The division and differences between the two societies

Yue Shixuan (Yu Sheng)

In recent years, genetics has developed and become widespread, becoming a household name and a consensus among humankind. However, the scope of modern genetics is limited to the study of specific human traits and behaviors, rarely considering society. The large-scale societies in which humans live today are not derived from genetics; the societies defined by genetics are primitive societies of a few hundred people. In my book, *A New Interpretation of Chinese Taoism*, I have already given a brief explanation of the concepts of primitive society and secondary society; here I will provide further elaboration and explanation (Li Yousheng, 2005, 2006).

Human beings are born into a primitive society, consisting of one or two hundred people. Its internal harmony and functional operation are maintained by human nature and instinct. The principles of primitive society are face-to-face interaction and equal reciprocity. Although there is a leader in charge, there is no absolute authority. The leader uses negotiation and persuasion as the main means of management; there are relatively stable traditions to follow, but no laws. Primitive society already exhibits rudimentary cultural differentiation. This culture lacks the capacity to refine human nature, which is the basis for Taoism’s emphasis on nature and humanity in ancient society. Therefore, there is only one type of primitive society.

All animal societies are based on inheritance and instinct, that is, primitive societies. Western academia, heavily influenced by Darwin’s theory of natural competition, emphasizes the hierarchical and competitive aspects of chimpanzee societies. However, ape societies, including chimpanzees, still closely resemble primitive human societies, including alpha male management, the absence of absolute authority, and equality and reciprocity. They constantly solidify existing relationships through acts of mutual affection, such as grooming each other, while the relationships in secondary societies are relatively fixed and guaranteed by a legal system. In modern society, primitive societies are essentially family, kinship, and friend circles, generally consisting of one or two hundred people. This circle of kinship and friendship still retains some characteristics of primitive societies, such as equality and reciprocity, but in terms of ideology and organizational structure, it has been eroded by secondary societies. Many signs indicate that in primitive societies, individuals and society communicated psychologically and emotionally, much like a harmonious integration of the individual with the surrounding society. In secondary societies, individuals and society are unable to communicate psychologically and emotionally.

Secondary societies are temporary creations developed by humans after they settled down to cope with population growth. They are unrelated to genetics, and therefore have countless possible forms. Once humans choose a particular social form, it has its unique evolutionary path and direction. The society we live in today is vast and complex, an accumulation of temporary measures that humans have continuously adjusted throughout history to cope with various difficulties; it is less a creation of humans than an evolution of a specific cultural form or social structure. Marx’s description of the process of society from primitive society and slave society to feudal society and capitalist society excludes conscious human choice and creation.

Primitive society and secondary society are two fundamentally different societies, separated by an insurmountable chasm. We cannot say that humanity has successfully crossed this chasm over thousands of years. The chaos of today’s world and the various headaches plaguing society indicate that we are at least partially, or even entirely, still within this chasm, gazing at the blue sky and praying for divine salvation. Marxist theory shares this belief, stating that after deviating from primitive communist society, humanity, through a long historical period, has returned to communism.

Lao Tzu was the first philosopher in human history to clearly recognize the insurmountable chasm between primitive and secondary societies. In Chapter 29 of the *Tao Te Ching*, he said, “The world is a divine vessel; it cannot be manipulated, nor can it be grasped. Those who manipulate it will fail; those who grasp it will lose it.” The author believes that Lao Tzu was referring to the fundamental difference between ancient primitive society and modern secondary society. The latter is unrelated to human genetics, thus necessitating the introduction of legally mandated institutions of violence such as the military, prisons, and police to maintain social stability. Lao Tzu’s statement that the world is a divine vessel cannot be manipulated or grasped refers to the non-manipulable nature of secondary society. The masters of primitive society are humans, not gods; the masters of secondary society are gods, not humans. The gap between primitive and secondary societies is insurmountable. The “god” Lao Tzu speaks of here is not necessarily a personified god. For millennia, humanity, having reached the pinnacle of knowledge and science, has remained baffled and unable to transcend it; calling it divine is not an exaggeration. This article intends to narrate the differences between primitive and secondary societies from religious, consciousness, social, and individual perspectives, serving as the premise and foundation for the discussions in each chapter. The author recognizes that this is a pioneering work lacking precedent, and even though I have striven to consider all aspects before writing, biases and errors are inevitable. I humbly request corrections from experts and readers.

(I) Biological Evolution and Human Cultural Evolution

Before discussing the various differences between primitive society and secondary society, let’s briefly describe the similarities and differences between biological evolution and human cultural evolution to help readers further grasp the concepts of primitive society and secondary society.

A key discovery in contemporary genetics is that mutation is the driving force of biological evolution, and the essence of mutation is genetic error. Darwin first proposed the theory of biological evolution, which has been confirmed by numerous archaeological discoveries and recent advances in molecular biology: not only do humans and apes share a common ancestor, but all plants and animals on Earth are homologous, originating from ribonucleic acid (RNA) molecules formed by the arrangement and combination of four nucleotides. Limited by human knowledge at the time, Darwin explained biodiversity using the selective pressure of environmental change. Now it is understood that the replication mechanism of RNA, the genetic material, has an inherent tendency to be flawed; that is, RNA mutation is the driving force of biological evolution, and the environment is merely a selective factor that allows certain mutant species to survive. This determines that organisms themselves have an inherent drive to develop towards higher and more diverse forms, and the prospects for biological evolution are limitless.

Figure 1 is a phylogenetic diagram of humans and apes; humans and modern apes such as chimpanzees shared a common ancestor 15 million years ago: the ancient ape. The diagram depicts ten major branches in the evolutionary history of the ancient ape, but the evolutionary prospects faced by the ancient ape 15 million years ago were uncertain and limitless. The ten branches depicted are the product of environmental selection and chance. The Yellow River, the cradle of the Chinese nation, has undergone twenty-six major course changes in its recorded history; eight of these are marked by dotted lines in Figure 2. The course of a river is much like the evolution of organisms and cultures: once a course is determined, other possible courses automatically disappear. The course changes of the Yellow River in its history simply demonstrate this possibility. The future of rivers, cultures, and organisms is uncertain and limitless. (Figures 1 and 2)

In the evolutionary history of human culture, the driving force remains sudden change. Cultural sudden change is a betrayal of tradition, and often, individual events or accidental ideas become the key to reversing the course of culture. Human culture itself possesses a driving force for forward development, and its future prospects are equally uncertain and infinitely possible. Due to environmental changes and major sudden changes disrupting the original balance, both biology and culture enter periods of rapid and unstable development. Therefore, biological history and the history of human culture are both characterized by long periods of stability interspersed with short periods of rapid progress. The Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods in China are such a period of rapid progress. Scholars now seem to agree that the West, since the Renaissance, has undergone a major sudden change, while other traditional cultures in the world have followed the norm of cultural evolution. Western culture, having gained powerful vitality from this sudden change, has swept across the world like a raging flood. This is an example of rapid progress caused by a major cultural upheaval. The author believes that the transition to a secondary society due to population growth can be seen as a rapid cultural development caused by environmental change. I tend to think that humanity is still in this period of rapid development and has not yet entered the stable period of a secondary society. Figure 2 shows a key area where the Yellow River changes course, marked with a circle. The section where the Yellow River enters the plains from the mountains is analogous to humanity’s transition from a primitive society to a secondary society—that is, the instability in its course caused by different levels. Once the river enters the plains, the possibility of changing its course decreases relatively. This is the “plain” section where humanity has not yet entered a secondary society. In the highlands and mountains, the Yellow River flows swiftly, carrying mud and rocks; in the plains, the flow is gentle, with only fine sand maintaining the river’s name. The key section near Huayuankou in Henan Province is characterized by both mountainous and plain features. Existing human societies possess characteristics of both primitive and secondary societies, blurring the lines between the two.

