In Taoism, for example, the ineffable is related to our experience and that speaks to your preference for "meat and potatoes." But the Tao is also said to be the means to setting up everything on both sides of the gate separating our lives from whatever makes it possible. That encouraged a religious interpretation that was expressed in various ideas of immortality, some of them that are very "occult." — Valentinus

Yes. My understanding is that you're right. I was talking about philosophical Taoism. I don't know much about religious Taoism. What I've heard makes it sound like Biblical fundamentalism - taking words that are meant to be metaphorical as literal truth.

I think you are saying that I am over simplifying mysticism. You're not the only one to make that comment. I think you're right. I'm struggling to defend my vision of mysticism against the skepticism of "rational" thinkers. If we let the occult in, it's hard to defend. Maybe the solution is to find another word. instead of mysticism. How about T Clarkism. Valentinusism. Or maybe stop using the word altogether. I think that may be the correct solution.

Many of the examples start with 'belief that....'. The point about mysticism is that it is purported to provide an insight or realisation which is not a matter of belief. (Actually the term 'realisation' is key in this context - the enlightened 'real-ise' the higher truths, not as a matter of belief, but by direct intuition, and also 'making real'.) — Wayfarer

This reminds me of arguments about what it means to have faith in something. Materialists/realists speak as if it's self-evident that faith is not a valid basis for knowledge because it hasn't been put to a rational test. It's also another reason that rationalists look down on mysticism.

I mention this by way of rebuttal of (2) and (5). Mysticism is, for sure, a pejorative in many contexts and is generally abjured by the positivists and materialists. — Wayfarer

That's the argument I'm trying to make - that pejorative definitions like 2 and 5 unreasonably undermine the credibility of mystical viewpoints.

There's a rather quirky Wikipedia article I sometimes mine for references, on Higher Consciousness. I'm a firm believer in there really being higher and lower forms of consciousness - therefore a vertical dimension, the sense of which is all but extinguished in modern 'culture'. — Wayfarer

I took a look. The only problem I have with the ideas is that there is a lot of goofy hippy-talk mixed in with the more substantive stuff. That provides more ammunition for those who want to undermine the credibility of mystical ways of knowing.

By the way - I've been meaning to ask you what that thing is in your icon picture. I looked a the larger version on your page. It looks like maybe it is meant to weigh down fabric or rugs or something. I want it. Give it to me.

I only would like for people who think of this stuff, not to be labeled as "wacky" or the like. — Manuel

Yes. This is why I try to make sure mysticism is kept separate from the occult, magic.

I'd be interested in parsing the difference between mystery and mystical - I think the two become confused. — Tom Storm

Mystery means lots of things. In what way is it confused with mystical?

It seems fairly clear that those who have mystical experiences don't generally view them as mysterious in the moment - the experience itself brings a type of grounding and certainty - perhaps a sense of oneness or a meaningful connection to higher consciousness. When encountered this is not doubted. — Tom Storm

I can't really speak to this. I don't think I've ever had what I would call a mystical experience. What I have seen is that the way I normally see the world sometimes has more in common with what is called mysticism than with everyday conventional realism. Reading the Tao Te Ching has just given me words to talk about my experience.

Is there any thinking about any notions of good mysticism versus bad mysticism. Can it be graded in any way? Perhaps shallow versus deep? — Tom Storm

This is a really good question. Maybe we apply the same standards as we do for all other ways of knowing. Does it work? I guess we have to decide what it means for knowledge to work. Did I mention that this is a good question.

What are some of the better descriptions people have provided about the wisdom or insights they encounter through mysticism? Can it be brought back to the quotidian? Or does it remain resolutely first person and ineffable? I am particularly interested in whatever transformative capacities mysticism is said to have for people. — Tom Storm

I don't really have an answer, but here's a quote from Franz Kafka that I think captures the heart of what mysticism means.

