Thesis and antithesis leads me to Hegel, not Yin Yang.
The Tao, almost by definition, is always in balance. Just as the Yin and Yang have tiny tales where their opposite have giant heads, that is still a balance. No balance remains forever, otherwise there is not a balance, but a stasis. Perhaps it was such a stasis that existed before the creation of our present universe, which has been both seeking and achieving balance ever since.
Seeking to achieve a balance in the world of politics is like seeking to achieve one on the ocean. Swells, ebb tides, tsunamis and a number of other variations happen, all though in a balanced order for the ocean to remain itself.
Thesis and antithesis leads me to Hegel, not Yin Yang.
The Tao, almost by definition, is always in balance. Just as the Yin and Yang have tiny tales where their opposite have giant heads, that is still a balance. No balance remains forever, otherwise there is not a balance, but a stasis. Perhaps it was such a stasis that existed before the creation of our present universe, which has been both seeking and achieving balance ever since.
Seeking to achieve a balance in the world of politics is like seeking to achieve one on the ocean. Swells, ebb tides, tsunamis and a number of other variations happen, all though in a balanced order for the ocean to remain itself.
Yes, Robinet clearly views Taoism with some Hegelian notions, but she also avoids saying so, which I think is a good thing.