• Gnomon
    3.9k
    I too find the Tao Te Ching compatible with my philosophical understanding of how the world works and I recognize it is not empirical science. Unless by "philosophical poetry" you mean "metaphysics" I disagree with that.T Clark
    Hmmm. Disagree with what? Apparently Lao Tse's Tao is very important to you. But not as "empirical science" or "philosophical poetry". Not even "Metaphysics". So, how would you characterize the importance and application of this ancient work of art? If you disagree with my descriptions, how would you concisely construe its relationship to Science, Philosophy, Metaphysics, Art, Poetry?

    Here's a few books I have read that compare & contrast ancient & non-western worldviews with modern science --- specifically quantum physics. One book review labeled The Tao of Physics as "quantum woo". But the author seemed to think of it as Timeless Philosophy. Yet his subtitle labeled The Tao as "mysticism". :smile:


    The Tao of Physics
    An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism
    Fritjof Capra ; 1975 ; physicist and systems theorist
    Re : 4th century BC worldview and guidebook
    Quote : "Quantum theory thus reveals a basic oneness of the universe. Subatomic particles do not exist but rather show 'tendencies to exist"

    Fire in the Mind
    Science, Faith, and the Search for Order
    George Johnson ; 1995 ; science writer
    Re : Native American wisdom traditions compared to quantum physics and information theory.
    Quote : "But science can also be seen as a construction . . . . one of many alternative ways of carving up the world."

    Blackfoot Physics
    A Journey into the Native American Universe
    F. David Peat ; 2002 ; theoretical physicist
    Re : Native American wisdom traditions compared to quantum physics and information theory.
    Quote : Geographer held a rock (with glyphs) in one hand, and a computer disc (with pictograms) in the other. "yet both contained the same information."


    A.I. description of an ancient Chinese work of art :
    The Tao Te Ching is a collection of 81 short sections that are written in a poetic style.
    The text uses short, declarative statements and intentional contradictions to create memorable phrases and encourage different interpretations.
    The Tao Te Ching is a guide to living that covers a wide range of topics, including politics, society, and personal wisdom.
    ___Google AI overview

    "the central Taoist text, ascribed to Lao-tzu, the traditional founder of Taoism. Apparently written as a guide for rulers, it defined the Tao, or way, and established the philosophical basis of Taoism."
    ___Oxford dictionary
  • T Clark
    14.2k
    I liked that (unsarcastically) but.. among other things which I've yet to consider, or process, my admittedly shallow review of the Lorenz you present, suggests to me, [ to which I will attach the corresponding association with the question of, which is Tao and which is the 10K things]:ENOAH

    I don't know if Lorenz's ideas have anything to say about the Tao. I put them in as a response to the following exchange.

    Yah, everything conditioning those of us born into human history is not the Tao.
    — ENOAH

    I agree as long as you include our biological evolution in your definition of human history.
    T Clark

    ↪T Clark I most assuredly don't. But am intrigued by your so noting. Please explain if you are so inclined. I won't be back to read it for several hours, feel free to take your time.ENOAH

    I was trying to make the point that human nature, which is how I interpreted "everything conditioning those of us born into human history" didn't just somehow start to exist. It is the product of a process that has gone for billions of years. I've included human evolution as one of the 10,000 things.

    1. There is a reality [Tao],
    2. Contrary to the (mis)assumptions of phenomenologists, et. al., a thing can and does sense that reality as real sensory beings with real senses [Tao]
    3. There must be something (presumably unique to humans) which has 'obstructed' or 'distorted' or 'displaced' (loosely/broadly) our real sensation of the real world to bring us outside of alignment with Tao, and into the so-called world of the myriad or 10k things [which I am suggesting we 'attribute to' human history].

    So far---super generally---we are on the same page, right?
    ENOAH

    Item 1 - I have always thought of the Tao as an analog to objective reality. They're not the same, but they fill the same metaphysical spot.
    Item 2 - I've thought a lot about whether or not we, humans, can sense the Tao directly. I don't think so, but I'm not sure.
    Item 3 - I'm not sure how much of what we're talking about only applies to humans. I'm also not sure if it's correct to say we're out of alignment with the Tao. This is a good question.