(II) Religion and Superstition

The ancient Greek scholar Heraclitus (540-470 BC) said, “War is the father of all, war is the king of all. War makes some gods, some men; some slaves, some free men.” Heraclitus’s view of the state is supported by Marx’s theory of the state, which posits that the state is a product of irreconcilable class conflict, and violence is the foundation of the modern order. Heraclitus lived in the newly emerging Secondary Society and possessed a thorough understanding of its nature, which is why he made this statement. He clearly pointed out that war creates different classes such as free men and slaves, thus creating the state based on these classes. It is worth noting that Heraclitus also stated that war created the distinction between gods and men. In other words, war created hierarchies in real society, and simultaneously created hierarchies in social concepts, including the concept of God. From Heraclitus’s arguments, we can conclude that religion in the modern sense is found in secondary societies after the emergence of the state, not in primitive societies. Both the *Shangshu* (Book of Documents) and the *Guoyu* (Discourses of the States) record the severing of the connection between heaven and earth. Roughly speaking, it was only during the Five Emperors period that the emperor sent people to govern, thus separating the gods in heaven from the people on earth. Before that, there was a mixture of gods and people, people and gods sharing the same position, and every household having its own shamans and officials. That is, although primitive societies had the concepts of gods and people, there was no strict distinction or boundary between them, not even a distinction of superiority or inferiority. Gods and humans existed in the same realm and at the same level.

I remember when I was a child, reading official documents like the Chinese Constitution, I noticed that religion and superstition were listed side by side. This gave me a clear concept: religion and superstition were the same thing. Actually, placing religion and superstition side by side is quite insightful. It’s an impression gained from looking up at secondary societies from the perspective of primitive societies—that primitive societies didn’t have religion and superstition in our modern sense. People living in ancient times might have believed that a person named Xihe drove a chariot carrying the sun from east to west every day, but this was their science, no different from today’s scientists believing the universe originated from the Big Bang, and neither can be considered superstition. They, too, made the most reasonable assumptions based on the information they had, and planned their physical and mental behavior according to these assumptions—that is, the social practical value of science. This article does not intend to distinguish which ancient myths and legends are equivalent to ancient science, which are equivalent to ancient religion, and which are equivalent to ancient literary creations and thus possess aesthetic value. These are beyond the scope of this article.

To believe something exists when it doesn’t is superstition; to firmly believe something exists when its existence is unknown is faith. To systematize, institutionalize, and organize a faith to solve certain intractable problems in society and life, such as the pursuit of meaning in life, is religion. Within the realm of ignorance, faith can be established; faith can be numerous, but in a secondary society, there can only be one or a few religions, and once society has chosen, individuals are not allowed to make further choices. Humans are social animals, and social biology research indicates that the words and behaviors of those around us have a powerful influence on us. Therefore, in a secondary society, religion inevitably leads to widespread superstition. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, a belief that contradicts modern science and social consensus. This contradiction only exacerbates their extremism, leading to numerous historical instances of large-scale social conflict. Furthermore, it is even more common for ordinary people to claim to have seen God and Jesus and received direct instructions from Him. Superstition also has another meaning: that society has already proven its non-existence, yet some people with low levels of education still do not know and firmly believe in its existence. Such superstition, along with the superstition of “knowing it doesn’t exist but still believing it does,” is not found in the face-to-face primitive society. Therefore, religion and superstition in the modern sense only exist in secondary societies.

Mr. Liang Shuming once said, “Human culture all begins with religion; and it is always centered around religion. Human social order and politics originate from religion, and human thought, knowledge, and even various academic disciplines all originate from religion.” “In order to maintain society and develop culture, religion is especially indispensable.” (The Complete Works of Liang Shuming, Volume 3, pp. 97-99) Many modern Chinese scholars accepted Mr. Liang’s views. In fact, Mr. Liang’s argument is a depiction of a secondary society, unrelated to the original society. In a secondary society, humanity faces countless possibilities, and these possibilities not only involve society but also fundamental issues of life such as values and moral foundations. Just as a ship tossed about in a storm needs to drop an anchor for support, people living in a secondary society need a reference point far above life, a reference point unmoved by the storms of life. Religion is precisely such a reference point, which is why modern scholars have begun to define religion as a system of orientations (Vardenberg, 2003). The reference point of this system of orientations is in the heavens, not on earth. It is also called ultimate care, that is, care above all else, which is a reference point that governs everything.

If the people of secondary society live on a ship tossed about in the wind and rain, while the people of primitive society live on land, their lives are inherently ultimate. They do not conjure up an ultimate reality to compensate for the inadequacies of reality. Ultimate reality can only arise from the critique of reality, becoming a reference point for that critique.

Primitive societies, based on human nature, do not require external reference points as a stable system for social life. Therefore, culture in primitive societies can develop without a religious foundation. I believe that the culture of primitive societies can develop to a very high stage; it’s just that primitive societies lack the directional accumulation of secondary society. If civilization is defined as the emergence of the state, and the state is an irreconcilable product of class divisions, then civilization can only arise in secondary societies. “Taboos” follow this line of thought. As Mr. Lü Simian said, “Ancient civilization was in religion, later civilization was in scholarship; scholarship is primarily intellectual, religion is primarily emotional.” (Lü Simian, *Totems and Taboos*, p. 182). If civilization is understood literally as a highly developed culture, then civilization does not necessarily require a state as a prerequisite. The author firmly believes that what Daoists opposed was state-based civilization, not a highly developed culture. Recently, I read an article by Mr. Zou Changlin. Mr. Zou, like others, distinguishes between civilization and the state, arguing that state civilization is an alienation of civilization, not civilization itself. In other words, Mr. Zou believes that civilization marked by the emergence of the state is merely one form of civilization; civilization can take many other forms. (Zou Changlin, 2005) It should be pointed out that defining civilization by the emergence of the state originates from anthropology, and the development of anthropology is based on archaeology. Archaeological discoveries of civilization are limited to large-scale structures like the Egyptian pyramids, and these large-scale structures require the organization of manpower by a state. Small rural villages are not easily unearthed by archaeologists, let alone the spirit and culture of ancient people.

In primitive societies, people also systematized, institutionalized, and organized their beliefs to solve the material and spiritual problems they faced. In primitive societies, there was no strong authority, and the discourse was confined to a small group of people interacting face-to-face. Therefore, religion in primitive societies was more practical and personalized, reflecting the inherent forms of human thought: freedom, arbitrariness, and uncertainty. The phrases “mixture of gods and people” and “family with shamans and officials” indicate that religion in primitive societies was primarily an activity of individuals and families, and could be considered personal or family religions. Like the chieftain politics of primitive societies, religion lacked authority; even in religious matters, people acted independently. Even unified religious activities were contingent upon the voluntary and willing participation of members.

