Taoism, Romanticism And Societal Rules

In both Taoism and Romanticism, two philosophies that I have held dear to heart for a long time, society is being regarded as Satan, and it is thought that if rid of its influence on their minds people will be good. This is not necessarily the case. We see conflict even among animals; and I see no reason why people outside Western or Confucian society would be better than people in these societies. In fact in many cases – even among indigenous populations such as the Maoris who did not have a civilization – we see very wrong things.

The real question that needs to be asked is, Which societies are good or bad and for what reason? Some think that Christianity is bad; but Christianity replaced the Roman Empire, which had a lot of advanced knowledge. Clearly there is something here that is not evil and is in fact very good. Christ offers hope, life and meaning to many disempowered people, which is the same goal as is proposed by people in Romanticism.

Now I have seen Ken Wilbur and a number of others deride Romantics as spoiled children for militating against Rationalism, which he said had many of the same goals as Romanticism; but by that standard so are the Rationalists for rejecting Christianity, which like them has a goal of attaining at truth. In fact Christianity achieves many of the same goals as Romanticism. Love, fairness, compassion, being good to other people – all these are Christian teachings. So is the preference of divine power over secular power. The Christians and Romantics clash over sexuality and social morals; but their most important goals are similar to one another.

Hippies and “rednecks” had a similar idea – move away from the civilization into the country in order to live free lives. One set were Romantic, the other set were Christian. The “rednecks” worked out a generally more successful arrangement than did the hippies. They did a better job of providing for, defending and governing themselves. Eventually most of the hippies moved back to the civilization where they applied their creativity and intelligence toward creating the computer industry and a Wall Street boom, while “rednecks” remained in the country and used the knowledge that they got from the hippies to rise to major political power.

By the Romantic standard of freedom, “rednecks” are better than the “bourgeois.” By the Romantic standard of non-violence, culture and treatment of women, they are far behind the “bourgeois.” If society was the root of all evil, then the opposite would be the case. We will see good and bad behaviors everywhere. It is entirely not the case, as some believe, that society is “reality” or “the real world” and the Atlantic Ocean isn't. But neither is it the root of all evil.

I was attracted to some of these ideas myself and gave voice to them. I learned from experience. I did not disown the correct aspectes of Romanticism – support of loving relationships, respect for culture and the arts, better treatment of the less fortunate and respect for nature in all its intricacy and complexity. I do however disown things in any tradition that prove to be wrong, and this is one such problem. We see evil among the Maoris as much as we see evil among the English. And at this point in history it is the English-speaking countries that lead the world in human rights.

With Taoism, the claim that has turned me off of the ideology is that by conceptualizing beauty one also creates ugliness. That is completely wrong. Both beauty and ugliness existed long before I existed, it will continue existing long after I'm gone. With Buddhism we see such ideas as the law of attraction – that the like attracts like. This is also demonstrably wrong. People attract different things for different reasons, and much of what they attract – for good or for ill - is very little like themselves. I have myself attracted widely different people and for widely different reasons while remaining the same me throughout. And the New Age idea that people create their reality with their consciousness is completely wrong. They did not create the Sun with their consciousness. This attitude is not only wrong factually; it is also wrong morally. By this logic the 500,000 American soldiers who died in the Second World War caused it through "victim consciousness" or "negativity in their consciousness," and that is a damnable thing to believe.

Society is neither the god that fascists claim it to be nor the Satan that Romantics and Taoists claim it to be. It is an arrangement. And what I want to advise to those who speak in favor of society's rules is to make these rules official. Pass them into law. Subject them to visibility, accountability, check and balance. Unofficial rules create a hidden tyranny. We have rules that are not even honest enough to be made official. This is a way to sneak in hidden tyranny into nations that are intended to be free. Societies will always have rules; but for these rules to be valid within a context of democracy they have to be passed into law. They have to be made visible and official. Then people who seek to enforce them will have a constitutionally valid basis for doing so, and the people who object to them can work in a visible context to try to repeal them.

I am of an age where I see a need for structure. However it has to be a legitimate structure. For an authority in a democracy to be made legitimate, it has to be made official. It has to be made subject to visibility, accountability, check and balance. Anything else is an attempt to sneak in hidden tyranny into countries that are intended to be free.

So the correct solution is neither to deify society as “sanity” or “reality” or “the real world” nor to practice ill will toward the civilization. Societal rules have to be passed into law. Subject societies to the same standard of accountability and visibility to which you subject the government. And then avoid tyranny both official and unofficial, while achieving the correct goals that Romanticism, Rationalism and Christianity have in common.