probably spent more time in the library trying to avoid getting beaten up in the playground. — Jack Cummins

I also spent vast amounts of time in the library. I grew up in southern Delaware and then we moved to southern Virginia. I spent some summers on the Eastern Shore of Maryland and in Vermont. In all those, places, the library is one of the things I remember most. In the Massachusetts town I live in now, we have a decent little library with access to books from a dozen other libraries. The same is true for electronic books, so I rarely have to pay to read Kindle books anymore. I don't know if they have it where you are, but Libby is a great app that allows you to borrow Kindle and other electronic books from many libraries. You should also check out Hoopla. I do love libraries - and books.

I do think that science fiction is able to address a lot of philosophical issues in such a lively way. — Jack Cummins

With that opening, I'll recommend "NPC" by Jeremy Robinson. It is the most philosophical science book I've read. Also well written. If you happen to be a member of Amazon Unlimited, it's free.

I remember discovering the shelves on psychology and philosophy when I was about 13. — Jack Cummins

You were more advanced than I was. When I was 13, I was searching the library for adult books with sex in them. That and science fiction.

I have to admit that I do skim read sometimes, especially science, which may mean that I get some ideas out of context. I try to make sure that I get to grips with the main idea, and don't miss important parts, but I may end up leaving out some central parts. However, it is sometimes not easy to understand some aspects of technical detail unless one has the necessary science knowledge, and I come more from an arts background. — Jack Cummins

There was a joke at the engineering company I used to work for - an expert is someone who knows five things about a subject. There is truth in that. With only a limited amount of knowledge, you can often carry on a conversation on a technical subject so that you at least don't look foolish. That truth also applies here on the forum. If you have an idea and you don't want to look stupid, you should at least do a minimal amount of research. If you do that, you arguments will generally be stronger than those we often see here.

Recently it has become more important to me that I dig into the ideas I care about. I'm trying to get rid of "seems to me" and "I think I heard that" from my posts. That is the motivation behind my current thread on the Tao Te Ching. I've read it and thought about it for many years, but now I'm trying to really put in the effort to understand it and use it.

Believing God literally exists is creepy for a lot of us — Gregory

Definition of "atheism" - A philosophical system for explaining to people who don’t believe in God why you don’t either.

This is the creepiest anti-religion thread I’ve seen on the forum.

Forgot to add the commentaries on Verse 21:

Ellen Marie Chen General Comment:

For effective contrast, this chapter is best read together with chapter 14. Both chapters call Tao the illusive and evasive (hu-huang), i.e., the primal Chaos or Hun-tun described in chapter 25. In chapter 14 Tao recedes and becomes the nothing; here the same illusive and evasive Tao moves forward to become the realm of beings. There Tao is nameless; here Tao is the name that never goes away. There Tao is the formless form, the image of nothing; here Tao contains the seeds and images of all beings that are to be. The dominant character of Tao in chapter 14 is wu, nothing; in this chapter it is yu, being or having. The conclusion of chapter 14 traces Tao to the beginning of old; this chapter arrives at the realm of the many in the now.

Chen translation of Verse 14 for reference:

What is looked at but not (pu) seen,
Is named the extremely dim (yi).
What is listened to but not heard,
Is named the extremely faint (hsi).
What is grabbed but not caught,
Is named the extremely small (wei).
These three cannot be comprehended,
Thus they blend into one.

As to the one, its coming up is not light,
Its going down is not darkness.
Unceasing, unnameable,
Again it reverts to nothing.
Therefore it is called the formless form,
The image (hsiang) of nothing.
Therefore it is said to be illusive and evasive (hu-huang).

Come toward it one does not see its head,
Follow behind it one does not see its rear.
Holding on to the Tao of old (ku chih tao),
So as to steer in the world of now (chin chih yu).
To be able to know the beginning of old,
It is to know the thread of Tao.

Stefan Stenudd Commentary Excerpts:

Tao, the Way, is primordial. Not only was it present at the very birth of the world, but it was the actual origin out of which the world emerged. Its own origin, if there is one, is the most distant of all.

So, Tao must be obscure, evasive, and vague. Anything by which to describe Tao is of later date and lesser significance, so Tao remains forever impenetrable. Its nature may be grasped intuitively, but not explained.

Lao Tzu speaks repeatedly about the center of Tao, as if it would differ from its periphery or anything in between. But Tao is the very law of nature, so it contains no differences or discrepancies. Otherwise there would be anomalies and exceptions in the way the universe works.

It would collapse, as would Tao. What Lao Tzu refers to is the difference between the outside view, when Tao is observed by those who don’t comprehend it, and what its true nature really is.

In that way, Tao has form because of all the forms being born out of it, and it has substance through all the matter that came out of it, filling the world. It also has essence, which is its creative force, its active presence. Without that essence, no world would have emerged. Tao would only have been an eternal possibility, resting in its own perfection.

