become irrationally attached to that creature as it exists in its present form, and has formed an immature sentimental bond to it. As adults, we appreciate the color and motion of fish in our aquaria, but seldom cry over the death of one of its inmates: we know very well that to cry over the death of such a fish would be silly and a sign of juvenile behavior. As our children grow, we teach them, likewise, never to follow their raw emotional responses, but rather to govern their emotions, and to learn to behave in a responsible manner, according to principles that are morally correct, whether or not they are emotionally satisfying. If, for instance, one were to see a driver accidentally run over one's child or beloved, one's first instinct might be to attack the driver with a righteous fury, falsely equating emotional intensity and violent action with the responsible exercise of moral judgment. In general, we work to teach ourselves and each other not to respond in that way, to take a course of self-restraint, curbing emotion, lest it propel us into actions that will later, upon calm reflection, be revealed to have been emotionally satisfying but morally wrong. If I saw my child run down by a car, it might give me great emotional satisfaction to drag the driver from her car and beat her to death. But it might well turn out that she had in fact done nothing wrong, and had been driving legally and quite responsibly when a careless child suddenly ran into her path, giving her no time to stop or to evade the child. Because we have all learned that the truth of events is often not apparent to the parties that are experiencing them, we generally work to learn some degree of self-control, so that our immediate emotional reaction to events does not mislead us into a foolish course of action. Now if we take these facts and transfer them into our consideration of Chuang-tzu and Mencius on the riverbank, that episode should, logically, be read as follows. If Mencius feels an emotional urge to jump into the river to save the baby, his emotional response to the baby's presence there must be seen as immature and irresponsible. After all, one might muse, one never knows, any more than the man with the horse, when an event that seems fortunate is actually unfortunate, or vice versa. What if the baby in the water had been the ancient Chinese equivalent of Adolf Hitler, and the saving of young Adolf though occasioned by the deepest feelings of compassion, and a
[Name]
deep-felt veneration for "life" led to the systematic extermination of millions of innocent men, women, and children? If one knew, in retrospect, that Hitler's atrocities could have been totally prevented by the simple moral act of refraining from leaping to save an endangered child, would one not conclude, by sound moral reasoning, that letting that particular baby drown would have represented a supremely moral act? How, Chuang-tzu constantly challenges us, how can we possibly know what course of action is truly justified? What if, just for the sake of argument, a dreadful plague soon wipes out millions of innocent people, and the pathogen involved is soon traced back to an organism that had once dwelt harmlessly in the system of a certain species of bird, such as, for instance, the whooping crane? In retrospect, one can imagine, the afflicted people of the next century bereft of their wives or husbands, parents or children might curse the day when simple-minded do-gooders of the twentieth-century had brazenly intervened with the natural course of events and preserved the cursed specied of crane, thereby damning millions of innocents to suffering and death. We assume that such could never happen, that all living things are somehow inherently good to have on the planet, that saving the earthly existence of any life-form is somehow inherently a virtuous action. But our motivations in such cases are clearly, from a Taoist point of view, so shallow and foolish as to warrant no respect. If Mencius, or a sentimental modern lover of "life," were to leap into the river and save a floating baby, he or she would doubtless exult in his or her selfless act of moral heroism, deriving a sense of satisfaction from having done a good deed, and having prevented a terrible tragedy. But who can really know when a given event is truly a tragedy, or perhaps, like the horse that breaks a boy's leg, really a blessing in disguise. Since human wisdom, Chuang-tzu suggests, is inherently incapable of successfully comprehending the true meaning of events as they are happening, when can we ever truly know that our emotional urge to save babies, pretty birds, and entertaining sea-mammals is really an urge that is morally sound. The Taoist answer seems to be that we can never be sure, and even if the extinction of Chuangtzu's wife or of the whooping crane really brought no actual blessing to the world, such events are natural and proper in the way of life itself, and to bemoan such events is to show that one is no more insightful about life than a child who sentimentally cries over the loss of a toy, a glass of milk, a beloved pet, or even her mommy, run over by a drunken driver. The Taoist lesson seems, in this regard, to be the same in each case: things happen, and some things cause us distress because we attach ourselves sentimentally to certain people, objects, and patterns of life; when those people, objects, or patterns of life take a sudden or drastic turn into a very different direction, a mature and responsible person calms his or her irrational emotions, and takes the morally responsible course of simply accepting the new state of things. () Forego all action to achieve desired ends. Kirkland, 96 [Russell Kirkland, Associate Professor of Religion (and Asian Studies), The Book of the Way, 24-29,http://kirkland.myweb.uga.edu/rk/pdf/pubs/DAODE.pdf] The Teachings of the Daode jing The focus of the Daode jing is something called "the Tao (or Dao)," a term that cannot adequately be translated. The text says that the Tao is "vague and subtle," and it never provides definitions. Instead, it employs metaphors to suggest the nature of the Tao, and to describe behaviors that are similar to its way of working. Most basically, the term Tao seems to denote a natural force that runs through all things and guides them through their natural course of development. It is an inexhaustible source of life and power, and is constantly at work in the world in subtle and imperceptible ways. Both its reality and its nature can be perceived by observing the world around us. However, most people have lost sight of the Tao, and have given way to unnatural behaviors that go contrary to it. The goal of the Daode jing is to persuade the reader to abandon those behaviors, and to learn once again how to live in accord with the true course of life. One can achieve those goals by appreciating the true nature of life, and modifying one's behavior to be more like that of the Tao. Specifically, the Tao is
[Name]
humble, yielding, and non-assertive. Like a mother, it benefits others selflessly: it gives us all life and guides us safely through it, asking nothing in return. This altruistic emphasis of the Daode jing has seldom been noticed, but it is one of the most important lessons that it draws from the observation of the natural world. Water, for instance, is the gentlest and most yielding of all things, yet it can overcome the strongest substances, and cannot itself be destroyed. More importantly, however, water lives for others: it provides the basis of life for all things, and asks nothing in return. If we learn to live like water does, we will be living in accord with the Tao, and its Power (De) will carry us safely through life. Such a way of life is called wuwei, usually translated as "non-action." Wuwei means foregoing all activity intended to effect desired ends. Instead, one should follow one's natural course and allow all other things to do likewise, lest our willful interference disrupt things' proper flow. Few modern readers have ever grasped the full radicality of the ideal of wuwei. Many of us today (like the ancient Chinese Confucians and Mohists) look at the world and see things that we think need correcting. The Daode jing would actually have us do nothing whatsoever about them. The repeated phrase "do nothing, and nothing will be undone" admonishes us to trust the Tao -- the natural working of things -- and never to do anything about anything. Actually, such is the most that anyone can do, because the Tao -- as imperceptible as it is -- is the most powerful force in existence, and nothing can thwart its unceasing operation. () Death and misfortune are inevitable: spiritual suffering arises from plans and expectations that are inevitably let down. Both fortune and misfortunate are beautiful and should be accepted as they are. And this is: Lao Tzu, 300 B.C. [record keeper of the Zhou dynasty, Tao Te Ching, chapter 16, as translated by Stephen Mitchell,http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v3.html#16] Empty your mind of all thoughts. Let your heart be at peace. Watch the turmoil of beings, but contemplate their return. Each separate being in the universe returns to the common source. Returning to the source is serenity. If you don't realize the source, you stumble in confusion and sorrow. When you realize where you come from, you naturally become tolerant, disinterested, amused, kindhearted as a grandmother, dignified as a king. Immersed in the wonder of the Tao, you can deal with whatever life brings you, and when death comes, you are ready. () Political approaches inevitably fail spiritual enlightenment is our only hope. Slabbert, 01 [Jos, Taoist teacher and philosopher, Tao te Ching: How to Deal with Suffering http://www.taoism.net/theway/suffer.htm] The inescapable The inescapable forms of suffering include the obvious: being born, aging, and bodily decay. In medicine, we have been desperately fighting to avoid and postpone the inevitable, but in the end we all have to suffer the pain of aging and dying. Of course, one should adopt a lifestyle minimizing suffering caused by disease, but even then the deterioration of old age ultimately brings disease, suffering and death. Suffering through old age and death are part of the natural way of Tao, and should be accepted as such. It is part of wisdom to accept these inevitabilities with equanimity. Unavoidable suffering also includes the results of your previous actions that will still influence your life in negative ways. Again, like with suffering coming from old age, you just have to accept these effects when they come, and deal with them in the best way possible. Inescapable suffering includes certain mental traumas as well, like experiencing the deaths of beloved ones and separation. It also includes some of the suffering others inflict upon you. Inescapable suffering encompasses everything that is linked to impermanence, which is extensive. Its common denominator is the pain of decay and separation. The
[Name]
avoidable The ignorant create their own agonies when they allow their desire, greed and hatred to turn the fiction in their minds into the reality of suffering. (The Tao is Tao, 79) Avoidable suffering includes physical, psychological and spiritual forms of suffering that can be avoided, eliminated or at least reduced. These forms of suffering would also include our inability to deal with unavoidable forms of suffering. For example, the way we handle our own illnesses can either alleviate or increase our suffering. Most forms of our suffering are the results of inventions of our own minds, and our inability to deal with our thoughts and emotions. The greatest tragedy is to suffer unnecessarily, as so many people do. You have probably seen it or experienced it, havent you? People who have everything - wealth, health and good friends and they nevertheless turn what should be paradise into their own personal hell. There is a restlessness in people that comes from neglecting the spirit, and which can only be satisfied in the sphere of the spirit. As long as this aspect of the human being is neglected, the human will never come to peace, and will suffer in many ways. No amount of material wealth, success and status will satisfy this need. In fact, material wealth and success often prevent the development of the spirit. It is only when the needs of the spirit are satisfied that most of the unnecessary forms of suffering will cease. The Nature of suffering Allencompassing Suffering is an all-encompassing phenomenon, and it includes forms of suffering the sufferer is not even aware of. All forms of attachment incorporate suffering. These forms include attachment to the senses, and emotional attachment, which would inevitably lead to sorrow. The impermanence of things is the main reason even "positive" forms of attachment ultimately lead to suffering. Suffering cannot be totally eliminated in this life and this world. Even the enlightened suffer in this world. Sometimes their suffering is caused by their compassion and wisdom. Schools dedicated to the Bodhisattva tradition argue that suffering cannot end for anyone as long as a single creature on earth is still suffering. It is very true, isnt it? How can anyone filled with compassion be totally happy as long as there is still suffering around one? Causes of suffering Attachment and the ego are closely linked, and they are the main causes of suffering, for they encourage perpetual action to satisfy their unsatiable needs. The ego not only causes harm on a personal level, but it is a source of destruction and hatred on a wide scale. As long as people are run by their egos, there is no chance for rest and peace. Attachment, the ego and greed are intertwined. Greed causes tremendous suffering not only to persons in service of their own greed, but also to those in the service of the greed of others. Attachment, the ego, greed and their natural ally, hatred, perpetuate suffering and destruction not only on a personal, but also on a vast geopolitical scale. Solutions The main problems of suffering lie in the sphere of the spirit, and they are problems of the mind. They are elusive problems difficult to solve. Their solutions often lie outside the reach of political programs. Many of the problems plaguing the world fall in the realm of the spirit, and they cannot be solved by political programs only. In fact, political interference sometimes seems to aggravate some of these problems, which does not mean that one should not take political action to combat problems like greed or hatred. Political programs, however, tend to tackle the symptoms more than the causes. As long as the human being has not solved the problem of greed in his heart, and as long as he is serving his own ego, any political system, no matter how noble, will be corrupted by the very people who should implement and protect it.
[Name]
ETHICS LINK
The affs attempt at compassion is just a hollow attempt to salve their conscious spurring disharmony with the Tao. Slabbert, 01 [Jos, Taoist teacher and philosopher, Tao te Ching: How to Deal with Suffering http://www.taoism.net/theway/suffer.htm] "Virtue" as suffering When the great Tao is forgotten, goodness and piety appear. When the body's intelligence declines, cleverness and knowledge step forth. When there is no peace in the family, filial piety begins. When the country falls into chaos, patriotism is born. (Chapter 18) What is remarkable about this poem is its claim that positive attributes, like goodness, piety, cleverness, knowledge, filial piety and patriotism, can in fact be nothing else but our efforts to deal with our separation from the true source. As such, they may be symptoms of suffering. When people do not live in harmony with the Tao, they often demonstratively show goodness and piety, which have deteriorated to a facade devoid of substance. In fact, this is corruptive, for it turns what should be true manifestations of the spirit into vain show. We have often seen this, havent we? People, who live lives of vanity and greed, showing off their charity and religiosity to the world. Their corruptive influence as role models cannot be underestimated. In the third line of this poem, the poet speaks of the "bodys intelligence" as opposed to "cleverness and knowledge", which are negative in this context. The "bodys intelligence" is the intuitive, natural intelligence - the gut feeling of what is right - of someone living in harmony with Tao. When one loses contact with Tao, true intelligence, which is wisdom and compassion, declines, and cleverness takes over. Cleverness and knowledge without compassion are products of disharmony with the Tao; they are vain efforts to gloss over lack of wisdom. Unlike wisdom, they cause suffering and do not find solutions to suffering. They are superficial show, often totally in service of the ego, and as such they are corruptive and harmful.

