I think artistic types are the least likely to be interested in philosophy. It’s us verbal guys that get sucked into the intricacies of philosophical ideas. We prefer to be alone because we’re introverted and socially awkward.

Just watched "Here." No, not the one with Tom Hanks. A nice, gentle Belgian movie full of appealing people doing appealing things in appealing places. And making soup. Like all good continental European movies, nothing happens. Strongly recommended. If you watch it, please come back and explain the green light to me.

Meaning it's a regress, and therefore untenable? — J

Yes, that was my point. I don't get from the discussion where this "I think p" resides.

I vote '1 — Wayfarer

The usual response to ‘1’ is “p and I think p and I think that I think p.”

Yep - that Pat is right. — Banno

Another one of those rare occasions when you and I agree.

Well-written and interesting. In many ways you see things differently than I do, but I can see that, like me, you take your ideas seriously and personally. I applaud you putting them up here on the forum chopping block.

I would agree though that what you've written is a bit too much for a 10-month-old.

A year or so ago, I discussed "What is Life?: How Chemistry Becomes Biology," by Addy Pross here. I gave the book a generally good recommendation, but criticized it's pop-sciency tone. Here's an article by Pross and others that I liked much better. It's a journal article and much more focused and formal. And much shorter.

A lot of it was over my head, but a lot of it wasn't. Seems very plausible. Here's a link.

Towards an evolutionary theory of the origin of life based on kinetics and thermodynamics

The Dutch have had their colonial wars, but it's usually said that the Dutch have been quite smart when it has come to their colonies. But they tried to hold on to their Indonesian colonies, and had their own lost colonial war also. — ssu

It would take massive ignorance of world history not to recognize the role the Netherlands has played in the world since 1500.

Oh, to be in Times Square in 1963! — Tom Storm

My mother grew up in New York City and we used to go there once a year to visit my grandfather. It was magic to me then and it’s magic to me now.

The first time I became aware of Elizabeth Taylor was when, in 1963 I guess, I saw her up on a gigantic billboard in Times Square costumed as Cleopatra. That was before all the electronic imagery you see there now. I liked the old fashioned look better, especially the famous Camel cigarette billboard which used a smoke generator to make smoke come out of mouth of the man in the display, who changed over the years to keep up with the times.

I was merrily reading The Power Broker until Moses started getting really nasty. — BC

When we finally finished the book, my daughter and I agreed that we will never mention his name again. An amazing but despicable man. A genius. He could easily have been a Stalin or Hitler in a different circumstances.

It was recommended in a NYT editorial a few days ago. It is weirdly relevant. — BC

What you've written plus this from Kirkus Review's 1977 review, make me even more interested in taking a look at the book.

Coover skids between easy-target satire (Bruce, Sahl, et al. were there first) and melodramatic grandstanding, with no new insights worthy of his remarkable rhetorical talents. A provocative kernel lost in a dazzling, deadening morass: precisely the kind of book more likely to be talked about than read. — From Kirkus Review of The Public Burning

I think "Taoism" (if there is such a unified, identifiable, thing), is pointing in a direction away from the conventional attachment to, even fixation with, purpose. Be an uncarved block, it suggests. — ENOAH

Taoism suggests we remain free and easy about our Narratives so that we can navigate through them without getting caught or trapped. — ENOAH

Both your posts are good clear summaries of what Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu have to say. I'll steal it and use it when someone asks for a quick summary of the basics and a bit beyond the basics. I'll give you an attribution. I especially like your emphasis on narratives.

I was about to recommend you "One Thousand and One Nights" because I imagine it might be interesting to read a tale each night and then choose your favourite at the end of the year, for example. — javi2541997

We haven't decided finally yet. We may yet pick another book.

On Monday, my daughter and I finished reading and discussing "The Power Broker" by Robert Caro. We've been reading it 100 pages/month starting last January. It's the story of Robert Moses, the man primarily responsible for infrastructure construction in New York City, Long Island, and throughout New York State starting in the mid 1920s through the mid 1960s. He was amazing and brilliant man and a monomaniacal promoter of cars and highways at the expense of rapid transit. No one in history has had a bigger effect on the day to day life of New Yorkers. Great story, well told.

Now we have to find a new book for 2025. The criteria 1) We're both interested 2) We would never read it ourselves because of it's length 3) We'll get bragging rights and be able to pontificate for the rest of our lives. We're thinking about "Infinite Jest."