Regarding the religious features of primitive society, Mou Zhongjian and Zhang Jian (2003, p. 75) provided a relatively detailed description of primitive religion in their *General History of Chinese Religions*, and I agree with their opinions and understanding. They stated that primitive religion possessed spontaneity, clan characteristics, regionality, and practicality. Spontaneity meant that primitive religion was not the mature, systematic thought of a single scholar, but rather an accumulation of spontaneous ideas from many individuals. Clan characteristics meant that it was based on considerations of one’s own primitive society, lacking a universal perspective. Regionality meant that it utilized local resources; the concept of deities originated from the local environment, resulting in polytheism, with various gods having hierarchical distinctions and no systematic hierarchical relationships—what might be called natural religion.

As for practicality, I would like to quote the original words of Mou Zhongjian and Zhang Jian: “Practicality: the main purpose of people worshiping gods is not for spiritual liberation, but to ask the gods to help solve the problems encountered in real production and life, so as to achieve the goals of eliminating disasters and calamities, curing diseases and warding off evil, ensuring the prosperity of the population, abundant harvests of grains, thriving livestock, and social peace.”

In conclusion, Mou Zhongjian and Zhang Jian’s descriptions of primitive religion further support the fundamental difference between the religious concepts of primitive society and secondary society. The religion of primitive society lacks the utilitarian elements of secondary society, making it more aesthetically pleasing.

There are two common misconceptions: one is that people in ancient primitive societies were too busy making a living to have any leisure time. Many studies have shown that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle that humans led for over 100,000 years after their emergence was best suited to human nature. Their food was diverse and nutritious, and outdoor activities kept them healthy (Lee, 1984). The Agricultural Revolution brought a series of misfortunes, including monotonous food, malnutrition, and overcrowding leading to a surge in infectious diseases (Haviland, 2003, pages 294-298). This clearly demonstrates that scientific progress is not without its flaws.

Secondly, some believe that ancient primitive people had no spiritual life. This is the same mistake as assuming that Taoism’s advocacy of antiquity is an opposition to civilization. We cannot know what the spiritual life of people in ancient primitive societies was like; we can only speculate. Although they lacked modern facilities such as theaters and libraries, they had ample free time to face the boundless nature. Like us, they had curiosity, and when life became monotonous and dull, they would find other ways to solve their emotional problems: exploring the surrounding mountains, forests, and vegetation; playing and communicating with companions; or meditating to cultivate their minds and allow their consciousness to lead them to explore the vastness and splendor of their inner world. Zhuangzi proposed the concept of “morning clarity,” meaning that witnessing the sunrise and the magnificent spectacle of nature’s rosy dawn has a transformative effect on one’s mindset. It brings sudden enlightenment, dispels all worries, purifies the mind, and immerses one in the beauty of nature, elevating consciousness to another realm. This experience, shared by ancient primitive people, is not unlike the spiritual experience of modern intellectuals appreciating art in their ivory towers.

If there is any difference in the spiritual lives of people in primitive society and secondary society, compared to modern people, the spiritual lives of people in primitive society were more diverse, more entertaining, more aesthetic, and more profound. Their spiritual lives were devoid of political implications and the vulgarity of money. Compared to the spiritual lives of contemporary people, Zhuangzi’s spiritual life also exhibits these characteristics. The only difference is that Zhuangzi’s rich and colorful spiritual life was able to be transformed into written words, allowing it to be understood by later generations.

Here we interpret the term “aesthetics” more broadly, referring to a deep level of immersion and self-forgetfulness, much like the Taoist concept of the unity of man and nature. In modern neuroscience, it refers to the brain’s tendency to return to its optimal state.

Numerous studies and documents confirm that primitive peoples in the gathering and hunting stage, due to the wide variety of food and appropriate physical exercise, were generally healthy and had ample leisure time, with almost no work in the modern sense. They would gather and eat fruit in forests and grasslands, much like today’s leisure activities. It was only after the invention of agriculture that the monotonous diet led to malnutrition, hardship, and physical injury, but they still had ample leisure time. This leisure time fostered spiritual pursuits, primarily aesthetic ones—self-entertainment without any utilitarian motives. The mind immersed in this purely aesthetic and natural form of entertainment shares similarities with the various religious experiences of individuals in later secondary societies, such as the unity of heaven and man, spiritual communication, and mystery. Here, I refer to this self-entertainment devoid of utilitarian motives as an aesthetic pursuit, because it is more like when we appreciate a piece of elegant art today, our minds are elevated to another realm far removed from life—a realm of aesthetics.

Armstrong (1994, xix, 5, p. 396) states, “Our ancestors worshipped God immediately upon becoming recognizable human beings; they created religion at the same time as they created art.” “Symbolic stories, primitive paintings and carvings in caves are an attempt to express human wonder and mystery; today’s poets, artists, and musicians are driven by the same desires.” “A God who can only be approached through imagination can be seen as an art form that approaches great symbolic works of art that express the value of life, beauty, and infinite mystery.”

Armstrong’s above arguments demonstrate the important conclusion that art and religion are interconnected. At the same time, we must also note that God is not the same as a work of art; religion and art are distinct. At the boundary between religion and art, the religion of early societies was closer to art.

There are millions of prehistoric rock paintings around the world, a significant portion of which are related to sexual intercourse, even depicting scenes of humans having sex with animals. This is reminiscent of the graffiti in modern toilets, although the former may lack the cathartic release of sexual repression found in the latter, and is closer to pure entertainment—a pursuit of aesthetics. Ancient people, like us, were curious, mischievous, and eager to express themselves. Therefore, religion in early societies served multiple functions, including art and entertainment, social organization, and moral and value orientations based on natural human nature.

In short, if primitive societies also had religions, their religions were closer to human life itself, while the religions of secondary societies were meant to address the instability brought to humanity by the various possibilities of secondary societies, as mentioned above: the masters of primitive societies were humans, not gods, while the masters of secondary societies were gods, not humans.

(III) Other areas of ideology

Besides religion, many other ideological differences can serve as the dividing line between primitive and secondary societies. Taoism’s advocacy of nature, its rejection of artifice, and the preservation of innate qualities is commendable. The emergence of secondary societies first made people realize that nature is not perfect; perfection can only be the result of humanity’s struggle against nature. A hallmark of secondary societies is that this struggle against nature is directed at humanity itself. They recognized that humans are born imperfect and need to be reformed and punished. The story of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit and falling from grace is seen as an indication that God did not create humanity perfectly, and therefore regretted it. The Bible states: “When the Lord saw how great the wickedness of mankind was on the earth, and that the inclinations of the thoughts of their hearts were only evil all the days, the Lord regretted that he had made mankind on the earth, and his heart was grieved.” (Genesis 6:5) This belief that humanity has significant flaws is not unique to primitive societies; it is a projection of the instability of secondary societies onto human consciousness. This sense of guilt manifests in social structures, where society exerts immense pressure on its members, forcing them to infinitely extend the potential of human nature, leading to absurdity. Circuses may feature performances where humans and animals share the stage: after rigorous human training, animals may perform simple actions like climbing rubber balls, while humans are required to perform highly difficult and dangerous stunts such as climbing sharp blades. The two performers share the stage, yet their performances are drastically different. This is undoubtedly due to the acrobats’ willingness versus the animals’ reluctance, but the acrobats’ willingness stems from the culture and pressure of secondary society. In a sense, human society is a circus that constantly exerts pressure, forcing people to accomplish things they were originally unable to do.

