In the West, there has been a movement towards a society that is orderly and rational. Historically, the roots of this movement can be traced to the Enlightenment, when a fear of human intuition, emotion, and superstition led to a hyper-rational ethic that persists till this day. But this ethic can be a barrier towards gaining wisdom.
As Iain McGilchrist argues, in his book The Master and His Emissary, the East and West differ with regards to how they interpret reality. In the West, the emphasis is on taking a side. There is a winner and a loser, a correct argument and a false argument, and no room for contradiction. Whereas in the East, it is the opposite. Children are taught to understand the world through its contradictions. That is, contradictions are a source of trouble in the West, but in the East, they are a source of illumination.
Thank you for your content, really good stuff.
Open question: in your concrete example, are you not still saying that “the contradiction is only apparent, but not real. That is, the two statements are complimentary to one another, and not contradictory….what we see is the rejection of contradiction.”
You solved the problem of an apparent contradiction by placing the situation of George Floyd within a specific context, i.e. a particular vantage point (the administration versus average American). But it seems that on some level we may hold both views at all times because there’s always the simultaneous question of what is better for me the individual versus what is better for the collective group. Perhaps this may be wherein lies the tension or contradiction?
Verse 36 to me is essentially to use your power like Judo to take the inherent directional energy of the object you’re engaging with and use it in your favor. Verse 64 feels like the classic “you reap what you sow” or “measure twice/cut once,” whether you take the time to ensure a good start to your journey thereby increasing your odds of success, or you are “rushing into action” and “forcing a project to completion.”
I agree with your conclusion, “that there are two fundamentally different ways of solving a problem, and we must exercise clear thinking to figure out which is more appropriate.” In essence, that the principles we live by may be contradictory when juxtaposed, but the proper application of them requires wisdom which transcends this apparent contradiction.
Well said, Frank. Thank you for this comment!
In the George Floyd example, it seems like the contradiction is not there, when looked at from different perspectives. Yet the passages from the Tao Te Ching, if you wanted to apply them to the this specific example, you would end up with different solutions. In other words, the wisdom you apply depends on who you are and what you want. In some ways, this resolves the contradiction, as you mentioned, because relativity ensures that only one course of action is followed. But as you perfectly stated here, “there’s always the simultaneous question of what is better for me the individual versus what is better for the collective group.”
And to take this a step further, there is always a contradiction between what is better for me as an individual today, and what is better for me as an individual in the future. Or what is better for me as a biological being vs what is good for me as a citizen in society) etc…
The existence of this infinite number of simultaneous contradictions, ensures that a streamlined consistent way of thinking is an illusion at best. It all depends on your level of analysis. So it’s not only that the passages have ideas that can contradict each other, it’s that no matter what ideas you have, when it comes to their application, they will be met with multiple layers of contradiction. One would feel the need to pick a side, but I think we must go beyond this illusion.
You stated it perfectly here.
“In essence, that the principles we live by may be contradictory when juxtaposed, but the proper application of them requires wisdom which transcends this apparent contradiction.”
For this to be possible, one would need to be mindful of the contradictions inherent in each behavior, and not to see this as a problem that should be solved.