    And/But Lorenz suggests that obstruction/distortion/displacement took place within the biological evolution of the human. I.E., The human cannot sense reality/tao for what it is, because its brain evolved in such a way that it obstructs it. Very interesting, if I do not misunderstand....but then, if Lorenz is scientifically correct, then why even Taoism?ENOAH

    As I said previously, Lorenz wasn't saying anything about Taoism. I don't think he sees human nature as an obstruction to anything. I don't either. It's just who we are. Maybe it makes more sense to call it a limitation. I also don't think anything in what he says anything about the validity of Taoism. One is science, the other is metaphysics. Perhaps me bringing Lorenz into the discussion has been more of a distraction than a help.

    (Although efforts are exerted to find the contrary) Taoism concerns itself neither with cosmology nor with questions about the structure of reality which most of our sciences purport to address. It assumes the reality of the natural universe and allows for its mystery to remain unknowable by referencing it as the way (of things/things are) or the endless changes of things.

    It is not even a moral code pointing to universal Truths, nor an insight into True Reason or the Logic of Nature/Reality, because it denies their accessiblity, and, I dare say, relevance.
    ENOAH

    I don't know how to answer this. I don't think Lao Tzu et. al. thought of the cosmology presented in the Tao Te Ching as an literal, physical, historical chain of events, but I'm not sure about that. As I see it, Taoism is about looking inward to ourselves, self-awareness, rather than outward to physical reality.

    Rather, Taoism is a shoving, or a poking:
    1. wake up, it says, there is a reality, [Tao]
    ENOAH

    Yes. I've always thought of it as Lao Tzu saying. "Hey, look over here. Pay attention."

    I'm going to take a break now. I will definitely respond to the rest of your post. Please don't respond to this one till I've had a chance to do that.

    You've asked a bunch of great questions. You're really making me work.
  • T Clark
    14.2k
    2. it is your nature to be that reality (and, I reiterate, not to know it) [Tao]
    3. but it's all of your make-believe, constructed and projected in an ironic and pathetic, frantic effort to know/dominate/master that reality [Tao] which has pushed you away from that reality; make-believe which, because they are functional, you have layered or superimposed upon your natural sensations, including your feelings, instincts and drives. But these are also what has caused your going astray/disorientated from the way of that reality, leading to all of your errors and sufferings.
    ENOAH

    This isn't how I see it. The 10,000 things are not something bad or damaged. You've made me think about the actual connection between the Tao and the way of life described in the Tao Te Ching. Why, if the Tao is as you say, should I act the way you say? What is that connection? I've never felt there is any inconsistency there, but I can't, or a least haven't, put it into words. I need to think about this.

    1. it is challenging as hell to sense with our senses, and live in accordance with truth/reality/the Tao, especiallygiven how our make-believes have generated so much desire as a by-product, luring us in and owning us; but it is in our natures to be our natures, free from the fetters of our make-believes.ENOAH

    Again, I think "our make-believes" are part of our nature as much as the Tao. I guess in a sense, our make-believes are our nature. I'm not sure that's right. The 10,000 things are not inferior or damaged, they're just part of the cycle.

    We can and should continue to function in human history as historical beings---taoism is not a call to live like advance apes, naked hunters and gatherers, or some sort of return to nature in that sense. One can be an investment banker, or the American President, following Tao(ism). Taoism is just a shove: wake up and realize that history (I.e. everything we conventionally accept as so called reality) is a myriad of human constructions and projections, not the Tao, but rather, things made up and believed. Go ahead and play all you like, but for Tao's sake, realize you are playing.ENOAH

    I like this a lot. As I said, it's all about self-awareness.

    we are biologically doomed to be obstructed from the Tao (which would be saying the 10k things, all of what each one of us would agree are conventional things, are actually also built into our natures and therefore the Tao, thus there is nothing which is not the Tao and ↪punos was right to ask/suggest that all along), then taoism's wake-up call is a farce.ENOAH

    I'm not sure I follow. We're not doomed, we're limited. That's our nature.

    I say this, noting that Taoism as an ism is ultimately a farce, as is Einstein, and all human constructions, but its wake-up call, only its shove, is not a farce. Like, Socrates is a farce, all but his wake-up call which isnt a farce.ENOAH

    "Farce" isn't the right word. I guess Buddhists would say "illusion," but I don't think Lao Tzu would see it that way. Again, the 10,000 things is not something inferior. It's the recognition of the difference that matters.