'Other' Link
[Name]
[Name]
The Affs Actomania serves to salve our conscious- it doesnt establish an authentic ethical relationship to the other Rahnema, 97 [Rahnema, professor of political science at York University, 1997, The Post Development Reader, p. 392] A first condition for such a search is to look at things as they are, rather than as we want them to be; to overcome our fears of the unknown; and, instead of claiming to be able to change the world and to save 'humanity', to try saving ourselves from our own compelling need for comforting illusions. The hubris of the modern individual has led him or her to believe that the existential powerlessness of humankind can usefully be replaced with compulsive actomania. This illusion is similar to the modern obsession with fighting death at all costs. Both compulsions tend, in fact, to undermine, disfigure and eventually destroy the only forms of power that define true life. Paradoxically, it is through fully experiencing our powerlessness, as painful as that may be, that it becomes possible for us to be in tune with human suffering, in all its manifestations; to understand the 'power of the powerless (to use Vaclav Havel's expression); and to rediscover our oneness with all, those in pain. Blinkered by the Promethean myth of Progress, development called on all the 'powerless' people to join in a world-wide crusade against the very idea of powerlessness, building its own power of seduction and conviction on the mass production of new illusions. It designed for every taste a 'mask of love' - an expression coined by John McKnight" to define the modern notion of 'care' - which various 'developers' could deploy when inviting new recruits to join the crusade. It is because development incarnated a false love for an abstract humanity that it ended up by upsetting the lives of millions of living human beings. For half a century its 'target populations' suffered the intrusion in their lives of an army of development teachers and experts, including well-intentioned field workers and activists, who spoke big words - from conscientization to learning from and living with the people. Often they had studied Marx, Gramsci, Freire and the latest research about empowerment and participation. However, their lives (and often careers) seldom allowed them to enter the intimate world of their 'target populations'. They were good at giving people passionate lectures about their rights, their entitlements, the class struggle and land reform. Yet few asked themselves about the deeper motivations prompting them to do what they were doing. Often they knew neither the people they were working with, nor themselves. And they were so busy achieving what they thought they had to do for the people, that they could not learn enough from them about how actually to 'care' for them, as they would for their closest relatives and friends whom they knew and loved. My intention in bringing up this point is not to blame such activists or field workers - many of them may have been kind and loving persons. It is, rather, to make the point that the masks of love to which they become addicted prevented them
10
[Name]
discovering the extraordinary redeeming power of human powerlessness, when it opens ones soul to the world of true love and compassion. Similar masks of love have now destroyed the possibilities of our truly caring. Thus, when we hear about the massacres in Algeria, Rwanda, Zaire, the Middle East, or Bosnia, or the innumerable children, women and men dying from starvation, or being tortured and killed with impunity, we feel comforted and relieved when we send a cheque to the right organization or demonstrate on their behalf in the streets. And although we are fully aware that such gestures are, at the very best, like distributing aspirin pills to dying people whom nothing can save; although we may have doubts as to whether our money will reach the victims, or fears that it might even ultimately serve those governments, institutions or interests who are responsible for this suffering; we continue to do these things. We continue to cheat ourselves, because we consider it not decent, not morally justifiable, not politically correct, to do otherwise. Such gestures, which we insist on calling acts of solidarity rather than charity, may however be explained differently: by the great fear we have of becoming fully aware of our powerlessness in situations when nothing can be done. And yet this is perhaps the most authentic way of rediscovering our oneness with those in pain. For the experiencing of our powerlessness can lead us to encounter the kind of deep and redeeming suffering that provides entry to the world of compassion and discovery of our true limits and possibilities. It can also be the first step in the direction of starting a truthful relationship with the world, as it is. Finally, it can help us understand this very simple tautology: that no one is in a position to do more than one can. As one humbly recognizes this limitation, and learns to free oneself from the egocentric illusions inculcated by the Promethean myth, one discovers the secrets of a power of a different quality: that genuine and extraordinary power that enables a tiny seed, in all its difference and uniqueness, to start its journey into the unknown. Attempts to fix the environment deny the very nature of the Tao we must accept things for what they are. Kirkland, 98 [Russell Kirkland, Associate Professor of Religion (and Asian Studies), "Responsible Non-Action" In a Natural World: Perspectives from the Nei-Yeh, Chuang-Tzu, and Tao-Te Ching, 1998, University of Georgia,http://kirkland.myweb.uga.edu/rk/pdf/pubs/ECO.pdf] Our modern problem is that we often have trouble assessing such teachings rationally. We tend so often to invest all such discussions with emotion, especially the idealized emotion of "compassion" or "sympathy," whereby we deny the validity of death or extinction of one or more living beings, and validate human efforts to prevent such events. Imbued as we are with the values born of Judaeo-Christian doctrines values that teach us that we violate our God-given life if we let others die modern people tend to equate "saving the whales" with due and appropriate concern for living things other than ourselves. As hard as it may be for us to believe,
11
[Name]
the teachings of the ancient Taoists would have us believe otherwise. Just as Heaven-and-Earth does not care whether a tornado, earthquake or hurricane destroy any millions of living things, so the Tao of the Tao te ching, Chuang-tzu and the Nei-yeh provides all things with an environment conducive to a natural span of life, and also with an environment that gives all things a natural death. To oppose that arrangement, and rage against an environment that provides us with a natural death as well as with a long and natural life, is to deny the fundamental teachings of Taoism, and to deny the very existence of the fundamental reality for Taoists of every description the Tao itself. If we read the Taoist classics honestly, we see that the Tao provides for a full a natural life for all things, and also for their deaths. And we see that the proper attitude of a human who understands these things is and must be to sit down, stop whining, and accept the natural reality of which we are a part.
AT: Inaction is Immoral