In recent years, there has been in-depth and extensive discussion on alienation in China. This social phenomenon, unique to first- and second-tier societies, was first proposed by Hegel and systematically discussed by Marx, subsequently becoming a major subject in sociology and a staple of textbooks. As a result, its meaning has become increasingly broad. This aligns with Lao Tzu’s saying, “The divine instruments of the world cannot be manipulated or grasped,” meaning that the second-tier society controls people, rather than society being controlled by people. People lose their innate, original society and are forced to confront a powerful and hostile second-tier society. Thus, people begin to train themselves to walk on fire and blades. This includes the harmful practices of foot binding for Chinese women and corseting for Western women.

In psychiatry, there’s a pathological concept called obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). The presence or absence of OCD is one of the dividing lines between primitive and secondary societies. Medically speaking, an obsessive-compulsive disorder is a recurring thought, feeling, or behavior that cannot be suppressed by logical reason. For example, going back to check the door after leaving the house for fear of forgetting to lock it is normal. However, if one goes back and doubts the reliability of their check, returning again and again, that’s pathological. This kind of individual OCD also occurs in primitive societies, but in secondary societies, large-scale collective OCD can occur, meaning the entire society is troubled by certain OCDs. For instance, in the 1950s, the McCarthy movement emerged in the United States, where people suspected their neighbors of being communist spies without any reason. For example, many young men and women in today’s society pursue beauty to the point of neglecting their studies, damaging their health, and in some cases, even dying. In Chapter Two of my book, *A New Interpretation of Chinese Taoism*, I discuss how the concept of hero differs between primitive and secondary societies. I mention that in primitive societies, people might consider accidental killings taboo. Existing primitive tribes still have traditions of expelling murderers from the tribe, which is a manifestation of this taboo. This kind of coercive concept in primitive societies is smaller in scale and has realistic reasons closely related to social survival. Once similar taboos become collective coercive ideas in secondary societies, they can go to extremes that contradict human nature.

In primitive societies, people lacked rigorous rational thinking, a limitation determined by the structure of the human brain. This did not preclude them from making rational judgments and inferences. The difference between primitive societies and the rational thinking of secondary societies lies in the fact that the former is based on life experience and has not developed into an abstract system of rational thought. Modern secondary societies employ multi-system rational thinking; for example, natural sciences, history, philosophy, and religion each possess entirely different systems. Within the field of philosophy, figures like Plato, Aristotle, and Kant established their own systems of rational thought. As individuals, we can only accept one system of rational thought, and by referring to the basic principles of other systems, we selectively suppress our non-rational brain’s thinking. Spoken and written words exhibiting rigorous rationality are not inherent to the brain.

Similar to rational thinking is the value system of our lives. Some people are willing to spend their hard-earned money on clothes, while others prefer to spend it on food; people have different values. People in primitive societies also had different desires and orientations, but their values were based on natural human nature and basic human needs, so there was only one type: natural values. This natural value system of primitive societies was systematically described and elevated in early Taoist doctrines and is familiar to scholars, so it will not be repeated here. In primitive societies, society and individuals shared the same values. In secondary societies, society must distinguish itself from its members, and society must establish its own value system as part of its stable system. In contrast to the rich and diverse behavioral intentions and value orientations of primitive societies, secondary societies must select a single value, systematize and institutionalize it, and combine it with social power—what is known in modern times as official ideology. This is a necessity for the construction of secondary societies; the hierarchy and fair measurement of society require a fixed value system to form unified rationality and become the foundation for social stability. Different secondary societies can have different value orientations. In today’s multicultural and multi-ethnic world, each with its own power and population, they compete and contend with each other, leading to war and conflict. This differs from the class struggle in Marxism-Leninism, which is competition within a unified value system.

Chapter Three of a new interpretation of Chinese Taoism mentions four psychological effects experienced by individuals upon their initial transition from the primary society to the secondary society, which also fall under the category of ideological differences between the two societies. The first effect is the “divine world effect,” which states that while individuals can psychologically integrate with the primary society, they cannot communicate psychologically with the secondary society and can only seek a representative—a god-like figure. Living among strangers in the secondary society, one must learn to interact with them within a social network woven by social power, resulting in fear and loneliness. The third psychological effect is that the warmth between people in the primary society transforms into numbness and indifference in the secondary society. The combination of these three effects produces a fourth: hypocrisy and extravagance, absent in the primary society but prevalent in the secondary society.

(iv) Exploring potential in spare time and surrounding areas

Anthropologists believe that the distinction between work and leisure began after the invention of agriculture and animal husbandry. Investing in the future prompted people to increase working hours and intensity. With the emergence of the state, a leisure class arose to supervise work, forcing humans to work seriously and forming our current habit of working longer hours than leisure time. Only individual farmers, without supervision, allowed their leisurely nature to persist. If individual farmers could combine leisure with meeting their basic needs for food and clothing, like prehistoric humans, there would be no work or labor in the modern sense.

Leisure time is linked to entertainment, and entertainment is linked to culture. Not only are weekend activities like watching movies and reading culturally enriching, but leisure time entertainment is also a driving force and source of cultural creation. Textbooks and dictionaries offer numerous definitions of culture; here, I introduce a new one: defining culture as how we use our leisure time. This simple definition provides us with a specific perspective for studying culture. Leisure time is defined as time after basic physiological needs are met. Only when one is free from worries about food and clothing can one have the interest to enjoy leisurely entertainment. Under this definition, primitive humans, farmers, and even animals all had leisure time.

In modern society, leisure time has become the time left after work. In fact, most of our work is not for basic physiological needs. Our wages include taxes to support the government and the military, as well as expenses for luxury entertainment. On the other hand, we often use our leisure time to cook and do laundry, activities that are more closely related to basic human physiological needs than work.

Do animals and modern humans use their leisure time differently? Animals relax their bodies and enjoy immediate pleasure, just like humans in primitive societies. This pursuit of immediate pleasure is devoid of utilitarian motives; it is what this article refers to as an aesthetic pursuit.

French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) argued that humans are fundamentally different from animals. Animals are guided by their natural instincts, while humans have lost the support of these instincts, facing life head-on and becoming free individuals. That is to say, humans have the freedom to do whatever they want, contrary to their nature. From a Taoist perspective, leisure time should be for relaxation and enjoyment, but humans choose to use it to pursue material things. This pursuit is vast and boundless, without limits or restrictions. From a human nature perspective, since this pursuit goes against human nature, it will not have a fixed direction or a fixed value system. Except for things like lifting Mount Tai with one hand—things that are physically impossible—humans are capable of anything.

