Responsible Non-action in a Natural World

[GliderGuider]

A few days ago I stumbled across a remarkable paper entitled "Responsible Non-action" in a Natural World. It was written by Russell Kirkland of the University of Georgia as a contribution to the 2001 essay collection "Daoism and Ecology: Ways Within a Cosmic Landscape".

The article had a tremendous impact on me. As I read, I realized that it contained a complete and precise description of the reasons I prefer non-action over activism as my response to the Global Clusterfuck. Drawing on Taoist principles, Kirkland lays out the philosophical foundations of Quietist position I describe as "Don't just do something, sit there!" In the process he answers, at least to my satisfaction, the facile accusations of nihilism, fatalism and defeatism that generally greet such a position statement.

This discovery has prompted me to begin a deeper exploration of Taoism, a philosophy that had always taken a back seat to Zen and Advaita in my non-dual journey. The more I find out, the more I suspect that for me Taoism may in fact deserve pride of place.

Taoist principles as applied to the unfolding socio-ecological crisis are antithetical, even repugnant, to the Western liberal, progressive, humanist value-set represented by the environmentalist movement from John Muir to Derrick Jensen. For me, however, they resonate with a deep truth. So I offer them here for your consideration - to expand the horizons of the discussion or to put the cat amongst the pigeons, take your pick.

Here's a short excerpt:

On the basis on the texts of classical Taoism, I contend that the only possible Taoist position is that humans who foresee impending ecological disaster should, as it were, sit down and shut up, and let the universe work. While it is also true that those who lead an authentically Taoist life are unlikely to contribute in substantial ways to any ecological degradation of the planet, that fact alone does not justify the conclusion that Taoist principles can justify remedial action to correct the effects of less-insightful humans of past and present.

The Taoist answer to ecological problems, I shall argue, is always to be found in going contrary to the Confucians, who assume humans to have a special wisdom that is nowhere else found among the living things of the world: whereas a Confucian, like Mencius, would feel morally compelled to jump up and dive into the river of life's events to save a threatened species, a Taoist, like Chuang-tzu, would feel morally compelled to refrain from doing so.

(...)

The fundamental principle involved is that humans are not the all-knowing beings that we usually take ourselves to be, and that the activities that humans have taken with the intention to govern or improve the world have almost always proven, in the final analysis, to have been misguided and unjustified, and to have actually done more harm than good. The ultimate Taoist principle, I propose, is that there is a reality beyond the comprehension or control of human thought or activity, and that humans of the modern secular age need to beware the arrogant assumption that we are, in Western terms, the "God" of planet earth. The Taoist position, I shall argue, is that planet earth has no "God," and needs none, not even — or more correctly said, especially not — ourselves.

The paper can be found here:

http://faculty.franklin.uga.edu/kirkland/sites/faculty.franklin.uga.edu.kirkland/files/ECO.pdf

[bananas]

1. A praying mantis would walk in the door and watch

whenever we practiced praying mantis kung fu.

[bananas]

2. a point of fundamental importance

Girardot raises a point of fundamental importance, that is, that
from the Taoist perspective "life" is not a mere biological phenomenon — neither in humans or
in nonhumans — but rather a meaningful process that extends into a dimension that extends
beyond, and is logically distinguishable from, the visible dimension of biological activity of
various human or nonhuman bodies.

The full paragraph:

The intriguing paradox seems to be that medieval Taoist literature abounds in stories of
exemplary men and women who earned recognition — and on occasion, the boon of immortality
— by secretly performing compassionate acts, particularly for people and animals disdained by
others.12 Is that because Taoists recognized "life" as a category that included the "lives" of
nonhuman creatures, the way that modern environmentalists do? To argue in that manner would
seem to argue ultimately that Taoists proceeded from Christian assumptions, i.e., that all living
things are equally God's creations, and are therefore deserving of equal respect. The modern
extension of that assumption involves the modern biological concept of "life": any creature,
human or otherwise, is considered as living if it has been born, has not yet died, and is therefore
capable of having a meaningful set of "life-experiences." But are such assumptions shared by
the classical Taoists, or even compatible with the classical Taoists' understanding of the reality of
which we are a part? In a 1979 publication, Norman J. Girardot argued otherwise: "Indeed," he
stated, "the very idea of life or health, including as it does both physical and spiritual dimensions,
evokes an archaic aura of religious meaning — that the fullness of life is supranormal by
conventional standards."13 Here Girardot raises a point of fundamental importance, that is, that
from the Taoist perspective "life" is not a mere biological phenomenon — neither in humans or
in nonhumans — but rather a meaningful process that extends into a dimension that extends
beyond, and is logically distinguishable from, the visible dimension of biological activity of
various human or nonhuman bodies. To argue for preserving the biological activity of bodies —
individual or species-wide, human or non-human — is to deny the most vital aspect of the entire
Taoist tradition — an enduring call to see our reality as extending into the unseen — and to
embrace a definition of "life" that is ultimately materialistic and, for that reason, essentially
irreligious.14 What is so incredibly difficult for the modern mind to accept is that the Taoists of
ancient China valued "life," but that they did not value what modern minds tend to define as
"life." To Taoists, I have argued, the reality of a human being's life extends far beyond the
biological activity of his or her body, and in those terms a medical model that defines "life" in
strictly biological terms seems quite perverted. So when the Taoists urged us to "foster life,"
they meant something that was utterly different from a modern person's urge to keep Aunt Emily
breathing, or to keep the whooping cranes breeding.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. How does a follower of Taoism know that this beneficent 'way' exists, when they mistrust

their own judgement to know the consequences of their actions? If a human is that incompetent, how can a human know of the existence of the non-material tao? And how do the judgements of what is 'profoundly wrong', 'clearly silly' and 'culpable stupidity' occur to the useless humans (eg Kirkland) who screw everything up if they act?