A deeper understanding of life precludes intervention Kirkland, professor of Asian religions and Taoism at the University of Georgia, 2001 (Russell, 'Responsible Non-Action' in a Natural World: Perspectives from the Neiye, Zhuangzi, and Daode jing, Daoism and Ecology: Ways within a Cosmic Landscape, http://kirkland.myweb.uga.edu/rk/pdf/pubs/ECO.pdf) Solicitude for Non-Human Life in Taoism A traditional interpretive error regarding Taoism should logically be addressed here. That error is the traditional assertion that Taoists are, ipso facto, concerned with the welfare of the self, rather than with the welfare of others. The philosopher Arthur Danto, for instance, has said: Taoism seems to dissolve any relations we may have to one another and to... replace them with the relationship we have to the universe at large. The question it poses is... how to close the gap between the world and ourselves, how to 'lose' the self. Whereas it is just that gap that is presupposed by the moral questions of classical China and perhaps by the concept of morality itself. They suppose the gaps that need closing are those that separate us from one another. However, these are not relevant in closing the gap between the Way and ourselves, which is the source of the only kind of infelicitude thinkers like Lao Tzu regard as worth healing....Exactly the space that Taoism intends to collapse is what makes morality possible at all.1 Elsewhere, I have analyzed Danto's position more fully, and assessed its validity.2 In the present context, however, Danto's comments appear to raise a new range of issues, issues that pertain not so much to systems of interpersonal morality the only kind of morality Danto seems to consider possible as to systems of transhuman morality, i.e., systems of morality that pertain to the planet and other, nonhuman living things. If Danto were correct, it would be logically impossible for a Taoist to value nonhuman life, whether individual or collective, for he insists that the Taoist values only himself. Naturally, there are many problems with Danto's arguments, problems that I cannot explicate fully here. I shall merely point out that his contentions about Taoism are ultimately grounded upon two assumptions. First, he assumes that the Confucians are logically correct to assume that interpersonal relations are the only logical field for moral activity. And secondly, he assumes that "the Taoists" (i.e., for Danto, "Lao-tzu" and "Chuang-tzu") essentially share the values that have traditionally been attributed to the ancient Chinese figure known as Yang Chu. Of course, it is actually impossible to discuss the values of Yang Chu himself, for no expositions of his own views survive, only the positions attributed to him by enemies like Mencius
12
[Name]
who were intent to convince us that Yang Chu was an immoral fool. But the issue that Mencius adduced to demonstrate Yang's foolishness is pertinent to our present considerations. According to Angus Graham: The historical Yang Chu...seems to have held that, since external possessions are replaceable while the body is not, we should never permit the least injur to the body, even the loss of a hair, for the sake of any external benefit, event the throne of the Empire. For moralists such as the Confucians and Mohists, to refuse a throne would not be a proof of high-minded indifference to personal gain, but a selfish rejection of the opportunity to benefit people. They therefore derided Yang Chu as a man who would not sacrifice a hair even to benefit the whole world.3 Most twentieth-century analysts have, like Graham, argued that Yang Chu's rational egotism was quickly absorbed into Taoism, and revised and expanded by Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu. That belief essentially follows the argument of traditional Confucians, who were just as happy to misrepresent and ridicule Taoist values as they were to misrepresent and ridicule those of Yang Chu. For the crowd who follows Mencius, it has always been very easy to see Chuang-tzu sitting by the bank of the river, unmoved by the floating baby, as a heartless egotist who would let baby or empire suffer destruction rather than take a responsible moral interest in them. Is there any validity to such a critique, i.e., to the assertion that Chuang-tzu, when correctly understood, would actually have us let babies drown or whooping cranes become extinct rather than take the morally correct course of trying to save them? It is at this point that I wish to begin examining in some detail the assumptions implicit in such a critique, and the logic by which such conclusions have often been reached, whether by moralists like Mencius or by moralists like Arthur Danto. I shall argue, in fact, that when the moral positions of classical Taoism are properly understood, we will see good reason to reject those assumptions, and abandon the concomitant faulty logic. I shall also argue, however, that in the final analysis Chuang-tzu will never dive into that river to save the baby, not because he is lacking appropriate moral compassion, but rather because his moral compassion is predicated upon a more complex vision of the nature of the world, a vision in which the only correct moral course is to watch the baby continue to float, and to take no interventional action. The basis for this argument is that there are, in fact, clear signs of implicit moral reasoning throughout the Lao-tzu and Chuang-tzu, and that the moral reasoning found there will logically lead any thoughtful person to sit tranquilly on the river bank, with heart/mind unperturbed by the apparent course of events. As seen from the Lao-tzu, Chuang-tzu, and even the Neiyeh, a "Taoist sage" is someone whose insight into life is profound enough to override what he or she might characterize as the immature moral position that our impulses to take interventional action, action to save a child or a species or a planet from apparent death, are morally correct impulses. From the superior wisdom of such a sage, Mencius' argument that anyone seeing a threatened baby would feel alarm and concern is true only in regard to a person who has lost the Way, a person who falsely regards the emotional impulses that flash into being in the heart/mind as noble and trustworthy guides to proper action. Here, we see that Taoist moral principles contradict not only the moralism of Confucians like Mencius, but also the moralism of modern liberals, especially moralists who see the human being individually and/or collectively as the heroic savior of a threatened planet. From the Taoist position, it might even appear that the moralism of the Confucians is actually more tolerable than that of the modern liberal. At least Confucius did not commend sentimental concern for the horses that might be injured or killed when a stable burns: he reportedly reserved his moral concern for the lives of beings of our own kind (Analects 10:17).4 Mencius, willing to commend a ruler's sentimental compassion for an ox on its way to slaughter for a sacrifice, is closer to the position of the modern liberal, in that he approves of the stirrings of the heart/mind raised by the imminent death of a supposedly innocent animal. But even Mencius, willing to extend approbation of such stirrings to serve as a moral guide for our actions toward both human and nonhuman lives, even he did not envision the modern romantic vision of the compassionate human as the romantic moral savior of entire nonhuman species, ecosystems, or planets.
13
[Name]
If Confucius admonished against giving thought about nonhuman spiritual beings, or about spirits of deceased humans, until we have dealt appropriately with the moral needs of the living humans around us, Mencius would seem to be prepared to go further, and to exhort us to make sure that we engage in appropriate moral action toward all the humans around us before we begin considering moral action toward other living things outside our species. The ideal of the Confucian sage-king is generally one who engenders moral harmony among human beings, not one who inflames our sentimental solicitude for cute puppies or adorable dolphins. Mencius supported the king who felt compassion for an ox not because oxen are inherently worthy of the sentimental compassion of beings like us, but rather because the incident could be turned to use to teach the king to rule his subject with appropriate moral concern. Notice that Mencius did not chide the king for having mandated the death of a helpless, innocent sheep. Modern sentimentalists, however, chide us for eating tuna because of the presumptive death of the charming dolphins caught in the tuna nets. Oddly, like Confucius when he failed to ask about the horses in the burning stable, today's sentimentalists have seldom asked about the moral shame of killing and eating the tuna themselves: as long as we save the mammals who live in the sea, there is no moral problem in killing the living things who lay eggs rather than give live birth to their young. What would the Taoist position be in such matters? Well, I shall attempt to demonstrate that it would begin with the Confucian apathy toward horses being burned alive in a stable fire, and would proceed in a direction that will make perfect sense to any classical Taoist, but will probably shock and dismay the modern liberal who wishes to find within Taoism a justification for the romantic humanistic ideal of heroic intervention in the course of events that modern liberals have defined as appropriate moral concern, whether the course of events involves the life of a nonhuman species, the life of an ecosystem, or the life of a human facing apparent death. Unlike the modern liberal, who values actions to preserve such life as justified by moral absolutes, I shall argue that the Taoist sage envisioned by the contributors to the Lao-tzu, Chuang-tzu, and Nei-yeh will never under any circumstances advocate or engage in interventional action for the supposed benefit of another. I shall further argue that he or she would carefully and soundly justify this moral position, and would show reasons why the heroic moral imperative of the modern environmentalist should be considered and rejected as a viable course of human moral behavior. The fundamental issue at stake here is the humanist assumption shared by Mencius and the modern liberal that the conscientious person is morally compelled to take action to intervene in events that seem to threaten "life." The Taoist moral position, I shall contend, is quite the opposite altogether: that even when "life" seems to be threatened, the conscientious person is morally compelled to refrain from taking action, to refrain from intervening in the events in question. To the Taoist, I shall argue, such commitment to what I shall call "responsible non-action" is the only moral course that is open to a person who truly understands and appreciates the nature of life itself. And to set aside such moral principles when one sees an ox or baby or flock of cranes endangered, simply because one feels stirrings within one's heart/mind, would be regarded as not only contrary to sound moral reasoning, but as a sign of what we might call both moral and spiritual immaturity.
AT: Science/Empiricism
Science can tell us things about the world but it cant provide our lives with meaningtheir unquestioning commitment to science as ideology undermines its effectiveness and denies us the answers we need most. Frank Furedi, Professor of Sociology at the University of Kent at Canterbury, 2008 (Politicising
14
[Name]
science, spiked, January 15th, Available Online at http://www.spikedonline.com/index.php?/site/article/4275/, Accessed 04-28-2011) Despite its formidable intellectual powers, science can only provide a provisional solution to the contemporary crisis of belief. Historically, science emerged through a struggle with religious dogma. A belief in the power of science to discover how the world works should not be taken to mean that science itself is a belief. On the contrary, science depends on an open-ended orientation towards experimentation and the testing of ideas. Indeed, science is an inherently sceptical enterprise, since it respects no authority other than evidence. As Thomas Henry Huxley once declared: The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority as such. [S]cepticism is the highest of duties, said Huxley; blind faith the unpardonable sin. That is why Britains oldest and most respectable scientific institution, the Royal Society, was founded on the motto: On the word of no one. The message conveyed in this motto is clear: knowledge about the material world should be based on evidence rather than authority. The critical spirit embodied in that motto is frequently violated today by the growing tendency to treat science as a belief that provides an unquestionable account of the Truth. Indeed, it is striking that the Royal Society recently dropped the phrase On the word of no one from its website, while its former president, Lord May, prefers to use the motto Respect the facts these days (see The Royal Societys motto-morphosis, by Ben Pile and Stuart Blackman). Many religious leaders, politicians and environmentalists have little interest in engaging in the voyage of discovery through scientific experimentation. Instead they often appear to be in the business of politicising science, or more accurately, moralising it. For example, Al Gore has claimed that scientific evidence offers (inconvenient) Truths. Such science has more in common with the art of divination than the process of experimentation. That is why science is said to have a fixed and unyielding, and thus unquestionable, quality. Frequently, Gore and others will prefix the term science with the definite article, the. So Sir David Read, vicepresident of the Royal Society, recently said: The science very clearly points towards the need for us all nations, businesses and individuals - to do as much as possible, as soon as possible, to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. Unlike science, this new term - The Science - is a deeply moralised and politicised category. Today, those who claim to wield the authority of The Science are really demanding unquestioning submission. The slippage between a scientific fact and moral exhortation is accomplished with remarkable ease in a world where people lack the confidence to speak in the language of right and wrong. But turning science into an arbiter of policy and behaviour only serves to confuse matters. Science can provide facts about the way the world works, but it cannot say very much about what it all means and what we should do about it. Yes, the search for truth requires scientific experimentation and the discovery of new facts; but it also demands answers about the meaning of those facts, and those answers can only be clarified through moral, philosophical investigation and debate. If science is turned into a moralising project, its ability to develop human knowledge will be compromised. It will also distract people from developing a properly moral understanding of the problems that face humanity in the twenty-first century. Those who insist on treating science as a new form of revealed truth should remember Pascals words: We know the truth, not only by reason, but also by the heart. The state should not take action based on scientific expertismrejecting scientific hegemony is vital. Paul Feyerabend, Professor of Philosophy at the University of California-Berkeley, 1975 (How To Defend Society Against Science, The Galilean Library, Available Online at http://www.galileanlibrary.org/manuscript.php?postid=43842, Accessed 04-28-2011) The most important consequence is that there must be a formal separation between state and science just as there is now a formal separation between state and church. Science may influence society but
15
[Name]
only to the extent to which any political or other pressure group is permitted to influence society. Scientists may be consulted on important projects but the final judgement must be left to the democratically elected consulting bodies. These bodies will consist mainly of laymen. Will the laymen be able to come to a correct judgement? Most certainly, for the competence, the complications and the successes of science are vastly exaggerated. One of the most exhilarating experiences is to see how a lawyer, who is a layman, can find holes in the testimony, the technical testimony, of the most advanced expert and thus prepare the jury for its verdict. Science is not a closed book that is understood only after years of training. It is an intellectual discipline that can be examined and criticised by anyone who is interested and that looks difficult and profound only because of a systematic campaign of obfuscation carried out by many scientists (though, I am happy to say, not by all). Organs of the state should never hesitate to reject the judgement of scientists when they have reason for doing so. Such rejection will educate the general public, will make it more confident, and it may even lead to improvement. Considering the sizeable chauvinism of the scientific establishment we can say: the more Lysenko affairs, the better (it is not the interference of the state that is objectionable in the case of Lysenko, but the totalitarian interference which kills the opponent rather than just neglecting his advice). Three cheers to the fundamentalists in California who succeeded in having a dogmatic formulation of the theory of evolution removed from the textbooks and an account of Genesis included. (But I know that they would become as chauvinistic and totalitarian as scientists are today when given the chance to run society all by themselves. Ideologies are marvellous when used in the companies of other ideologies. They become boring and doctrinaire as soon as their merits lead to the removal of their opponents.) The most important change, however, will have to occur in the field of education.
AT: Extinction/Death Bad