    There. Now all done. As I said, you're really made me work and reexamine. Thank you for that.
  • T Clark
    14.2k
    Disagree with what? Apparently Lao Tse's Tao is very important to you. But not as "empirical science" or "philosophical poetry". Not even "Metaphysics".Gnomon

    I guess I was unclear. As I see it, the Tao Te Ching is metaphysics. I wasn't sure whether your "philosophical poetry" is another way of saying metaphysics. If it isn't, then I disagree with what you wrote.

    Here's a few books I have read that compare & contrast ancient & non-western worldviews with modern science --- specifically quantum physics.Gnomon

    I read "The Tao of Physics" about 40 years ago and hated it. It was an early recognition on my part of people's inability to separate metaphysics from science. Over time, that recognition expanded to include an interest in philosophy and Taoism in particular.

    I also read "Fire in the Mind." I remember liking it, but I don't remember much about it.
  • T Clark
    14.2k
    I found that our discussion has piqued my interest in the apparent divide between physics and metaphysics, and i will be looking deeper into it in my studies. I might address this issue again in the future if i find any worthwhile insights to share. Thank you very much for your time and patience, T. Clark.punos

    I think the text that helped me put my thoughts about metaphysics in some sort of order was "An Essay on Metaphysics," by R.G. Collingwood. Here's a link with a download.

    https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.187414/mode/2up

    I'm right in the middle of another book recommended by @Wayfarer - "The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science" by E.A . Burtt. I am really enjoying it. Burtt gives much more concrete examples of the metaphysical basis of the early science guys, e.g. Copernicus, Kepler, Newton.
  • Wayfarer
    23.5k
    Very good book, was on college curricula for many a year.
  • Arcane Sandwich
    2.2k
    What am I? What is one? Is one a person?

    Is one just a person? I am not just a person. Every person is an animal. Therefore, I am an animal. One is an animal.

    Is one just an animal? I am not just an animal. Every animal is a collection of chemical elements, most notably carbon. One is a collection of chemical elements.

    One is, more generally, a classical physical body, occupying a spatiotemporal location, subject to physical forces, such as the force of gravity. One is a physical entity. As such, one is a physical subject, not merely a person.
  • Arcane Sandwich
    2.2k
    Is there nature on Mars?
    That angry red planet, which the ancient Romans believed was the God of War.

    Is there nature in a stone?
    That lifeless inorganic object made of minerals.

    Is there nature in a number?
    That abstraction of the human mind that has no more existence than mythological creatures.

    Is there nature in table?
    That piece of wood that a carpenter shaped until it looked like a table.

    Is there nature in philosophy?
    That love of wisdom that one learns in preparation for one's own inevitable death.

    Is there nature in poetry?
    Emily Dickinson understood poetry better than me.

    Is there nature in a song?

    Do whales sing?
    Do whales speak to each other?
    What do they say to each other?

    Are they sad because they know that they will eventually die?
    Is that why they beach themselves when they are sick?

    Why do living creatures have to die?
  • Gnomon
    3.9k
    guess I was unclear. As I see it, the Tao Te Ching is metaphysics. I wasn't sure whether your "philosophical poetry" is another way of saying metaphysics. If it isn't, then I disagree with what you wrote.T Clark
    So we do agree. For me, Philosophy is Meta-Physics (study of Mind) as opposed to Physics (study of Matter)*1. The Tao Te Ching is a philosophical poem, but more holistic than analytical Greek philosophy*2. Of course, as a modern American, my philosophy is basically Greek/Logic, with a cherry topping of Taoism/Holism. But my current path tends more toward Holism & Harmony. :smile:


    *1. 4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
    https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html


    *2. When comparing Taoism to ancient Greek philosophy, the most significant difference lies in their fundamental approach to the universe, with Taoism emphasizing harmony with nature and a more holistic view, while Greek philosophy often focused on logic, reason, and a more anthropomorphic understanding of the world, including a pantheon of gods actively involved in human affairs; essentially, Taoism sees the universe as a flowing, interconnected system, while Greek thought tends towards a more structured, individualistic view.
    ___ Google A.I. overview
  • T Clark
    14.2k
    For me, Philosophy is Meta-Physics (study of Mind) as opposed to Physics (study of Matter)*...

    ...Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action).
    Gnomon

    Your understanding of the meaning of "metaphysics" is completely different from mine. It's pointless for us to have a discussion about it.

