Physicalism is the view that every puzzle can be explained in the terms used by physicist. — Banno

And I said that this isn't true, but I guess it depends on your definition of "explain." Cells, viruses, organs, tissues, organisms can not behave in any way that is inconsistent with physical laws. On the other hand, physics principles can not be used to predict how living organisms will be created, evolve, or behave. Although I don't have evidence, my intuition tells me that it is not possible, even in principle. If I'm right, your definition of what physicalism means is wrong. The correct definitions are in my previous post.

Think of it as a Universal Mind (an ocean) with Individual Minds (waves in the ocean). Of course, A Hologram with everything existing everywhere is another equivalent way of imaging it. — MondoR

It is my understanding that, in a hologram, each piece contains the whole. That certainly isn't true of the ocean.

Anyway, when I look at a rock, it may be "looking" back at me. I try to imagine all it has seen and will see and what it has shown to All. — James Riley

So, a billion years ago, a volcano erupted and spread lava over a large area. The lava cooled and became igneous rock. The cooled lava had been covered by 1,000 feet of sedimentary and igneous rock. The pressure of all that rock changed the physical and chemical makeup of the rock. The rock was uplifted into mountains, eroded, mixed with other eroded material, and deposited into the sea as a sedimentary rock. Again, it was covered and metamorphosed. The overlying rock was eroded by a river until the deposited rock was exposed. Then the rock was removed by humans from a quarry and crushed into 2 inch pieces for road building.

So, when did the rock become conscious? What would it remember? Was it conscious all the time, first as magma, then as lava, then as igneous rock, then as individual particles, then as sedimentary rock, then as broken stone? Of what use is there in calling the rock conscious? You certainly have changed the meaning of the word entirely.

I get the impression that if you accept the idea that there are a lot of worlds other than this one, a lot of quantum mechanics' problems go away (the Many Worlds Interpretation). — RogueAI

There are a bunch of interpretations of quantum mechanics that are consistent with observed phenomena. It appears, although there is some disagreement, that none of them, including the multiverse, can be verified, even in principle. If that is true, then they are equivalent. If that's the case, it makes sense to pick the simplest description - the Copenhagen Interpretation. None of it means anything, just calculate.

I know that you seem to question the idea of a holographic perspective, but do you think that the idea of an implicate order makes sense at all? I do believe that neuroscience is important but it does seem to end up becoming completely reductive. — Jack Cummins

From what I read about the implicate order, it sounds very much like Taoism. The difference to me is that the Tao is metaphysics while Bohm claims the implicate order is physical reality. You've mentioned Fritjof Capra before. That's what bothers me about "The Tao of Physics." He mixes up the Tao, metaphysics, with quantum mechanics, physics. For me, the connection between them is purely metaphorical. Lao Tzu has no physics to teach us. Heisenberg was not a mystic.

You've probably seen Her and some of the other sci-fi. We can already make it so believable, so yeah. — j0e

Yeah, but that was Scarlett Johansen. What if it had been Gilbert Gottfried?

Have you read Tegmark's MU conjecture? I'm interested in your objections or, even better, a plausible refutation. — 180 Proof

I haven't read Tegmark, although I have read some summaries. From that quick look, it appears that there is no way, even in theory, to test his understanding. If that's true, then it's not physics, it's metaphysics. Just like the dozens of different interpretations of quantum mechanics. It's not true or false, it is useful or not.

Do you read science fiction? If so, I steer you toward a neat book by Jeremy Robinson - "NPC." NPC means Non-Player Character in a video game. That's a character who is created by the game to interact with actual players but who has no awareness. The book follows a scientist who is trying to show that reality is a simulation by killing people he considers NPCs. The philosophical issues are handled in a very satisfying manner. If you have Kindle Unlimited, you can read it for free.

Physicalism is the view that only the description of the world provided by physicists is true. — Banno

I don't think this is correct. Here are some definitions of "physicalism."

• The philosophical position that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties, and that the only existing substance is physical.
  
