> And it’s way beyond the comprehension of human knowledge.
Are you fairly religious, if you don't mind my asking?
Are you fairly religious, if you don't mind my asking?
I see Daoism as a scientific, observational life view. To know everything is impossible, and all the God stories say that God knows everything. No one can even know the Dao, all you can do is feel it in a sense. You can get an idea of the laws and let it take you. In other words, acceptance. The Dao (law of nature) controls evolution and why a baby is needed to live or die. We we try to change that we go against the Dao, and that leads to imbalance, and then problems.
For someone averse to human hubris, you repeatedly speak as if you were the voice of the world (nature, "Dao"?), merely spreading the will of the world (nature, "Dao"?). This is also why you were asked if you're religious, I assume.
This goes back to my point of acceptance. Why can’t we just accept the fact that we do not fly? Why do we want to waste all this money and time being something we’re not?
For example, in the 17th century, and then even more so in the 19th century, we discovered that humans can in fact fly pretty decent, provided the right contraption (an aircraft).
Every conceivable thing will be eventually attempted to the extent it can be. One could consider that itself a law of nature, not even specific to humans per se. How hubris enters the picture then, to me remains a mystery.