It seems a huge exercise in wishful thinking, to me. "I'm too stupid to decide anything, but there is a force that will make everything turn out for the best, if I do nothing. I know this because things happen when I do nothing, and I define whatever happens as the best outcome".

[GliderGuider]

4. Either you get it or you don't.

No problem, the world's a big place, with enough room for 7.2 billion world-views. I'm not here to convert anyone to Taoism, I'm just speaking my own views.

Personally, I don't believe such a thing as "free will" exists, so people will act in whatever way they are going to act. That includes everyone: people who "decide" to become activists, people who "decide" to step back from action (quietists), people who "decide" to become politicians or CEOs of Big XXX corporations, or those who simply raise their families. No blame attaches to any of it, IMO.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. So the point is that no-one has any responsibility at all?

Strange to title the piece "Responsible Non-action in a Natural World", then.

[GliderGuider]

6. It all depends on how you define the word "responsible".

The title of the piece was from Kirkland, who doesn't seem to hold my opinion about free will. AFAICT classical Taoism assumes free will exists. I do not.

In my opinion, no-one has "responsibility" in the way I think you mean the term (i.e. the Western, post-Enlightenment, activist meaning of the term). That would require people to be able to behave differently than they actually do. I don't think they can, at least in the more subtle interpretation of that idea.

[cprise]

10. If we are like yeast filling a flask

according to some (ill posited) theory that humanity is a force of nature fulfilling a thermodynamic principle, then the notion of responsibility has indeed been dismissed.

Of course, hypocrisy abounds with those who vociferously try to discourage people from un-yeast-like behavior.

[bananas]

7. That really isn't a good introduction to Taoism or the concept of wu-wei (non-action).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei

Wu wei (Chinese: 無爲; a variant and derivatives: traditional Chinese: 無為; simplified Chinese: 无为; pinyin: wú wéi; Japanese: 無為; Korean: 무위; Vietnamese: Vô vi; English, lit. non-doing) is an important concept in Taoism that literally means non-action or non-doing. In the Tao te Ching, Laozi explains that beings (or phenomena) that are wholly in harmony with the Tao behave in a completely natural, uncontrived way. The goal of spiritual practice for the human being is, according to Laozi, the attainment of this purely natural way of behaving, as when the planets revolve around the sun. The planets effortlessly do this revolving without any sort of control, force, or attempt to revolve themselves, instead engaging in effortless and spontaneous movement.

http://www.jadedragon.com/archives/june98/tao.html

A key principle in realizing our oneness with the Tao is that of wu-wei, or "non-doing." Wu-wei refers to behavior that arises from a sense of oneself as connected to others and to one's environment. It is not motivated by a sense of separateness. It is action that is spontaneous and effortless. At the same time it is not to be considered inertia, laziness, or mere passivity. Rather, it is the experience of going with the grain or swimming with the current. Our contemporary expression, "going with the flow," is a direct expression of this fundamental Taoist principle, which in its most basic form refers to behavior occurring in response to the flow of the Tao.

The principle of wu-wei contains certain implications. Foremost among these is the need to consciously experience ourselves as part of the unity of life that is the Tao. Lao Tzu writes that we must be quiet and watchful, learning to listen to both our own inner voices and to the voices of our environment in a non-interfering, receptive manner. In this way we also learn to rely on more than just our intellect and logical mind to gather and assess information. We develop and trust our intuition as our direct connection to the Tao. We heed the intelligence of our whole body, not only our brain. And we learn through our own experience. All of this allows us to respond readily to the needs of the environment, which of course includes ourselves. And just as the Tao functions in a manner to promote harmony and balance, our own actions, performed in the spirit of wu-wei, produce the same result.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. That certainly does sound quite different

While that says "trust our intuition as our direct connection to the Tao", the OP piece seemed to be saying our intuition was human and therefore no guide whatsoever, and thus a reaction like "of course we should save the baby" was immature and ought to be suppressed. Which didn't sound like a system that could have been popular for more than a couple of thousand years.

[GliderGuider]

9. Thanks! I didn't know you had this depth of interest.

Thanks for bringing in wu-wei - it would have helped if Kirkland had addressed it more directly. OTOH wu-wei is a concept that would require its own paper to explain.

[cprise]

11. I think the lesson here

is what egg on face feels like.

[GliderGuider]

12. That's appropriately inscrutable.

Whose face do you feel has been egged on? So far I just see a discussion.