    Google A.I. overviewGnomon

    We're not supposed to use AI generated content.
  • Arcane Sandwich
    2.2k
    We're not supposed to use AI generated content.T Clark

    I just want to state for the record that I have no problem with AI generated content in this specific Thread, but I do have several reservations about it, outside of this Thread. I think that the use of AI generated content is indeed displacing jobs in several creative fields, especially the visual arts, particularly illustration, concept art, video game asset design, etc. This was a huge deal in the world of professional writers not too long ago, and it still is.

    The consensus among specialists on the topic of AI & Art, for the moment, seems to be that AI generated poetry is no match for human poetry in terms of its conceptual complexity. There is no AI equivalent to Emily Dickinson. There just isn't. There's no AI equivalent to Hesiod's Theogony, or to Parmenides' poem On Being. There just aren't. Machines have not reached that level of abstraction yet, as counter-intuitive as that sounds.

    (slightly edited grammar)

    EDIT: And, to my knowledge, no AI has produced, or is even capable of producing, a text like the Tao Te Ching. Conceptually, it is far too complex for even the best AIs out there to replicate.
  • T Clark
    14.2k
    I just want to state for the record that I have no problem with AI generated content in this specific Thread,Arcane Sandwich

    @Gnomen and I disagree on a lot, but one thing I really like about his posts is that he references and documents specific sources to support his arguments. The use of AI generated text undermines the credibility of sources and usually provides low quality and even incorrect information. Besides that, there are forum rules against it.
  • Arcane Sandwich
    2.2k
    The use of AI generated text undermines the credibility of sources and usually provides low quality and even incorrect information. Besides that, there are forum rules against it.T Clark

    There's an even larger problem here, to my mind at least. Not too long ago, there was a meme about a person that asked an AI something like "What's the best recipe for Glue Pizza? Tell me the answer with an actual step-by-step recipe". And there was a numbered step that said something like "Add glue to the pizza". Apparently it didn't understand the concept that human beings do not eat glue, therefore a cooking recipe should not include glue. Why not? Well, because no one has solved Hume's is-ought problem. So, as best as the machine could "take a guess", maybe it's ok to make a recipe for a Glue Pizza. Why not? Didn't the human tell me to do exactly that? Suppose that it would be in her best interest (assuming charitableness of intentions), then the answer is yes. So, here's your recipe for a Glue Pizza."

    It's a genuine problem. Large-Language Models (LLMs) don't experience "Qualia", to use a philosophically loaded word from Philosophy of Mind. In other words: they don't have good common sense.

    (edited grammar)
  • Gnomon
    3.9k
    Your understanding of the meaning of "metaphysics" is completely different from mine. It's pointless for us to have a discussion about it.T Clark
    Maybe we can shift our view of The Point (the context). I spell it with a hyphen --- meta-physics --- to indicate that I use the term to mean "non-physical" or "mental vs physical". The distinction is essential to my personal worldview of Enformationism. I don't have any formal training in philosophy, so I tend to be very free & informal in my use of the language. I think our alternative definitions are actually compatible, according to my BothAnd philosophy {see below}, which accepts that words may have more than one meaning, depending on the context. :smile:

    .
    I'm right in the middle of another book recommended by Wayfarer - "The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science" by E.A . Burtt. I am really enjoying it. Burtt gives much more concrete examples of the metaphysical basis of the early science guys, e.g. Copernicus, Kepler, Newton.T Clark
    Regarding the Tao of Physics books listed in my post above, I view them as dealing with the challenge to scientific metaphysics since the advent of Quantum Physics. Since quantum uncertainty undermined the macro determinism of Newtonian physics, some of the pioneers interpreted the "new reality" in oriental terms (e.g Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism), and were accused of spreading religious woo. Yet, it's simply a case of clashing worldviews, to which some scientists reacted like the Catholic priests, who tried to force Native Americans to change from their traditional fluid natural religions to a western formal doctrine.

    The contrasting worldviews depicted in The Tao of Physics and Fire in the Mind reminded me of the ancient Aesop's Fable about the rule-bound City Mouse and the laid-back Country Mouse, who lived closer to Nature. For example, by the time of Lao Tse and Confucius, China had been civilized & citified & imperialized for centuries. So the sages preached a more traditional set of peasant values & virtues to the kings, but were ignored. Ironically, the Chinese peasants & cityfolk created a formal traditional religion from Lao Tse's self-help advice, and elevated him to a fatherly deity*1.

    In Blackfoot Physics, the author described the difference between the New Physics and Newtonian Physics by comparing them to the worldviews of Native Americans and European Catholics. He says, "Where Western science has always sought fixed laws and ultimate levels, Indigenous science deals in flux, change, and transformation". He doesn't mention Taoism specifically, but he does use Buddhism to compare & contrast the Western & Eastern notion of Causation.

