TPF : Axiarchism as 21st century Taoism

[Gnomon]

AXIARCHISM as 21st century TAOISM

My personal non-religious philosophical worldview has some aspects in common with ancient Chinese Taoism : the Way of Nature. But I just came across another name for a similar concept. In Philosophy Now magazine (12/24 ; 01/25) the cover title is The Return of God. It presents articles on various attitudes toward the god concept; including Atheism and Agnosticism.

But one label, Axiarchism, I had never heard of. The Latin (axio + arche) means Value/Principle & Ruling/Primary. The article says It's “a novel view that pictures the creative power . . . . as a non-personal force that creates the best world . . . but not for us.” {my bold} Also, “Axiarchists argue that only a non-causal force or principle can ultimately explain why things exist”. As an abstract, impersonal, natural, acausal creative principle it seems quite similar to Lao Tse's Tao. Yet, in terms of the value-based “path” or “flow” of the universe, it may be analogous to an algorithm-crunching computer program. And as a general creative causal natural force, it sounds somewhat like my own notion of EnFormAction*1. The article goes on to say : “this view resonates most of all with the Chinese philosophical religion of Daoism”. Or, the Axiarche might be like Hindu Brahman, simply non-specific impersonal ultimate Reality.

The key difference from traditional Creator/creation models, is that this one may help to explain the Problem of Evil : why bad things happen to good people. Since the Programmer is not a humanoid person, its “values” may be more logical/mathematical than emotional/sentimental. However, this computer-like model doesn't directly explain the Ontological question of “why things exist”. From our human perspective, it just means “it is what it is”. Since a non-humanoid natural Principle is not likely to be responsive to prayers, the Axiarch doesn't sound very comforting as a religious deity to worship. So, the value of this god-concept might only be appreciated by rational philosophers. As to the question, why create a world at all?, this rule-based postulate would not be expected to answer “why” questions, except perhaps to assume that creating viable worlds is the job description of a cosmic Principle, Programmer, or Axiarch.

Monotheist religions typically assume that our natural world was designed specifically as a habitat for god-worshiping homo sapiens. But if so, the Problem of Evil*2 arises, and Theodicies postulated to explain why a benevolent deity would allow so much pain & suffering of innocent sentient beings. Yet one version of Axiarchism says : “our world is the best, not according to human values, but in terms of its natural values of order, diversity, unity and so on”. Regarding the lack of perfection in our human situation, “our world is somewhere in between ; not too simple to lose diversity, and not too complex to lose order”. In which case, our dynamic system of Evolution must find the balance-point, equilibrium, between opposing values of diversity/fecundity and order/stability. Perhaps the program of evolution is designed to find the best path between extremes of hot/cold ; diversity/unity ; order/ disorder. Hence, like the weather, it seems fickle.

Regarding the causal powers & creativity of the hypothetical Axiarch, the article just takes them for granted. But Quantum Physics was forced accept that some natural events are “acausal”: no known cause. Or maybe the Cause is like gravity : universal instead of particular. Gravity is not Ethical or Moral, it applies to all things equally. So Jon Mayer's song “Gravity is working against me” seems to imagine Nature as a war between opposing forces : hot/cold, good/bad, up/down. But perhaps Axiarchism would say there's only one force, and your needs & wishes may just be on the wrong path. When you disobey the law of gravity, you fall down, and it hurts when you hit bottom. So, a modern Taoist might say : "get with the program".

The article says, “for daoists, the way of nature determines whether a human action or behavior is good. But they have no reason, other than moral intuition, to see the way of nature as good”. “The suffering caused by evolution or natural disasters is instead part of the way nature proceeds”. “According to the holistic picture, and using the measure of cosmic harmony, many instances of pain and suffering are good for us”. “Evil and suffering seem problematic when we consider humans as metaphysically special”. Hence, this worldview may be compatible with Atheism, except that it envisions a rational/logical progression of evolution : sensible & predictable instead of absurd & capricious. Humans are indeed “special” in the sense that they categorize events from a selfish perspective. Perhaps a more universal point of view, like Taoism, would make the world seem less like a home made for humans, and more like a place we are visiting, and just passing through.