The essence of Tao is similar to the expressed will of the Bible’s God, uttering: “Let there be...” Tao may have no similarly traceable intention, but the result is the same. The universe was born, because that event was in the nature of Tao.

Verse 21

I like this verse. It feels really different from the others we’ve discussed. It plays around with some of the contradictions that have been seen elsewhere. Is the Tao a thing? Does it have a form? That’s what struck me as I first read it. This verse also feels like a summary of what we read in other verses. Like Lao Tzu is standing back and showing us the big picture.
I’ve included excerpts from the commentaries from Ellen Marie Chen and Stefan Stenudd that I thought were helpful at the end of this post.

Ellen Marie Chen

The features (yung) of the vast (k'ung) Te,
Follows entirely (wei) from Tao.

Tao as a thing,
Is entirely illusive (huang) and evasive (hu).
Evasive and illusive,
In it there is image (hsiang).
Illusive and evasive,
In it there is thinghood (wu).
Dark and dim,
In it there is life seed (ching).
Its life seed being very genuine (chen),
In it there is growth power (hsin).

As it is today, so it was in the days of old (ku),
Its name goes not away (ch'ü),
So that we may survey (yüeh) the origins of the many (chung fu).
How do I know that the origins of the many are such?
Because of this.

Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English

The greatest Virtue is to follow Tao and Tao alone.
The Tao is elusive and intangible.
Oh, it is intangible and elusive, and yet within is image.
Oh, it is elusive and intangible, and yet within is form.
Oh, it is dim and dark, and yet within is essence.
This essence is very real, and therein lies faith.
From the very beginning until now its name has never been forgotten.
Thus I perceive the creation.
How do I know the ways of creation?
Because of this.

Line by line discussion

Ellen Marie Chen

The features (yung) of the vast (k'ung) Te,
Follows entirely (wei) from Tao.

This is the first time the term “te” is used in the TTC, except in the title. In the title, Tao get’s top billing, but Te is still on the marquee. According to some scholars, Verses 1 through 37 are the book of the Tao and Verses 38 through 81 are the book of Te.

“Te” means “virtue.” No, it doesn’t. Yes, it does. It is sometimes translated as “power.” This is from Chen’s Verse 38:

Therefore when Tao is lost (shih), then there is te.
When te is lost, then there is jen (humanity).
When jen is lost, then there is i (righteousness).
When i is lost, then there is li (propriety).
As to li, it is the thin edge of loyalty and faithfullness,
And the beginning of disorder;

So, on this ladder, te comes after the Tao but before the principles of conventional behavior. It is clearly a good thing. Since the Tao is inconceivable, untouchable, maybe it’s the closest we can get. Maybe it’s the shadow of the Tao, it’s projection on our souls. As the couplet says, everything that is Te comes from the Tao.

Tao as a thing,
Is entirely illusive (huang) and evasive (hu).
Evasive and illusive,
In it there is image (hsiang).
Illusive and evasive,
In it there is thinghood (wu).

I have always assumed that the Tao is not a thing. It’s sometimes called “non-being.” This from Chen’s Verse 40:

Ten thousand things under heaven are born of being (yu).
Being is born of non-being (wu).

Everything I think and feel about the Tao says it doesn’t exist, is not a thing, but the TTC (Chen Verse 25) also says:

There was something nebulous existing (yu wu hun ch'eng),
Born before heaven and earth.

And also (Chen Verse 4):

Tao is a whirling emptiness (ch'ung)…
…It seems perhaps to exist (ts'un).

Dark and dim,
In it there is life seed (ching).
Its life seed being very genuine (chen),
In it there is growth power (hsin).

This makes me think of the Tao by itself for 10.5 billion years following the big bang. Unnamed stars, galaxies, dark matter whirling outward from the center. Then life is created and for 3.5 billion years evolves until humans are born, language is invented, and things can finally be named. Then the 10,000 things burst from the seed and spread across the universe faster than the speed of light. Instantaneously.

As it is today, so it was in the days of old (ku),
Its name goes not away (ch'ü),
So that we may survey (yüeh) the origins of the many (chung fu).
How do I know that the origins of the many are such?
Because of this.

So people thousands of years ago learned about the Tao and have passed the word down so we will know. I like the last line especially. How do I know these things? I see Lao Tzu turning with his arms wide saying “See, all this. This is how we know.”
 

I think Damon and I have resolved any misunderstanding there was.

Agreed.

This distracts from the point Daemon was making* — Amity

I wasn't commenting on the content of what @Daemon said. I used it as a positive example of why it is important for us to make sure people understand the meaning of the words we use.

It was clear to me from the context. — Amity

It was clear to you because he gave the definition, which was my point.