• The thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical. The thesis is usually intended as a metaphysical thesis, parallel to the thesis attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Thales, that everything is water, or the idealism of the 18th Century philosopher Berkeley, that everything is mental.
  
• The metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical...

I wouldn't call myself a physicalist, but I think it's consistent with my understanding of how things work. It doesn't say anything about at what organizational level - physics, chemistry, biology, cognitive science, psychology - a phenomenon should be understood.

I am not saying that consciousness is primary in this regard or that earth is special. I'm questioning if biology can be reduced chemistry and chemistry to physics — Gregory

The standard answer to this question from those who don't hold with reductionism is that the laws of biology must conform to all the laws of physics and chemistry, but cannot be derived from them.

Yes, that's what I was trying to suggest by "perhaps due to the traditional straitjackets of gender-socialization" followed by "built" and then "need" (the latter in quotes) as expectations not biological traits, etc. — 180 Proof

I think ignoring the role that biology plays is misleading, but I'm not sure what the causes are makes any difference with how we handle it.

I think masculinity and femininity are not toxic. The same behaviour in animals is called survival. We hold ourselves to standards that are unrealistic. — TaySan

This makes sense.

A real man is someone who is a father, an Olympic champion, a stepfather, a husband, a multi-millionaire, someone who raises billionaire daughters and step-daughters, an international celebrity, and someone who will be the next Republican governor of California. He is all that and America's sweetheart. — Hanover

I remember the 1976 Olympics and Bruce Jenner's performance. That has always represented the best of what athletics can be to me. I always looked up to him. The sadness I feel watching Kaitlin Jenner now has nothing to do with her transition. It's the comparison of the dedication, discipline, and skill it took to win the medal to the sideshow freak she has turned herself into.

New Yorker Cartoon caption (below sketch of 2 guys chatting)

Last summer I tried using prostitutes and found it surprisingly affordable. — Bitter Crank

Ah, yes. New Yorker cartoons. It's like Playboy. I buy it for the articles.

My own intuition is just to get on with it and be. — Tom Storm

That's exactly right, except you left out "suck it up."

masculinity exists as a set of behavioral attributes grounded in biology. — Joshs

To me, this is clearly at least partly true.

This is a really good post. Well thought out, well expressed, and well.... right. Mostly.

"Suck it up" is important. It's a big part of what it means to me to be a man. It's also at the heart of a lot of pain in my life and I think of many men. Most men. Maybe all men. What happens when you build your life and yourself around doing your duty and then fail, suck it up, fail, suck it up, and fail again. The flip side of suck it up is the terror of disappointing people.

I think this has a lot to say about how many people, men, support Donald Trump. As a liberal, I find that understandable and moving. Even admirable.

Anyway - good post.

If I experience that person without words or judgement and then act on that without forethought or intention; maybe putting my arms around them, sitting beside them, giving them space, or talking about trivial things; that is my understanding of what wu wei is. Acting from my true nature.

I find it interesting that you always refer to ‘experiencing’ things, even when you’re thinking, describing or understanding. — Possibility

It should be no more unexpected than when Lao Tzu refers to the Tao even when he's thinking, describing, or understanding.

Do you recognise that you construct most of your ‘experience’ of these interactions from a logical and qualitative structure of mind (developed from past experiences, language, cultural reality, knowledge, etc), and only minimally from your temporal, sensory being-in-the-world? — Possibility

In my understanding, a discussion of cognitive science is not directly relevant to the principles laid out in the TTC. You and I disagree on this.

That you’re unsure of the relation between your ‘two ways of experiencing things’ suggests to me that your model is insufficient, yet you seem unperturbed by the margin for error. — Possibility

The fact that I haven't figured it all out yet is not a sign that my "model is insufficient." It is a sign that I'm not a sage. Yet. And yes, I am unperturbed by the fact that I might be wrong. Derek Lin Verse 64:

A tree thick enough to embrace
Grows from the tiny sapling
A tower of nine levels
Starts from the dirt heap
A journey of a thousand miles
Begins beneath the feet

This is the philosophy you will have to refute if you want to show that Lao Tsu's description of reality is untrue. .

