Filial piety IS the ‘natural’ or basic relationship. — Possibility

It is my understanding that's what Confucius thinks, not Lao Tzu. I think rejecting that view is what this verse is about.

To be honest, I think we may have a different understanding of ‘natural’ and ‘conventional’, which probably contributes to the confusion... — Possibility

Natural - wu wei. Conventional - artificial, unspontaneous. Natural - good. Conventional - bad.

I think I'm all caught up. Please let me know if I've failed to respond to any of your posts.

Yes, in Chinese culture it is of 'supreme importance' as Derek Lin discusses at length.
Out of all the virtues, this is the first and foremost.
He asks the students to consider why this might be so. Interesting responses and good feedback. — Amity

As I noted in a response to @Possibility, it is my understanding this is a Confucian view which Lao Tzu was specifically reacting against.

As I noted in a response to Possibility, it is my understanding this is a Confucian view which Lao Tzu was specifically reacting against. — T Clark

Yes. I see that the guidance given in the TTC attempts to reverse conventional views held at that time.
It seems to resist a second-order moral way in preference to a first-order 'natural' way.
Can we be sure that this is best for our selves and others?
What is 'natural' ? Is a question I raised earlier.
Is the TTC with its apparent reliance on natural intuition right for a progressive world ? Part of nature is to grow and develop...over and above some of our natural inclinations...and that requires some guidance...the TTC might be seen as just another dogmatism...

There are many 'natural' ways. Arguably, we are social animals with reason who need to establish ways of living together. This does not always come naturally. Conventions of some description are necessary.

From https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/daoism/

Laozi may have been tempted to postulate a perfect dao. It would be a dao with no social contribution.

So the Zhuangzi differs in this important attitude from the Laozi—we need not try to escape from social life and conventions. Conventions underlie the possibility of communication and are, thus, useful. This gives Zhuangzi’s Daoism less of the primitive thrust of the Daode Jing (the term wu-wei virtually disappears in the inner chapters).

The most dramatic message of the Zhuangzi is a theme that links Daoism to Zen (Chan—the distinctively Daoist influenced branch of Buddhism)—the “mysticism” of losing oneself in activity, particularly the absorption in skilled execution of a highly cultivated way . His most famous example concerns a butcher—hardly a prestige or status profession—who carves beef with the focus and absorption of a virtuoso dancer in an elegantly choreographed performance. The height of human satisfaction comes in achieving and exercising such skills with the focus and commitment that gets us “outside ourselves” and into such an intimate connection with our dao .

[ emphasis added ]

Yes. I see that the guidance given in the TTC attempts to reverse conventional views held at that time.
It seems to resist a second-order moral way in preference to a first-order 'natural' way.
Can we be sure that this is best for our selves and others? — Amity

If the Tao Te Ching grabs you and shakes you and tells you and if you say, "Yes, this is exactly right. I've always known this," then, yes, you can be sure.

What is 'natural' ? Is a question I raised earlier.
Is the TTC with its apparent reliance on natural intuition right for a progressive world ? — Amity

Natural is wu wei. No action and action without action. Spontaneous. Growing from within, from our truest self. The TTC is useful, if it is, no matter where or when you are. What is a "progressive world?" If you mean a complex modern world like the one we live in, then yes, it can be useful. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, there are lots of other ways to know the world.

Conventions of some description are necessary. — Amity

Conventions can be useful, but Lao Tzu says they are not necessary. I think he's right, which doesn't mean I know how to do it.

So the Zhuangzi differs in this important attitude from the Laozi—we need not try to escape from social life and conventions. Conventions underlie the possibility of communication and are, thus, useful. This gives Zhuangzi’s Daoism less of the primitive thrust of the Daode Jing (the term wu-wei virtually disappears in the inner chapters).

I don't think the TTC says we have to try to escape from social life and conventions. Lao Tzu said "Do or do not. There is no 'try.'" Wait, no... that was Yoda.

I haven't read much of the Zhuangzi. It's mostly stories. A lot of the power of the TTC for me is in its poetry. Maybe we can take up the Zhuangzi if we finish the TTC.

