Your contrast between Confucianism and Taoism is pretty good, Rod. However, they are not two sides of the same coin (although I have no doubt that some people might apply them at way.)
Confucianism is bound up in duty and obligation and ancestor worship and rites. To the Taoist, this misses the point entirely. The Tao is something that is nearly instinctive (once you understand it, if it is understandable at all).
To put it another way, Confucianism imposes the rules, whilst Taoism asks you to the find rules and live accordingly. They don’t really mesh together well, understood within their own context.
It’s worth noting that both sets of ideas comes to us (along with the Sun Tzu bing fa) from the Chinese waring states period. This is where what we call Chinese philosophy really grows as an attempt to bring order from an increasingly chaotic situation. Each offered its own solution, so to speak, to build a better society.

Oh, and one other thing Rod – Taoism is not a yin, whilst Confucianism is a yang.
The Tao, the way, in both male and female, both action and inaction, both yin and yang. From the taoist point of view you cannot separate one from the other. The Tao is both, and neither. To suggest that Taoism is the yin to the yang of Confucius is to miss the point of Taoism altogether.

Grant, you beat me to it about the yin-yang mistake. It is a worthy attempt, though, and might be better served by suggesting the (altogether arguable) view that Taoism is the core, the foundation, and Confucianism is one outward expression of it at a less-abstract, more-practical level.

Is it a mistake, really? My understanding is that in the Taoist view, everything has within it yin-yang properties. When compared to each other, Confucianism is yang, while Taoism is yin — though we must recognize that Confucianism has within it its own yin-yang aspects, and likewise for Taoism.
Similarly, within Christianity, I would describe Calvinism as a yang expression of Christianity, and Pentecostalism as a yin expression of same — though that only describes their relationship to each other.

Well, in the straining at gnats mode, “a mistake” might be better said with “mistaken”. While I’ve done a lot of reading Rod, likely more than you have, I am not even close to an expert on Tao (let alone Confucianism), but your insisted-upon approach remains problematic mostly for the points Grant makes.
Perhaps it’s similar to the Inigo Montoya critique of Vezzini’s use of “inconceivable”: I don’t think that word means what you think it means. ;-D

Berry writes:
“The only outlawry is in division.”
Berry is a communitarian but a dialectical approach, even in synthesis, (yin&yang for example) is not.
The “law” here is the integrated whole, something of a paradox where the “parts” can be indentified but have no valid meaning outside of the whole.

Rod wrote: “Is it a mistake, really? My understanding is that in the Taoist view, everything has within it yin-yang properties. When compared to each other, Confucianism is yang, while Taoism is yin — though we must recognize that Confucianism has within it its own yin-yang aspects, and likewise for Taoism.
Similarly, within Christianity, I would describe Calvinism as a yang expression of Christianity, and Pentecostalism as a yin expression of same — though that only describes their relationship to each other.”
yes I would say it is an error, but an understandable one because you are coming at it as a Christian and a Westerner with little training in eastern thought. in the west we tend to view things in compartments, right? Our philosophy, our science and our religion do this. I mean even the Christian idea of the trinity, three distinct person in one god, would make a Taoist grin with amusement. From this point of view, the distinctions would not exist at all.
Yes, as you say, Taoism says everything has yin and yang qualities. However, that manifestly does not mean that Taoism is principally one or the other. Nor would Taoism say that Confucisanism is too much yang. Rather Lao-Tzu would probably say that Confucius simply did not perceive the Tao.
Remember Rod, the Tao is both yin AND yang, in balance. Taoism itself purports to be in that balance. So your analogy falls short because you are imposing a view on Taoism that Taoism itself would reject.

