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?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
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
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
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
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
(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
Rather, Taoism is a shoving, or a poking:
1. wake up, it says, there is a reality, [Tao] — ENOAH
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
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
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
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 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
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
Here's a few books I have read that compare & contrast ancient & non-western worldviews with modern science --- specifically quantum physics. — Gnomon
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
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: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
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
Google A.I. overview — Gnomon
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, — Arcane Sandwich
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
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: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
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.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
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:We're not supposed to use AI generated content. — T Clark
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
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
Regarding the Tao of Physics — Gnomon
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). — Arcane Sandwich
How can one judge the content of a book without reading it? — 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. — T Clark
I did read the whole book, fuming all the while. — T Clark
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
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
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: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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.