If you succeed you will be world-famous within an hour or two, since you'll have destroyed the Perennial philosophy. It isn't going to happen, but I think there's much value in trying to refute it. — FrancisRay

I have no interest in refuting Lao Tzu's vision of reality. I've never said it was untrue and I've acknowledged how valuable it is for me. It is my fundamental understanding that metaphysical principles are not true or false, right or wrong. They are useful or not in a particular situation. It will take a significant change in my understanding of things to change that. That's why I'm interested in following up on your ideas. I've bought "Sum of Wisdom." We'll see where it goes from there.

One thing I see more and more as I get older is that everything has happened before. The biggest storm, the worst president, the end of western civilization, the greatest basketball team, the worst recession, drinking is bad for you, drinking is good for you, Japan's economy will destroy ours, China's economy will destroy ours, Russia is our friend, Russia is our enemy, and of course my favorite - our troops will be home in six months.

Is that wisdom? Not really. If you live long enough and have an average memory, you see things over and over again.

There is no non-being. It is Mind that begins to create. Think of drawiing without lifting the pencil. You begin to create shapes in a never ending spiral of waves. — MondoR

You and I think about this differently.

When I understand someone’s grief, putting it into words, even to myself, is profoundly insufficient to that understanding. — Possibility

If I experience that person without words or judgement and then act on that without forethought or intention, maybe put my arms around them, that is my understanding of what wu wei is. Acting from my true nature. Does that mean I'm experiencing the Tao at that moment? I'm working on that.

but that’s another discussion, so I’ll leave it there. — Possibility

We can both try to keep that in mind as something we see differently. And yes, this is not the place to solve the whole mind/brain thing.

I also don’t think you can follow the path without experiencing the Tao. I think the value in understanding the Tao is in aligning your logic, which does help to experience it, but also to follow it. — Possibility

I want to disagree with you, since I don't think there is any logic in the TTC, but I know you and I experience logic differently.

In an holistic view of reality, an observer is necessarily one aspect of the whole, but is unable to view itself as one of these aspects. A triadic relational model of reality is the most efficient and accurate - if the observer is indeterminate and can alternate between embodying two of these aspects. Embodying one will give it a view of the other two, but it can neither view itself, nor differentiate between the other two. — Possibility

No fair. You've brought in a whole new way of talking about things. I don't know what a "triadic relational model is." I guess I don't feel the need for another way to explain what's going on. For me, there are two ways of experiencing things - there is talking about, describing, kicking, thinking about, understanding, and naming the multiplicity of things and then there is the wordless, nameless experience of the Tao. Can you do them at the same time? Not sure.

I don’t claim to be following the Tao rigorously, either. But I think I understand when I am and when I’m not, at least. — Possibility

I feel the same way.

The there basic elements of Taiji are Yin, Yang, and Qi. It is the moving wave that one experiences when practicing Taiji. To understand the Dao De Jing, one must experience it. Words are insufficient. 42 explains how the Universe began. — MondoR

I agree with you that the TTC is about the experience, not the words. You say there is not gap, but for me there is. I have a sense for the experience of the Tao and obviously I experience the 10,000 things, but it is the step between that I am searching for. How non-being becomes being. How the nameless becomes the named.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm suggesting that the metaphysics of the TTC is a correct model of Reality, just as Lao Tsu suggests. It is not 'privileged', just correct. In mysticism it is the standard model, . .

I'm probably misunderstanding you, but If you believe it is not correct then I'll happily argue this point. — FrancisRay

I do believe it is not correct, but I don't think now is the time to get into it. I'm not prepared. Let me do some reading and maybe we can come back to it. If anyone else would like to take this up with FrancisRay, I'm ok with that.

Where in the TTC does Lao Tzu suggest that his is the correct model of Reality?