Susan even using the phrase “natural law” strikes me as so intrinsically western as to not fully be applicable to Taoist thought. Whether we are talking about the laws of physics or theological ideas like moral law, that is not quite what Taoism is up to.
The term ‘law” implies a far more ridged structure than Taoism would allow for. Rather the Tao is far more flexible. The famous example is a cup of tea. The cup imposes an kind of “order” (or “law” in this context) upon the tea doesn’t it? The tea conforms to the shape of the cup. Now smash the cup. The tea spills everywhere. But, it’s still tea.
The same with the Tao, as Lao Tzu describes it. There is no natural “law” in the western understanding of it. Certainly no “law giver” as Christians are apt to call god. The Tao just is. That is why water is so often used as a metaphor for the Tao. The Tao just flows as it does with no particular direction, restriction or order, other than it naturally stays in balance.
It all sounds a bit woo-woo to our western mind, I understand. But nonetheless, that is how it is in Taoism.

In my reading, it has seemed common for Western authors to struggle with the concept that yin-yang–the naturally occurring interplay of forces, wants, needs, etc.–can also constitute a “way” of living. Not everyone struggles with this point, but most have a hard time with it. I would argue that Confucius, actually, did not have a hard time with it, and it is mostly us confused Westerners, with our Cartesian and Christian backgrounds, that assume a profound difference or incompatibility between the two bodies of thought. Confucian teachings very clearly center on the will or mandate of tian, which most translations call “heaven” but which really just conveys the sense that there is a moral power in heaven and earth, a moral power which can be realized if one inhabits their place and walks their path…that is the Dao, the “way,” which incorporates the yin and yang. Certain Daoist authors could complain about Confucian recommendations about ritual propriety and proper relationships and such, but the point of maintaining all those rituals and relationships was so that things could be and do whatever it is which brings them into alignment with tian, with the path or way which naturally reveals itself without effort (wu-wei) as we go about our lives. Confucius’s grand principle was the “rectification of names”: fathers as fathers, wives as wives, sons and sons, farmers as farmers, scribes as scribes, friends and friends, etc. When the names are rectified, you are both conforming yourself to a set of rules and rituals, but you are also liberated. You’re walking with the Dao.

Grant, I’m not sure that Rod is completely wrong. You are right to point out that in the historical context of the time, i.e. the Warring States period, Confucianism and Daoism were seen as very much different. Chinese literature of the time is replete with examples of Confucian and Daoist scholars taking pot shots at each other. The famous tale of Confucius’ meeting with Laozi is the best-known example.
On the other hand, in Chinese culture as actually practiced, Confucian and Daoist concepts are by now pretty well blended together in a complicated mish-mash with Buddhism and other stuff, as well. The standard example is the I Ching. Westerners and even many Chinese tend to view it through a Daoist lens; but it existed before either Confucius or Laozi (whoever the latter may have been, as individual or committee!), and is said to have been edited by Confucius himself!
Now there have been, and are, many Chinese who would still draw bright lines between Confucian and Daoist thought. D. C. Lau, who has translated many Chinese classics for Penguin springs to mind. However, it seems to me (and I’m admittedly not an expert) that for the man in the street, Confucian and Daoist concepts live easily side-by-side, with Confucianism serving as the means for ordering society, and Daoism serving for individual spiritual practice and many exercise and quasi-yogic practices.
As to yin and yang, you are right that the Dao contains both while being neither. On the other hand, in one sense it could be said that Daoism favors a sort of yin-likeness in human affairs. Recall that the Dao De Jing compares the highest good to being like water, since water is yielding (yin-like) but ultimately can carve mighty valleys. Pu (“the uncarved block”), babies (who are flexible and supple), and non-action (wu wei) are also characteristically praised in Daoist thought. All of these could be seen as more yin than yang. One could argue that Daoists see humans as too much prone rash action (rather than just following the Dao) and that the remedy is suppleness and passivity. In short, humans tend to be “too yang”, and the remedy is to counteract this tendency by being more yin.
Perhaps in this sense one could say that the Daoist prescription for human behavior (as opposed to the Dao itself) is more yin, whereas the Confucian view (that humans must expend great effort to become virtuous) is more yang, from a societal perspective. In any case, I’ll have to check references when I have time, but I think this view is not only expressed by Western barbarians who don’t understand Chinese culture ( ), but I think I’ve heard it from some Chinese themselves.