It is not necessary that you leave the house. Remain at your table and listen. Do not even listen, only wait. Do not even wait, be wholly still and alone. The world will present itself to you for its unmasking, it can do no other, in ecstasy it will writhe at your feet.

I figure communicating with the dead should count as a mystical process. There are shamanistic practices from many different traditions that involve being a "medium" for the conversation.

There are many different forms of divination, from oracular pronouncements from "speakers" in contact with the gods to systems of interpretation like Tarot or the I Ching.

What some people shun as superstition is a valid practice for others. — Valentinus

As I've noted several times so far in this thread, I emphasize the mundaneness of Taoism because I don't want it to be mistaken for the occult. I say it's not secret, it's not magic, it's just meat and potatoes. I think mixing mysticism up with magic undermines mysticism's credibility. I am reluctant to do that. For that reason, I wouldn't call communicating with the dead a mystical practice, although it may be, I'd call it an occult practice.

The thing is, in our current society, it's quite easy to find some New Age-ish perspective that says something like "the world is awesome, man. Feel the vibrations." Yeah, ok fine. But this type of talk can take away from the serious point: — Manuel

I place a strong emphasis on the fact that the Tao and associated phenomena are not magical or mysterious. They are as real as a box of rocks. As real as smelly socks. I do that because I don't want my understanding of Taoism to be mistaken for new age baloney. And yes, I know the Tao is not a phenomenon.

The world is a mystery, existence is too. We have no idea why we are here, why things appear the way they do, or why we even have experience at all. — Manuel

Careful. This sounds a bit new agey. I read somewhere that a mystery is a part of us we have hidden from ourselves. I think it may have been in Alan Watts. That makes a lot of sense to me. There is no mystery, just things we're not aware of. The Tao, God, enlightenment, reality, whatever - it's sitting right here in front of us right now.

It's a bit of a shame that many people, if told this, don't seem to care or think it's empty or something. Why complicate everything? Well, I don't have a good answer to that. But I think it's evident. — Manuel

There are lots of good ways to know the world. Different ways work for different people. None of these ways of seeing we are calling mystical are necessarily any better than other ways of seeing. They work for some people and not for others.

This is a really good summary.

I agree with the description of the mystical here, but I still think we can talk about it while risking complete ridicule. That's my (mis)understanding about it. — Manuel

Your description of Wittgenstein's mysticism looks compatible with the definitions I laid out. It's true - when you get down to it, it's all about the inexpressible. As to whether you can talk about the unspeakable without looking foolish, people have been doing it for thousands of years.

I have not read the Tao de Ching, in that case. — Jack Cummins

If you're interested, you can read it in about an hour. Tell me what other philosophy or religion can you say that about.

Thanks for the link to The Tao de Ching. I may put one latecomer entry, probably on Hexagram 23. I often used to get that hexagram, or it might not have been that I really got it more than other ones, but it always used to stand out for me. — Jack Cummins

Are you talking about the "Tao Te Ching" or the "I Ching?"

If everything we can speak of is such that it's part of a system of parameters, and if those systems are such that there is always a conceivable parameter that is absent from these systems, then it is possible to infer there is always a single missing parameter. — Zophie

I don't understand. Can you give an example? And how is that mysticism?

What classifies an experience as mystical? That can only be defined by the experiencer in my opinion. — TaySan

That's the question I'm trying to answer when I ask "What is mysticism." People use the word. We ought to be able to agree on what they mean. Or at least they should be able to explain what they mean.

I am speaking of serious meditation practices, such as those within Hinduism, Buddhism, or Sufism . I am also think of the whole tradition of esoteric Christianity. — Jack Cummins

Please discuss this if you'd like. I started out wanting to find a good definition of mysticism but I tried to make it clear that it will be fine if people want to go further. BroAlex had interesting things to say about Catholic attitudes in a previous post.

