The 4 Discourses of the Dao: Zhuangzi Meets Lacan
So the Taoist sages, particularly Zhuangzi in his book, develops what I will call The Four Te Tiscourses [Discourses]:
(Well since they use a t for a d we can do it too, right?)
So, the first discourse that the sage describes is the most primitive discourse that egos engage in. So I say, “This is right, and this is left.” But if you’re sitting facing me you’re going to say, “No, no no! That’s left and this is right.” That’s the kind of arguments that most people have. They’re both right and they’re both wrong, and this is what’s generally called “Zhuangzi’s Perspectivism”. But really, he’s pointing out that the ego can only see from its own perspective.
Do you remember Robert Anton Wilson used to call these “reality tunnels”—but they’re really delusion tunnels. But every ego is within a delusion tunnel and anything that doesn’t fit in its tunnel vision is insane to the ego. Totally wrong, totally crazy. So, you can’t reach a person with information beyond that delusion tunnel if they don’t want to come out of their tunnel. And most people are in the tunnel because they want to be in the tunnel because it’s terrifying to be outside the tunnel. There’s too much information. It’s an overload. They can’t make sense of it. They would feel lost so they would rather have a fixed belief and a fixed way of living and never allow that to be challenged. So, if people are in that level of consciousness—left or right—don’t even bother talking to them. OK? That’s what Zhuangzi says. Stay away from them. “Yes, left is right, right is left. Whatever you say.” This is what a modern semi-sage—we’ll call him Lacantzi—he called it Masters Discourse, meaning, “whatever I say goes and don’t try to confuse me with evidence to the contrary.”
So that’s the closed-mindedness of somebody who’s in a delusional tunnel and is too frightened to come out of it. So, you know, some people believe there’s no such thing as a nefarious scheme that would harm us. “Our governments are all there to serve us and support our welfare. They would never do anything to harm us.” If you have that belief that anything else is a conspiracy theory that must not be believed, then to approach them with any other idea is going to seem insane. And that’s really what’s happening in the world. It’s being divided between those see left and those who see right. Some see there’s a horrible conspiracy going on. Some say no, that’s impossible. And it doesn’t matter what evidence one gives to the other side. No one is going to change their opinions about this. So, if someone is at that level of discourse, leave them alone and wish them luck.
Then Zhuangzi says there are actually some people who are open to discussion, to learning new things, but you don’t want to get into a debate with them. If someone is open enough to discuss evidence, not on an ad hominem basis, attacking people who say this because they are the “disinformation dozen”, or whatever people are being called out there, not because an attack but a discussion of actual rational evidence, then you can have a discussion with those people. But very soon, in general, it will turn into a debate that one side will show that they have a fixed opinion, that they were only open to discussion up to a certain point at which they felt they were losing at the level of evidence, and then they will debate with much more of a closed mind and determination to win, to prove that they’re right, rather than to learn something new. So Zhuangzi says, “You can discuss but never debate.” Because, as soon you debate, you’re going to create a situation of anger and, again, conflict, and the sage wants to avoid conflict at all cost. It doesn’t get you anywhere. Many people win debates, but they’re completely wrong, and so the winning of a debate is not the proof that one’s belief was correct.
So, if the evidence doesn’t convince you, that is openly discussed without censorship, then there’s no point in continuing that attempt to bring reason to bear. But the sage does use critical thinking in those situations in which logical argument can have an effect on someone. But as soon as you recognize that there’s a point in which logic is not being accepted, and there’s an emotional response that wants to maintain a position, regardless, then the process has to stop and yes, you wish someone blessings and you head back to the mountain cave that you were in. Oh, by the way, Lacantzi called this one University Discourse.