It is funny that Rod would posit what seems to me to be a reductionist perspective on Confucianism and Taoism on the same day he posts comments on reductionism in science. Perhaps it is inevitable we do that – it is hard to escape our western mind which insists all things must fit into little cognitive boxes in our brains and that there a like things and unlike things. Hot is hot – cold is cold to the modern western mind which ignores that hot will become cold someday so the essential elements of cold are contained in hot and cold was or will be hot someday – so the essential elements of hot are also in cold. So too with yin and yang – one does not exist without the other so are there really two separate elements?
Incidentally – the ancient Celts recognized this too – we have poetry that comes to us from oral traditions written down later by those industrious monks demonstrating that the western mind was not always divided into little boxes.
I also think one could dispute what Berry is saying too – does the cloud cease to be free when it is still? Is it only free when blown by the wind? Is rain only free when it is falling – has it no freedom in the essential phase s of condensation etc? In this way I think Berry is very un Tao – he fails to recognize the yin yang of all creation – plants grow then they die dropping seeds to allow new growth – so rain water evaporating molecule by molecule into the clouds is as much a part of the cloud as is the fully formed wind driven cloud.
Benedict incidentally also believed that moderation and balance were the keys to living out the teachings of Christ as well as creating a just and merciful society. His rules were all about achieving balance in one’s life and teaching the self discipline that allowed one to conform to a life of moderation and balance. I guess since he had rules he was Confucus like.

Turmarion wrote: “Recall that the Dao De Jing compares the highest good to being like water, since water is yielding (yin-like) but ultimately can carve mighty valleys.”
You just sort of made my point for me. The second half of your sentence, water that can carve a might valley? That’s YANG. Water is not just yin. It is both yin and yang. It flows effortlessly and can still nonetheless crush you. You’ve only taken the first half of that, and said that makes Taoism more “yin” than “yang.” but again from the Taoist point of view, this is incorrect. It’s both at the same time. Flowing and yielding with the power to demolish anything in it’s path. You choose to focus only on the one, and then label Taoism more yin than yang. This sort of compartmentalized thinking is antithetical to Taoism.
This is why, from the Taoist view, saying it is yin while something else yang makes little sense. The tao is both. Water is both. Taoism, as Lao Tzu (and yes, whoever he was!) put its is a description of that balance.
Now, yes, you are totally correct to say that in practice, it’s all sorta blurred. Take Zen, which is what I am most familiar with. it’s literally buddhism seen through a taoist lens. There are also elements of Confucius and the Analects are often part of any serious zen study along with Lao Tzu, Sun Tzu and the Transmissions from the Lamp.
And there is a certain compatibility between the Buddhist ideal of the Middle Way and Taoist notions of balance: tighten the guitar string too much (yang) and it snaps. Leave it too slack (yin) and it cannot play.
So again, Taoism is manifestly not a yin focused idea. It’s a balance focused idea.