I've always thought that Wittgenstein's mysticism in the Tractatus was extremely sensible and fascinating. — Manuel

I don't know anything about Wittgenstein's mysticism. Why don't you tell us about it.

I don't have a copy of it currently. — Jack Cummins

Here is a link to more than 20 translations.

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

Different people like different translations. The ones I use most often are Stephen Mitchell, Ellen Marie Chen, Derek Lin, and Addiss & Lombardo.

I am wondering why you resist the idea of mysticism as being about heightened states of consciousness? — Jack Cummins

When you see Asian mystical practice portrayed in the West, it is often associated with the occult, e.g. "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" and "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." That's why I resist portraying it as some sort of secret knowledge or heightened consciousness. There's nothing magical about it. It's down home and everyday. It's just regular old stuff. The fact that we often can't see it is what's complicated and hard to understand. I think that's an important attitude to take into mystical understanding.

A wise man believes there is more to know and more that is not yet understood. A mystic also believes this, yet seeks to narrow down, at least to a degree, where such knowledge can be found. — Outlander

I don't see mysticism as limiting the scope of where we look for knowledge. I think of it as a way of recognizing and acknowledging how we already gain knowledge. Most of what we know we don't know through study.

In some ways, I think that the term mysticism is sometimes used in a derogatory way. — Jack Cummins

Yes, I agree. That's one of the reasons I started this thread.

It is also difficult to talk about sometimes because there is the whole experiential level, which is so subjective. — Jack Cummins

The first lines of the Tao Te Ching say this exactly - The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

In this, he says, ' What I learned from mystics and poets was that " everyday consciousness" is only one of many possible states, and that we become trapped in assuming that it is the only kind.' — Jack Cummins

I resist the idea that a mystical understanding of reality, at least as I've experienced it, represents an extraordinary phenomenon or heightened state. One of the things I like best about the Tao Te Ching is the pragmatic everydayness of what it describes.

how is it questionnable? — ernest meyer

I think you will find people balking at the way you have characterized weight and mass. I know I did. That only distracts from the what I see as the main message of your post.

I have found that the Tao Te Ching is something more akin to a philosophy which seeks to understand the deeper reality of the world and how we ought to behave in it. — BroAlex

I think this is a good description of Taoism.

My own experience of mysticism is founded in the Roman Catholic tradition. I am not claiming to be a mystic, but as a religious in the Catholic Church, I seek mystical union with God through prayer. But the goal is not knowledge per se but rather union with God in love. — BroAlex

I think the definitions of "mysticism" I've included are broad enough to include both seeking union with God and knowledge of deeper reality. "Surrendering" is a word I sometimes use to describe the experience of the Tao, which I see as a yielding of my personal will to something outside myself.

Your insight into your experience as a Catholic is really helpful.

The first three and a half paragraphs of your post are confusing and questionable. More importantly, I don't see how they are relevant to the rest of the post, which is a reasonable exposition on the idea that

all of science is just an imagined 'model of reality'- — ernest meyer

Which I understand and agree with.

No, completely not. As you shared with us, mysticism is another religious doctrine or way of living. — javi2541997

No, I don't think mysticism is necessarily a religious phenomenon at all. According to one of the definitions above, mysticism is "The belief that direct knowledge of ... ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (such as intuition or insight)." I think calling the Tao "ultimate reality" is a reasonable interpretation.

Is the universe eternally expanding from a singularity and then gravitationally contracting into another (or the same one in a different shape)? It is claimed the universe as we know it should have already begun to contract yet the observable matter around us is still exelerating. Assuming our greatest mathematicians have not miss calculated the massive forces at work this could mean matter we observe is being pulled by the gravity of matter out view. — Theokretus

It is my understanding that current knowledge and theory indicate that there is not enough matter in the universe to stop or reverse the observed expansion. Based on that, our universe will expand forever. That doesn't mean they won't change their minds later.