1. Calls to save humanity are based on a flawed fear of death and a misunderstanding of the continuous nature of the universe. Kirkland, 98 [Russell Kirkland, Associate Professor of Religion (and Asian Studies), "Responsible NonAction" In a Natural World: Perspectives from the Nei-Yeh, Chuang-Tzu, and Tao-Te Ching, 1998, University of Georgia,http://kirkland.myweb.uga.edu/rk/pdf/pubs/ECO.pdf] But by this definition, the natural order, which we are enjoined to respect and uphold by means of conscientious non-action, is a natural order that includes death. In fact, it includes death as a universal event, an event that ends the life-process for all living things. By this definition, death is not a horrible destruction of a meaningful life-process, but the natural and correct completion of the meaningful lifeprocess. Life, as Chuang-tzu says, is the companion of death, and vice versa. Neither can be demonstrated to be more meaningful or more desirable than the other, and both Chuang-tzu and Lieh-tzu are replete with characters who learn that existence after death is actually as good as, or even better than, existence in life. For the person who truly understands life, death is the ultimately natural event. And if this be so for individual lives, no matter how respected or beloved a person's life may be, it would logically seem to hold also for the life of a species, or even for the life of a planet. When Chuang-tzu's wife died, and even when old "Master Lao," died, the wise and enlightened characters in Chuang-tzu's text put the matter into correct universal perspective, restrain their emotions, and admire the beauty of a universe wherein death is a natural and proper aspect of life. To have done otherwise would have been to demonstrate one's inability to understand and appreciate the integrity of life itself and the meaningfulness
16
[Name]
of natural process. To have done otherwise would have demonstrated a false and pernicious belief that the event that we call death is a nasty and undesirable event, an event that negates the value of what has gone before it. Such beliefs, the Taoist texts show, were common among the shallow-minded denizens of ancient China, just as they are common among both the religious and the secular minds of the modern world. The death of Chuang's wife, the death of "Master Lao," the death of the dinosaur, the death of the whooping crane: all of these are to be accepted with tranquillity, and with respect for the integrity and value of the natural processes of life, forces that ineluctably bring natural fulfillment to all living things, as long as humans do not disrupt the harmonious order of nature by interfering with it. If we see a baby floating down a river, we must learn not to impose our false impressions of wisdom upon the wisdom of nature itself, for nature is not cruel or insensate, but benign. It is only by an act of hubris and folly that we presume our human wisdom to be greater than that which is built into the operation of the world itself. The world itself is not merely designed wisely then left to run unattended. It is designed wisely and operated wisely, by a force that is like a caring mother. It nurtures and cares for all things, then at the end of their natural lives, they return to it. Treasuring tranquility, the conscientious Taoist observes that return, with awareness and due respect, and in due course he or she, too, follows the same course, returning without fuss to the immaterial state from which he or she originally emerged. 2. Spiritual suffering outweighs extinction. Slabbert, Taoist teacher and philosopher, 2001 (Jos, Tao Te Ching: How to Deal With Suffering, http://www.taoism.net/theway/suffer.htm) Most forms of our suffering are the results of inventions of our own minds, and our inability to deal with our thoughts and emotions. The greatest tragedy is to suffer unnecessarily, as so many people do. You have probably seen it or experienced it, havent you? People who have everything - wealth, health and good friends - and they nevertheless turn what should be paradise into their own personal hell. There is a restlessness in people that comes from neglecting the spirit, and which can only be satisfied in the sphere of the spirit. As long as this aspect of the human being is neglected, the human will never come to peace, and will suffer in many ways. No amount of material wealth, success and status will satisfy this need. In fact, material wealth and success often prevent the development of the spirit. It is only when the needs of the spirit are satisfied that most of the unnecessary forms of suffering will cease.
AT: Predictions
2. Living tomorrow is dying today even if they accurately save the future, we cant enjoy it when we get there thats our 1nc Watts evidence more evidence. Watts, dean of the American Academy of Asian Studies and research fellow at Harvard University, 1951 (Alan, The Wisdom of Insecurity, pg 34-6) This is the typical human problem. The object of dread may not be an operation in the immediate future. It may be the problem of next months rent, of a threatened war or social disaster, of being able to save enough for old age, or of death at the last. This spoiler of the present may not even be a future dread. It may be something out of the past, some memory of an injury, some crime or indiscretion, which haunts the present with a sense of resentment or guilt. The power of memories and expectations is such that for most human beings the past and the future are not as real, but more real than the present. The present cannot be lived happily unless the past has been cleared up and the future is bright with promise. There
17
[Name]
can be no doubt that the power to remember and predict, to make an ordered sequence out of a helterskelter chaos of disconnected moments, is a wonderful development of sensitivity. In a way it is the achievement of the human brain, giving man the most extraordinary powers of survival and adaptation to life. But the way in which we generally use this power is apt to destroy all its advantages. For it is of little use to us to be able to remember and predict if it makes us unable to live fully in the present. What is the use of planning to be able to eat next week unless I can really enjoy the meals when they come? If I am so busy planning how to eat next week that I cannot fully enjoy what I am eating now, I will be in the same predicament when next weeks meals become now. If my happiness at this moment consists largely in reviewing happy memories and expectations, I am but dimly aware of this present. I shall still be dimly aware of the present when the good things that I have been expecting come to pass. For I shall have formed a habit of looking behind and ahead, making it difficult for me to attend to the here and now. If, then, my awareness of the past and future makes me less aware of the present, I must begin to wonder whether I am actually living in the real world. After all, the future is quite meaningless and unimportant unless, sooner or later, it is going to become the present. Thus to plan for a future which is not going to become present is hardly more absurd than to plan for a future which, when it comes to me, will find me absent, looking fixedly over its shoulder instead of into its face. This kind of living in the fantasy of expectation rather than the reality of the present is the special trouble of those business men who live entirely to make money. So many people of wealth understand much more about making and saving money than about using and enjoying it. They fail to live because they are always preparing to live. Instead of earning a living they are mostly earning an earning, and thus when the time comes to relax they are unable to do so. Many a successful man is bored and miserable when he retires, and returns to his work only to prevent a younger man from taking his place. From still another point of view the way in which we use memory and prediction makes us less, rather than more, adaptable to life. If to enjoy even an enjoyable present we must have the assurance of a happy future, we are crying for the moon. We have no such assurance. The best predictions are still matters of probability rather than certainty, and to the best of our knowledge every one of us is going to suffer and die. If, then, we cannot live happily without an assured future, we are certainly not adapted to living in a finite world where, despite the best plans, accidents will happen, and where death comes at the end. 4. Chaos theory disproves their linear predictions Wilson, 99 [Garret, University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies MA International Studies and Diplomacy, Nonlinear Dynamical Systems as a Paradigm for International Relations Theory, 9/27/1999,http://www.garretwilson.com/essays/internationalrelations/complexworld.html] It is undeniable that the assassination of Franz Ferdinand at Sarajevo by a Serbian terrorist had something to do with the beginning of World War I. But could actions of one person cause such large effects, without an environment conducive to such events? "Looking back, things always look inevitable," Joseph Nye admits, but in this case the outcome might better be described as "highly probable," due to the "deep changes in the structure of the balance of power and certain aspects of the domestic political system" (Nye, 65-66). In the setting of the early twentieth century, the situation surely appeared quite different with 100 years of stability, regardless of structural changes and shifting alliances, is the prediction really expected that one person's actions can set off a total war in which the countries involved mobilized almost all their citizens (Carruthers, 49)? Predictions, like opinions, seem to be had by everyone, so it's likely that at least someone at any time will have one that comes true. It is striking, however, that in 1989, after decades of a seemingly stable bipolar system3, hardly anyone predicted that within six months, "from free elections in Poland in June to the fall of Ceausescu in Romania in
18
[Name]
December, the established order" was to fall "apart at the seams" (Lundestad, 132). The Communist party was suspended in Russia and the Soviet Union was dissolved (Lundestad, 265). Again, as hindsight improves vision, a number of causes immediately spring forth, from Gorbachev's policies to the spread of communication technology. The fact remains that just a decade earlier attempts at predicting the coming international arrangement gave no better results than if one were to claim to know hurricane patterns the same amount of time in advance. In the study of physics, the work done by Isaac Newton allows one to write equations which describe the motions of planets and other physical objects. Predicting the future position of a single planet using these equations is simple, as is the solution for two planets. In 1890 King Oscar II of Sweden offered a prize for the first person who could solve Newton's equation for more than two bodies. The person who came the closes to completing this task, referred to as the "three-body problem" or more generally, the "n-body problem," was a French mathematician named Henri Poincar. After years of work, Poincar finally realized that only three bodies can produce such complicated interactions that these linked equations become extremely complex. Poincar finally had to admit defeat, and there are still some areas of the n-body problem where even contemporary computers have difficulty approximating answers (Devaney, 6). A common feature of all these narratives mentioned, attempting to examine systems both economical and international, or trying to predict both worldwide wars and worldwide weather, is that they all initially provided models that assumed the underlying systems exhibit linear behavior. Small changes are assumed to produce small outcomes. Initial conditions, if system processes are known, are thought to matter little with ultimate inevitabilities. Similar to graphing a line using the formula y=mx+b, if the input variable x is not completely accurate (due to some measurement limitations, for example), the calculated output y will not be far removed from the real result. During the past two decades, researchers in various fields have come to the conclusion that many systems exhibit nonlinear behavior. Chemical reactions, biological configurations, physical structures, economical cycles, and even traffic patterns have been shown to have certain similarities: the underlying systems can be shown in a mathematical sense to have complexity, and this complexity can result in behavior which in some cases is chaotic (again, in a mathematical sense) and in some cases exhibits patterns of emergent order. Complexity theory and chaos theory, the discipline from which the former has descended, have shown that diverse systems can share similar properties, regardless of the agents involved. Kenneth Waltz notes that, "Among the depressing features of international-political studies is the small gain in explanatory power that has come from the large amount of work done in recent decades. Nothing seems to accumulate, not even criticism." (Waltz 1979, 18). Is it possible that earlier theories have overlooked crucial aspects of the international system that doomed them, if not to failure, at least to a early deaths or irrelevance? Do certain systems hold things in common that effect the accuracy of predictions? What if a variety of systems, in various disciplines, have some fundamental similarities that determine behavior patterns? Presented here is not a new theory of international relations, or even a theory as such. Rather, it is argued that advances in the study of complex nonlinear systems can provide insights into outcomes in the international arena.
2NC Framework
1. Allowing Taoist thought is necessary to break free from the limits rationalist thinking imposes. Any critique from the perspective of the rationalist is tainted by their own preconceptions. Ralph Pettman, Professor in the School of History, Philosophy, Political Science and International Relations at Victoria University of Wellington, 2005 (Taoism And The Concept Of Global Security, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Volume 5, Number 1, Available Online to
19