Since Axiarchism is new to me, I may have misunderstood its meaning. And my understanding of Taoism is superficial. So don't take my word for it. Read the article for yourself, or search the annals of philosophy for more information on this modern take on The Way of Nature*3.

*1. EnFormAction :
A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the creative force (aka : Schopenhauer's WILL) of the axiomatic eternal First Cause that, for unknown reasons, programmed a Singularity to suddenly burst into our reality from an infinite pool of possibility : Potential.
AKA : The creative power of Evolution; the power to enform; Logos; Change.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*2. The problem of evil is a philosophical question that asks how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God. It is often considered the most powerful argument against the existence of such a God.
___Google A.I. overview

*3. What is the natural way in Daoism?
The basic idea of the Daoists was to enable people to realize that, since human life is really only a small part of a larger process of nature, the only human actions which ultimately make sense are those which are in accord with the flow of Nature — the Dao or the Way.
https://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/ ... daoism.htm

[Gnomon]

Again, non-theistic. But is it atheist, in the contemporary sense? That's the question I want to pose. — Wayfarer

I suppose the ancient oriental philosophies & religions were originally Naturalist, in the sense that most aboriginal (uncivilized) societies lived like animals at the mercy of their natural environment : Animism. But eventually, they became civilized, and developed technologies to give them power over nature. So, they pridefully began to make a conscious distinction between human Culture and non-human Nature. Hence, humans began to "transcend" their animal dependency, and to think of themselves as little gods. No longer needing to follow the Way (Tao) of Nature.

But, since even civilized people remained subject to the positive & negative vagaries of general & inanimate natural forces (e.g. disasters), they needed some help that was not available from other humans. So they imagined metaphorical beings who were like humans, only more powerful in their control of natural forces : Nature Gods. Those "other" entities transcended humanity in a manner similar to the human domination over animals. And deserved to be worshiped and entreated. Thus, evolved Religionism from ancient roots in Naturalism.

A further development from the religious impulse, to understand and gain control over Nature, was Philosophy (physics & metaphysics), which eventually evolved into modern Science. And that technological power over Nature made us less dependent on gods, and even on impersonal Nature-in-general. Maybe Lao Tse viewed the emerging Science of China as a departure from long traditions of humanity's obedience to the Omnipotence of Nature. So, like most religious leaders, he warned against human hubris, and advised a return to the old reverence for Nature, but more in positive attitude than in groveling practice. Similarly, Axiarchism emphasizes general internal natural values over specific overt rituals & practices & gods.

This Zen-like philosophical reformation was neither Theistic nor Atheistic, but perhaps closer to the Agnosticism of the Buddha. Ironically, Lao Tse's "washed" followers eventually "returned like pigs to wallow in the mire", and converted his generalized philosophical personal worldview into a religion of particular prayers & practices for the masses, even to the point of deifying the Teacher himself.

[Gnomon]

I agree with this:
Ziporyn argues that Daoism believes in no ultimate purpose, intention, principle, morality. — Joshs
However, some translations of the TTC appear to suggest that there is a goal, with aims. An example: — Amity

The Tao Te Ching does not specify a purpose to the natural world, but its metaphor of "flow" does bring to mind the course of a river that simply follows the path of least resistance from mountaintop to valley to sea. In the natural world the engine of flow is Gravity, which affects all things equally. Rivers meander against environmental resistance, in the closest possible approximation of a direct line toward peaceful equilibrium in the bosom of the ocean. But galaxies & planets influence each other and flow endlessly in circles around the center of gravity of the system. Seeking, but never reaching, parity with gravity.