There is no gap. It starts as One, then by La onto itself, it becomes a standing wave (yin/yang). Then with movement (qi), there is a spiraling wave which creates everything. — MondoR

Lao Tzu is a bit ambiguous about that. He says different things in different verses. Yin and yang are only mentioned once in the Tao Te Ching, in Verse 42. He doesn't mention qi or chi at all.

Yes, but we don’t necessarily interact as one of the 10,000 things. We can also interact as an indistinguishable aspect of the indeterminate whole. This is how I understand an experience of wu-wei: no resistance or effort, no consolidation of self, just harmonious movement with the world... — Possibility

I agree with this.

I'm ok with this, but I don't see the relevance to our discussion. Are you talking about wu wei and how it grows out of the Tao?
— T Clark

That’s a strange way to describe it. I don’t see wu-wei as ‘growing out of the Tao’, but as completion of Tao - it’s the chi that is missing from the evidence of our actions. It’s what Lao Tzu draws our attention to, because it exists in the gap between the Tao and the 10,000 things. — Possibility

As I've mentioned before, I am not at all clear what takes place "in the gap between the Tao 10,000 things" or how wu wei works. Somehow, through experiencing the Tao, I am lead to act without acting. I use the term "grow out of" for lack of a better term.

This is interesting to me. You use words such as ‘intuitively’ and ‘osmosis’, as if the knowledge just kind of turns up in your head. I’ve been aware recently that most people tend to perceive the world as particles, but I’ve always perceived it as waves — Possibility

There is a vast amount of information in my head that I never learned in a formal way. We are constantly experiencing the world and trying to figure out what's going on. For me, that's where most of my understanding of the world comes from. Much of that understanding is non-verbal. Not because I can't put it into words, but because I've never had to.

Is my way of knowing the particle way? You say your son "can’t always trace the source of his information or critically examine his rational process once his mind is made up." I can, but I normally don't because I don't need to.

I can be crippled by indecision, while he’s happy to follow a well-worn path of effective decision-making. — Possibility

I think ninety percent of the time, it doesn't matter what decision we make, as long as we make one and are willing to take responsibility for it. There just aren't that many issues that matter all that much. When I was working I had to deal with more and more significant ones. Even then, in most cases it was more important to keep things moving than it was to make the exactly right decision.

Hence, the nature of the Universe can be discovered and experienced, but not fully translated into words as in the case of all feelings and emotions. One must feel loss to understand it, but words are inadequate. There is nothing mysterious in Daoism, just feelings and emotions to be discovered. — MondoR

I was in a Tao Te Ching reading group and one of the members was a Tai Chi instructor. He had insights in to the TTC that were very helpful. It is my understanding that trying to follow the path without a meditative practice of some sort leaves something out. I've always thought that the Tao is to be experienced, not understood. His input helped me grasp that better. I studied Tai Chi for several years 20 years ago and I've started practicing again. Classroom work has been disrupted by the pandemic so I've been doing it mostly on my own. I have never felt any strong connection between Tai Chi and the Tao Te Ching. I'd be interested in hearing how you see it.

I must apologise. I should have warned you not to rush out and buy Fundamental Wisdom. — FrancisRay

Don't worry, I found a free download.

You may find it interesting but his argument is very difficult and tedious. All we need to know is that his argument has never been invalidated and it proves that all positive metaphysical theories are logically indefensible. If we know this then we need not read the argument. And we already know that philosophers generally endorse his result since it what makes metaphysics difficult. Kant, Bradley and Russell all reach the same result explicitly in their work, but all good philosophers arrive here since it is just a matter of logic. . . — FrancisRay

I'm interested in this question for two reasons - 1) I have spent a lot of time thinking and writing here about metaphysics. I've especially liked R.G. Collingwood. I have a well-developed idea of what metaphysics is and how it works. I'm interested in having that understanding challenged or expanded. 2) I strongly reject the idea that the Tao Te Ching and similar theories stand in any privileged position for understanding reality.