Subscribing Institutions via Oxford Journals Online, p. 81-82)
[Name]
Taoists do not see the concept of global security as being about order, well-being, or even truth. They do not see the concept of global security in the way modernists/rationalists see this concept. This can be somewhat frustrating for those who want explicit policy alternatives to appraise, since Taoism does not provide fixed policy alternatives. What Taoism does do is transgress the limits rationalist thinking sets, however, and compensates for the distortions it creates. The rationalist will insist on scrutinizing what the [end page 81] Taoist says, but his or her scrutiny will still be compromised by his or her own preconceptions. This is why we need to keep on recasting the rationalist concept of global security in a sacral context like the Taoist one.
2NC Alternative
Preplanned solutions will fail. We must engage in action only as its necessary. Ralph Pettman, Professor in the School of History, Philosophy, Political Science and International Relations at Victoria University of Wellington, 2005 (Taoism And The Concept Of Global Security, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Volume 5, Number 1, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Oxford Journals Online, p. 76) Returning to the analytic map of the concept of global security provided at the start, we can now compare the thinking of those who speak as liberal analysts of the inter-state system or society, for example, with their optimistic assumptions about the capacity for tit-for-tat behaviour, and Taoist thinking, which makes no such assumptions, and is not constrained by the rationalist context in which such assumptions are articulated. Wu-wei decrees no need to return tit-for-tat in promoting global security. It may mean practising reciprocity. It may not. There is no conceptual obligation either way, since no unnatural action is not a contractual practice. The Tao te ching espouses a sense of the human whole instead. Since the Taoist also eschews legislated forms of morality, he or she is not bound to the kind of agreements that make international alliances and organizations possible. In dealing with global security matters, he or she seeks to employ sacral spontaneity rather than analytic deliberation, artlessness rather than purposefulness, and to engage in action not planned in the more premeditated way.
2NC Nature = Benevolent