@MrLiminal, @Patterner
Another aspect of the writings of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu is a radical approach to morality. This is from Brook Ziporyn's translation of Chapter 8 of the Chuang Tzu.

What I call good is not humankindness and responsible conduct, but just being good at what is done by your own intrinsic virtuosities. Goodness, as I understand it, certainly does not mean humankindness and responsible conduct! It is just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out. What I call sharp hearing is not hearkening to others, but rather hearkening to oneself, nothing more. — Chuang Tzu - Chapter 8

"Intrinsic virtuosities" is how Ziporyn translates "Te," as in Tao Te Ching. This approach conflicts with the principles of Confucius, which focus on following rigid social roles and behaviors.

@MrLiminal

Taoism speaks of the way of the universe, the way of nature. It speaks of what it considers the best way to live. That is, living without anger, hatred, frustration, and all the other negative emotions. Living as the universe exists, without effort or worry...

...That’s all you need to know. Such a simple thing, really. Give up desire, and you will be content. And in your contentment, you will be able to find happiness.
I could stop now. And if you followed that advice, all would become clear to you. But I'll explain the nuts and bolts of it all... — Patterner

This is a good description of Lao Tzu's and Chuang Tzu's vision of the Taoist path, as you note, the right way to live our lives, but I came to Taoism from a different direction. I tend to see things from an intellectual perspective and the part that first interested me was Taoist metaphysics. The description of the nature of reality in the Tao Te Ching recognizes that the reality we live in is fundamentally an interaction between an unformed, unnamed, unconceptualized reality and human thought and action. This is from Gia-Fu Feng's translation of Verse 1.

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.
The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery. — Tao Te Ching Verse 1

As I understand this, the Tao is one, undivided, uncategorized, unnamed. The act of naming is what brings the multiplicity of the world we experience, what is called the 10,000 things, into existence. I see naming as a fundamentally human activity, although others disagree with this. This is Verse 40.

Returning is the motion of the Tao.
Yielding is the way of the Tao.
The ten thousand things are born of being.
Being is born of not being. — Tao Te Ching - Verse 40

As I see this, the Tao is non-being - it doesn't exist, it isn't a thing. The 10,000 things are being, the multiplicity of the world we live in.

I was a huge fan of the Kung Fu movie and tv show — Patterner

I was also a fan of the TV show. I don't remember the movie.

One interesting aspect of Chuang Tzu's depiction of Confucius is that it represents him learning stuff. — Paine

It's true and confusing. Sometimes Chuang Tzu depicts him as someone who doesn't understand and sometimes he treats him as a sage.

It helps to compare these statements with the words from Confucius and the role of Mohists as sources of legislation. The statements were made in a particular context. — Paine

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Did you have something from Confucius or Mozi in mind? It is my understanding that the Tao Te Ching was written in direct opposition to the Confucian and Mohist way of seeing things.

That is not to say that an appeal to a universal truth is to be disregarded. — Paine

I don't see Taoist principles as universal truths. I think they are just one good way of looking at things. There are others.

Without 1, 2 could not exist, though the reverse doesn’t hold. Since it is because of the existence of 1, or one thing, that there can be 2, or two things, then the former can be said to be the cause of the latter. — Pretty

Here is my non-mathematician's understanding - All arithmetic comes back to counting. Each counting number has a name (1,2,3...1,000,000,001...). It is common to look at this in terms of sets. Each number represents a set with that many elements in it, e.g. 5 represents {x, x, x, x, x}. Addition is the same as the union of sets. 1 + 1 is equivalent to {x} U {x}, which is {x, x}, which is represented by 2. Does {x} U {x} cause {x, x}? Can there be {x, x} without {x}?

I'm very interested in non-dualism, but I've found the versions derived from Hindu and Buddhist sources rather more intelligible than the Tao, as the Tao is so quintessentially Chinese in character... But I always had the feeling that to really penetrate 'the Way' would take much deeper engagement with Chinese language and culture than I was equipped for. — Wayfarer

This surprises me. I experience what Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu wrote as simple and down to earth. I call it meat and potatoes philosophy. That's why it appeals so much to me as an engineer. It's not clear to me why I would have a harder time understanding an ancient Chinese text than I would an ancient Greek one - or Japanese or Hindu. Modern Chinese and Japanese philosophers study Aristotle and Plato.