The best commentary I know of is 'The Sun of Wisdom': Teachings on Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way by Tsultrim Gymaptso. I would avoid any that are written by non-Buddhist academics. . — FrancisRay

Now I'll put this on my reading list. Still, if you can tell me where in "Fundamental Wisdom" the metaphysical argument you were discussing is, I'd like to take a look.

These words seem paradoxical. They are not actually so, however, and Lao Tsu does not suggest they are.

The claim that the Tao is unspeakable is also explained by Nagarjuna. — FrancisRay

I have no trouble with the lines that are considered absurd or paradoxical. I think I understand where they come from, although I'm interested in having that understanding tested. One of the things that struck me about the Tao Te Ching when I first came across it was the idea of the unspeakableness of the Tao. That made sense to me immediately.

I'm glad you jointed our discussion. You've given me some new directions to look in.

In a metaphysical sense, to ‘understand’ is to align with a way of thinking about or conceptualising reality. It’s an internal restructuring of ideas, and can be achieved simply by trusting in an alternative model or expression of reality, such as the TTC. — Possibility

Does this use words, even ones you only speak to yourself? For me, understanding means words.

In a more academic sense, though, to ‘understand’ is to present knowledge in explaining or supporting the argument for a restructuring of reality. It is to provide ‘proof’ of this metaphysical understanding. But this academic sense of understanding is not required in following the Way, and it does distract us from the path. — Possibility

This sounds like what I call "rational thought" in the last paragraph of my previous post.

I have engaged in attempts at explanation here, mainly in my references to Kant, quantum physics and Barrett’s theories in relation to affect, among others. My aim in doing so was to show that, firstly, there IS an alternative construction of reality in the TTC - one that does not align easily with conventional Western logic. — Possibility

I have no problem with this. It's interesting to me how foundational themes found in eastern philosophies show up as relatively minor themes in western philosophy, e.g. Tao vs. noumena. Also, what Barrett writes interests me, although I don't think it has a lot to say to me about the TTC.

Secondly, I was trying to point out that this alternative construction of reality does contend with, and arguably help to dissolve, current dilemmas in Western thinking. So, even if we have no intention of following the Way, its structure of conceptual reality is not as ‘a-rational’ as it first seems. It is more that conventional (Western) logic is inaccurate, insufficient beyond classical physics, for an holistic understanding of reality (ToE). — Possibility

I agree with this strongly. As I've said, I see the Tao as a concept as a good replacement for the idea of objective reality. I think that has profound implications for our understanding of how the world works, e.g. in science. I won't go into this any more here.

I also recognise that understanding the Way is not following the Way. What is missing is chi, the energy of life, one’s distribution of attention and effort. I have suggested that we can discuss how chi (or affect) fits into this by drawing from experience, but that perhaps we need to separate subjective experience into quality and energy (and the TTC into quality and logic) before this starts to make sense. — Possibility

As I've said, I don't think seeing the TTC through the eyes of Barrett or other scientists is useful, at least not for my purposes. I also think equating chi with affect is is like equating the mind with the brain, which I reject. I'll think more about that.

In fact, I get the sense that your aim is to recognise an experience of the Tao as a guide in those situations when conventional logic is insufficient. This seems to be a common Western approach to Taoism and other Eastern philosophies. — Possibility

Are you implying that it's wrong or somehow not true to Lao Tzu's intentions? First, I doubt that. Second - it doesn't really matter. I've found a spiritual vision that matches my intellectual, perceptual, experiential, and emotional understanding of how things work.

I just thought we should be clear that experiencing the Way is not following the Way, any more than understanding it is. Giving the impression that one can follow the Way simply by experiencing it is what I’ve been taking particular issue with here, but I’ve not been very clear in this. — Possibility

I'm not sure about this. I don't think you can follow the path without experiencing the Tao. Is that enough? Maybe? I think whatever value understanding the Tao has may be in helping to experience it. I'm out on a limb here. Over my head.