The Tao operates wisely supposed moral intervention will only disrupt that process Kirkland, 98 [Russell Kirkland, Associate Professor of Religion (and Asian Studies), "Responsible NonAction" In a Natural World: Perspectives from the Nei-Yeh, Chuang-Tzu, and Tao-Te Ching, 1998, University of Georgia,http://kirkland.myweb.uga.edu/rk/pdf/pubs/ECO.pdf] The reader of the Tao te ching, for instance, is certainly enjoined not to practice jen, the Confucian ideal of "benevolence." Since Heaven-and-Earth do not practice jen, there is certainly no good reason for any of us to do so. If we see a baby tottering on the edge of a well, a hurricane heading for a village, or an environmental change that seems to threaten the existence of a natural species or its habitat, the Taoist
20
[Name]
response to all such situations is clearly the same: do not, do not take interventional action! Only a fool would think himself wiser than the processes of nature itself. But doesn't such a position leave us with an apparent moral quandary? Wouldn't it be immoral to stand idly by and do nothing while a baby, a town, or a species is exterminated? Wouldn't inaction in such cases be immoral? Don't we have a moral responsibility to take heroic action to save those who are endangered, and thereby "foster life"? The answer to all these questions is a resounding yes provided, that is, that one is a Christian, Confucian, or modern liberal! For everyone in those traditions, it would be unthinkable to stand idly by and allow anyone human or nonhuman, individual or species simply to die. But I shall be radical enough to argue that there is another perspective from which to view such issues, the perspective of those in ancient China who actually took seriously three utterly preposterous propositions: those propositions are (1) that the Tao exists, and (2) that it operates wisely and reliably, without human input or assistance, and (3) that anything that any human attempts to do in the world will inevitably interfere with that operation, leading ineluctably to unintended but quite avoidable tragedy. Such propositions are utterly at odds with certain fundamental assumptions of modern thought secular or religious. To followers of Western religions, God created a world full of living things, them left them to fend for themselves, subject only to the stewardship of human beings, God's most intelligent creation. On the basis of that assumption, humans appear to have a moral responsibility to take action to protect and defend other creatures when necessary. Of course, such assumptions do not explain why God would create sentient beings and leave them at the mercy of processes beyond their control: for some unexplained reason, God who is allwise and all-loving is unwilling or unable to safeguard his own living creations, and must rely upon his human creations to do that job for him. The secular perspective, derived from the scenario just described, is that living things evolved without any input from higher forces, and are therefore at the mercy of natural processes and human actions. From this perspective, as from the Western religious perspective, there is no benign force that can be trusted to provide for the general welfare of earth's inhabitants, so when nonhuman creatures are threatened, there is no hope for them unless heroically beneficent humans take interventional action to save them. Humans who accept such assumptions and act upon them are widely regarded as "enlightened" and "compassionate."But such perspectives on the nature of life on earth make certain assumptions that no Taoist is ever going to make. Notice, for instance, that from the modern perspective, "natural processes" are not inherently benign: they either pose threats, such as when one creature's expanding habitat threatens another, or they are too weak to withstand the effects of human activity. From the modern perspective, (1) there is no force involved in life's affairs that is as powerful as that of human beings, and (2) while there may be a wiser consciousness than ours, it does not systematically protect or care for living things, so there is also no wiser involvement in life's affairs than our own. Ultimately, these perspectives assume human power and wisdom to be supreme, and they assume that "nature" is guided and protected by no benign forces beyond ourselves.
AT: No Alt Spillover