If a country is governed wisely,
its inhabitants will be content.
They enjoy the labor of their hands
and don't waste time inventing
labor-saving machines.
Since they dearly love their homes,
they aren't interested in travel.
There may be a few wagons and boats,
but these don't go anywhere.
There may be an arsenal of weapons,
but nobody ever uses them.
People enjoy their food,
take pleasure in being with their families,
spend weekends working in their gardens,
delight in the doings of the neighborhood.
And even though the next country is so close
that people can hear its roosters crowing and its dogs barking,
they are content to die of old age
without ever having gone to see it. — T Clark

I love it, I have no criticism about it. It is sort of romantic in a sense.

What book is that? So I may explore it for myself.

What book is that? So I may explore it for myself. — SteveMinjares

The book is the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu. If you go back to the first page in this thread and read the first couple of posts, it gives a rundown. There is also a link to a bunch of translations. The specific text you quoted is from Stephen Mitchell's translation of Verse 80.

This makes sense to me. As far as I can tell, the TTC is as rich in concepts as it is in metaphors which try to explain them and how the practical aspects of the concepts play out. — Amity

I will continue to warn against consolidating concepts and settling for metaphorical language in the TTC. I think that we limit our ability to understand the TTC for what it is if we’re unable to observe how affect evaluates an idea prior to action. Concepts and metaphors tend to obscure this process, although I understand that we’re more comfortable discussing literature in this way. I’m not suggesting we abandon any talk of concepts or metaphors, only that we’re conscious of the obscurity that comes with it. So, when we talk about ‘knowledge’, for instance, we recognise that the TTC is not referring to the entire concept of knowledge, including our overall evaluation of it as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, but only one qualitative aspect of it, and any affect or judgement of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is our own or the interpreter’s.

I suggested written music as an analogy (not a metaphor) for the TTC. Written music is an arrangement of variable sound quality into a rational structure. There is no affect in a written piece of music. I compared this to music performance, in which one cannot clearly delineate between structure or quality (contributed to a performance by the score) and affect (contributed by either the musician in interpreting the score or the observer in interpreting the performance).

We bring our own experiences to any text as we read and try to relate to it. To see if if has any value to us in the way we lead our lives. If it makes sense. I think that this can work both ways.
For us, as we build on a view which has worked for us and others along the way.
Against us, if we try to fit text in to what we think is right, or our own perspective. Even if we do get beyond our own cages and pick up book which at first glance doesn't hold much appeal.
How would you persuade someone to read the TTC ?
How would you describe how conflicts might 'dissolve in the structure of the TTC' ? — Amity

The TTC is one of those books that reflects the saying: ‘when the student is ready, the teacher will appear’. It was pretty poetry to me for a long time - a collection of metaphors, which ‘spoke’ to me of a flow to existence that I wasn’t in a position to understand...yet. Later reading of it seemed to me a profound, intuitive truth - I could see that it made sense but not how, and sensed that embracing the truth could eliminate resistance, conflict and barriers in the way I related to the world...somehow.

It wasn’t until I began to notice the difference between quantitative and qualitative structures, and how they relate to the way we understand, articulate and interact with reality, that I eventually recognised the unique appeal of the TTC. Attempts by Whitehead, Russell, Pierce, etc to make the English language more logical struggled because we’ve already constructed most of our language concepts socially, culturally and politically according to affect, long before we were even aware of logic. Words have meaning inclusive of their value and potential based on qualitative aspects of our past experiences. So we can’t simply remove ‘emotion’ from a concept, or ignore the way we subjectively attribute value and significance to concepts. When we do that, we discard information.

Quantum theory, and its conflict with General Relativity’s quantification of gravity, highlighted for me the neglect of qualitative structural significance in modern science. Gravity is as much a qualitative structure as a quantitative one, with an aspect of valence (attention or attraction) and an aspect of arousal (effort or energy). So, too, any accurate interpretation of quantum mechanics is incomplete without accounting for time as a 4D quality and human intention, as attention and effort (ie. affect).

Kant’s aesthetics explored qualitative feeling in relation to objects, concepts and ideas, with the aim of determining an underlying rational structure. It is only at the level of the ‘aesthetic idea’ that he could transcend human judgement (affect) and explore the interaction between rational structure and quality. And it is here that I find the TTC, using a rational language structure and traditional Chinese characters that each encapsulate an aesthetic idea, finds an unexpected ally.

The TTC’s parsing of reality into affect, qualitative and quantitative structure seems to me a useful heuristic device in this context.