    "But not all the world's philosophies view causality in the same way. . . . The Buddhist notion of causation transcends the more limited scientific notions involving the outcome of a purely mechanical application of force. . . . Wolfgang Pauli introduced the notion of . . . . an acausal connecting principle." Yet, in my own worldview, I am able to reconcile those apparent differences --- city/country, science/religion, artificial/natural --- in reality by following the Tao of the BothAnd principle*2, which is essentially Yin/Yang Holism. ☯︎

    We're not supposed to use AI generated content.T Clark
    Google A.I. overview is a recent enhancement of their search engine, which summarizes ideas from various sources. The overview is merely an abstract of published human expert opinions, not technically A.I generated, but more like an abbreviated Wikipedia entry. I find it helpful for my non-academic posts on an informal forum. A.I. may be taking us away from Nature, but you can only go back-to-nature by trashing your computer. :cool:


    *1. Confucianism focuses on societal rules and moral values, whereas Taoism advocates simplicity and living happily while in tune with nature.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_teachings

    *2. Both/And Principle :
    My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
    https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
  • Arcane Sandwich
    2.2k
    A.I. may be taking us away from Nature, but you can only go back-to-nature by trashing your computer. :cool:Gnomon

    All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace

    I like to think (and
    the sooner the better!)
    of a cybernetic meadow
    where mammals and computers
    live together in mutually
    programming harmony
    like pure water
    touching clear sky.

    I like to think
    (right now, please!)
    of a cybernetic forest
    filled with pines and electronics
    where deer stroll peacefully
    past computers
    as if they were flowers
    with spinning blossoms.

    I like to think
    (it has to be!)
    of a cybernetic ecology
    where we are free of our labors
    and joined back to nature,
    returned to our mammal
    brothers and sisters,
    and all watched over
    by machines of loving grace.
    Richard Brautigan
  • T Clark
    14.2k
    Maybe we can shift our view of The Point (the context). I spell it with a hyphen --- meta-physics --- to indicate that I use the term to mean "non-physical" or "mental vs physical".Gnomon

    I want to talk about metaphysics and you want to talk about meta-physics, a term which I don't find interesting or useful and which you've made needlessly confusing by naming it what you did. I don't see that we have anything to talk about.

    Regarding the Tao of PhysicsGnomon

    As I noted, it is a book I disliked even before I had the words to explain why I didn't.
  • Arcane Sandwich
    2.2k
    it is a book I disliked even before I had the words to explain why I didn't.T Clark

    Because you knew that the book was saying inaccurate things, if not outright wrong things. You didn't need sophisticated, articulate words to explain why you had that impression: you just had it (the impression, that is).

    There is a saying (you already know it) that one should not judge a book by its cover. But that does not apply here. You were not judging the book's cover. You were judging its content. How can one judge the content of a book without reading it? By reading its title, author, and synopsis, for example. By skimming through the pages. By reading the index, or the table of contents. By looking at the bibliographical references cited. By reading the marketing blurbs. Etc. We don't need to read an entire book just to have a more or less accurate opinion on it.
  • T Clark
    14.2k
    Because you knew that the book was saying inaccurate things, if not outright wrong things. You didn't need sophisticated, articulate words to explain why you had that impression: you just had it (the impression, that is).Arcane Sandwich

    It wasn't even that the book says inaccurate or wrong things. It says wrongheaded things. Things that don't fit in to my intuitive understanding of how the world works.

    How can one judge the content of a book without reading it?Arcane Sandwich

    I did read the whole book, fuming all the while.
  • Arcane Sandwich
    2.2k
    It wasn't even that the book says inaccurate or wrong things. It says wrongheaded things. Things that don't fit in to my intuitive understanding of how the world works.T Clark

    Unfortunately the misrepresentation of quantum physics outside of the university is something of an intellectual epidemic. Non-physicists tend to say nonsense when they talk about quantum physics. Like, it would be as if you or I suddenly started talking about the geology of Mars or whatever. But the difference between us and the people that use quantum physics without understanding it is that we're not profiting off of someone's ignorance. I'm not in the habit of writing self-help books, I don't think that's an Ethical line of work, to be perfectly honest. Why not? Because then you have self-appointed gurus talking about quantum physics without knowing anything about quantum physics.