The most agonizing and absurd way for humans to while away their leisure time is through self-immolation in public. Some self-immolators scream and run wildly before their deaths, while others appear calm and composed, their steps light, a faint smile on their lips. The mental fortitude of civilized people can transform physical pain into a smile. It is said that Fang Xiaoru of the Ming Dynasty refused to draft the edict of accession for the Yongle Emperor. Under torture, his face became a bloody mess, yet he could still laugh and curse the traitors who had usurped the throne.

These extreme examples make it easy to understand why, under the supervision of the leisure class, the ancients abandoned their natural inclination to pursue leisure and pleasure, instead toiling like ants all day long; and why, thousands of years later, even with the overthrow of autocratic kings and the technological revolution leading to a surge in productivity, most people still work more than they play. In reality, people, like the smiling self-immolators mentioned above, endure long hours of hardship beneath a smile.

Our behavior is determined by innate human nature and cultural environment. Human nature, determined by heredity, can be defined by a series of natural needs, basic abilities, and peripheral potentials. Peripheral potentials are an excessive extension of natural needs or basic abilities, though excessive, they are still within the capabilities of the human body and brain. A person can walk and run easily and happily, usually without becoming breathless. If fleeing for their life, they will exceed normal speed, disregarding their physical and mental pain. We say that this person is using their peripheral potentials. Basic abilities and natural needs constitute basic human nature. Peripheral potentials are not essential for life, but secondary societies can compel their members to develop these potentials for survival. Primitive societies can accommodate all of human nature. Secondary societies are not products of human nature; they have specific directions and purposes, compelling people to develop certain peripheral potentials while suppressing certain basic human traits.

One question is whether a culture that forces people to develop certain peripheral potentials while suppressing certain basic human traits can exert a directional influence on the human gene pool, selecting certain genes and eliminating others—for example, selecting genes associated with submissiveness and iron discipline, while eliminating genes associated with laziness and indolence. Before answering this question about genes related to human behavior, let’s first look at the case of genes for common traits.

It’s common knowledge that Chinese people experience bloating after drinking a lot of milk, while Europeans don’t. This is a result of the differences in agricultural cultures between East and West, and agricultural cultures are a phenomenon that has existed for over 10,000 years. Recently, researchers at the University of Chicago conducted a comparative study of hundreds of East Asians, Europeans, and Yoruba people from Nigeria. They found that due to differences in dietary culture and environment, each group underwent positive selection for approximately 250 genes. For example, the frequencies of genes corresponding to enzymes that break down sucrose, lactose, and mannose were increased in these three groups, respectively. (Sample, 2006; Than, 2006)

The digestion and breakdown of specific foods involves single genes, or even multiple genes. However, the number of genes related to human social behaviors such as patience, discipline, and laziness is far greater, and these are intertwined with cultural influences, making them difficult to fully understand in a short time. I tend to believe that humans primarily adapted to the increase in labor intensity and hours over thousands of years by changing their lifestyles—that is, artificially developing certain peripheral potentials while suppressing certain basic human traits—rather than relying on changes in the gene pool. This does not preclude slight changes in the human gene pool, but such changes cannot explain human behavior today. The various behaviors that deviate from human nature are primarily products of culture.

One compelling piece of evidence is that while people exhibit vast differences due to cultural disparities, their fundamental nature remains similar—the so-called “human nature is similar, but habits differ.” Not only can all humans on Earth intermarry and reproduce, but they also belong to the same species. Furthermore, the myth that culturally advanced races are genetically superior, fabricated by racists for centuries, has been debunked by scientific progress. Their comparative studies of different ethnicities are either methodologically flawed, based on inaccurate data, or even involve falsification. More importantly, numerous indications suggest that while humans have incorporated the various institutions and demands of secondary societies into their daily lives, becoming accustomed to them and unaware of their unnaturalness, they are far from being considered part of our nature. Incorporating these into our nature requires changes in genes and physical structure. Supporting this conclusion is the existence of strong social pressure.

In today’s two-tiered society, a striking characteristic is that the total number of opportunities offered by society is far less than the total ambition of its members. This system, initially devised by the leisured overseers, is now deeply ingrained in our social structure—a system of elimination. If diligence and discipline were already part of our genetic makeup, there would be no need for mechanisms like competition or elimination to modify our behavior. Driven by immense social pressure, we are not indulging in unrestrained freedom, but rather enduring hardship.

According to the American Psychological Association, 43% of American adults suffer from health problems due to stress, and 75% to 90% of outpatient visits in the United States are related to stress. Stress alone costs American industry $300 billion annually. This only includes losses due to sick leave and other reasons, excluding medical expenses.

According to psychologists, the average person has 60,000 thoughts every day, the vast majority of which are merely internal monologues. However, 75% of these thoughts are negative and pessimistic, ranging from worries about work to annoyances about neighbors’ words and actions. D. Chopra, an Indian-American physician and renowned author of *The New Age*, was told by a neurologist, “Once you realize that 99 percent of humanity spends 99 percent of its time avoiding painful realities, you understand human motivation.” Five out of seven of our bizarre dreams at night are negative and pessimistic.

If you ask people why they work all day, do housework at night, and never rest, they will almost invariably answer that it’s to pursue happiness. Scientists have long sought an objective indicator of happiness. Countless studies have reached the same conclusion: happiness contributes to physical health. The incidence of five major diseases—cancer, stroke, heart disease, mental illness, and suicide—is directly related to unhappiness. If everyone pursued happiness, the incidence of these five diseases would effectively decrease. On the contrary, these five diseases have not decreased but rather increased. For example, in the mid-20th century, the suicide rate in the United States and Canada doubled (Macionis & Gerber, 1999, p. 587). This powerfully demonstrates the tragic fact that humanity keeps striving, but is moving further and further away from happiness. This shows that the gap between the social pressures placed on us and our capabilities is widening.

In a two-tiered society, people do indeed pursue the highest and most ideal goals. This isn’t so much related to individual nature as it’s an inevitable result of the design of a two-tiered society. The characteristic of a two-tiered society is the establishment of a single direction and value system, followed by the division of society into numerous fixed levels according to this system. This serves as a stabilizing system and a measuring system, aiming to stimulate members to strive in the same direction. In Chapter Six, Section Three, “The Social Pyramid,” of my book *A New Interpretation of Chinese Taoism*, I pointed out that this value measuring system can remain unchanged for centuries, forming a culture. Examples include the ancient Egyptians building the pyramids, the Mongols under Genghis Khan focusing solely on killing on the battlefield, and since the Renaissance, the world, led by the West, has embarked on a path of wealth accumulation. This is the difference between a primitive society and a two-tiered society, much like the difference between cellular tissue and organs. A two-tiered society requires a fixed value system to organize itself, while a primitive society is built on the foundation of human nature, with intuition and instinct as its natural organizational system.