The loss came from not being able to talk about it as a loss when it was happening. That idea had not been minted yet. — Valentinus


I don't understand. — T Clark

The need to call out and name virtues is related to wanting to continue receiving the benefit of what had been nurtured previously without need of names. We use names for other purposes and that is okay. So much so that naming un-naming is also good. But that beneficial practice is not being made equal to what did not need a name at the beginning.

Filial piety IS the ‘natural’ or basic relationship.
— Possibility

It is my understanding that's what Confucius thinks, not Lao Tzu. I think rejecting that view is what this verse is about. — T Clark

Now look who’s behind...

I wanted to mention this comment quickly, because you also mentioned it in response to @Amity’s comment. I do agree that these verses can be seen as arguing against Confucius ideology, which espouses the virtues of benevolence, righteousness, knowledge, etiquette, obedience, loyalty and - highest of all - filial piety. But it’s more than this: Lao Tzu is commenting on the prevailing culture - what was commonly accepted as ‘truth’. My point was that it was not simply an alternative of possible points of view.

This interesting commentary from Charles Wu’s 2013 translation of verse 18 (thanks again for the Terebess website):

This is one of the shortest and most poignant chapters in Daodejing. Here Laozi is posing a direct challenge to his contemporary Confucius on the latter’s approach to social problems. Confucius promotes such ethical values as humankindness and righteousness, filial piety and parental love, loyalty and obedience as the proper remedies to social ills. But Laozi sees these much touted values as mere symptoms of the ills they are supposed to cure. He thinks the root of the problem lies not so much in not abiding by these artificial values as in the abandonment of the great Dao. If everyone embraced the Dao, there would be no need to promote those ethical doctrines. Laozi says in chapter 5, “Heaven and Earth are not humane,” and “The sage is not humane.” Those are his candid statements on the centerpiece of Confucian ethics, 仁 (rén), meaning “humankindness” or “humanity” or “benevolence.”

It is important to remember that most commentators of Daodejing lived in the age when Confucian ethics had been canonized as the orthodoxy such that they would almost take the precepts of humankindness, righteousness, filial piety, loyalty, and so on for granted. This collective consciousness leads people to be on the defensive every time they see Confucian values being questioned by Laozi. This mentality may lurk behind some of the commentaries and textual preferences even to this day. A case in point lies in a recent explanation of the absence of the sentence “When wisdom and intelligence are put forth, there is outrageous falsehood” in the Guodian bamboo script. As the earliest extant script of Daodejing, Guodian understandably carries a good deal of weight when editorial decisions have to be made. But, when Chen Guying adopts the Guodian version, he argues that keeping the expunged sentence as is in the received version and the Mawangdui silk script might associate “humankindness and righteousness” in the previous line with “outrageous falsehood,” thereby unjustly denigrating these indisputable ethical values. According to Chen, “humankindness and righteousness, filial piety and parental love, loyalty and obedience” are the best alternatives when society deviates from the pristine euphoric state and when social relations were in disarray (Chen 2009, 132). Chen’s argument is a good example of the still prevailing resistance to Laozi’s counter discourse. That said, Chen’s adoption of the Guodian version does have a point. Minus the sentence about “outrageous falsehood,” the Guodian chapter consists of three parallel structures, all following the pattern, “When Plan A fails, there is Plan B.” The sentence about “falsehood,” if restored, could be out of sync. We keep it because of its paradoxical content, which is in sync with the rest of the chapter. — Charles Q Wu, ‘This Spoke Laozi’

The way I see it, te is the self-conscious process by which our relation to the Tao produces action/wu-wei/moral behaviour;
— Possibility

Is te self-conscious? I haven't figured that out for myself. I am certainly aware of an experience I interpret as wu wei arising from within me. I've described that before - I feel a well of wordless intention bubbling up within me from beneath the conscious surface. — T Clark

I think when we embody Te, we can do so through stillness (meditation), intuitively (your example of wu-wei) or self-consciously.

interpreting the TTC as a moral code of behaviour, instead of as a relational structure for experiencing the Tao.
— Possibility

If you are implying I interpret the TTC as a moral code, that's not true. It's one of the ambiguities of the TTC. The moral code that can be spoken is not the eternal moral code. Lao Tzu says "Hey, you guys, there is no good or bad, but you know, etiquette sucks." — T Clark

I’m not implying that you interpret it this way. I only mention it because I have noticed this interpretation in a number of translations. ‘Do this, don’t do that’ is not the structure of the TTC, despite how many translation are structured. I think Lao Tzu says ‘etiquette is not a something to strive for in itself, good or bad’.