2. The aff doesnt happen its not about what should be done its about how we should live. Your embrace of wu wei has more value than waving the magic wand of fiat. Kirkland, 98 [Russell Kirkland, Associate Professor of Religion (and Asian Studies), "Responsible NonAction" In a Natural World: Perspectives from the Nei-Yeh, Chuang-Tzu, and Tao-Te Ching, 1998, University of Georgia,http://kirkland.myweb.uga.edu/rk/pdf/pubs/ECO.pdf] The Transformative Power of the Perfected Person The modern mind finds it easy to reject such
21
[Name]
interpretations, however sound, because they not only fail to help us solve our problems in a happy way, but they challenge us to question whether or not we really ought to try to solve those problems. Such implications can be deeply unsettling, because a fundamental thrust of Western humanism is that humans are different from and superior to banana slugs because humans can analyze problems and take action to solve them. From that perspective, refusal to engage in such problem-solving activity would reduce us to the status of the banana slug, and would thus constitute a shameful abnegation of our moral duties. Neither secular nor religious minds in the modern West can find justification for the proposition that the state of affairs in the world around us is, to be blunt, simply none of our business. That some Taoists texts tell us to see life in those terms is unacceptable to many, so rather than sacrifice the beauty of Taoist naturalism by rejecting Taoism as unhelpful, they simply redefine Taoism to suit their own sensibilities, denying the very presence of teachings that offend our modern perspectives. How dare one suggest that the sage who follows the Tao would really take the same course as a banana slug, watching dispassionately as life's strange pageant unfolds around us? Surely humans are superior to the other creatures, like the slug, who allow life to proceed on its own course, because humans are capable of intervening in life's events. From the perspective of classical Taoism, Western humanism makes the mistake of assuming that the ability to intervene in life's events translates into a moral duty to do so. The constant and unmistakable teaching of the Tao te ching is that humans are indeed capable of intervening in life's events, but the evidence of life, which humans constantly ignore, is that such intervention is destructive to all involved, and that we therefore have a moral duty to refrain from taking such actions. Such a perspective will strike many modern minds as a heartless and unthinkable one. But that is because we have modern minds, and our fundamental assumptions are utterly at odds with those of the producers of the Taoist texts of ancient China. We assume, for instance, that beneficent involvement with the world around us must inevitably involve interventional activity. But that is because we are not Taoists. A careful re-reading of the Taoist texts of ancient China, as well as of many later texts, shows that the Taoists who told us to leave the world alone were neither heartless nor defeatist: they merely advocated a form of beneficent involvement in the world that we today dismiss as impossible, because in our terms it is wholly inconceivable. That is the teaching that the transformation of oneself into a sagely being, in accord with the deeper realities of life, has a corresponding effect on everyone and everything around one, extending ultimately to envelope the whole world. As a matter of fact, when one transforms one's being into a state or process that is in harmony with life's true realities, that state or process has a beneficent effect upon the world around one, and facilitates the reversion of all things to a naturally healthy and harmonious condition. This teaching is vaguely suggested in Chuang-tzu and the Nei-yeh, more clearly suggested in the Tao te ching, and more fully adumbrated in texts of Han times and beyond. Many Chinese writers, starting with the editor of the Tao te ching, found it hard to resist the impulse to express such teachings as teachings that referred to the life of the ruler. The Tao te ching, of course, maintains quite clearly that when the ruler refrains from interventional activity and cleaves to the unitary unseen reality called the Tao, the world inevitably reverts to its natural and proper condition. Today, of course, we are all quite sure that such teachings are preposterous and unthinkable, and therefore we do not think them. Apparently, there were similar responses to such teachings in ancient China, for the composer of sections of the Tao te ching laments that although his teachings are informed by a powerful ruling force, people do not believe in it, and therefore do not believe his teachings. He insists, nonetheless, that we should believe them, and the respectful reader today should at least ponder the shape and contents of such teachings.
22

