5 ms·

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 "fol

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

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