The thread doesn't explain it though.... . — 3017amen

As I think I've made clear, the purpose of this thread is not to explain consciousness.

I never doubted you had used the word correctly. That doesn't change the fact that this usage is not one most people are familiar with. Instead of "non-standard" I should have said "unfamiliar." That doesn't change the substance of what I was saying.

Do you feel consciousness can be explained logically? — 3017amen

Do you feel that an apple can be explained logically? Consciousness is a phenomenon, it's behavior.

And so some would argue that meaning itself, is neither objective nor subjective, deterministic nor relativistic; meaning is contingent. In that simple context, consciousness means that one simply enjoys the opportunity to experience meaningfulness. — 3017amen

I really don't know what you're trying to say. I think we've laid out good ways to talk about consciousness in this thread. What else is needed?

My definition of ostensive definition wasn't a non-standard definition of ostensive definition. — Daemon

I did not find this:

ostensively, that is, by pointing to examples. — Daemon

in any of the dictionaries I looked in. I'm reasonably well-read but I had never heard the word used in that way. I wouldn't have been able to figure out what you meant from context. I think that is true of most people on the forum and in the world in general.

I just wish to prevent the thread becoming derailed by people's personal disagreements, — Jack Cummins

Sorry for the distraction.

This doesn’t really help us to define consciousness, except to recognise the context of what we’re doing when we define it. What we can say about consciousness will always be an aspect of consciousness, limited by our own capacity to experience, and to reconstruct that experience from language. — Possibility

Everything you've written makes sense to me. I don't know enough to be able to say whether or not it's correct, but it's the kind of answer I would expect to be right. I hope that makes sense. As I said, I don't buy the whole hard problem thing, but I can understand why people feel that way.

---

I do think that people should generally object to the usage of "waffle", — thewonder

I just jumped in because @Banno is a pain in the butt. He just needs to be metaphorically smacked every so often.

I am not aware of any sexist meaning for "waffle" or any related word.

I assume that Banno is from the U.K., though, where that sort of thing is, for whatever reason, considered acceptable, — thewonder

No, no, no. It is much, much worse than that. Much worse. Banno is from (here, let me whisper in you ear ...Australia).

We are the rotting corpse of God, heading to annihilation.

I'm sure I'm missing some details, but I think the main point is given. I don't know why, but the idea of "God" killing himself is haunting, in a certain way... — Manuel

Sorry I didn't respond sooner. Your post slipped through my net. I really like the metaphor. Not so much the sentiment.

From "Devil Behind the Wheel" by Chris Knight. Wonderful singer and songwriter.

Behind the wheel, the devil got behind the wheel
Straight downhill
My soul was riding shotgun south of kingdom come
In a long black Coupe Deville
With horns on the grill
The devil's behind the wheel

You were insinuating that I was a waffle, which is clearly an insult. I don't really care, though. — thewonder

That's just a case of the pot calling the kettle a black waffle.

That is intriguing. I have heard people say this occasionally about fiction writers (never philosophy) but I always assumed it was hyperbole. I've enjoyed writers and books but nothing I've read has ever made a difference to my overall happiness (as far as I can tell). — Tom Storm

As I said, I've never had much respect for the convoluted thought processes of our western great philosophers. I was shocked when someone I care about and respect told me how much Kant had meant to them. How his and others' writing had provided a safe mental space in a difficult life. That wasn't the only time I heard about something like that. I still like to joke about how these guys can take something so simple and wonderful and make it impenetrable and painful. But I always keep my friend in the back of my mind.

But, of course, you have Lao Tzu to inspire you. — Jack Cummins

Yeah, but he didn't save me. He just picked me up and gave me a ride.

John Searle says that, like many other terms, consciousness is best defined ostensively, that is, by pointing to examples. — Daemon

Ironically, perhaps, you've used a somewhat non-standard definition for "ostensively." You've addressed any possible misunderstanding by specifically identifying the meaning you are using. That is exactly the process I am describing when I say:

Agreed, but for the purposes of a philosophical discussion, or any specific discussion, it is more important that we agree on a definition than that the definition is precisely correct. — T Clark

How far do you think this thread has progressed in the right direction? — Apollodorus

I've found it very interesting and helpful and I've had fun. Others have indicated that they feel the same way. That's all I ever ask.

Are you suggesting that we agree on a set of definitions and then agree on one of them whenever we choose to discuss anything that involves "consciousness"? — Apollodorus

No. The purpose of this thread is not necessarily to agree on definitions. It's to get them all out on the table so we can use and discuss them more intelligently in our other discussions. I'm actually a bit more confused than I was at the beginning. Or maybe it's more accurate to say I didn't know how confused I was back then.

