This video also marks my jump to Revver… How’s the quality compare to the old YouTube stuff?

I first read Tao Te Ching back in college and it really spoke to me, as any Eastern philosophy might to a college freshman double-majoring in Fine Art and Philosophy who grew up in smalltown Indiana with the only radio stations playing classic rock and “hot” country. The concept of action by inaction (wei wu wei) connected with my existing understanding of art at the time. As much could be said by the absence of a line as by its inclusion. It’s been almost a decade since I’ve read it (having given my copy to my father during his “simplify my life” phase) and thought that I may have a different understanding of it now that I’m a smidge closer to Enlightenment.

Unfortunately, there were no fewer than 6 different translations at my local bookstore, all of them subtly different. I decided to pick a random passage (Tao 33) and compare them. Here’s the first line from several of them (please forgive the poor quality of my cameraphone).

From John C.H. Wu’s translation, Lao Tzu: Tao Te Ching:

A good enough start. I put a copy aside and kept browsing.

Gia-Fu Feng’s Tao Te Ching, 25th-Anniversary Edition:

I’m not a huge fan of the “requires force/needs strength” here. It handles the parallelism between others and self a little clumsily, almost suggesting mastering others is as worthy as mastering oneself. Points for gender neutrality though.

Penguin Classics‘ translation, simply titled Tao Te Ching:

Roman numerals? Ick. The designer in me rejects them for being unsuited to the nature of the text, the reader in me doesn’t want to have to decipher them everytime I look up a passage.

Wow, even Ursula K. LeGuin has a translation, Lao Tzu: Tao Te Ching: A Book About the Way and the Power of the Way:

Uhm… What’s with the title colon title colon title? Seems almost disrespectful. As do the quick summaries at the top of each passage. Maybe let the text stand on its own?

Stephen Mitchell’s translation, Tao Te Ching: A New English Version, had a very pretty cover:

The book itself was a little big for my tastes and seemed a little over-designed. I was too soon distracted by this next one…

Jonathan Star’s translation, Tao te Ching, had tiny writing saying “The Definitive Edition” (of which I was quite skeptical):

Wow. I don’t know what to say. That certainly covers all the bases. Any questions I had about the variations in translations seem to be handled by this comprehensive, if overly clinical, approach.

In the end, I bought John C.H. Wu’s translation. It was the cheapest and fit in my pocket. Plus, there’s something vaguely Tao about its ability to transcend the other versions by just not doing anything wrong.

A number of (possibly all) of my friends and family have more attachment to a spiritual practice than myself, so—although I’ve watched from afar as others have attempted to tackle this issue—I’ve kept out of the debate until now. Of course, I don’t really see what there is to debate. Didn’t Immanuel Kant say the same thing back in “Kritik der reinen Vernunft“?

For those who haven’t followed the antics of Dawkins (non sequitur: he also invented the word “meme” back in 1976), his book proposes that the term “delusion”, defined as a belief that is maintained despite contradiction by rational argument, most certainly applies to religion. He’s been interviewed by everyone from the BBC to Stephen Colbert. Both the Left and Right reviews of his book and follow-up documentary “Root of All Evil?” tend to criticize his ferocity rather than his arguments. Probably because they rightly perceive the futility in doing so. Dawkins, an extremely articulate Oxford University biologist, is the Top Dog on his issues (though I’d love to see him debate Ken Wilber). His criticism of the lack of academic rigor around religion is dead on. I’m still tempted to say, “so what?”

Religion explains religion using religion. How do we know God exists? Because the Bible says so. Why should we believe the Bible? Because it’s the Word of God. How do we know it’s the Word of God? Because the Bible says so. Around and around we go. Any rational person who doesn’t notice this should be sent back to Sunday School (another non sequitur: an overzealous Sunday School teacher once forced me to choose either Jesus and my Hindu friend Arjun… Arjun won… see you this Christmas, Arjun!). Noting circular logic need not make you an Atheist, however.

Science explains science using science. How do we know electromagnetism exists? Because scientific research says so. Why should we believe scientific research? Because it follows the Scientific Method. Why should we believe the Scientific Method? Because its results are confirmed by scientific research. Around and around we go again. As a system unto itself, science is completely coherent. As a world view, it makes basic assumptions, like “the world is understandable by the human mind”, that I’m uncomfortable saying are a priori.

The real problems come about when one system tries to govern the other. “The God Delusion” is clearly an attempt to apply science to religion and, no surprise, religions fails miserably. However, religion has been doing the same to science for years—whether it’s religious US politicians censoring research on sex education or Galileo being forced to recant for suggesting the Earth was not the center of the universe.

Can science and religion get along? There are lots of examples that attempt to merge the two. Christian Science characterizes disease as a separation from God and treatable through faith. Many find their objection to conventional medicine irresponsible, conveniently ignorant about both the Placebo Effect and that 1.5 million people are hospitalized every year due to adverse reactions to prescription medication. Another example (I’m deliberately picking on religions that include “science” in their name) is Scientology, an “Applied Religion” which offers its members specific techniques (like the ARC Triangle and Tone Scale) to lead more graceful lives. Though both of these belief systems have received more than their fair share of criticism, two dear friends of mine are a Christian Scientist and a Scientologist—and they’re both wonderful people.