I am not interpreting the TTC for others and we're all putting judgements in Lao Tzu's mouth. When you come down to it, we're discussing a book that starts out "This book is about something that can't be talked about," and then proceeds to talk about it for 81 verses. We're all allowed some leeway. — T Clark

We’re putting words into Lao Tzu’s mouth, sure. But to assume he’s passing judgement, declaring something as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, is a mistake. Daoism also recognises that everything is connected, and so in every action we take - whether it’s interpreting the TTC on a public forum or in our private behaviour - we are still responsible for how it impacts on others. The first line is not a contradiction: the book does not claim to be about the Tao, but an eternal framework through which we can relate to its mystery. It is ultimately about Te.

It can be a barrier, sure. But I think rejecting entire concepts, such as intellect or rationality, is as much a mistake as rejecting knowledge. Rationality can be a barrier only when it excludes affect: when we argue that knowledge and desire are mutually exclusive, or that any action we take can be considered free from affect. But rationality can be a way of structuring information in order to observe affect. One could argue that the TTC is a structure of rationality in itself.
— Possibility

Let's try this out - there is a fundamental and unavoidable conflict between intellect and wu wei. I don't know if I believe that or not. — T Clark

I’m not sure what you’re ‘trying out’ here.

But it’s more than this: Lao Tzu is commenting on the prevailing culture - what was commonly accepted as ‘truth’. My point was that it was not simply an alternative of possible points of view. — Possibility

I don't understand.

This interesting commentary from Charles Wu’s 2013 translation of verse 18 (thanks again for the Terebess website): — Possibility

He's saying exactly what I was trying to say? Especially in the first paragraph. I need to work on being clearer.

I’m not implying that you interpret it this way. I only mention it because I have noticed this interpretation in a number of translations. ‘Do this, don’t do that’ is not the structure of the TTC, despite how many translation are structured. I think Lao Tzu says ‘etiquette is not a something to strive for in itself, good or bad’. — Possibility

I keep coming back to this - Lao Tzu doesn't make judgements about good and bad or even good and ok. Except that he does. I don't think he's changing his mind, I think he's being ambiguous. That's how things are set up in the TTC. I have a feeling that it's found in the original documents and is not just an artifact of translation. I will be disappointed if I find out I'm wrong about that.

But to assume he’s passing judgement, declaring something as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, is a mistake. — Possibility

Is wu wei better than benevolence and etiquette? Of course not!!! We don't make that kind of judgement. (whispering - Of course it is!)

in every action we take - whether it’s interpreting the TTC on a public forum or in our private behaviour - we are still responsible for how it impacts on others. — Possibility

Not sure that I understand. Are you saying I'm responsible for the impacts my interpretations of the TTC have on others? That doesn't make sense.

I’m not sure what you’re ‘trying out’ here. — Possibility

I used confusing language. I was saying there is a fundamental and unavoidable conflict between intellect and wu wei.

Rationality is what the TTC is, in itself, prior to any relation to it. Isolated, it is nothing. Only when we embody its structure can we relate to the Tao.
— Possibility

I don't see this. The TTC is not rational or irrational. It's non-rational. There is no structure. The structure that can be structured is not the eternal structure. Sorry. — T Clark

You seem to be arguing that every noun I use corresponds to a ‘thing’, and is therefore NOT the Tao. I think it’s important to point out that I’m not referring to the Tao here, but to the TTC, which (as I mentioned) claims to be the disembodied (eternal) Te, which is not the Tao. To argue that the TTC has no structure is ridiculous. It’s not ineffable, it’s a text.

But I’m not arguing that the TTC is rational as in opposed to irrational - it just refers to being within the human capacity for understanding and imagination, without appeal to affect or judgement. There’s no conflict here.

But it does tempt us to exclude affect and focus on the 10,000 things in isolation
— Possibility

But affect is one of the 10,000 things. — T Clark

My use of the term ‘affect’ here is not in reference to a ‘thing’, but to our influence in the flow or distribution of energy (chi). It is not one of the 10,000 things, but refers to elusive relation between the 10,000 things (or disembodied Te) and the eternal Tao. I realise that by naming it, I take a step towards consolidating something. But the affect that can be named is not identical to what I mean by ‘affect’, if that makes sense. Language doesn’t help us here. What I mean by ‘affect’ corresponds to the human faculty of judgement (a la Kant).

