3 ms·

> they will also likely discover the power of force That is one possibility. Another is wu wei, passive denial of benefits, malicious compliance, lying flat.

> they will also likely discover the power of force That is one possibility. Another is wu wei, passive denial of benefits, malicious compliance, lying flat. The householder role stops working? Practice renunciation and take the monastic path instead. People will be upset that you have made yourself useless to them, but you're completely within your rights. (This is not really spiritually good, since it comes from a place of contempt, of course. But it's where, "fine, fuckit" gets you.) Multiplied across a whole society, however, this does of course lead to sagging GDP and reduced living standards. It's a little like the West's approach to Russia or Iran. Force is off the table? Ok: "You will no longer receive any gains from trade. We'll see who can last longer." This is roughly where heterosexuality was in 2020, I fear sometimes. But, with everyone finally emerging from their houses now, I think they may appreciate other people more now. We'll see if it lasts.

jonaustin 5y ago
Just to speak to a common misconception - this is not what Wu Wei means. Wu Wei is a core part of Taoism, and translates (very) roughly along the lines of "following the way of nature" or going with the flow. It most definitely is not nihilism.
- FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
  Thanks. To zeroeth order I understand it as "the power of inaction", but clearly the connotations are supposed to be much more positive than in my earlier usage. Whether what I'm describing is nihilism I'm not sure, but it might be. ("No True Nihilist"?) Certainly what it is is passive. It seems easy for renunciation to go bad, to become a degenerate, contemptuous, and self-indulgent thing. Maybe the idea from Hinduism (as I understand it, and translate coarsely) is better: Always put yourself out there, and do care about your execution, but don't be attached to the results. That might be a better way to avoid suffering without encouraging depressive (passive, inactive) behaviors? The conservative would struggle with: How does one "go with the flow", if the flow goes over the falls? How does one go with the flow and with Nature, if, in the short term (where we have to live), the flow seems to be against Nature? And how do you deal with all the nasty game-theoretics of it while keeping your decency? Do you really just keep turning the other cheek, or do you need some proportionate response strategy from Repeated Games? I'm really not sure. I think part of the answer has to be wanting less, materially. Maybe that's a thing that a couple can do, together, because they get something more valuable in return, e.g. a family. But I'm just thinking aloud. I think this is why I like Ecclesiastes so much. "You're not alone: This guy in the Bronze Age had the same struggle, and wrote it all down, honestly." (He didn't reach all the conclusions that the Buddhists did, of course.) shrug I should go do something useful.
  - dmalecaut 5y ago
    +1 for Ecclesiastes

jonaustin 5y ago

Just to speak to a common misconception - this is not what Wu Wei means. Wu Wei is a core part of Taoism, and translates (very) roughly along the lines of "following the way of nature" or going with the flow. It most definitely is not nihilism.

FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
Thanks. To zeroeth order I understand it as "the power of inaction", but clearly the connotations are supposed to be much more positive than in my earlier usage. Whether what I'm describing is nihilism I'm not sure, but it might be. ("No True Nihilist"?) Certainly what it is is passive. It seems easy for renunciation to go bad, to become a degenerate, contemptuous, and self-indulgent thing. Maybe the idea from Hinduism (as I understand it, and translate coarsely) is better: Always put yourself out there, and do care about your execution, but don't be attached to the results. That might be a better way to avoid suffering without encouraging depressive (passive, inactive) behaviors? The conservative would struggle with: How does one "go with the flow", if the flow goes over the falls? How does one go with the flow and with Nature, if, in the short term (where we have to live), the flow seems to be against Nature? And how do you deal with all the nasty game-theoretics of it while keeping your decency? Do you really just keep turning the other cheek, or do you need some proportionate response strategy from Repeated Games? I'm really not sure. I think part of the answer has to be wanting less, materially. Maybe that's a thing that a couple can do, together, because they get something more valuable in return, e.g. a family. But I'm just thinking aloud. I think this is why I like Ecclesiastes so much. "You're not alone: This guy in the Bronze Age had the same struggle, and wrote it all down, honestly." (He didn't reach all the conclusions that the Buddhists did, of course.) shrug I should go do something useful.
- dmalecaut 5y ago
  +1 for Ecclesiastes