The difference in creative thinking between primitive societies and secondary societies can be illustrated by the differences between prehistoric rock paintings and the Egyptian pyramids. After hundreds of years of civilization’s erosion, millions of primitive rock paintings remain in the world for people to appreciate. For example, the Damaidi rock painting group in Zhongwei, Ningxia, discovered in recent years, contains 8,453 individual rock paintings divided into 3,172 groups. The content includes the sun, moon, and stars; deities; hunting and herding; and dances and rituals, as well as more than 1,500 pictographic characters. The earliest possible date for these rock paintings is 20,000 years ago. The pyramids represent the blood and tears of hundreds of thousands of slaves under the whip for decades; the aforementioned rock paintings evoke an impression closer to the thoughts and actions of Zhuangzi: unrestrained and boundless. (Figures 3 and 4)

Zhuangzi’s contributions to spiritual and cultural matters did not bring him any material benefits. He lived a life of poverty, wearing coarse clothes and his worn-out shoes were bound with hemp rope when he met the King of Wei. This was because he had no interest in the various pursuits of the secondary society, and his doctrines were of no use to the secondary society of his time. His book could offer solace to disillusioned scholars, but it also eroded people’s fighting spirit to dedicate themselves to the secondary society. Those who have read *Zhuangzi* are invariably impressed by his rich imagination: he skillfully created a more diverse and aesthetically pleasing illusory world than the real world using ordinary language.

Anyone with even a slight understanding of the Chinese Taoist tradition knows that Zhuangzi was a man of great spiritual individuality. His individuality manifested in his refusal to conform to worldly ways and his pursuit of absolute freedom of self-expression. The result was unrestrained and boundless freedom. This represents the fulfillment of one’s pursuit of self-realization in life.

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) was the first physician to study the human psyche using modern scientific methods. His theory of the human nervous system emphasizes that its operation is based on neuronal inertia, a process of constantly seeking equilibrium and stability. All human cells, organs, and limbs have a tendency to return to their optimal state, the so-called state of minimal arousal. Our brains automatically return to a state of relaxation. According to Freud, when we are agitated, our nervous system tends to reduce arousal to protect its health. Our nervous system also requires a minimum amount of information and stimulation to maintain its optimal state, a slightly yang-leaning state of relaxation. Various mental and psychological disorders deviate from this biological principle of the human brain’s state of relaxation.

A relaxed state of mind is neutral, while the optimal state for the aesthetic mind is more masculine. Aesthetics is the return of all life’s pursuits to a deeper spiritual level, including entertainment, enjoyment, art appreciation, a sense of accomplishment in one’s career, and moral and religious pursuits. The masculine results of these pursuits give us feelings of joy, happiness, and excitement. These feelings only appear different when combined with external environments and life’s historical moments. If we forget the external world, these different feelings become more similar at a deeper spiritual level. According to Freud, when we are excited, our nervous system has a tendency to reduce excitement to protect its own health. Therefore, aesthetic feelings are the final point of return for the masculine feelings of joy, happiness, and excitement brought about by life’s pursuits. This is also the foundation of the concept of aesthetic pursuit in this article.

The pursuit of self-actualization was first proposed by Maslow. Maslow believed that it is human nature to pursue the highest and most ideal goals, and that as long as their life path is not blocked by adverse social environments, they will not give up this pursuit. Maslow’s concept of the highest and most ideal goals is, of course, proposed in the context of a competitive secondary society, aiming to maximize one’s potential and achieve the greatest success compared to those around them. Maslow conducted extensive research on a group of people he considered to have achieved self-actualization, including Lincoln, Thoreau (American writer), Beethoven, Roosevelt, and Einstein. (Kagan & Segal, 1995, pages 389-390; Arnheim et al, 1972, pages 444-447)

The Analects records Confucius’s reflections on his life’s journey: “At fifteen, I set my heart on learning; at thirty, I stood firm; at forty, I had no more doubts; at fifty, I knew the will of Heaven; at sixty, my ear was attuned to the truth; at seventy, I could follow my heart’s desire without transgressing the rules.” (Analects, Book 2, Chapter 1) Confucius began his efforts at fifteen, and it wasn’t until he was seventy, three years before his death, that he reached the level of “following one’s heart’s desire without transgressing the rules”: doing whatever he wanted while remaining within social norms. The Spring and Autumn Period, in which Confucius lived, was a time when large-scale secondary social spaces began to emerge. This demonstrates that secondary societies were not built on the foundation of human nature as primitive societies; even a sage like Confucius had to spend his entire life striving to fully adapt to society.

An important conclusion can be drawn from the example of Confucius: in a secondary society, people can feel as at home, free and at ease, rediscovering the personal feelings of their original society. Followers of Taoism who advocate a return to simplicity and authenticity do not necessarily have to distance themselves from society to achieve their ideals. The people Maslow listed as ultimately self-realized individuals, like Confucius, are naturally harmonious and free-spirited. He listed many characteristics of these people, such as: they are problem-centered rather than individual-centered; they associate with humanity; their values and attitudes are democratic; their humor is philosophical rather than satirical; they transcend their environment rather than merely coping with it. I think these also apply to Confucius. Maslow also proposed the concept of peak life experiences and conducted research on them. Peak experiences are the most beautiful and wonderful experiences in a person’s life, during which people are more harmonious with the surrounding world, more autonomous, more spontaneous, more emotional, and less aware of the existence of time and space.

Confucius, along with Maslow’s concept of self-actualization, represents a minority in Level 2 society. Despite their differing doctrines and approaches, their life journeys both transcend Level 2 society, aligning with the Daoist model of a return to one’s true nature. In his later years, Confucius transcended existing society, elevating his spirit to an aesthetic level, ultimately converging with Zhuangzi’s path. This aesthetic achievement of a minority in Level 2 society contrasts sharply with the disillusionment of the majority.

(V) Culture

Culture, a source of pride unique to humankind, has existed for millennia. The Bible speaks of humans as the masters of all things, and ancient China considered them the most intelligent of all beings. Only recent advances in animal research have led humanity to recognize that many animals also possess culture. Animal culture, like human culture, varies with geographical location and ethnicity. However, dictionaries and textbooks still define culture as uniquely human. One textbook defines it as: “Culture is the set of behaviors and ideas that people use to determine and pursue their interests.”

If we consider animals, we need to redefine culture. Since our behavior is determined by heredity and cultural environment, culture can be defined as the learned portion of behavior. This definition also allows animals to possess culture. For example, the songs of songbirds are the result of learning; chimpanzees using twigs to fish for termites in their burrows is a skill passed down through generations. Both of these examples of animal culture involve geographical variations. We have already introduced the book’s definition of culture above, which is how to use surplus time after basic physiological needs are met (Li Yousheng, 2005, 2006). As pointed out in the previous section, the use of leisure time can distinguish animals, primitive humans, and civilized humans.

If a person can self-immolate with a sense of bliss, then we can say that, aside from things that physics forbids, there are virtually no restrictions on how humans use their leisure time. This applies to individual behavior, and largely to the behavior of human society as a whole. It’s just that it will take many years for human society to unify its thoughts, pace, and direction, and after that, it will be difficult to stop as easily as an individual. The pyramid culture of ancient Egypt, the war culture of the Mongols, and the wealth accumulation culture of modern Europe, all mentioned above, have all spanned hundreds of years. Attempts to categorize human history into a fixed pattern underestimate the human imagination during leisure time.