Verse 18

Ellen Marie Chen

On the decline of the great Tao,
There are humanity (jen) and righteousness (i).
When intelligence (hui) and knowledge (chih) appear,
There is great artificiality (wei).
When the six relations are not in harmony,
There are filial piety (hsiao) and parental love (tz'u).
When a nation is in darkness (hun) and disorder (lüan),
There are loyal ministers.

Addiss and Lombardo

Great Tao rejected: Benevolence and righteousness appear.
Learning and knowledge professed: Great Hypocrites spring up.
Family relations forgotten: Filial piety and affection arise.
The nation disordered: Patriots come forth.

I used this verse in my discussion of Verse 17, so some issues with this verse have been discussed before. In particular, there was an extensive discussion how to characterize the relationships between the Tao and human values. I have called them “ladders” because I see the human values as inferior to the Tao. @Possibility has called them “cascades” because she sees the human values as part of the Tao. This is where you correct me, Possibility.

I see four ladders here. I guess I would characterize them as moral, intellectual, social, and political. The human values described include humanity, knowledge, filial piety, and loyalty. Here is a line by line discussion of Chen’s translation.

On the decline of the great Tao,
There are humanity (jen) and righteousness (i).

As I did for Verse 17, I reference Derek Lin’s translation of Verse 38.

Therefore, the Tao is lost, and then virtue
Virtue is lost, and then benevolence
Benevolence is lost, and then righteousness
Righteousness is lost, and then etiquette

This is a more detailed description of what I’ve called the moral ladder. The verse goes on to say.

Those who have etiquette
Are a thin shell of loyalty and sincerity

I think this is an indication that the elements of the ladder are hierarchical, i.e. top is better than bottom. Yes, I am aware of Lao Tzu’s thoughts on good vs. bad. From Chen Verse 2.

When all under heaven know beauty (mei) as beauty,
There is then ugliness (o);
When all know the good (shan) good,
There is then the not good (pu shan).

I’m comfortable living with that contradiction.

When intelligence (hui) and knowledge (chih) appear,
There is great artificiality (wei).

The TTC makes a strong case against knowledge and rational thought. This from Addiss and Lombardo Verse 48.

Pursue knowledge, gain daily. Pursue Tao, lose daily. Lose and again lose, Arrive at non-doing.

This is from Chen Verse 3.

Therefore, when the sage rules:
He empties the minds (hsin) of his people,
Fills their bellies,
Weakens their wills (chih),
And strengthens their bones.
Always he keeps his people in no-knowledge (wu-chih) and no-desire (wu-yü),

Letting go of knowledge is related to letting go of desire. Knowledge and desire are connected.

When the six relations are not in harmony,
There are filial piety (hsiao) and parental love (tz'u).

I went looking for the “six relations.” Traditionally China has complex conventions of family structure. Wikipedia identifies eight relations in the immediate family – father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, son, and daughter. I’m not sure if this is what the text is referring too or not.

When a nation is in darkness (hun) and disorder (lüan),
There are loyal ministers.

As they say, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. “Loyalty” is one of those funny words. In the TTC, sometimes it’s good and sometimes it’s bad. In this case it’s bad because it represents conventional virtue.

 

I love this bit. Every time I’ve tried to describe the framework idea in the TTC, whether I use the analogy of a piece of music or a tesseract or a cascade, this kind of disclaimer is always in parentheses in the back of my mind: but not like that, like nothing but itself.

What a beautiful passage. — Possibility

I read the book at least 35 years ago, but I've never forgotten that passage. Why can't I write like that?

Didn't you talk of using peripheral vision ? — Amity

I've always had this vision of God, enlightenment, the Tao as being right next to my right ear, always just inches away. I could never see it directly. When I turned my head, it moved too. The only way to see it was through my peripheral vision. Peripheral vision is different from normal vision. It isn't focused. I pay a different kind of attention to things in my peripheral vision than I do with normal vision. I think that's a good metaphor for how we can experience the Tao.