    It's like, where does it stop? The next book they'll have us reading will be "Quantum Physics and How to Fix Your Kitchen Sink". I mean, come on. Enough already.

    I did read the whole book, fuming all the while.T Clark

    Well, you're a better person than me, that's for sure. I wouldn't read that thing even if someone paid me to do it.
  • Arcane Sandwich
    2.2k
    25

    There exists something which is prior to all beginnings and endings, Which, unmoved and unmanifest, itself neither begins nor ends. All-pervasive and inexhaustible, it is the perpetual source of everything else,
    For want of a better name, I call it Nature. If I am forced to describe it, I speak of it as "ultimate reality."

    Ultimate reality involves initiation of growth, initiation of growth involves completion of growth, and completion of growth involves returning to that whence it came.

    Nature is ultimate, the principle of initiating is ultimate, and the principle of perfecting is ultimate. And the intelligent person is also ultimate. Four kinds of ultimate, then, exist, and the intelligent man is one of them.

    Man devotes himself to satisfying his desires, fulfilling his purposes, realizing his ideals, or achieving his goals. But goals are derived from aims. And all aiming is Nature's aiming, and is Nature's way of being itself.
    Translated by Archie J. Bahm, 1958
  • Arcane Sandwich
    2.2k
    1

    Nature can never be completely described, for such a description of Nature would have to duplicate Nature. No name can fully express what it represents.
    It is Nature itself, and not any part (or name or description) abstracted from Nature, which is the ultimate source of all that happens, all that comes and goes, begins and ends, is and is not. But to describe Nature as "the ultimate source of all" is still only a description, and such a description is not Nature itself. Yet since, in order to speak of it, we must use words, we shall have to describe it as "the ultimate source of all."
    If Nature is inexpressible, he who desires to know Nature as it is in itself will not try to express it in words
    Although the existence of Nature and a description of that existence are two different things, yet they are also the same.
    For both are ways of existing. That is, a description of existence must have its own existence, which is different from the existence of that which it describes; and so again we have to recognize an existence which cannot be described.
    Translated by Archie J. Bahm, 1958
  • Gnomon
    3.9k
    I want to talk about metaphysics and you want to talk about meta-physics, a term which I don't find interesting or useful and which you've made needlessly confusing by naming it what you did. I don't see that we have anything to talk about.T Clark
    Since you didn't want to talk about Taoism, except in traditional authoritative doctrinal terms, I have refrained from adding the Axiarchism post to this thread. It's a new, non-traditional worldview, that the article compared favorably to Taoism. For a faithful follower of the Tao, such modern notions might be "needlessly confusing" and even profane. :smile:

    PS___I don't recommend that you look at it, because the OP quickly prompted a variety of contradictory & confusing views of the science/philosophy of Taoism. But, just in case, here's the link :
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15732/axiarchism-as-21st-century-taoism

    PPS___ My notion of Meta-Physics is actually about "the fundamental structure of reality". I view ultimate reality as a combination of Physics (Materialism ; Objective ; impersonal) and non-physical Life/Mind (Idealism ; Subjective ; personal). As I view it, Taoism seems similar : Nature itself is lawful-but-mindless, like a flowing river. Yet the rational or intuitive human mind can find a way to cross the river, not by swimming against the current, but by finding the balance between human purpose and natural tendency.

    swpic2.gif
  • T Clark
    14.2k
    For a faithful follower of the Tao, such modern notions might be "needlessly confusing" and even profane.Gnomon

    I am not a faithful follower of the Tao any more than I am of R.G. Collingwood, Ralph Waldo Emerson, or Pee Wee Herman.
  • Amity
    5.6k

    Returning to the TTC, 25. And another translation. Why this one, out of the many? Are you working your way through the terebess list? https://terebess.hu/english/tao/_index.html
    Or is it one that 'works' for you, or prefer, in some way?

    There exists something which is prior to all beginnings and endings, Which, unmoved and unmanifest, itself neither begins nor ends.
    All-pervasive and inexhaustible, it is the perpetual source of everything else,
    For want of a better name, I call it Nature. If I am forced to describe it, I speak of it as "ultimate reality."
    Translated by Archie J. Bahm, 1958

    I think Bahm stands out well in comparison to some already discussed. [ See below * ]
    The voice seems authoritative, explanatory, yet not dogmatic. It goes further in describing the Tao as 'ultimate reality'. It's nature is that of Nature. The Tao follows Nature. It is both called Nature and accompanies it. A combination of Part and the Whole. As a seed or source - growing like the fruit of cherry tree. The circle of the seasons. The eternal return.