The flow of a river has only one purpose : to fulfill its attraction to gravity, by journeying to the center. Meanwhile, humans adapt the river's flow to their own purposes, like hobos hitching a train. So it is with Nature : no apparent purpose, only thermodynamic flow. Yet humans prosper when they "go with the flow" as far as it will take them toward their own goals.

Perhaps Energy (causation), which is neither created nor destroyed, is the invisible God of Taoism.

[Gnomon]

And what do you think that might be? ‘Buddha’, after all, means ‘knowing’ or 'one who knows' whereas ‘agnostic’ means ‘not knowing’. How would you reconcile that? — Wayfarer

Perhaps the way to Buddhahood is to know what you don't know.

Rumsfeld : there are knowns, known-unknowns, and unknown-unknowns.

[Gnomon]

Perhaps the way to Buddhahood is to know what you don't know. — Gnomon
Not something you're demonstrating in this thread — Wayfarer

I assume you are implying that I am "demonstrating" my own ignorance. But this thread is not attempting to "demonstrate" anything about Buddhism or Buddahood. I'm sorry if some of my incidental references to Buddhism offend you. But as I said in the OP : "Since Axiarchism is new to me, I may have misunderstood its meaning. And my understanding of Taoism is superficial". Likewise, my knowledge of Buddhism is lacking in depth. Yet, I'm learning more about oriental "philosophical religions" from your posts on TPF. Please forgive my ignorant blunders.

[Gnomon]

I will say something about the connection between Buddhism and agnosticism. — Wayfarer

Thanks. I didn't mean to characterize Gautama as a doctrinal Agnostic, but merely as one who didn't claim to have knowledge of gods or supernatural beings. In modern terms, a secular teacher instead of a religious priest or preacher*1. Ironically, some of his followers seemed to imagine him as something like a demigod*2, who founded a religion instead of a Zen-like (or stoic-like) philosophical practice. I view the Mahayana Buddhists as similar to the imperial Catholic Church, which departed from the humble & local Jewish mission of Jesus.

Although I am open to the logical possibility of a transcendent First Cause, that caused the cosmological Big Bang, I have no experiential or revealed knowledge of such a hypothetical notion. Hence, I am a secular agnostic, who includes transcendence in my philosophical worldview. I suppose Hindu-born Gautama assumed the physical world itself was eternal & cyclic, and saw no need to speculate on the original Cause of space-time.

*1. Secular Buddhism—sometimes also referred to as agnostic Buddhism, Buddhist agnosticism, ignostic Buddhism, atheistic Buddhism, pragmatic Buddhism, Buddhist atheism, or Buddhist secularism—is a broad term for a form of Buddhism based on humanist, skeptical, and agnostic values, valuing pragmatism and (often) naturalism, ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Buddhism

*2. Is Buddha considered to be a God?
Was Buddha God or Human? - Tricycle: The Buddhist Review
What then is the status of the Buddha? Technically, he is a human, among the five other rebirth destinies (sadgati) in samsara: gods, demigods, animals, ghosts, and denizens of hell. But he is unlike any other human, both in his relation to the gods and in his physical and mental qualities.
https://tricycle.org/article/buddha-god-human/

[Gnomon]

Typically, ignorance makes people less eager to give their opinions. — T Clark

Has that been your experience in this forum? I started this thread by announcing my ignorance of a new-to-me philosophy. And I suppose most of the posters who lent their opinions were also ignorant of Axiarchism. But that didn't stop them from adding their invited opinions to the thread. Most of those proffered thoughts may be based on familiarity with analogous concepts such as Taoism. But I have learned, from some of those erudite opinions, related ideas to fill-in the gaps in my ignorance of the "Ruling Values" of the Cosmos.

Ignorance & Opinion :
A fact is information minus emotion. An opinion is information plus experience. Ignorance is an opinion lacking information. And stupidity is an opinion that ignores a fact. Which of these do you think might apply in this scenario?”
https://sjrnews.com/my-cave-my-view/fac ... -stupidity

From the net : "Opinions are like farts; everybody has them, and their's stink".