Couldn't this also include - lifting eyes from textual analysis simply to appreciate the sound and rhythm. — Amity

I see the TTC as poetry, which I read differently than I do prose. It feels like I use a different part of my mind when I read or listen to poetry. Yes, it's more like music. Less focused. Impressionistic. As I think about it, that's similar to the kind of attention I pay when I'm seeing through my peripheral vision.

Does this apply to the text? Is our aim understanding or what ? — Amity

I've tried to make my position on this clear from the beginning - our aim is to experience the experience just as with the French horn music in the passage I quoted.

I guess the question becomes: why are we exploring an interpretation of this piece of music? Is it to forge our own personal performance of it, our own interpretation among the many, or is it to help others connect with the truth of the composition, with what the score was reaching towards? — Possibility

@Amity quoted this from one of your posts and it made me think of a passage that deals with musical interpretation but which I think can also be seen as a way of seeing the Tao. The following passage, I apologize for its length, is from "October Light" a novel by John Gardner. I also apologize to the ghost of Mr. Gardner because I've separated the passage into paragraphs while he had it as one long one. I think I understand why he did it that way, but I wanted to make it easier to read. I love it.

Then it had come to him as a startling revelation-though he couldn't explain even to his horn teacher Andre Speyer why it was that he found the discovery startling-that the music meant nothing at all but what it was: panting, puffing, comically hurrying French horns. That had been, ever since- until tonight- what he saw when he closed his eyes and listened: horns, sometimes horn players, but mainly horn sounds, the very nature of horn sounds, puffing, hurrying, getting in each other's way yet in wonderful agreement finally, as if by accident. Sometimes, listening, he would smile, and his father would say quizzically, "What's with you?" It was the same when he listened to the other movements: What he saw was French horns, that is, the music. The moods changed, things happened, but only to French horns, French horn sounds.

There was a four-note theme in the second movement that sounded like "..Oh When the Saints," a theme that shifted from key to key, sung with great confidence by a solo horn, answered by a kind of scornful gibberish from the second, third, and fourth, as if the first horn's opinion was ridiculous and they knew what they knew. Or the slow movement: As if they'd finally stopped and thought it out, the horns played together, a three-note broken chord several times repeated, and then the first horn taking off as if at the suggestion of the broken chord and flying like a gull-except not like a gull, nothing like that, flying like only a solo French horn. Now the flying solo became the others' suggestion and the chord began to undulate, and all four horns together were saying something, almost words, first a mournful sound like Maybe and then later a desperate oh yes I think so, except to give it words was to change it utterly: it was exactly what it was, as clear as day-or a moonlit lake where strange creatures lurk- and nothing could describe it but itself. It wasn't sad,. the slow movement; only troubled, hesitant, exactly as he often felt himself. Then came- and he would sometimes laugh aloud- the final, fast movement.

Though the slow movement's question had never quite been answered, all the threat was still there, the fast movement started with absurd self-confidence, with some huffings and puffings, and then the first horn set off with delightful bravado, like a fat man on skates who hadn't skated in years (but not like a fat man on skates, like nothing but itself), Woo-woo-woo-woops! and the spectator horns laughed tiggledy-tiggledy­ tiggledy!, or that was vaguely the idea- every slightly wrong chord, every swoop, every hand-stop changed everything completely ... It was impossible to say what , precisely, he meant.

You've got nothing to say, but you're not letting that stop you are you? — Bartricks

You still haven't responded to how I addressed the issue raised in the OP.

You also do not seem to understand the OP. In the OP the question is whether there are any reasons to have kids. Normative reasons. I am saying that there is positive reason not to have them. Moral reason. Instrumental too, but I am focussing on moral reasons. (Moral reasons are among the normative reasons that there are). — Bartricks

I'll repeat - the subject of the OP was the question:

What possible reason could there be for creating another person? — Andrew4Handel

You have identified reasons for not having children, which was not the issue raised in the OP. I answered that question. An appropriate response on your part might be to question whether the reason I identified was valid. You haven't even done that.