That’s what it really comes down to for me. People. Many before me have asked Dawkins what, really, is so bad about religion. He shares a list of atrocities committed in its name or justified by it, ranging from genocide to homophobia. Critics of Atheism quickly retort that Stalin was an Atheist, isn’t that just as bad? Of course, those who seek to control populations always make use of belief systems to do so. Though George W. Bush claims to get his orders from God, I don’t think unprovoked assault is quite what Jesus had in mind. Let’s not forget how Darwinism led to Nazi eugenics. In short, both religion and science can be tools for evil in the hands of a tyrant.

With that, I really have to end with Nietzsche. “God is dead!” is possibly the most misunderstood three words in modern philosophy. To really understand what Friedrich was getting at in “Die fröhliche Wissenschaft“, let me include the rest of the passage.

God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him! How shall we console ourselves, the most murderous of all murderers? The holiest and the mightiest that the world has hitherto possessed, has bled to death under our knife—who will wipe the blood from us? With what water could we cleanse ourselves? What lustrums, what sacred games shall we have to devise? Is not the magnitude of this deed too great for us? Shall we not ourselves have to become Gods, merely to seem worthy of it? There never was a greater event—and on account of it, all who are born after us belong to a higher history than any history hitherto!

Nietzsche writes not in the first person here, but puts these words into the mouth of a “madman”. He is laughed out of the village, an Atheist village, all the while shouting, “What are these churches now, if they are not the tombs and monuments of God?”. Nietzsche’s message is not intended as anti-religious, but an admonition of those who have dethroned God without realizing their vital new responsibility to bring order to the chaos of existence. “Is there still an above and below? Do we not stray, as through infinite nothingness?”

This is a question that people of science and people of faith must answer, and can only answer, together.

It’s not the first time O’Reilly has expressed his unmitigated hate toward the city of San Francisco. Almost exactly a year ago, he told Al Qaeda, “You want to blow up Coit Tower? Go ahead.” This time, his current rhetoric is more aimed at our gay pride parades, “pot shops”, and mocking of Christianity.

I should know better than to assume anything O’Reilly says is rooted in reality, but assertions that San Francisco is some sort of secular playground is ridiculous. I’ve attended services at Glide with a Jewish friend and managed to make it to a Solstice or Beltane party every once in a while, too. Further, the Mission District is very Catholic and there are neighborhood celebrations around Confirmations or Baptisms every week.

So what exactly are “San Francisco Values”?

He’s hitting on something with the gay pride parades. San Francisco definitely values diversity. The tremendous Chinese New Year Parade has been named one of the world’s top ten parades. I loved going last year and seeing all the little kids dressed like puppies for the Year of the Dog. Last week’s Dia de los Muertos celebration was a beautiful colored stone in the mosaic of cultures that is San Francisco.

The “pot shops” crack may be a crack at our hippie heritage and I’m pleased to say that the treehugger’s have left a lasting legacy. San Francisco, Berkeley, and Oakland are all in the Top 20 greenest cities in the U.S. according to the Green Guide. Personally, I take one of the four excellent forms of mass transit San Francisco has (none of which use gasoline) to work every day.

One thing that Bill has left out, however, is San Francisco’s value of innovation. I’ve long said that the DNA of San Francisco contains, across the board, the “I wonder what’s West of here?” gene. That spirit of imagination and adventure has given the world some amazing things. Considering just the illustrious internet marvels, the Bay Area is home to Apple, Craigslist, Flickr, Google, Yahoo, and YouTube among many, many others. Let’s not forget popsicles and fortune cookies!

One more invention that had its root in San Francisco that Bill O’Reilly may be especially thankful for and not even know it. On a foggy day in September, back in 1927, Philo T. Farnsworth brought to life a device without which the world would never come to know the No Spin Zone, the motherfucking television.

Diversity, sustainability, and innovation? Those are San Francisco values and Congress could sure use all of them.

Are there documents as vital and world-changing out there today? Probably, but I would be surprised if they are immediately recognizable as such. Afterall, it was 13 years between the 95 Theses and the founding of the Lutheran Church (though Marty was condemned after only 4).

My favorite of the original 95 Theses, posted in the crisp October of 1517, would have to be good old #86:

86. Why does not the pope, whose wealth is today greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?

And since we’re on the subject of Theseses, I might as well mention my other two favorite collections (always in flocks of 95).

The Cluetrain Manifesto (have I mentioned that I love manifestos?), was written back in 1999 and did much to foretell both the fall of the Dot Coms (clueless money-making schemes) and the subsequent rise of Web 2.0 (still largely clueless money-making schemes, but who have at least figured out the power of community). My highlight from these Theses?

57. Smart companies will get out of the way and help the inevitable to happen sooner.

I’ve heard Craig Newmark describe exactly that strategy as why his list works so well.

Finally, I recently discovered the 95 Theses of Geek Activism, posted just a few days ago. It’s slightly different from these other two in that it’s, pardon the clergy-related pun, preaching to the choir. Still, whereas the others are meant to stir up conflict in hopes that a good resolution will come of it, these Theses actually provide some good advice on how to make change. The most confrontational:

73. We do not lock the door to our bedrooms or bathrooms because we have something to hide. We do not secure our networks, conversations, emails and files because we have something to hide.

This statement made me really think about why I do lock my bedroom door and how the media commonly casts privacy and security as mutually exclusive enemies—which is a lot more provocative and engaging than what I was thinking about before that. Something like, “Wow. Martin Luther looks a lot like Vincent D’Onofrio.”