Defining culture by how leisure time is used reflects a long-overlooked fact: innovation and invention occur during leisure time; human culture is a product of leisure, while only the pyramids, the establishment of empires, and the accumulation of wealth are the result of work. When our minds are occupied by routine work filled with hunger, cold, danger, and boredom, our consciousness is focused and has no time for anything else; how can we talk about invention and creation then? Constant innovation is a necessity for leisurely entertainment during leisure time and a characteristic of all aesthetic pursuits. History is replete with stories of scientists facing a difficult problem, pondering and experimenting all day without success, only to solve it in a deep sleep after exhaustion. This illustrates that our minds are more creative during leisure time. Modern society also provides readily available rational thinking and routines that allow people to discover new things in tedious repetition: if you count the stars every night for years, you may discover astronomical phenomena unknown to predecessors—although this method of star counting was developed by others in their leisure time. We can say that the brilliant and diverse human culture is primarily a creation of leisure time.

Primitive societies also possessed culture. However, this culture was not divorced from human nature; it was constrained by human nature and lacked the ability to select and modify it. Secondary societies, on the other hand, have transcended the constraints of human nature and instead possess the ability to modify and select it. Primitive societies have only one type of culture, while secondary societies can have countless. Although primitive societies also exhibit differences and changes, these are all based on human nature. This is analogous to soil itself, which can have various variations, yet these variations still belong to the soil’s inherent characteristics and manifestations. The culture of primitive societies is like the changes in the soil itself. The relationship between secondary society culture and human nature is like that between plants and soil. Plants grow on soil, and there are many varieties, each with its own life cycle and evolutionary path. Similarly, human cultures each have their own evolutionary path.

Specifically, for a nation or society, the culture of the early stages of society is multi-directional, diverse, and innovative. Upon entering the second-level society stage, a nation or society can only choose one from countless possibilities within its culture. As a result, the culture of the second-level society is singular in direction and form. The ancient Egyptian pyramid-building culture, the Mongol conquest of Eurasia through warfare, and the modern Western culture of wealth accumulation all persisted for hundreds or even thousands of years. Their direction was singular, their scale grand and uniform, allowing no other choice for individuals. As individuals, they could only create their own freedom and life within the general direction chosen by society; there was no other way. It’s like passengers on an airplane, who have the freedom to move around inside the plane. Another analogy is that the culture of the early society is the kingdom of plants and animals on earth, while the culture of the second-level society is the fruits and vegetables in a human garden, and the livestock in a pen.

The influence of secondary social culture on the selection and modification of human nature is most prominently manifested in the educational role of arts and entertainment. While contemporary arts and entertainment claim independence and to be art for art’s sake, they all operate within the broader direction chosen by society, expressing existing life views and values. Of course, when a large number of people suffer psychological trauma in secondary society, much of their emotional expression is found through arts and entertainment; this expression of personal emotion does not hinder society from moving in its predetermined direction. The author argues that the reversal of the cultural direction of secondary society cannot be influenced by individual behavior, just as it is impossible for water molecules to change the direction of a river. The cultural trajectory of secondary society follows its own evolutionary laws.

The use of leisure time is arbitrary for humans. Whether an individual uses their leisure time to accumulate wealth or build a pyramid makes little difference to their personal happiness. This makes a sudden shift in the cultural direction of a society possible. Such a shift in socio-cultural direction is unrelated to individual happiness, and therefore individuals cannot persuade millions of others to abandon a culture. A piece of land can grow crops or weeds, and can easily be planted with trees overnight. For the earth itself, the difference is not significant.

The above discussion explored the immense pressure that existing societies exert on their members, compelling them to strive in a predetermined direction. This pressure relies on competition and distrust among individuals within secondary societies, which intensifies as hostile groups grow larger. Following the bipolar world wars, the operation of the United Nations reduced hostility between nations and increased cultural exchange. Undoubtedly, the pressure exerted on members by existing societies has tended to ease; in recent years, a return to a more leisurely and relaxed approach to life can be expected, which could at least reduce unnecessary conflicts among people.

(vi) Society

The essential difference between primitive society and secondary society lies in the fact that the former is a classless society, while the latter is a strict hierarchical system, or class society. Besides stabilizing society, this hierarchical system also has a hidden meaning: the orientation of social values. The hierarchical system is built according to a fixed value system, thus becoming the main driving force propelling society in a predetermined direction. In ancient Egypt, the size of a person’s pyramid or tomb was a measure of their achievements; in Mongolia, the number of enemies they killed was a measure of their valor; in today’s society, it’s about how much wealth you create for society. Knowledge and art can also be converted into wealth and measured in money in modern society.

Once the hierarchical and value system of a secondary society collapses, the world will be dominated by chaos and filled with bloodshed and evil. This is because the inherently multifaceted values and directions of human nature are fundamentally in conflict with the singular values and directions of a secondary society; the perfection and ideals of a secondary society exist only in paradise. The peace and prosperity of a secondary society are merely relative, with less evil.

The decision-making system of primitive societies was built on the foundation of equality and reciprocity, and was the result of consultation between the chief and the members of society. Although the population of primitive societies was small, life was still primarily family- and individual-based. The chieftain politics of primitive societies were incapable of organizing members to pursue collective welfare or other fixed goals during most of their leisure time. Most people spent most of their leisure time pursuing pure entertainment without any utilitarian component, which is what this article refers to as aesthetic pursuit. In contrast, in today’s highly developed science and technology, people still spend most of their time on work and social activities.

Primitive societies lacked classes, but distinguished themselves from ordinary members, as well as from men, women, the elderly, and children. Chimpanzee societies, however, exhibit strict hierarchical distinctions. These social distinctions in primitive societies served to complement instinctual instincts and the principles of equality and reciprocity, preventing excessive social fragmentation and hindering effective decision-making. The hierarchical structure of a two-tiered society served to stabilize society and demonstrate its values, but it also made class exploitation and oppression possible.

In a secondary society, the master is a god, not a human. Therefore, a secondary society requires a decision-making system derived from an external sphere, independent of individual influence. “External” refers to something outside of human nature and the natural world. China’s millennia-long imperial system introduced an emperor with absolute power of life and death to make decisions from this external sphere; the West uses parliamentary debate and voting. Hammond (2000), after analyzing the spread and evolution of the concept of democracy in Europe and the Middle East throughout ancient history, concludes that equality and justice in the Middle East and Mesopotamia were gifts from rulers to the people, while Western democracy initially stemmed from an Indo-European concept: the ultimate source of power was a assemblies of armed men. This clearly demonstrates that democracy is also an external concept, not native to primitive societies. The essence of a secondary society’s decision-making system is that people are untrustworthy, or that people trust weapons, or that they trust in human creations such as idols like emperors.

In primitive societies, interactions between people were based on the principles of reciprocity, equality, and mutual benefit; in secondary societies, interactions are governed by social laws and moral norms. The concepts of equality and justice in secondary societies are unrelated to human nature or individual consciousness; they are part of a vast system of ideas created by humankind.

Primitive societies had no external goals other than the will of their members. These wills were a natural expression of human nature. Secondary societies, on the other hand, have external goals that are unrelated to human nature and the true will of their members. For example, the construction of pyramids, conquest, killing, and wealth creation mentioned above are not the true will of the members; their will lies in personal happiness. The external goals of secondary societies are also largely determined by their hostile and competitive relationships with other surrounding societies. Primitive societies consider the hostility of the natural environment, such as wild beasts. Enemies as intelligent as themselves are far stronger and more difficult to deal with than wild beasts. As Toynbee stated, “Man’s chances of survival when facing a tiger without any defense are far greater than his chances of survival when facing himself without any countermeasures.”