Has anyone listened to the TTC - bought an audio book - any recommendations ?
Help ?! — Amity

Libravox, a wonderful free audio book site, has the Tao Te Ching in English. I don't know if it has it in Chinese.

I think with some of our fixation on the meaning of words we are taken away from this element.
We might be in danger of losing our way, if we cannot also take time to appreciate the sounds. — Amity

I don't disagree with you, but I just don't know what to do about it.

It does have a ‘cherry-picking’ feel to it sometimes, but then I’m reminded that your approach was always going to be personal, and that my criticisms come across as quite uncharitable in this context, so I do apologise. — Possibility

It's not really cherry-picking. I don't take any of the translations as right or wrong. I'm using them to build up a collage of the Tao. I see myself as a forensic sketch artist trying to make up a picture of it based on witness descriptions.

I don't think you have been uncharitable.

I think you misunderstand where I was going with this, but I have to say that I disagree with your first sentence here. The Tao does not need to relate to anything, sure - but WE do. The point of the TTC is that we CAN relate to the Tao, and in fact that is ALL we can do with it - we can’t fully understand it or define it or describe it. All we can do is build relational structures as scaffolding, enabling us to relate to the Tao, in a qualitative sense, with all that we are. — Possibility

I'm trying to decide whether I agree with this or not... Ok. I'll agree with a stipulation. I still think "relate" is the wrong word, but I'm not sure what the right word is.

I’m not suggesting that ‘sincerity’ as a word cannot fit - only that the way we understand the concept of sincerity consolidates the relational quality so that it stands in isolation, as one of the ‘10,000 things’. There is some ‘unpacking’ that needs to occur to allow its quality to flow freely. For me, there is a noticeable energy flow difference between sincerity in or of the Tao (which is not the Tao), and faithfulness as qualitative relation to the Tao. — Possibility

I think this is responsive to what you've written. I hope so. The Tao gave birth to the 10,000 things. That is the relation between them. I guess the only one. I have not resolved for myself how we get from the Tao to the 10,000 things. What I always told myself was that it was people naming things that did it, without putting any more thought into it than that. I still think that makes sense, but I'm pretty sure it's not what Lao Tzu had in mind. That's as close as I have come to recognizing a relationship between the Tao and the world. I think the idea of "te," which comes up later in the TTC, has something to do with it.

I recognise that it’s a metaphor, but that’s not really an excuse - what we refer to as ‘metaphor’ in an English translation of ancient Chinese is a recognition of the qualitative uncertainty and subjectivity in relational structure, which the English language (and even modern Chinese) attempts to conceal by consolidating concepts - this is why our language doesn’t work that well when it comes to the Tao. — Possibility

I don't understand what you're trying to say. No language works that well when it comes to the Tao.

I don't think you do recognize that at all, as you did it in the preceding sentence! — Bartricks

I agree, my argument about your resentment was invalid, which, as you note, I acknowledged. That doesn't mean what I said was wrong.

But just to be clear: you started it when you said that the thought of me having kids made you shudder. That's a personal slight, not a rational consideration. — Bartricks

I agree that it is a personal slight and unbecoming someone as mature and rational as I am. But my comment about you having children was not part of my argument. That's the difference. Also, I was talking about my feelings, not about you.

As you will note, I didn't make any case against your argument at all because that, according to the OP, is not the subject of this thread. Note, from the OP -

What possible reason could there be for creating another person? — Andrew4Handel

What I did was to answer Andrew4Handel's question. My answer - It is human nature to want to have children. Then I made some comments about what I think the reasons for and value of that is. People have children, I had my children, because we want them. Nuff said.

As I've noted, you haven't made any response to that comment at all.

These, to me, are all interpretations that derive from taking the English translations at face value. — Possibility

That's not an unfair assessment, although I'd go a bit further. It's not just one translation, I've looked at 12 or 15 and I look at four or five regularly.

It probably seems such a small quibble to imagine faithfulness as a relational quality, rather than as a concept such as sincerity. — Possibility

The Tao that can be related to is not the eternal Tao. Sorry, but actually, it's true. The Tao does not relate to anything. That's the point. I'm sure "sincerity" is not the absolute best word, but it fits with my understanding of the TTC. I don't see how faithfulness fits at all.

it can certainly be perceived as a ladder, but it’s a bit like drawing a circle and saying that’s the moon: it loses something in the telling. — Possibility

It's a metaphor. I don't claim it has a universal truth. I have a friend I've discussed this with. He would say that attributing any sense of one thing being better than another in the TTC is wrong. I get his point, but, when it comes to the Tao, language doesn't work that well.

I realise you think my approach attempts to undermine the foundation you’re trying to work from. I think I can imagine how that might feel from your perspective, and I don’t think it would be a comfortable experience. — Possibility

This is pretty condescending.

I appreciate the efforts you have made to include my perspective in your approach. I hope you don’t mind if I continue to chime in, even though I get the sense that my dissension may be more tolerated now than taken into account. I am enjoying the opportunity to explore the TTC and see how others interpret it. — Possibility

I hope I've never given the impression that I don't appreciate you being here. You've really helped me understand what I believe better than I did before.

I would argue that antinatalists like Andrew4Handel @Bartricks and myself are to a large extent caring about other people, by wanting to prevent their suffering and de facto forced sutuations. If life is not a paradise, should we be creating more beings who not only suffer, but are often self-aware of their own suffering? Even if you don't agree, there is a goal of preventing negatives, and violating dignity of the potential person, so that is "other" centered, it's just that its counterintuitive because the compassion for that potential person manifests in the advocacy for their prevention of being born. — schopenhauer1

This is basically the message of every argument you ever make, every post you ever post. I've gone through it with you several times. I'll never convince you. You'll never convince me.

You don't seem to understand what it is to be rational or to be very yourself or recognise it in others. — Bartricks

Oh, yeah?!

You seem to think - question beggingly - that if you have kids you're thereby showing concern for others! Er, seriously? It's those of us who have decided not to have kids for moral reasons who are showing concern for others. I think you're suffering from what Satre would call 'bad faith'. I doubt very much moral reasons played any role whatsoever in your decision to breed, — Bartricks

One characteristic of rational people is that they respond to the argument that's actually made rather than one they imagine. You should go back and read what I wrote in my previous post more carefully. I didn't say anything about morality.

My experience politely listening to parents drone on about their banal decision to breed is that most of them decided to do so for either no real reason at all - they just sleepwalked into it - or for the kind of utterly unhealthy self-indulgent reasons some of which have already been surveyed above. Concern for others wasn't in the mix. Yet they don't hesitate to give themselves a big slap on the back for doing something that was unbelievably easy, namely the act of breeding itself (sex isn't hard, is it?) or else they want praise for doing something they jolly well ought to have done, such as dedicating time and effort to looking after the poor victims of their immoral and self-indulgent decisions (you forced them into being here, 'of course' you now owe it to them to do all in your power to ensure their existence here is a nice one - you owe them a living for christ's sake!!). — Bartricks

I think this is at the heart of it. I can see your opposition to having children includes rational reasons, but, based on the quoted text, it also includes a lot of resentment. I recognize that questioning a persons motives is not a valid argument, but you're the one who started it. I'll lay off if you will. Argue the argument, not my personality, morality, or shoe size. It's what rational people do.

I don't expect to be taken seriously by those who have already procreated. For they have a huge vested interest in telling themselves they haven't committed a serious wrong, — Bartricks

Let me translate. I have a vested interest in being right, so that proves I'm wrong. Argue the argument. It's the rational thing to do.

highly rational people — Bartricks

First - I wouldn't characterize most of the people who have posted on this thread as particularly rational. At least their arguments aren't. You all seem to think since you don't want children, it's somehow irrational that most people do.

Second - A decent society doesn't have to be especially rational in the sense you mean it. What holds neighborhoods, communities, nations, and societies together is a sense of common purpose and values. Where that really comes into focus is when we are dealing with our children. Children hold communities together. Communities are made for children. As members of neighborhoods, communities, nations, and societies, our children are or purpose.

Now, you don't feel that way and you'd like to change things. Please don't expect to be taken seriously by those of us who try to understand and care about people other than ourselves.

Yes, I too think it important to recognise the repeated themes throughout the TTC.
This serves as a teaching or learning aid - to ram the message home, if you like. — Amity

Some of the commentaries use the repetitive structure as evidence that the text comes from an oral tradition, which is consistent with what you've said. I've also read that, in the original, the verses are rhymed.

I refer to this as a ‘cascade’ because I think the multi-dimensional aspect to the structure is an important one: loyalty is one aspect of etiquette/wisdom, politeness is one aspect of righteousness, and benevolent justice one aspect of the Tao. Not just the top step but each step is therefore a step out in all directions, rather than up, broadening our capacity to interact with the world, increasing awareness, connection and collaboration. The ‘descent’ is characterised by ignorance, isolation and exclusion - a closing ourselves off from our capacity to interact with the world, and a satisfaction with a lesser aspect. If we can’t be righteous, at least we can be knowledgeable; if we can’t be polite, at least we can be sincere... — Possibility

When I saw "cascade" as a word for what I call a "ladder' I had no objections. Now that you've explained what you mean by that, I disagree. I think what Lao Tzu describes is very much a ladder. This from Chen, Verse 17

The best government, the people know it is just there.
The next best, they love and praise it.
The next, they fear it.
The next, they revile against it.

I don't see that there's any way to interpret this as a cascade as you define it rather than a ladder as I do. Things get worse as you go down. Perhaps it's less clear in the Lin translation of Verse 18:

Therefore, the Tao is lost, and then virtue
Virtue is lost, and then benevolence
Benevolence is lost, and then righteousness
Righteousness is lost, and then etiquette
Those who have etiquette
Are a thin shell of loyalty and sincerity
And the beginning of chaos

To me, it's the exact same ladder - away from the Tao. I don't think the Tao incorporates virtue, benevolence, righteousness, and etiquette. I agree that the behavior of someone who follows the Tao might be described as virtuous, benevolent, righteous, and polite, but that's just what it looks like. What's important is where it comes from. The behavior of a Sage is we wei, sincere. It grows naturally from within. None of the others do.

And then suddenly we’re insisting on sincerity and loyalty instead of encouraging wisdom, or enforcing ‘political correctness’ instead of striving for benevolence. — Possibility

Well, it's not us, it's Lao Tzu. And he's not insisting, he's showing us the way. With wu wei, there is no enforcing or striving. That's the whole point. Sincere is one of the words used to describe wu wei. Sincere doesn't mean nice and sweet and earnest. It means growing organically from inside us. Sincere behavior is our true natures acting in the world.

In other words, we don’t reach wisdom or etiquette by insisting on brute honesty in all relations. It’s about a qualitative awareness of sincerity. If we cannot differentiate levels of sincerity or loyalty in a qualitative sense, then any ‘knowledge’ we have is just data: it lacks formal structure, the relational qualities of wisdom. — Possibility

To me, this reduces the most radical possible understanding of human nature and motivation to platitudes. Action with sincerity in this context represents a direct connection to the Tao.

I liked these two verses compared. It is so interesting what you are sharing in your debate. I am reading it from the shadows — javi2541997

Lao Tzu repeats himself a lot, but each iteration is a bit different. I really like looking at that too.