Cal Roeker's comment on humans as occasionally intersecting vectors is the view that we might characterize as the American Way. The Founders, in contrast to Thomas Hobbes' idea that government (codified society) is what held people back from anarchy and a "constant state of war," went instead to the more benign notion of the individual. Given that we were all endowed by our creator with certain "goods" - and as such were essentially good in a natural sense - they saw that it was the tyranny of government more than anything else that caused harm to human society. Thus, limited government; thus the primacy of the individual. In this they did NOT forbid others to found communal societies; rather it was up to the individual to find his source of happiness under liberty. In this sense, neither individualism or collectivism is necessarily the end - but rather, that the individual has an un-coerced choice to make regarding his personal obligations (beyond that of the necessary structure to insure that others could not take away that choice.)
Yes, I know I step into deep waters, and will steer away towards something both lighter and deeper still: what is the natural path for humans? What is, as the old Chinese would say, the will of heaven?
The Tao looked to the activities of nature to determine the natural in man. The importance of this struck me one day when one of my brothers said, "but [this certain law] is not in line with the laws of nature!" But what laws of nature? From the Darwinian perspective came social Darwinism, where human society should reflect the struggle for fitness that evolutionists saw in the natural world. Late 19th century American industrialists made the identification with creating the American Rose - that is, they claimed that to make the perfect rose, the inferior roses had to be clipped away. This notion brought us the infamous monopolies of that era, which once in place controlled prices any which way they desired. Acting against the American tradition of limited government, but for the idea of American freedom, Teddy Roosevelt enacted laws against such monopolies (and I believe they improved the nation as we headed into the industrial age). Thus, we saw that the after effects of naked capitalism could lead to its reverse - the lack of competition and the laws of supply and demand. But did we then transgress the rule of nature? By this, did we go against the will of heaven?
Coming out of the deep waters, I will rely on my own views of nature, supplanted by views from people who lived without government authority. Rousseau, against Hobbes, viewed the primitives as people living as they should in a veritable Garden of Eden, in peace and well-being. While we of the past several centuries could never witness people truly beyond at least some influence of civilization, we can, I think, infer from the myths of primitives a good notion of their relation with nature and other people. As it turns out, these relationships were far more complex than one might think: some of the "gods" were bad; some animals turned into devious, although not necessarily evil, tricksters; people killed one another and men rose over women. In this primitive mythological view, nature was not evil nor entirely good, but deceptive and slippery - what we might call "real." But ultimately, it was filled with wonder. If one word could be used to encapsulate the primitive concept of nature, it would be 'wonder.'
This might teach one to follow the will of heaven by opening up to wonder - which would be the power of spirit that suffuses everything, beyond the means to empirically understand it all. But how might that govern our behavior? How might that determine which is the best form of government?
I see in nature, besides its ultimate magical wonder, attributes that we might attribute to both Darwin and Rousseau. Darwin in that nature can be absolutely brutal. Look at your cat playing with he dying mouse; look at chickens and their vicious pecking order; and don't even look at the insect world! And yet, nature is not out to get anyone - it and its animals simply do what they are supposed to do and seldom any more. Bears don't mount attacks against humans for dominance any more than hurricanes search for human settlements before landing. No, they just go their own route, and with rational observation, humans can pretty much avoid the worst, at least until old age takes us. There is in nature no more compelling order than to do what comes naturally - with those things that don't being culled by the steady demands of survival.
This says to me that humans should, just as the Founders thought, seek out their own paths to happiness provided, as Hobbes would have it, that we don't keep others from THEIR path in the process. This, too me, speaks of the naturalness of individual freedom and dignity, even if this freedom causes the individual to willingly give up the centrality of his individuality. The latter is a move of spirit - and should be free from government intrusion or coercion - just as the US Constitution would have it.