For a specific verse, here is one from Wayne Dyer's translation:

“It is through selfless action I will experience my own fulfillment." — MrLiminal

There is an important concept in Taoism - "wu wei." It means action without action. Acting from your inner nature, your Te, without reflection or intention. That's what is meant by "selfless." It doesn't mean supporting other people's interests at the expense of your own. Here are some examples from Gia-Fu Feng's translation.

From Verse 15:

Who can wait quietly while the mud settles?
Who can remain still until the moment of action?
Observers of the Tao do not seek fulfillment.
Not seeking fulfillment, they are not swayed by desire for change. — Tao Te Ching - Excerpt from Verse 15

Verse 37:

Tao abides in non-action,
Yet nothing is left undone.
If kings and lords observed this,
The ten thousand things would develop naturally.
If they still desired to act,
They would return to the simplicity of formless substance.
Without form there is no desire.
Without desire there is tranquility.
And in this way all things would be at peace. — Tao Te Ching - Verse 37

Verse 42:

The softest thing in the universe
Overcomes the hardest thing in the universe.
That without substance can enter where there is no room.
Hence I know the value of non-action.

Teaching without words and work without doing
Are understood by very few. — Tao Te Ching - Verse 42

I remember some aspects of (I think?) Gnosticism and cynicism having some interesting parallels, though they seemed to take it in different directions. — MrLiminal

You'll find ideas central to the Tao Te Ching in many other philosopher's work. It struck me that Kant's noumena is a very similar concept to the Tao. The idea that there is something fundamental below the level of our conscious awareness is common.

Honestly I think one of the things I'd like to discuss is, if the Tao cannot be explained, why do we have the Tao Te Ching? I'm familiar with the generalities of it, but it does seem deliciously ironic in a very Taoist way. — MrLiminal

You're exactly right, and that's right at the heart of what the Tao means to me. Of course Lao Tzu understands the irony of speaking about what cannot be spoken about. I've always seen it as a kind of a joke. For me, the Tao Te Ching is about pointing with words rather than explaining with them. Lao Tzu is showing us things, not telling us about them. It's the first contradiction in a book full of them. If you've read all the way through the Tao Te Ching, you've seen that there are verses that seem to contradict each other. That gets even stronger when you start looking at more than one translation.

My approach is to take each verse and each translation as a snapshot of something that can't be covered in a single photo. The result is impressionistic. Keep in mind - the Tao Te Ching is not about the words, it's about the experience Lao Tzu is trying to show us.

do you have a favorite translation? — MrLiminal

I started with Stephen Mitchell's translation and I still like it a lot. It's very westernized and you'll hear lots of criticism that it's "inauthentic." Be that as it may, you should definitely look at other translations. For more authentic ones, I like Gia-Fu Feng and Lin Yutang. They're both found on that web page I linked to you, but I like lots of other versions too. Here are a couple of links that provide comparative translations.

https://ttc.tasuki.org/display:Code:gff,sm,jc,rh/section:meta
https://www.bu.edu/religion/files/pdf/Tao_Teh_Ching_Translations.pdf

For a specific verse, here is one from Wayne Dyer's translation:

“It is through selfless action I will experience my own fulfillment." — MrLiminal

This is from Verse 7. Let me think about it for a bit.

That's what I'm hopping to add to this specific conversation, about Taoist thought. — Arcane Sandwich

He's made it clear what he's interested in. You should back off.

Am I on the right track? Any deeper insights? Let me know what ya'll think. — MrLiminal

Why don't you pick a verse of the Tao Te Ching you'd like to discuss.

I disagree with that — Arcane Sandwich

@MrLiminal is talking about what the Tao Te Ching says and his description is a pretty good one. If you want to disagree with a 2,500 year old philosophy which, I assume, you don't understand very much if at all, your opinion is not very useful.

Am I on the right track? Any deeper insights? Let me know what ya'll think. — MrLiminal

I have a strong interest in Taoism as expressed in the works of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu. I have never found a philosophy closer to my own understanding of how the world works. If you look at my discussions and posts you'll see that the Tao is never far from my thoughts. That being said, you're asking for a lot. I'm not sure what to offer. Here are a couple of things.

This is a link to dozens of different translations of the Tao Te Ching along with other Taoist texts. When you get deeper into it, reading more than just one version can be very helpful. I like Stephen Mitchell, which is very non-traditional but is good for beginner westerners. To get deeper into a more "authentic" version, I like Gia-Fu Feng and Lin Yutang. There are plenty of other interesting ones.