    My problem lies in what is meant by 'ultimate reality'. According to Bahn:

    Ultimate reality involves initiation of growth, initiation of growth involves completion of growth, and completion of growth involves returning to that whence it came.

    Nature is ultimate, the principle of initiating is ultimate, and the principle of perfecting is ultimate. And the intelligent person is also ultimate. Four kinds of ultimate, then, exist, and the intelligent man is one of them.
    Translated by Archie J. Bahm, 1958

    The word 'ultimate' is repeated. Does it mean the same thing, every time? There are 4 kinds. How do they pertain, or relate, to 'reality'?
    Ultimate: Fundamental, basic, primary, absolute, infinite, model or ideal, conclusive, unquestionable...
    https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/another-word-for/ultimate.html
    Reality: Actuality, existence, world, truth...
    https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/another-word-for/reality.html

    There is an emphasis on the 'intelligent man'. What does he mean by this? Why the emphasis on 'intelligent'? Not all men are. Unless, it simply means having an ability to think. It's unfortunate that Bahm keeps to the word 'man' rather than 'human' or 'human beings' (as per Jane English update). Then again, a man of his time. Edit: On a re-read, I note he also used the word 'person'.

    Man devotes himself to satisfying his desires, fulfilling his purposes, realizing his ideals, or achieving his goals. But goals are derived from aims. And all aiming is Nature's aiming, and is Nature's way of being itself.Translated by Archie J. Bahm, 1958

    Curious about Bahm, I discover:
    He was a member of numerous committees to support and promote the exchange of philosophical ideas and organized the Albuquerque Chapter of the Southwestern Regional American Humanist Association in 1954. He was one of the signers of the Humanist Manifesto.[2] He was also an organizer, past president, and past secretary-treasurer of the New Mexico Philosophical Society.Wiki - Archie J. Bahm

    The Humanist Manifesto
    https://web.archive.org/web/20121020110719/http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_II

    For anyone looking for a list of '10 Commandments', this might come close:

    Bahm in 1933 contributed “A Religious Affirmation” to The New Humanist, listing items that “a person should”:

    Be creedless; that is, be intelligent enough to make adaptations without dependence upon some formula.
    Be self-reliant; that is, be not dependent upon supernatural agency for intellectual support or moral guidance.
    Be critical; that is, question assumptions and seek certitude scientifically.
    Be tolerant; that is, be open-minded and hold conclusions tentatively.
    Be active; that is, live today and grow by exercising his capacities.
    Be efficient; that is, accomplish the most with the least effort.
    Be versatile; that is, vary his interests to attain a variety of interesting thoughts.
    Be cooperative; that is, find some of his satisfactions in social activities.
    Be appreciative; that is, make the present enjoyable by his attitude.
    Be idealistic; that is, create and live by ideals which he finds inspiring.

    ***

    [*]
    To compare:

    Something mysteriously formed,
    Born before heaven and earth.
    In the silence and the void,
    Standing alone and unchanging,
    Ever present and in motion.
    Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.
    I do not know its name.
    Call it Tao.
    For lack of a better word, I call it great


    [...]

    Therefore, “Tao is great;
    Heaven is great;
    Earth is great;
    The human being is also great.”
    These are the four great powers of the universe,
    And the human being is one of them
    Jane English (update)

    ***

    There was something formless and perfect
    before the universe was born.
    It is serene. Empty.
    Solitary. Unchanging.
    Infinite. Eternally present.
    It is the mother of the universe.
    For lack of a better name,
    I call it the Tao
    .

    [...]
    The Tao is great.
    The universe is great.
    Earth is great.
    Man is great.
    These are the four great powers.
    Translated by Stephen Mitchell, 1988
  • Amity
    5.6k
    But goals are derived from aims. And all aiming is Nature's aiming, and is Nature's way of being itself.Translated by Archie J. Bahm, 1958

    Also, not sure of this. Human goals or aims seem not to be the same as that of Nature.
    How do we even know if Nature has a goal or aim? Is it simply to be itself?
    So, how useful is this? The Tao just is. Humans just are? No, there is a vision here of improvement and growing. But will humans, their greed and inventions kill nature? Or will Nature always survive. No matter what? The Universe is greater than our world.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.