Finally - is harmony part of the will of heaven? Yes, by definition, but what is that harmony? For geese it would be to flock; for bears, it would be to disperse. Which is it for humans? Again, I side with the Founders - that the human route is to find happiness. And if harmony for humans is seeking one's personal happiness while allowing others to do so as well, maybe we don't have to consider either individualism or collectivism in our scheme. Maybe the lone prophet in the wilderness is as sacred as the guru in his village. I think, at bottom, it is finding what will make one truly happy - and I believe that to be harmony of spirit. But that is our journey, to find this out. If we follow the golden rule, we should all be left to do so - free of Big Brother as well as the American Rose. FK
Yes, I know I step into deep waters, and will steer away towards something both lighter and deeper still: what is the natural path for humans? What is, as the old Chinese would say, the will of heaven?
The Tao looked to the activities of nature to determine the natural in man. The importance of this struck me one day when one of my brothers said, "but [this certain law] is not in line with the laws of nature!" But what laws of nature? From the Darwinian perspective came social Darwinism, where human society should reflect the struggle for fitness that evolutionists saw in the natural world. Late 19th century American industrialists made the identification with creating the American Rose - that is, they claimed that to make the perfect rose, the inferior roses had to be clipped away. This notion brought us the infamous monopolies of that era, which once in place controlled prices any which way they desired. Acting against the American tradition of limited government, but for the idea of American freedom, Teddy Roosevelt enacted laws against such monopolies (and I believe they improved the nation as we headed into the industrial age). Thus, we saw that the after effects of naked capitalism could lead to its reverse - the lack of competition and the laws of supply and demand. But did we then transgress the rule of nature? By this, did we go against the will of heaven?
Coming out of the deep waters, I will rely on my own views of nature, supplanted by views from people who lived without government authority. Rousseau, against Hobbes, viewed the primitives as people living as they should in a veritable Garden of Eden, in peace and well-being. While we of the past several centuries could never witness people truly beyond at least some influence of civilization, we can, I think, infer from the myths of primitives a good notion of their relation with nature and other people. As it turns out, these relationships were far more complex than one might think: some of the "gods" were bad; some animals turned into devious, although not necessarily evil, tricksters; people killed one another and men rose over women. In this primitive mythological view, nature was not evil nor entirely good, but deceptive and slippery - what we might call "real." But ultimately, it was filled with wonder. If one word could be used to encapsulate the primitive concept of nature, it would be 'wonder.'
This might teach one to follow the will of heaven by opening up to wonder - which would be the power of spirit that suffuses everything, beyond the means to empirically understand it all. But how might that govern our behavior? How might that determine which is the best form of government?
I see in nature, besides its ultimate magical wonder, attributes that we might attribute to both Darwin and Rousseau. Darwin in that nature can be absolutely brutal. Look at your cat playing with he dying mouse; look at chickens and their vicious pecking order; and don't even look at the insect world! And yet, nature is not out to get anyone - it and its animals simply do what they are supposed to do and seldom any more. Bears don't mount attacks against humans for dominance any more than hurricanes search for human settlements before landing. No, they just go their own route, and with rational observation, humans can pretty much avoid the worst, at least until old age takes us. There is in nature no more compelling order than to do what comes naturally - with those things that don't being culled by the steady demands of survival.
This says to me that humans should, just as the Founders thought, seek out their own paths to happiness provided, as Hobbes would have it, that we don't keep others from THEIR path in the process. This, too me, speaks of the naturalness of individual freedom and dignity, even if this freedom causes the individual to willingly give up the centrality of his individuality. The latter is a move of spirit - and should be free from government intrusion or coercion - just as the US Constitution would have it.
Finally - is harmony part of the will of heaven? Yes, by definition, but what is that harmony? For geese it would be to flock; for bears, it would be to disperse. Which is it for humans? Again, I side with the Founders - that the human route is to find happiness. And if harmony for humans is seeking one's personal happiness while allowing others to do so as well, maybe we don't have to consider either individualism or collectivism in our scheme. Maybe the lone prophet in the wilderness is as sacred as the guru in his village. I think, at bottom, it is finding what will make one truly happy - and I believe that to be harmony of spirit. But that is our journey, to find this out. If we follow the golden rule, we should all be left to do so - free of Big Brother as well as the American Rose. FK
RSS Feed