I have no doubt that many of the scholars who painstakingly translated the TTC do experience the Tao subjectively, but whenever they expressed this as an understanding of the TTC, they’ve necessarily applied at least some conventional Western logic to their choice of words (inherent in the English language). When readers then experience this understanding, they’re aligning with this Western way of thinking, not with that of the TTC. — Possibility

Sure. I think that's inevitable. Then again, many of the translators are native Chinese speaking scholars. I am reluctant to second guess them. I'd guess my western way of seeing things is more of a barrier than the translations. My answer to that is that I sometimes have experiences that seem to match what Lao Tzu described. If that's not enough, it's at least enough for me.

But if you say that you’re following the Tao, then I may dispute your accuracy from time to time, to which you will say that you don’t understand and you aren’t trying to. — Possibility

I certainly don't think I'm following the path in any rigorous or disciplined way. I just come back to what I said - I sometimes experience things that seem to match what Lao Tzu described. That's it. That's all I'll claim. I don't think I've ever claimed more. If I did, I was wrong.

Personally, I think any restructuring of reality in understanding the Tao goes deeper than this, but I accept that mine may be a minority view, lacking in clear explanation and relatively untested. — Possibility

I think you may think I am claiming more than I actually am.

I agree with this as the overarching idea. But in order to be or interact, we fall either side of this coin. — Possibility

We interact in the world of the 10,000 things.

I’m referring to the act of writing down the TTC. When we create something in the world, we cannot put all of ourselves and the world (ie. the blob) into it. With every interaction, we embody an aspect of the indeterminate whole that is necessarily missing from what we create. The energy (attention and effort) that keeps us alive cannot simultaneously be directed into what we create. — Possibility

I'm ok with this, but I don't see the relevance to our discussion. Are you talking about wu wei and how it grows out of the Tao?

Right - you’re aiming to experience the Way, not to understand it, and not to follow it. Here’s the thing: following the Way involves BOTH experiencing and understanding. The Way is neither in the experiencing nor in the understanding, but in the instructive difference between the two: effectively, it is the issue we have with each other’s methodology here. — Possibility

I say I am trying to experience the Tao and not understand it, but I acknowledge there's more to it than that. I'm an intellectual. A lot of how I interact with the world is through my mind and, ultimately, words. As @TheMadFool points out, we work with the tools we have. Lao Tzu did too. Am I talking about the same thing you are?

What I’ve described here refers specifically to experience, from a perspective of understanding. Here’s a question for you: do you experience logic? Not understand and not adhere to, but experience it - does it have a quality to it, or a feeling? If what you’re doing is simply experiencing the world, is there ever logic in that? Not just in reference to the TTC or the Tao, but in any experience... — Possibility

I experience the working of my mind. Do I experience logic? Interesting question. I don't think I do. I guess most of what I know I know intuitively. I previously described an image I have of a cloud of knowledge that I think of when I think of the Tao. I've been thinking about that for a while - how we gain knowledge by osmosis. I'm far enough in the Barrett book to be interested in what she calls statistical learning as a candidate. Don't hold me to that. I've just gotten to that part.

I do call up what I think of as rational thought when I have to justify or communicate my understanding to others or deal with a lot of information in a documentable way. I spent a lot of time doing that as an engineer. How does that feel? Good. Have you ever written stories or poetry. Kind of like that. I have this vision of pouring information in a funnel at the top of my head and then watching as words come out on the computer. It's happening now. I'm really interested in what I'm going to write. Sometimes it comes as a surprise.

You may have doubts about all this but what I;m saying here is not in any way idiosyncratic.There is only one metaphysical theory for which true words seem paradoixcal, and it is a neutral one. . . — FrancisRay

I looked up "Fundamental Wisdom of the middle Way" on Wikipedia. It looks interesting, so I put it on my list of books to read. Some of the quotations provided were consistent with my understanding of the Tao Te Ching and reality. I love the Tao Te Ching and it's view of the world is consistent with how I see things, but I'll stick to my position that that is a choice I've made because I find it useful rather than any absolute judgement. I'll read the book and see if it changes my mind.