Yes, the effects of water in this case are yang, and everything contains both yin and yang. However, not everything contains equal proportions of yin and yang at any given time (otherwise everything would be in a state of balance at all times!), and the yin and yang are constantly turning into each other (an idea graphically presented by the famous taijitu, or what Westerners usually call the “yin-yang symbol”). Thus the balance is a dynamic balance, not a static one.
Thus, to say that any given action or being is both yin and yang without further qualification is misleading. It is commonplace in Traditional Chinese Medicine, e.g., to consider certain foods yin and others yang, or certain medical conditions as being caused by too much yin or yang in a given organ, etc. To say that there is yin and yang in all foods and in all organs would be technically correct, but the point is what predominates at the given time.
Daoism (and in many ways its Buddhist kin Zen), at least in the realm of human action, emphasizes non-doing (wu wei), non-use of the discursive mind (wu xinmushin), stillness, etc. It’s hard to see how such actions and states could be not be considered to be predominantly yin as they apply to human actions.
Maybe one could put it like this: sometimes you use a yin method (yielding water) to get a yang result (carving the channel); sometimes you use a yang method (bulldozing a channel) to get a yin result (the water flows quietly through the completed channel).
Anyway, please note that I didn’t say the Dao, or even Daoism, was yin. I said that it was arguable that the Daoist prescription for human behavior was, societally speaking, more toward the yin end of the spectrum, and that this is arguably because humans as they are concretely observed to behave, tend to be “too yang”. After all, if humans were balanced already, there wouldn’t need to be a Daoist philosophy/religion to begin with, would there?
It’s like the Zen paradox that in our original nature we’re already enlightened and that, say, shikantaza (to be Soto for a moment) is not making us enlightened but expressing our intrinsic enlightenment. To which the obvious reply is, “Then why go to so much trouble to begin with?” There actually is (and long has been) some interesting debate on this in Buddhist circles, so it’s not just a matter of misunderstandings by obtuse Westerners.
In any case, to return to the original point: While not denying the need for qualifications and caveats, I don’t think it’s necessarily incorrect to view Daoism and Confucianism, in a sense, as the polarities (the “yin and yang”, if you will), of Chinese society.

Enough navel gazing. I’m just going to drink the water.
Your servant,
Lord Karth

Turmarion, I recommend that you explore the concept of the shaman. The cultural anthropologists are a good start, but end up with The Way of the Shaman by Michael Harner.
Mircea Eliade:
Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy (1964)
M. J. Harner, ed.:
Hallucinogens and Shamanism (1973), The Way of the Shaman (1980)

Re: People find their purpose in life by living out the role prescribed to them by their station in life. A son does what a son must; a father does what a father must; a neighbor does what a neighbor must; and so forth
Yeah, I don’t agree. I took some flak on the other thread for being too critical of Confucianism, but this is the essence of why I’m critical of Confucianism, because Confucianism in practice and in theory tends to boil down to defending and accepting the status quo, with all its hierarchies, oppressions, and inequalities. Towards women, towards the poor, towards the landless, towards everyone not an aristocrat or imperially connected.
India had its own version of this, of course, the caste system which rivals American slavery as one of the most vicious examples, lasting for several thousand years, of man’s inhumanity to man. Of course there were also Hindus who opposed the caste system;
Christianity is something quite different. It had conservative elements, of course, but from the beginning it also had subversive and radical elements to it. One need only think about some of the sayings of Jesus about how the last will be first, etc., or about St. John the Divine’s prophecies against the Roman Empire (which was the locus of wealth and power in its time). I’ve just been reading a historical novel set in the aftermath of the English Civil War; it’s interesting how much the left-wing forces of that time, which called for economic and political equality and sharing, were influenced by Christian thought and couched in a Christian idiom. It’s hard to imagine a similar kind of crusade for equality and overthrow of oppressive hierarchies, being couched in a Confucian idiom (though I could see one being couched in a Buddhist idiom, or perhaps even a Taoist one).

I’m inclined to agree with Tumarion here. A “proof text” at hand:
He who is aware of the Male
But keeps to the Female
Becomes the ravine of the world.
Being the ravine of the world,
He has the original character (teh) which is not cut up.
And returns again to the (innocence of the) babe.
(Chap. 28)
This is expressed several times in the Tao Te Ching. It is clear, though, that, in being addressed to fallen human nature (if the expression be permitted), this is a prescription to correct an unbalanced condition.

By the way, this thread is so much more interesting than that on Darwinism. If only the discussion there were on the same level.

EHH, I can tell you from my experience at other blogs (evolution doesn’t turn up here too much, or on its predecessor blog “Crunchy Conservative”) that the relationship of evolutionary theory to religion is a topic that pretty much always shuts down reasoned discussion. The no-compromise crowd on either side jacks up the noise and all reasonable middle ground gets shouted down. Sad, but that’s what it’s like in our culture today, on that issue, at least.