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/_index.html

This link goes to a very brief, clear, and insightful summary of Taoist principles from a western point of view.

https://superbowl.substack.com/p/taoism-minus-the-nonsense

And this is to a discussion I started several years ago about my favorite verses from a very personal point of view. I only got up to about verse 25 before people lost interest.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10427/my-favorite-verses-in-the-tao-te-ching/p1

I also recommend Alan Watts "Tao - the Watercourse Way." It's a good simple introduction with some depth.

So, I'd love to discuss this with you, but I don't know where you'd like to start.

I might as well conclude that outside reality doesn't exist; — A Realist

It is a commonplace, legitimate, and useful metaphysical position that an objective reality doesn't exist. From that point of view, there is no ultimate truth about reality.

[edited]

What do models model exactly? It's not a hard question; the answer is behavior. — Srap Tasmaner

If you're modelling a farmyard, it's the overall behavior of the system that matters, not the behavior of individual elements. For that, the relationships among the behaviors of the various elements are more important than the behaviors themselves. You start off with initial conditions which are then modified based on internal time rates of change for each element and external defined relations with other elements. The duck model you are discussing just provides the initial conditions.

How about highly pathetically a very poor reader? — Janus

Azimov’s Rules of Robotics - 1942

The Three Laws, presented to be from the fictional "Handbook of Robotics, 56th Edition, 2058 A.D.", are:

[1] A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

[2] A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

[3] A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Laughably poorly. As in, ha ha, Clarky can't even read 1/2 a page daily. — Hanover

Yes, hypothetically I acknowledge I am a very poor reader.

Or alternatively - I hypothetically acknowledge I am a very poor reader.

Or maybe - I acknowledge I am hypothetically a very poor reader.

To complete that book in a year, you would need to read 0.44 pages per day. No way you read that fast. — Hanover

I did not indicate how long it took me to read the book.

Impressive. The only one on your list I've read is "The Wisdom of Insecurity." It's probably my favorite book by Alan Watts. It's one of his earliest and I have imagined it represents an early stage in his path from western toward eastern philosophy.

It is precisely because we cannot extricate ourselves from our emotions that we need to view them as having some sort of worth or at least examine them in terms of what they do or do not impel us to do — ToothyMaw

Emotions themselves are, as I wrote, our natural bodily and mental reactions to events and are, mostly, outside of our direct control. On the other hand, viewing and examining those emotions, which you propose, are human actions and judgments.

So what worth are emotional reactions then in the absence of objective actions? — substantivalism

In the world as I understand it, moral judgments are created by humans, so it makes sense to talk about their value. Emotions, on the other hand, are our body's, primarily biological, reactions to events. It does not really make sense to talk about their value. It's just what we do.

There is no requirement of mine to feel any strong reaction — substantivalism

Yes, this is true. I don't see why that is a concern.

I do agree that religious perspectives are more inclined to looking within. Putting it together with life in the outer world is where it gets messy. Ultimately, the two should work together, but they frequently become separated so much and become so hollow. — Jack Cummins

I think of this from the perspective of Taoist philosophy as expressed in the writings of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu. In my experience, Taoism is an inward-looking philosophy - it's all about self-awareness. At the same time, following Lao Tzu's principles leads to action in the real world. You have to go inward before you can go outward. I think that religions in general have this same sort of inward focus. That's definitely a "seems to me" claim given my lack of any deep experience with religion.

It's long past time to consider (also) the deadly toxicity of religion... And here I will only note that by these and in the name of all they hold holy and true have been committed most of the murders on this planet in the entire history of people on this planet. — tim wood

I think this is clearly not true. It's the party line spouted by anti-religious bigots without providing more than anecdotal evidence. I think of all the wars and genocides started by non-religious actors - the Mongol invasions; Germany in World War 2; Communism in Russia, China, and Cambodia just to start. Sure there were plenty of wars where religion had a major role, but in those cases, as far as I can see, religion is just along for the ride. The big wars and genocides are started by people who want power, and then more power and then more. What's my evidence for this? Well, it's mostly anecdotal just like yours, but I don't have to provide evidence. You're the one who made a claim, so you have to provide justification for your beliefs.

I think rational-pragmatic philosophies aspire to much more than 'superstitiously living according to the folk stories of miracles and magic' canonized by religions (& cults). — 180 Proof

I'm shocked! Shocked! to find you have a different attitude about this than I do. I've been trying to get myself to start a new discussion about this. I keep getting half way through and then losing traction.