Edit - I downloaded a copy of the book. Can you steer me to the metaphysical argument you referenced.

So this is what peak corruption looks like, what people have been warning against for the last half century. This is what happens when the sheep are lulled to sleep, more concerned with their TV shows, fast food, cheap crap from China, drugs and alcohol, and God knows what else. — synthesis

Your bitter contempt for people other than yourself tells us more about you and your ideas than your words.

Welcome. I recommend you look for the threads and posts from @schopenhauer1. He is a good source for arguments in favor of antinatalism.

I feel you are misunderstanding his metaphysics.

For instance, you say " Part of that understanding is that the description of reality in the TTC is not true or false. It’s a metaphysical description."

If a metaphysical description is not true or false then it is meaningless. Some care is needed with the notion of 'true'. Lao Tsu's description is rigorous and demonstrably true in dialectical logic, but it is not true in the sense that it truly describes what cannot be described. — FrancisRay

I disagree. We clearly have different understandings of what "metaphysical" means. You say "Lao Tsu's description is rigorous and demonstrably true in dialectical logic." I don't see that. Can you show me?

But in metaphysics, as in physics, we're not looking for the 'true' theory just the best. It is logical processs of inference to the best explanation. To know it a theory is true we would have to abandon metaphysics for Yoga and self-enquiry. — FrancisRay

Instead of "best" I would say "most useful in this particular situation," with the understanding that other ways of seeing things may be more useful in different situations.

It is only because Lao Tsu's metaphysical view is a 'true' model of Reality that true words seem paradoxical. — FrancisRay

I don't understand.

His metaphysics is actually very simple. All positive theories would be false just as their failure in logic implies, such that the Ultimate lies beyond the categories of thought and speech. This is a neutral; metaphysical theory and in principle it explains everything. — FrancisRay

I don't know whether I understand what you are saying or not. Can you briefly describe what you think Lao Tzu's metaphysics is.

I think, like Socrates, he would probably claim to know nothing. It isn’t about what he knows, but about how he structures a rendered expression of reality so that one need not ‘know’ anything to understand. — Possibility

I think this is a good way of putting it.

I’m not saying it is an aspect of the Tao, but of experiencing the Tao. You can’t deny this quality without diminishing the experience. — Possibility

Agreed. Given my tendency to say "Xing without Xing" in just about every response, it would be unreasonable for me to argue with you when you talk about hoping without hoping.

Language is not going to explain this, because you have to put yourself into it. This is what Lao Tzu understood. — Possibility

Agreed.

either everything is and the blob is the indeterminate whole in which we are indistinguishable, or nothing is part of it, and everything except the blob exists (10,000 things). — Possibility

Or both. I'm serious.

I’m saying that whether we experience, relate to or follow the Tao, there is rationality, quality and energy somewhere in this, which cannot be bracketed out. Any description, expression or instruction that is not inclusive of all three is not the Tao. — Possibility

That's not how I see it, although I'm not sure whether or not this is just a difference of language. Unless you mean that rationality is the same as what the TTC calls "naming," which would make sense.

This was the energy (attention and effort) directed elsewhere or without result as each stroke is made: not-doing (wu-wei). — Possibility

I'm not sure what you are referring to.

No matter how much he included of himself in his writing, something would always be missing...

...They are the difference we are invited to embody between the Tao and what Lao Tzu has accomplished in the TTC. — Possibility

I think this difference between you and me is the result of how we see the TTC differently. I think Lao Tzu is trying to show us the way to follow, not tell us about it. The words are incidental. He is painting a picture with words. I'm trying to see the picture, not understand the words.

If what the translations or anyone else here is saying conflicts with the original text, then the text must be correct. — Possibility

We've discussed this. I'm not criticizing your way of seeing things, but that's not how I'm doing it. I'm using the translations as a group as the basis of my understanding.

