From: tims@megatek.com (Tim Scott)
Subject: Re: RFD: misc.taoism
Reply-To: tims@megatek.com
Organization: Megatek Corporation, San Diego, California
Lines: 72

In article <79899@cup.portal.com> Thyagi@cup.portal.com (Thyagi Morgoth NagaSiva) writes:


I would like to add my support for a misc.taoism discussion group.
I applaud the enthusiam shown by the person posting <79899@cup.portal.com> 
"Thyagi@cup.portal.com" (I read in alt.magick), but I differ
with him/her in believing that at least some minimal parameters 
should be agreed upon.

Thyagi wrote:

> I recommend that the depth of generality, indeed, of AMBIGUITY, in this
> newsgroup (misc.taoism) be maximized.  Calling the Tradition old or new
> is rather unnecessary, and only leads to foolish squabbles.  There is no
> doubt that Nature is a splendid teacher, whether she appears in the words
> spoken by a tree or by a stream, a microbe or a star.  Let us not limit
> 'misc.taoism' to 'philosophy'.  

But if we don't limit it to *something*, the discussion degenerates into
a big amorphous glob. 

Other questions Thyagi proposes are:

> 1) What is this 'actual process of reality'?
> 2) Why is Taoism based upon an assumption?
> 3) Why does this assumption concern knowledge and what can be known?
> 4) What is the value of not knowing?
> 5) What is 'a Tao'?  What does it mean to be 'Tao'd'?

It seems to me that these questions more properly fall into the
category of "general metaphysics". I would prefer any misc.taoism
to deal more closely with topics and works more closely associated
with at least "semi-orthodox" Taoism: with established classic works 
definitely included and works like Mantak Chia's argued about! 

I think "neo-Taoism" should be excluded or get its own group (what I
mean by this is "Humpty-Dumpty Taoism", in which Taoism means whatever 
a poster says it means.) This "alt.taoism" could also be a refuge 
for debates about what "Taoism *REALLY* means" or speculations on sexual
alchemy, etc..

e.g. (from Thyagi again):
> Taoism does what the hell it wants, I tell you.
> Taoism doesn't exist.  'Taoism' is no more real that 'Tao'.  Decide, now.
> Real or not real?  Exist or not-exist?  When shall we be certain

Kent gloomily predicts (quoting from Thyagi's article):

> However most traffic in 
> the group will likely concern the philosophical, secular taoism
> averred by Alan Watts and Niels Bohr, and yogic taoism as it pertains
> to medical, sexual and martial techniques.

I think that discussions of this nature are not completely out of
place. What's happening is that that the term "Taoism" is becoming
completely polluted and trivialized like the words "magic", "Alchemy", 
"Zen," etc., by writers appropriating the word to mean whatever they 
want. This is seen by the spate of new age books entitled "The
Tao of" this, that, and everything else. (With respect to some exceptions
like the books by Jou, Tsung-Hwa.)

Any other comments/ideas? I look forward to seeing them. On balance,
I say let misc.taoism rip and let the chips fall where they may. If
it just gets filled up with college freshmen asking about the
Tao of Sex then it will have been a failure and people will post to
these groups just as they do now.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim P. Scott sending from: Megatek Corporation    (619)455-5590 ext.2610
9645 Scranton Rd. San Diego, CA 92121-3782 USA        FAX: (619)453-7603
Internet: tims@megatek.com [or] ...uunet!megatek!tims 