AT: The Alt Links to the Critique
[Name]
1. Voting neg doesnt require passing judgment only action is attached to achieving desired ends. Inaction is the natural result of emptying yourself of thought and living in the present moment. You are voting neg to avoid action not against the aff. Simply choose not to endorse their call to action. Presumption theory and the Tao agree. Kirkland, 98 [Russell Kirkland, Associate Professor of Religion (and Asian Studies), "Responsible NonAction" In a Natural World: Perspectives from the Nei-Yeh, Chuang-Tzu, and Tao-Te Ching, 1998, University of Georgia,http://kirkland.myweb.uga.edu/rk/pdf/pubs/ECO.pdf] But doesn't the Tao te ching enjoin the reader to somehow do something to correct a world that is now in disarray? Doesn't the Tao te ching urge the reader to engage in new and different behaviors, so that the world may thereby be redeemed from the problems that currently afflict it. The answer to these questions appear to be "yes." But note that neither question actually calls for humans to take any action to intervene in worldly events. Rather, the reader of the Tao te ching is enjoined to make a bold and meaningful change in the world by (1) beginning the bold and enlightened process of refraining from interventional activity, and (2) allowing the inherent beneficent forces of the world forces that cannot be aided by human activity to hold sway. The bold transition to new and different behavior that are urged upon the reader is a transition away from the assumption that humans can or ought to intervene in life's events. The only wise and beneficent behavior in which humans can engage is a behavior of humble and enlightened self-restraint, self-restraint that is necessary to ensure that we no longer interfere with the beneficent activity of the benign natural force called "the Tao." 2. The alt doesnt link even if it prescribes action it is only after careful meditation. Ralph Pettman, Professor in the School of History, Philosophy, Political Science and International Relations at Victoria University of Wellington, 2005 (Taoism And The Concept Of Global Security, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Volume 5, Number 1, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Oxford Journals Online, p. 80-81) It is at this point that Taoists are most likely to be misunderstood. When Taoists tell state-makers to be more actively pacifist, for example, they seem to be advising them to intervene less. This is not necessarily so, however. A Taoist does not necessarily advise either retreat or quiescence. A Taoist response might be more interventionist, or it might be less interventionist. The Taoist will decide from one moment to the next what is most appropriate. If he or she does advise intervention, then he or she is not likely to [end page 80] advise that this be done in a single-minded way. All of which might be scant comfort for the harassed policy adviser, though it might be a welcome breather for the policy-maker himor herself. It might even be a moment he or she wants to prolong. 5
2NC Discrimination Impact

Only spiritual change can solve true discrimination. Slabbert, 01 [Jos, Taoist teacher and philosopher, Tao te Ching: How to Deal with Suffering http://www.taoism.net/theway/suffer.htm] Discrimination When people see some things as beautiful, other more powerful than any political program.
23
[Name]
24

Taoism K

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Taoism K

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

AT: Inaction is Immoral

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

AT: Extinction/Death Bad

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

2NC Nature = Benevolent

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

AT: No Alt Spillover

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

2NC Discrimination Impact

Georgetown 2011-12 [File Name]

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen