Thanks for keep sharing this information with me. So much appreciated. I going to give a look — javi2541997

I hope it is helpful. I've only just found it so haven't listened to it all, yet...
It would be good to hear your thoughts :smile:

I just saw it and these are my thoughts:

First of all, I think I discovered a new way of interpretation. He literally understands TTC as a cascade. from the first verse to the last one. I guess this would help me to interpret all the verses. I will keep it in mind more closely.
In the other hand, I have to improve my vocabulary. As I thought I was not making the proper translation. So, the next time I guess it will be important just seeing this dude again or search through internet the exact verse instead of translating it by myself...
About the verse:

It is interesting how he used the following pattern: emptiness<->function. As he perfectly explained, this is the basic figure of the verse. Container because only when it is empty is functional. A wheel because needs to be fitted. Then, a room, because when is empty is more accessible than a full one.
So, despite the fact emptiness could be a negative word, his interpretation is that we need both. He literally said the following:

Substance (having) is positive. Emptiness (not having) is negative. But you need both as a equilibrium/balance.

Also, probably is off topic but he remembered that a wheel is related as birth/rebirth inside Buddhism.

He literally understands TTC as a cascade. from the first verse to the last one. — javi2541997

I didn't realise that at all ! Will have to listen...
I thought that, given there are two parts, it would have a break in flow...
A bit of a shame, then, that we have churned up the waters a bit, not following all the verses in sequence. Then again...such is life :wink:

I will keep it in mind more closely. — javi2541997

As will I.
@Possibility already talked about the 'cascading' aspect within a verse.

Substance (having) is positive. Emptiness (not having) is negative. But you need both as a equilibrium/balance.

Also, probably is off topic but he remembered that a wheel is related as birth/rebirth inside Buddhism. — javi2541997

Yes, again we hear about balance.
I didn't even think of the wheel as in the birth/rebirth cycle...
The circle of life. Nature. Not off topic.

Thanks so much for quick listening and responding. Your English is excellent if you can understand that so well :100: :smile:

Thanks so much for quick listening and responding. Your English is excellent if you can understand that so well — Amity

Thank you for the feedback. This motivates me to keep going sharing thoughts about TTC in English with you. :100: :up:

Thank you for the feedback. This motivates me to keep going sharing thoughts about TTC in English with you. :100: :up: — javi2541997

Your timely and good quality feedback thrills my neurotransmitters to bits :starstruck:
Seriously, in this type of discussion where we are all at different levels of understanding, feedback is so important. If done carefully, it works to keep me informed and motivated too. Gracias :up:

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.

Follow up to:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/518920

Have just finished watching most of Derek Lin's YouTube lecture on Ch17:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQSWFy4nVE0

It lasts about 1hr18mins.
There is an excellent paraphrase of the paraphrase at c. 1hr 11 mins.
Breaking down the lines and, by example, encouraging us to put it into our own words.

Leading without leading.
With vision and humility to foster harmony for all, the very opposite of ego-driven selfishness.

His written translation, explanation and notes from:
https://terebess.hu/english/tao/DerekLin.html#Kap17

The highest rulers, people do not know they have them
The next level, people love them and praise them
The next level, people fear them
The next level, people despise them

The rulers' trust is insufficient, have no trust in them

Proceeding calmly, valuing their words
Task accomplished, matter settled
The people all say, "We did it naturally"

I inserted spaces where he breaks it down in to 3 segments. The first part is the four levels, descending and degenerating. The final 3 lines considers the careful, calm Dao way to accomplish a mission with seamless action. This compares to the careless, stressful way of a leader who only thinks of himself who trusts nobody and nobody trusts him.

In the video, he talks of how the last line takes us back full circle to the first.
Indeed, if memory serves, I think he says that this is a feature of all the verses.

From his Notes:

Do not think of ruling in the literal way that only applies to governance of a nation. Look at your own life and note all the settings and circumstances where leadership plays a role. Most of us will, at some point, start our own families, and we may be called upon to assume the responsibility of leadership in social settings, community activities, or the workplace.
The Tao of leadership remains constant in any context. Whether you find yourself having to deal with your children, neighbors or coworkers, you'll find the distinctions in this chapter a useful guide.

His written translation, explanation and notes from:
https://terebess.hu/english/tao/DerekLin.html#Kap17 — Amity

Thanks to this page and the translation of sir Derek Lin I going to compare my thoughts about TTC with his comments. Also they are already in English so it will be so helpful to improve the perfect vocabulary when is required.
What I want to do from now is read a verse of TTC, interprete it in my mind and then compare it with Derek Lin's interpretation. I think it could be a good idea because sometimes I feel so lost from the real nature about TTC.

One of the beautiful things is how we are sharing different links and information. You are providing to me more information than my university back in the day :rofl:

What I want to do from now is read a verse of TTC, interprete it in my mind and then compare it with Derek Lin's interpretation. I think it could be a good idea because sometimes I feel so lost from the real nature about TTC. — javi2541997

I think that is the best way to go about this.
First, read and think for yourself before looking to others. How wise are you ?!
I don't always do that. I tend to overload then need a rest before I can appreciate...
I doubt I will ever change this behaviour pattern...even after reading the TTC :cry:

One of the beautiful things is how we are sharing different links and information. You are providing to me more information than my university back in the day — javi2541997

I am beginning to think that we are practising the Dao, don't you ? :scream:
The internet connects us all in good ways, if we know where to look and evaluate the content before deciding to share.
Universities are wonderful places but need to work within their own limits, restrictions.
The best lecturers inspire and encourage further reading. Not always possible or desirable within a course or module. If you want to get high marks...you gotta stick with the programme.

He literally understands TTC as a cascade. from the first verse to the last one. — javi2541997

Sorry, I didn't catch that. Where did you find this ?

I am beginning to think that we are practising the Dao, don't you ? :scream:
The internet connects us all in good ways, if we know where to look and evaluate the content before deciding to share. — Amity

Yes! We are doing so. It is important this practice because we can ensure the quality of our documents. The, most of the cases we will know we are in the right path at all.

Sorry, I didn't catch that. Where did you find this ? — Amity

I found this interesting interpretation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOAU7IlVF-I&t=46s
For example, check out this verse:

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Thus, constantly free of desire
One observes its wonders
Constantly filled with desire
One observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders

He reads it as a cascade in terms that what is the meaning of the first phrase and then what is the meaning of the last one. He not only does so in as a general aspect but an individual one. How the verse tumbling down as a cascade from the first phrase to the last one.

OK, I don't see that in the YouTube description of Ch11 as linked.

I am not sure that from the beginning of the book, the TCC itself right through to the very end is a 'cascade' as in a tumbling down or a descent...
Perhaps it is. I will have to wait and see.

I did take note that in Ch17 that the last line returns full circle to the first.

See here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/519005

Again, not sure that this happens in all Chapters.
Interesting to keep in mind...as we go...

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've also read that, in the original, the verses are rhymed. — T Clark

Now that I would love to hear :cool:
Perhaps if we enter the Chinese characters into Google Translate and click on audio ?! :nerd:

OK, I don't see that in the YouTube description of Ch11 as linked.

I am not sure that from the beginning of the book, the TCC itself right through to the very end is a 'cascade' as in a tumbling down or a descent...
Perhaps it is. I will have to wait and see. — Amity

The "cascade" method was just my personal interpretation of how the thinker of the video interpreted TTC. When you see how he reads and analyzes it, somehow looks like a cascade in my humble opinion but this fact is never being told in the video itself.
Sorry if I confused you because I guess I did not explain myself accurately :sweat:

:cool:
now time for :yawn:

With little but observable manner to base any understanding on - this manner appearing passive, murky, and unidentifiable - people were more inclined to trust their own accomplishments, and with this success as evidence, they relied on their own limited certainty. — Possibility

That observation is an interesting dynamic involved with what might have changed a "working" arrangement to a less functional one. On the other hand, the awareness of what was lost in the "original" structure is presented as an ad hoc solution to what has been lost. There are attempts to correct the attempts at correction. However that might be framed, it is not simply invoking the return of a commonly received value.

These, to me, are all interpretations that derive from taking the English translations at face value. The Chinese characters refer to the relational quality of ideas, not the meaning of concepts. In my mind, they are like fuzzy, photon-like balls of light with flowing extensions reaching for surrounding ideas. The form they take is dependent on their relation to these surrounding ideas, and on how I arrange them in my mind.

So zhong has the relational quality of loyalty, faithfulness and devotion. The assumption that this quality relates to our ‘true nature’ (essence of the ‘self’?) has no evidence in the original text at all, but can easily be inferred from our own cultural understanding of English word concepts such as ‘sincerity’, ‘loyalty’ and ‘honesty’.

It probably seems such a small quibble to imagine faithfulness as a relational quality, rather than as a concept such as sincerity. But for me, this corresponds to the qualitative structural difference between righteousness and wisdom. For you, it’s a linear hierarchy, but for me, it’s another dimensional aspect of awareness. That’s not to say that I disagree with you - 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.

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. It does seem a shame to me to devote so much effort and attention towards understanding a text of this quality, that you’re not really accessing first-hand. And it is frustrating for me to watch you defend your own interpretation by using someone else’s interpretation as evidence. But this is what we’re working with.

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.

That observation is an interesting dynamic involved with what might have changed a "working" arrangement to a less functional one. On the other hand, the awareness of what was lost in the "original" structure is presented as an ad hoc solution to what has been lost. There are attempts to correct the attempts at correction. However that might be framed, it is not simply invoking the return of a commonly received value. — Valentinus

Agreed. The idea is to recognise that the ‘original’ structure is the ultimate reference point - in the same way that righteousness is not the Tao and wisdom is not righteousness, so too, the example observed in the old masters is but one aspect of the Way, and the teaching of the old masters is but one aspect of their example. The relational structure here can be simplified to a linear hierarchy, sure - but I think it is more accurately dimensional, and that rendering it as a linear structure misses something of the quality and functionality of the Tao.

Verse LXXXI (last one)


True words are not beautiful
Beautiful words are not true
Those who are good do not debate
Those who debate are not good.
Those who know are not broad of knowledge
Those who are broad of knowledge do not know
Sages do not accumulate
The more they assist others, the more they possess
The more they give to others, the more they gain
The Tao of heaven
Benefits and does not harm
The Tao of sages
Assists and does not contend

My own thoughts: modesty and kindness are the key words in this verse. If we put emphasis in how they want put a balance in the first phrases, we can clearly see how he promotes the development for all those who are not showing off their skills to others, because we should share our knowledge to others not because how wise we are but with our sense of humility. For this reason, the Tao says: Those who are good do not debate Those who debate are not good. Those who know are not broad of knowledge Those who are broad of knowledge do not know
Kindness because Tao goes for the principle of respecting every individual not making him feeling less than the Tao himself. This is why says: The Tao of heaven. Benefits and does not harm. The Tao of sages. Assists and does not contend

Derek Lin's interpretation says about this verse:
Sages have no need to accumulate worldly knowledge or goods, because they find contentment and abundance in helping and giving. The more they render assistance, the more fulfillment they possess; the more they give to people, the more blessings and wisdom they acquire.
Sages recognize that the positive, uplifting Tao of heaven benefits all living things and does not harm them. In emulating this, sages also seek to benefit others by helping them, and refrain from harming them with contention.

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.

The relational structure here can be simplified to a linear hierarchy, sure - but I think it is more accurately dimensional, and that rendering it as a linear structure misses something of the quality and functionality of the Tao. — Possibility

In so far as Verse 17 concerns what a society does, it seems like it has to assume that different people have different roles. The farmer farms, the tradespeople provide goods, healers heal, warriors fight, and managers manage, etcetera. In addition, this society had a strong connection to their ancestors and respect for their elders. In calling for less need for structured intention, the intention of these people in their different roles is still underway. I take the point that "linear" ranking is being criticized as being unnecessary on many levels but it doesn't seem to me that it dissolves all structures.

This is similar to the uncertainty I expressed earlier concerning intentions in Verse 15.

What is experienced by an individual organism is the result of a condition happening to all organisms. It is exquisitely "materialistic" in many ways. — Valentinus


I think that's you looking at it through the prism of modernity. As I said to T Clark, in practice Taoism is allied with nostrums, potions, and all manner of magic spells, it's about as far from materialism as you could imagine. — Wayfarer

I have been thinking about your comment since you made it and wanted to give a better response than I did before.

The way that Taoism became a religion did build upon magic and potions. There are many references to what separates the living and the dead that are not given the attention that earlier readers were concerned with.

The references to nature as being one reality for all was not an empirical basis for observation by itself. That language was borrowed later to make practical models. It was not a starting place like Aristotle was for different sciences.

The conversation about what can be talked about is interesting. From that perspective, the account we have been given is an account of disagreements, similar to Plato's dialogues.

Thanks for the reply. Never mind my instinctive reaction against materialism! That's just one of my things. But I see Taoism, in particular, as deeply 'organic' in the sense of being grounded in a vivid, felt sense of connectedness with nature and also with 'spirit' in the unique sense idiomatic to Taoism.

From that perspective, the account we have been given is an account of disagreements, similar to Plato's dialogues. — Valentinus

I think that's the meaning of 'dialectic' in philosophy - which is quite an elusive idea, really, that something emerges through a dialectic of opposing viewpoints which can't be elucidated in any direct way.

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. — T Clark

I do recognise the merits of this broader methodology - and I have learned a lot about the differences in each translation from your approach, so thank you. 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.

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. — T Clark

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.

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.

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. — T Clark

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. And I agree with your friend. I do think this structure described in the TTC corresponds to a universal truth in our capacity to relate to the Tao. It helps to keep in mind, at least, that hierarchy is a product of affect.

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. — T Clark

It’s not about appreciation. But I should just be satisfied with helping you better understand what you believe, because that’s how I would probably frame my own journey here. That’s it: no more of these self-pitying complaints from me.

In so far as Verse 17 concerns what a society does, it seems like it has to assume that different people have different roles. The farmer farms, the tradespeople provide goods, healers heal, warriors fight, and managers manage, etcetera. In addition, this society had a strong connection to their ancestors and respect for their elders. In calling for less need for structured intention, the intention of these people in their different roles is still underway. I take the point that "linear" ranking is being criticized as being unnecessary on many levels but it doesn't seem to me that it dissolves all structures. — Valentinus

I’m not suggesting it ‘dissolves all structures’ - only that it has no inherent hierarchical aspect: it is our affected relation which brings this in. So, in verse 17, those furthest removed from the example of the old masters will always be connected to them, as to their ancestors and elders, in an existing relational structure. ‘Respect’ refers to how affect alters that relation, relative to the observer. Lacking faith in the relational structure itself, all they see is the affected relation, and what starts as reverence soon disintegrates into fear, and then insult. When we can’t understand the structure by which these old masters are relating to the Tao, we can’t understand how much we have to learn.

This is similar to the uncertainty I expressed earlier concerning intentions in Verse 15. — Valentinus

I can see this, and I agree. It is the uncertainty or non-linear causal relation in the intentions of the old masters (and the structure of our relation to the Tao) that Lao Tzu seems to suggest as a contributing factor for this historical deterioration in respect for the Way. It’s not as simple as ‘do this to achieve that’, and ‘don’t do this or that will happen’. The structure is far more complex.

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. — T Clark

I've been thinking more about this ( go figure !)...
The repetitive rhyming mixed with non-rhyming aspects and how the text in its oral tradition would have had more of a 'musicality' to it. In reading the text as presented, there is something lost - the sound of the stories and, perhaps, the teaching.

Typically, my ears are attuned to Western music and language. I have only recently become aware of the sounds of Chinese words. This by listening to the Derek Lin YouTube sessions. Even when he was describing the difference between thirty ( the spokes of the wheel ) and thirteen - you could hear the different tones. The rise and the fall.

Also, there is mention of this in Tim Chilcott's Introduction - the stylistic patterns.
His is a parallel text translation of the TTC.
He says that this is not difficult to translate - what is impossible to reproduce is the sound of the Chinese rhymes. He tries to keep this element by using 'persuasive rhythms and a sense of cadence often based on iambic metre'.
He continues with the importance of keeping the quality of the natural, unforced voice. This brings home the point that 'the text is as much to be spoken aloud as read silently'. ( pp. x -xi )
http://www.tclt.org.uk/laozi/Daode_Jing_2011.pdf

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.

Timely, thank you. :blush:

Verse LXXXI (last one) — javi2541997

So, you couldn't wait, huh ?

the Tao says: Those who are good do not debate Those who debate are not good. Those who know are not broad of knowledge Those who are broad of knowledge do not know — javi2541997

As a final conclusion, it would seem to highlight something already touched on - with @Valentinus - the view by some that the there is no such thing as philosophical Daoism.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/517338
I think a lot hinges on how 'philosophy' is defined. Some might just see it as a set of arguments going nowhere in particular with opponents finally agreeing to disagree. Others see it as a way of life.

For example, what are your thoughts on the recent debate regarding which metaphor is more useful or helpful - the ladder or the cascade ?
Is that why you picked out the final verse ?

This reflects what I have been saying about Chinese characters contributing quality to the idea, rather than consolidated concepts. It’s not so much about appreciating the individual sounds as the way the sounds interrelate to form patterns, and the way patterns interrelate to form music. It’s about the way a character or sound changes in how we relate to it, according to what comes before or after it, even though its individual quality is always the same.