Daoism sounds cheesy and irrational at first for a Westener.. Nevertheless, one should see that there is no 1 Daoism, but different schools:
1) Opportunist Daoism: Mainstream Daoism, which is promoted by the CCP and has been and is cultivated by Western Far East fans and hippies, is the Daoism of opportunism. It is Daoism of adapting to the prevailing conditions, survival in it, the bamboo that does not break, but adapts to storms like every Chinese facing the CCP. And the water should flow in the river bed and one should flow with it, but not become hard as stone.
2) The evolutionary Daoism: The power relations exist, one should not rebel against them too much, not make a revolution, but work long-term and lasting and sustainibly for a change: The soft water softens the hard stone, the bamboo bends, but gets up again. A kind of reformist Daoism.
3) The Falungong Daoism: The Falungng is a syncretic philosophy from Buddhism, Daoism and Confucianism, but has the evil force, the Yeli, as an element. As a result, it is no longer Yin and Yang, but a gnostic final battle against an evil force, which must be eliminated in order to come teleologically to a state of paradise under the rule of the Falungong and not the CCP..
4) Dualistic Daoism: Yin and Yang are the eternal basic principles that exist and are interrelated and separate from one another. Movement and countermovement – but no end, but rather an eternal process ..
5) The dualistic-dialectical Daoism: Yin and Yang exist, but they not only exist in a movement and counter-movement dynamic, but Yin and Yag themselves have both poles in them, which they push forward after reaching the equilibrium hoped for in between. There is indeed a counter-movement for every movement, but this is not only the image of the opposite, but as a further development of the contradiction on a higher level. It is neither the teleological conception of the dialectic of Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis, but the synthesis, which however develops further than the originally connected but related pairs of opposites, to a new level, which is also not a teleological final state or paradise or classless society or eternal harmony, but because of its own contradictions it continues to develop forever in this pattern. Incidentally, that came very close to the idea of Mao which was critizized by the state philosophers of the Soviet Union based more on Hegel and Marx., who saw historical materialism and the doctrine of contradiction and antagonisms in contrast to Maoist China,