If you look at the Zhuangzi in comparison, its narrative composition makes it impossible to bracket out affect without ignoring elements of the text. Names exist outside of the text for people and their occupations, assuming a complex social structure that implies hierarchies of value and judgement. People feel, think, speak and make mistakes. But the TTC is structured carefully so that no affect, no feeling, emotion or value judgement is necessarily implicit in the text (except where speech is indicated, and very specific verses such as 20, written in the first person). I do think this is deliberate. — Possibility

I agree with all of this. I think this is why I like the TTC so much and have not gotten into the Zhuangzi. Also - I acknowledge that the value judgements I've identified in the TTC are my judgements based on the situations described in the text.

I can only experience the Tao in not-doing: stillness, meditative practice, unconscious randomness, etc. Everything else requires logic. I can observe and restructure my thoughts and feelings to align with the TTC only in this stillness. — Possibility

I think the path shown us in the TTC is the normal way people are made to operate. Lao Tzu points out that babies follow the Tao without knowledge or thought. Logic, words, rationality, fear, hope, desire, and all the rest are overlays on that original simplicity. I think some of that is inevitable for social, language-using creatures. For me, experiencing the Tao means removing some of those overlays. I feel like I can do that partially, sometimes.

The logic underlying my words and actions remains pretty much how it suits me best, regardless of the TTC. — Possibility

Can you describe or give an example of how the logic underlying your words and actions works. I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I've tried to do the same for you when I describe the bubbling spring image I feel sometimes when I act.

if you read my reply to Valentinus above, the Tao is exactly the opposite of what you say it is viz. it is not "...a way of looking at things". — TheMadFool

It is one way of seeing reality. It includes everything, anything, so it is complete. The words may seem contradictory, but the vision and the path are straightforward, pragmatic, down-to-earth, every day, meat and potatoes. You're trying to make it more than it is or was intended to be.

The opening lines of the Tao Te Ching are:

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
— T Clark

I realized that there are two ways of interpreting these lines and they are:

1. There's more to it than meets the eye: We observe the world and there's a way that it appears to us but, we've learnt and we suspect, appearances can be deceiving or, more to the point, there's more to reality than just what it presents to us...

2. What you see is it (but we refuse to accept it): Reality is exactly as it appears to us and that's all there is to it. — TheMadFool

Third option - This is my way of thinking about it. Others see it differently.

3. The Ground of Being, the Tao, was there before humans existed. Before any sentient life existed anywhere. Before god or gods existed. There were no electrons, planets, solar systems, galaxies, globular clusters, space. No quantum field. No universe. There was one unified, undifferentiated blob that wasn't really a blob, because "blob" did not exist. If there had been anyone around to take a picture, it would look pretty much exactly like it looks now. When sentient creatures who could use language evolved, the world came into existence. It was words that created what we call reality. Reality is a human concept, words.

Keep in mind, I'm not talking about magic or other supernatural phenomena. The Tao is a metaphysical concept - a way of looking at things. Taoists live in the same world we do. If you don't buy the description above, don't find it a useful way of seeing things. Fine. There are lots of other ways to experience the world. I find it very useful.

I'm sure there are more than just our three options too.

The proposition is, without Ockham's razor, the chances that this is reality is the same as it being an illusion. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Is there any way to determine, at least in principle, whether or not we live in an illusion as opposed to what you call "reality?" If not, then there is no difference between the illusion and reality. If reality is an illusion, the illusion is reality.

discard knowledge (chih)
— T Clark

Shouldn't we stop reading the Tao Te Ching at this point? — TheMadFool

I think if you'll read Verse 82, which is left out of all but one version of the TTC, things will be clearer. It's known as Lao Tzu's lost verse:

Hey you gettin' drunk
So sorry, I got you sussed
Hey you smokin' mother nature
This is a bust
Hey hung up old Mr. Normal
Don't try to gain my trust
'Cause you ain't gonna follow me
Any of those ways
Although you think you must

But seriously folks - I think Lao Tzu was fully aware of what he was doing and recognized the irony. My take - He was trying to show us a path, not help us understand. He was trying to use words to guide us to a place where words don't work. So, no. We shouldn't necessarily stop reading.