And then the next one is Divide and Dispute. And what Zhuangzi says is there will come times when the world is so polarized, so divided, that you won’t even be able to have a debate with people. If you try, it will turn immediately into a dispute, meaning you can come to fisticuffs, you can come to such a heated argument that it becomes like a war if you even present a contrary opinion. So, when you see that the situation is divided and polarized to that extent, then you don’t even engage. Because the last thing a sage would ever want to do is get into an actual dispute, an argument, where things really get hot, and they become violent. People do get violent at a certain point when they’re challenged in a way that threatens their emotional stability.
So, if you are debating somebody who’s been injected that it’s poison, they’re probably going to be very angry at you and not feel glad that you gave them some truthful information—from their perspective—and so you can’t really have that kind of an argument. Or, if you’re in the contrary position and you believe that this is actually necessary to have these very safe vaccinations in order to prevent the public health from being destroyed by Covid, then somebody who’s on the other side is going to be very closed minded and not accept that this is an obvious reality and there’s going to be a very angry argument that could turn violent. So, when it reaches that point, the sage says, “No, the situation is now becoming a war zone.” And the sage then crosses that thin-iced river and goes to the mountain hermitage and says bye-bye to the world. That’s Zhuangzi and Lao Tzu, both agreed on that, and did that.
There was a point—and Zhuangzi talks about it in his book—when he’s standing by the river in his mountain reserve where he has avoided the social system. And two emissaries come from the Kingdom of Chu to say that the king has appointed him as the prime minister, and they want him to go with them down there. He doesn’t even look at them. He keeps looking in the water. He’s watching the fish in the water.
They’re behind him and saying, “You’ve been appointed. You must come. Your wisdom has been appreciated by the king and now you are wanted at the court.”
Zhuangzi says (without even looking at them—he notes that)—he says, “You know, I’ve heard in that kingdom there is a tortoise that’s been dead for three thousand years and that is honored as a god and is worshipped there. Do you think that tortoise prefers being dead and honored or would it prefer to be alive with its tail dragging through the mud?”
And the emissaries both said, “It would probably prefer being alive.” Zhuangzi said, “That’s correct. Go back and tell that to the King of Chu.” And then he jumps in the water and gets away. He’s not going to go for honor and fame in a time of warring states and a time when the prime minister will probably lose his head if nothing else because there will be political conflicts that will end up, usually, in assassination if your opinions aren’t to the liking of the royalty or whoever assassinates the king and takes over.
So that’s the main problem. That’s usually referred to as the Hysterics Discourse.
And then, finally, there is the Analyst’s Discourse. The analyst, when the client says something in a session will say, “Ah hah, tell me more.” And you simply accept it with no argument. Or there’ll be a question, “Yes, do you really believe that? Tell me more about why you believe that?” So, you can either accept it or question it, but you won’t try to argue with the person. So that’s the position that the sage will take. He’ll either question somebody who’s coming from a delusional tunnel and trying to convince you to get into the tunnel with them, or you’ll accept it and say, “I’m glad you’re in a beautiful tunnel like that. I’ll consider packing my bags and joining you at some point—bye!” Or you can ask a few questions to bring about a realization, perhaps, in the person that being in the tunnel is not such a happy place to be and may actually end up being self-defeating.
So those are the four discourses.
And the word Te (pronounced as a d), you know the Tao Te Ching, Te can mean virtue. It can mean nature. It can mean a type, a form, a level. It can mean any of those things, so this is when you use the Te in order to bring someone to the Tao, this is the way you try to do that. But for the most part, someone that is not in the Tao is not going to be convinced, and the Taoist sage stays in the mountain until a disciple appears that actually wants to learn. And, he says that’s very rare. So don’t wait for that to happen. Just keep growing your carrots, or whatever, and just let go of the illusion and be free.
So, this is the strategy that Zhuangzi recommends, and I don’t contend with it. I don’t question it. I accept it.
This Post Has 2 Comments
Daniela Maxim
8 Jun 2021I am so grateful to the teachings of Shunyamurti and I intend to come to the ashram hopefully soon . Thank you , thank you , thank you !
A kinder soul ,
Daniela
Corné
9 Jun 2021Again a helpful mirror for my own behavior. Thank you.