In the primordial society, members could communicate emotionally and psychologically, feeling themselves as part of the social whole, which also included the surrounding environment—a concept known as the unity of heaven and humanity. Zhuangzi elaborated on this unity, but he described a psychological experience achieved by individuals in a secondary society through understanding and practice. The author believes this psychological experience is the normal psychological experience of individuals in the primordial society. It is a profound spiritual experience based on instinctual consciousness, and it is also the goal pursued by Taoism and other religious systems—to rediscover this primordial social psychological experience within a secondary society.

Secondary societies are creations of human culture, existing outside of human nature; they are external. Individuals cannot engage in emotional or psychological communication with secondary societies, and people do not feel they are part of them. The connection between individuals and secondary societies is merely a link established through production and social activities, maintained by social structure and law. Just as Confucius and Zhuangzi, mentioned above, strived from different angles but ultimately arrived at the same conclusion, individuals may occasionally rediscover this feeling in their various endeavors within secondary societies. Most commonly, people form different social groups that are directly or indirectly opposed to each other, and individuals who fully engage in the work of these secondary societies may also experience a sense of belonging to the whole. This is based on the premise of social opposition; for example, those enthusiastic about charity do not feel that their acts of helping others are opposed to anyone, but rather that they are a correction to contemporary society, opposing the mainstream social direction.

(VII) The Multi-layered Operation of the World and the Two-Tier Society

The book *A New Interpretation of Chinese Taoism* introduces an important new concept: a cosmology of creation from nothingness, from small to large, from lower to higher, and from simple to complex. This evolutionary perspective aligns with early Taoist teachings and is consistent with modern scientific discoveries. Lao Tzu vividly described this process of cosmic growth from nothingness to existence, from few to many. He said, “All things under heaven are born of existence; existence is born of nothingness”; and also, “The Tao gives birth to One, One gives birth to Two, Two gives birth to Three, Three gives birth to all things.” (Tao Te Ching, Chapters 40 and 42) Modern science believes that the universe originated from a Big Bang 14 billion years ago. Scientists’ investigations can only approach the exact moment of the Big Bang, currently only up to one ten-thirtieth power of a second after the explosion. Scientists believe that the universe began so small as to be invisible to the naked eye, and that this point was uniformly homogeneous and indistinguishable. Scientists cannot investigate the state before the Big Bang because no rays or other information were emitted from that area that scientists could observe. In conclusion, we have good reason to assume that the universe before the Big Bang was nothingness, and that existence arose from nothingness through the Big Bang, which in turn gave rise to all things in the world—the essence of Tao. This existence includes both tangible and intangible things, such as time and space. Plato’s doctrine holds that human ideas exist independently of humanity and the material world. Taoism, closer to materialism, believes that the concepts of time and space depend on the material world for their existence; that is, matter came first, followed by spirit and ideas—the universe undergoes an evolutionary process from matter to spirit. However, both this matter and spirit originate from nothingness.

A common form of the universe’s evolution from simple to complex is multi-layered, progressively expanding and becoming increasingly complex. A mere glance around reveals that our world operates on different layers. For example, our physical world can be divided into the following layers:

1) Elementary particles

2) Atom

3) Molecules and various simple substances, in liquid, solid, and gas states.

4) Various objects composed of liquid, solid, and gaseous substances, such as mountains, clouds, rain, and living organisms.

5) Planets and their moons

6) Galaxies, such as our Milky Way.

7) Universe

Our language also functions in terms of expression and communication at different levels. Language is divided into the following levels:

1) Letters: The twenty-six letters of the pinyin system in Chinese and English. A letter is simply a symbol.

2) Words, words express a concept.

3) Sentences, sentences express one meaning.

4) Paragraphs: Paragraphs express superficial and fragmented understanding.

5) Articles, books, and writings express profound and systematic human understanding.

Dividing our world into different levels and expanding them progressively is a common approach to its complex operation. This includes our external world, our internal world, and even the ideal world imagined in our religions. The biological world, including that of humans, operates on seven levels; for simplicity, I will only use humans as an example here. Some animals also have societies, which are primordial societies, but only humans form a second-level society.

1) DNA or deoxyribonucleic acid molecules

2) Cells

3) Organization

4) Organs and functional parts of the human body, such as limbs, etc.

5) Individual

6) Primitive Society

7) Secondary society

Of the seven levels of the biological world, cells and individuals, or other plant and animal entities, are more fundamental and independent than the others. We can compare cells and individuals; the organizational level corresponds to the primordial society of humankind, while organs and functional parts of the body, such as limbs, correspond to the secondary level of human society. Human society currently lacks a tertiary level equivalent to an individual or biological entity. However, if we accept the book’s theory of cosmic evolution, we can believe in the possibility of perfect secondary and tertiary societies. Organs and functional parts of the body, such as limbs, are composed of various tissues. Cells do not, like human society, disrupt their primordial society—organization—by directly forming organs from single cells. Single cells cannot survive outside of tissues, with two exceptions: white blood cells and cancer cells. The former requires single cells to enter other tissues to engulf invading bacteria; the latter is a serious pathological condition. In ancient times, when individuals first left their familiar primordial society to live among strangers in a secondary society, they must have encountered numerous difficulties that threatened their survival. This is why Lao Tzu concluded that the divine instruments of the world should not be grasped or manipulated, and advocated that the existence of a government as a secondary society should not be noticed by members of the primordial society. This is what is meant by “The highest ruler is one whose existence is unknown… When the work is accomplished and the task is completed, the people all say: ‘We did it ourselves.'” (Tao Te Ching, Chapter 17)

The first section of this chapter discussed biological and cultural mutations. The essence of biological mutation is the variation of ribonucleic acid (RNA), that is, a change in the code. The so-called code refers to genes, which are simply the parts of RNA that carry information at higher levels—cells, tissues, organs, and individuals. Just as a small number of farmers in a rural area produce daily necessities for the king and provide other government services, genetic mutations are meaningless at the molecular level of DNA or deoxyribonucleic acid. Similarly, cultural mutations that are significant to secondary societies may only have aesthetic value for individuals in primitive societies; they are merely novel and interesting.

Figure 3 illustrates the progressively higher levels of evolution, demonstrating the directional progression from lower to higher levels. The lowest level is “nothingness,” not just ordinary nothingness, but an omnipotent nothingness with the potential to develop into the entire universe, including the spiritual world. This nothingness, possessing such immense potential, is the Dao of Taoism, and also the God in a philosophical sense. According to Taoist doctrine, the Dao is omnipresent, existing in every thing in the universe it created, endowing things with essence and characteristics. Importantly, the Dao existing in all things enables them to have the potential for further evolution and development. Similarly, the God in a philosophical sense is omnipresent, similarly endowing things with characteristics and the potential for evolution. The author tends to believe that this potential for forward evolution and development, including the ability to build a perfect secondary society, already existed in the human subconscious from the day humanity appeared on Earth, projecting onto the conscious level and becoming humanity’s relentless pursuit of the meaning of life, art, spirituality, and religion. (Figure 5)

(Literature and illustrations omitted)