I don't know if you've read any of my OPs in the past. What I try to do is be very specific about what the terms I plan to use mean in the context I plan to use them and provide justification. I generally willing to discuss different meanings and terms, but the final decision is mine. Then I try to enforce that meaning throughout the discussion. Oh, the wonderful power of the original poster.

Of course, this can be endlessly debated. — Manuel

Clearly this is true. Thanks for the information.

In that case, you would need to redefine the term with every new discussion. — Apollodorus

You don't have to redefine it, just agree on what definition you are going to use.

The term still implies "awareness" and above all "self-awareness". What has changed? — Apollodorus

Have you read the OP? Maybe you should.

Well, that much I've noticed already to be honest. I was talking about everyday language in general. When we say things like "I become conscious", "I become aware", "I am self-conscious", etc. it is normally understood what is meant even if there is no precise definition for it in our mind. — Apollodorus

I don't think that's true. Although failure to agree on definitions is a particular problem here on the forum, it is also a broader problem for discussions in general. As a civil engineer, I have to be very careful about what words I choose to use. Someday we can talk about the differences between the terms "hazardous waste," "hazardous material," and "hazardous substance." People can get in big trouble if they don't understand the difference.

Interesting that you ‘recognise’ experience as a movie playing in your head. You do realise that this is a construction and not a recognition as such. So is talking to yourself about what is going on - it’s a probabilistic construction using the logic and qualities of language as an approximation. — Possibility

I don't disagree and I generally don't think there is a hard problem of consciousness, but I can't deny seeing the movie in my head. You calling that a "construction" doesn't change the fact that the movie feels like something. Some people think the experience must have a fundamentally different cause than the brain processing

No, there isn't a single correct definition, so it's a waste of time looking for that. I think you have to state your own working definition, in the specific context. — Daemon

That's what this whole thread is about.

His take is that "emotion" is primary, and is located in the brain stem, a more "primitive" part of the brain. We've been looking in the wrong place. — Daemon

I think @Possibility would disagree with this.

And it must be consistent with how the word has been used for centuries. — Apollodorus

I disagree. I has to be consistent with the word's common usage now and it's particular usage in a particular context and a particular conversation.

in order to know whether you have come up with a correct definition, you must already know what the term means. — Daemon

Agreed, but for the purposes of a philosophical discussion, or any specific discussion, it is more important that we agree on a definition than that the definition is precisely correct.

I still think that monism and property dualism are essentially the most often pursued views. I don't know many people who believe in substance dualism, aside from theologists. — Manuel

By "substance dualism" do you mean that matter and consciousness are fundamentally different substances? If so, that is a common belief. Chalmers in the paper on the hard problem is explicit about that.

I understand what you mean but it is an inherent limit of language. We all use the same terms but due to “personality” and “individual identity and experience” the terms will always vary in what we each associate them with and understand. — Benj96

Agreed, ambiguity is an inherent characteristic of language. That just means we have to try harder to agree in advance what words mean. Failure to do that is bad philosophy or, in a broader context, bad communications.

I think if we try to define every term unanimously we end the fluid nature of language. — Benj96

This thread isn't about word definitions in general, it's about word definitions for use in philosophical discussions here on the thread. If an artist and an ophthalmologist want to have a discussion about color (note correct Amurcan spelling), they should make sure they're talking about the same thing.

Similarly I cannot refer to the term “consciousness” with anything but the content of consciousness. It’s self- referential and therefore can never be objective. — Benj96

Ok, so it's impossible to discuss consciousness. And yet we discuss it here on the forum endlessly. Part of the reason the discussions are endless is that people don't agree on the definition they're using at the beginning.

To put it in rather non-philosophical language: that there seems to be someone here who is experiencing the world and at the same time thinking and pondering about that act of experiencing - along with a strong presumption that this is true of other people too, that there are someones there. It appears that the world is populated by conscious or aware minds who inhabit human bodies and who have space, distance to question and doubt all things, including their own reality. — hwyl

I don't think anyone posting on this thread disagrees with this. If they do, I hope they'll speak up.

Terms like “consciousness” aren’t normally a problem because the meaning is understood from the context. — Apollodorus

It is clear to me from discussions on the thread that this isn't true. Actually, it's a broader topic than just this particular word. Discussions on the forum and elsewhere suffer from the fact that definitions are not agreed on at the beginning. If you read the rest of the thread I think you'll see this is true for "consciousness."

The content of your own experience, too, is constructed from inference, as is the ‘you’ who experiences. What we can be certain of is the faculty of consciousness - awareness with. Anything else is inference. — Possibility

I'd like to believe that. It would make my philosophical and psychological position on this question easier to defend. The problem is that I do recognize my own personal experience. There's a movie playing in my head with sound and a script. I'm also here talking to myself about what is going on and what I think about what is going on and what I think about my experience of what is going on.