I suggested written music as an analogy (not a metaphor) for the TTC. Written music is an arrangement of variable sound quality into a rational structure. There is no affect in a written piece of music.

I compared this to music performance, in which one cannot clearly delineate between structure or quality (contributed to a performance by the score) and affect (contributed by either the musician in interpreting the score or the observer in interpreting the performance). — Possibility

Yes. I see the analogy for both being rational structures.
Written music is a guide as to what and how the notes are to be played.
At the highest level of performance e.g. in an orchestra, the interpretation of the score is given overall by the conductor. The quality or skill requires careful training compared to an individual who might have an innate talent - as in 'playing by ear'.

Not every musician can read a musical score; it is like a foreign language to them.
Most famously - the Beatles.
https://socurrent.com/top-5-musicians-who-couldnt-read-music/

This might be termed as 'pure' or a 'natural' excellence or 'virtuosity' - the equivalent of 'de'.
They are simply inspired to make 'noise' to express their thoughts and feelings.
There is no intermediary physical 'score' to follow, other than what is in their mind.

The members of the audience are not mere 'observers', but yes, there is an affect or a powerful effect and interaction. When we look from the performers' stage we can see this crowd of one-ness., waving arms or lights. They too can be 'conducted' either by the performer or spontaneously...

I don't know where I am going with this.
Only I suppose it is to say that I agree the TTC is a rational structure. I would add that it is objectively a normative structure that guides us to travel in a certain direction - to follow the Way.
This needs to be interpreted. This requires the mind and its powerful intellect as well as some kind of an intuitive 'feel'. This discussion, I think, includes both.

There is also descriptive imagery which is not normative - it is interpreted in a natural way by just looking and appreciating.

It is not an either/or but both.
We have the chance to choose a translation and interpret it by self or with others.
Any way we choose is 'natural'.

I have more to think about but that's all for now...
Thanks.

I can't tell if we're disagreeing or not. I don't think I understand the difference between interpretation and the structure of the TTC. — T Clark

The structure of the TTC is the original structure, consisting of Chinese characters (each signifying the quality of an idea) arranged in a particular logical sequence. Interpretation is how we rearrange this structure, ie. in English.

Thinking and waiting in hope - bad. Stop trying to understand it and simply allow the Tao to work through the emptiness of a meditative mind - good. — T Clark

This judgment is your interpretation. The structure includes a number of options, including thinking and waiting in hope.

I think any use of language is an attempt to retain an intellectual illusion of control. Or maybe I don't think that. — T Clark

Not necessarily.

The TTC is one of those books that reflects the saying: ‘when the student is ready, the teacher will appear’. It was pretty poetry to me for a long time - a collection of metaphors, which ‘spoke’ to me of a flow to existence that I wasn’t in a position to understand...yet. Later reading of it seemed to me a profound, intuitive truth - I could see that it made sense but not how, and sensed that embracing the truth could eliminate resistance, conflict and barriers in the way I related to the world...somehow. — Possibility

Thanks for relating your experience of reading and understanding the TTC.
My first physical book was aesthetically appealing and I enjoyed the poetry. I didn't really understand even this relatively simple translations. I dipped in to the 'sea' without full immersion.

Right now, I am struggling in this discussion.
I don't know what further 'truth' there is to be embraced in the TCC.
I have already experienced and absorbed e.g. the importance of quality and holistic care.
However, I am sticking with it; the discussion is valuable and is making an impact.
I appreciate your explanations and would be grateful for an example of how it changed the way you relate to the world... also @T Clark.

Words have meaning inclusive of their value and potential based on qualitative aspects of our past experiences. So we can’t simply remove ‘emotion’ from a concept, or ignore the way we subjectively attribute value and significance to concepts. When we do that, we discard information. — Possibility

Yes. Concepts are the abstract ideas which originate in the mind which is 'moved' by a need to categorise and express the way things are. There is bound to be subjectivity involved in choice and usage. I am not sure this is the same as involving 'emotion' which is an intuitive feeling...but...
Perhaps it is, in the sense of 'desire' to justify our choice that we 'feel' is right...

