MY "EXISTENTIAL DILEMMA" PRESENTED TO A SAGE PHILOSOPHER

First, let me present what might be called the existential/ontological dilemma and seeming opposition that I have been grappling with and seeking reconciliation for many years. You may be familiar with it and it may be very basic and simple for you with your philosophical background. Simply put, it is the question of the "here and now" vs. the "there and then," or the pragmatic vs. the metaphysical. One perspective is that of our existence as simply unmediated and unprincipled, i.e., as inherently without meaning but certainly happening here and now and to be utilized optimally for not just ourselves but for all extensions of such, viz., the community, the world. This notion is very well-presented and articulated in Daodejing--"Making This Life Significant"; A Philosophical Translation by Ames and Hall (2003). The authors see Daoism as quite philosophically Pragmatic, citing James, Dewey, and Rorty. However, the text itself, utilizing the "recently discovered Bamboo Texts," states:

"In carrying about your more spiritual and more physical aspects and embracing their oneness, 

Are you able to keep them from separating?" (90)

The other perspective in this equation, if you will, is the notion that we are spirits embodied in flesh and this being between spirit and matter is called soul. I have tended to be "torn" between the two, but see that the twain does meet, and meet well, in Daoism. This Daoism was further "developed" into ritualistic and social Confucianism and also into a kind of metaphysics in Buddhism (I am referring primarily to Zen, which may even be seen as a Japanese form of Daoism-Confucianism, according to my interpretation of Suzuki). Zen does hold to a sense of eternalness and unchangingness in its notion of "true nature," or "suchness of being," and, in that respect, is dissimilar to Daoism, which is more nature-based and change-based, or cycle-oriented. The more metaphysical perspective, which is mediated, structured, and principled, is also strongly present within Gnosticism (apparently in all of its schools), at least up to a certain point of development. The same is true for Theosophy. However, once awareness reaches the pinnacle of the seventh chakra, the self moves into the Self and becomes boddhisatvic. I apologize for mixing all these religious metaphors. 

My point is that I am able to get a grasp of being in the here and now while also being in the there and then; we are multi-leveled beings. But the Daoist realization is NOT one of "understanding" or "wisdom" but rather of experience in the body, in the embodied soul that feels all of this livingness. It seems that such experience is just about impossible for a Western mind trained in principled logic, and, yes, magic (as opposed to what I see as spiritual transformation). James Hillman, of archetypal psychology, is a most notable exception; he understood the vitality of the embodied, feeling soul so well.