The earl of the Ho said,

‘Very well. But what am I to do?
and what am I not to do?
How am I to be guided after all in regard to what I accept or reject,
and what I pursue or put away from me?’

Zo of the Northern Sea replied,

‘From the standpoint of the Tao, what is noble? and what is mean?
These expressions are but the different extremes of the average level.

Do not keep pertinaciously to your own ideas,
which put you in such opposition to the Tao.
What are few? and what are many? These are denominations which we employ in thanking (donors) and dispensing gifts.
Do not study to be uniform in doing so;
– it only shows how different you are from the Tao.

Be severe and strict,
like the ruler of a state who does not selfishly bestow his favours.
Be scrupulous, yet gentle, like the tutelary spirit of the land,
when sacrifice is offered to him who does not bestow his blessing selfishly.
Be large-minded like space,
whose four terminating points are illimitable,
and form no particular enclosures.

Hold all things in your love, favoring and supporting none specially.
This is called being without any local or partial regard;
all things are equally regarded; there is no long or short among them.

‘There is no end or beginning to the Tao.
Things indeed die and are born,
not reaching a perfect state which can be relied on.
Now there is emptiness, and now fulness;
– they do not continue in one form.

The years cannot be reproduced; time cannot be arrested.
Decay and growth, fulness and emptiness,
when they end, begin again.

It is thus that we describe
the method of great righteousness,
and discourse about the principle pervading all things.
The life of things is like the hurrying and galloping along of a horse.
With every movement there is a change;
with every moment there is an alteration.

What should you be doing? what should you not be doing? You have only to be allowing this course of natural transformation to be going on.’

-Zhuangzi, The Floods of Autumn, by Zhuang Zhou, trans. James Legge

Could there be a more transgressive philosophy than Taoism?

In the course of things, I am inclined to arrange things so that ultimately I benefit from outcomes.  This is called pragmatism.  Americans are especially oriented in this manner.  We’ve cultivated this heritage.  We are able to admire William James, John Dewey, and Richard Rorty.

Pragmatism celebrates the individual. Pragmatism teaches us to aggrandize the self.  I enjoy watching professional football on television.  Watching the behavior of players immediately after a touchdown, I think to myself how the chest pumping, the gesticulating is iconic of us as Americans.

In this imaginary conversation between two noble, well educated spirits the only question that really matters is posed.  Regarding Taoism, or any other philosophy for that matter: Tell me what I am to do with all of this?  I am reminded that Aristotle thought that the point of all thinking is the doing which follows.  There is no more down-to-earth activity than what we do when we pause to reflect before taking action.

The earl of the Ho insists the lord of the Northern Sea describe for Ho’s understanding what course of action he is to take.  And so begins the discourse on a style of action implied by Taoist manner of valuing and thinking.

I wish these lines could be read out loud at the beginning of every session of Congress…