I have read that the important concept of de can be translated as 'virtue' or 'power'.
Also, that the combination of dao with de ( dao-de) means ethics.
I look forward to further discussion and elucidation, if not enlightenment.

I’m not suggesting we abandon any talk of concepts or metaphors, only that we’re conscious of the obscurity that comes with it. So, when we talk about ‘knowledge’, for instance, we recognise that the TTC is not referring to the entire concept of knowledge, including our overall evaluation of it as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, but only one qualitative aspect of it, and any affect or judgement of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is our own or the interpreter’s. — Possibility

I value your insight here and agree.

In the Derek Lin video, he asks the question:
Is it a positive thing to emphasise virtues like 'filial piety' ?

The answer is 'not necessarily' due to 4 reasons:
1. If we have to emphasise it, then we have already lost the natural touch
2. If we have to be reminded and work at it, then it is no longer effortless to be virtuous
3. It can be fake, pretentious and artificial
4. Recognising and rewarding this kind of virtue gives rise to competition

He uses the same pattern with the other concepts in Chapter 18.
Re 1 and 2: I think that being 'virtuous' can require both aspects; natural and positive action
Re 3 and 4: I think 'Yes but So what ?' - isn't that part of nature...

I am not persuaded by these arguments. Is that what the TTC argues for ?

I used confusing language. I was saying there is a fundamental and unavoidable conflict between intellect and wu wei. — T Clark

I don’t agree with this. I think intellect that assumes a linear causal relation between potentiality and action is bound to conflict with wu-wei. But this is neither unavoidable nor fundamental. I think intellect that understands the dimensional or many-to-one relational structure between potentiality (or more specifically intentionality) and action has no conflict with wu-wei.

I keep coming back to this - Lao Tzu doesn't make judgements about good and bad or even good and ok. Except that he does. I don't think he's changing his mind, I think he's being ambiguous. That's how things are set up in the TTC. I have a feeling that it's found in the original documents and is not just an artifact of translation. I will be disappointed if I find out I'm wrong about that. — T Clark

I’d like to explore your evidence for this. I would argue that what looks like ‘changing his mind’ stems from the choice of concepts in the English translations, not from Lao Tzu being deliberately vague. I think if that were the case, he would not be so repetitive with characters. If you explore the literal, character-by-character translations, you will notice that most characters can be translated with both/either positive or negative affect/judgement inherent in the variety of English words. Where translators take this is often a matter of ulterior motive or assumption.

For instance, the next two verses begin with the character jué, which Google translates as ‘absolutely’, also translated as ‘mostly’, ‘extremely’, as well as ‘awfully’ - but TTC translators assume an imperative tone, so they translate this as the verb ‘to cut off’. While I’m inclined (as I’m sure you are) to go with a clearly overwhelming majority here, I’m nevertheless confused by the particular quality of this character/idea. It is definitely not used to mean stop, cease, reject or abandon (as most translators seem to interpret), except at the point of excess - like a bartender ‘cutting off’ an inebriated patron. I think this has subtle implications for how we interpret verses 19 and 20, particularly as they also pertain to the virtues of Confucius and the pursuit of ‘knowledge’, which I have argued here that Lao Tzu has not rejected as such, but rather argued against the utmost significance assigned to them.

I think it’s important to point out that I’m not referring to the Tao here, but to the TTC, which (as I mentioned) claims to be the disembodied (eternal) Te, which is not the Tao. To argue that the TTC has no structure is ridiculous. It’s not ineffable, it’s a text. — Possibility

So, does the TTC have a structure? Am I mixing the TTC up with the Tao? First off, of course the TTC has a structure - 81 verses. First 37 are about Tao. 38 through 81 are about te. Another question. I think it's a different one - does the TTC provide an intellectual structure by which we can comprehend the Tao? I don't think it does. I don't think it can. There is no intellectual structure by which we can comprehend the Tao. Do I really believe that? Vehemently, fiercely, indisputably! Most of the time.

My use of the term ‘affect’ here is not in reference to a ‘thing’, but to our influence in the flow or distribution of energy (chi). — Possibility

I've always had a problem with your use of "affect." You mean something different when you say it than I do. It seems like maybe you use it to mean something similar to attention. Attention could be said to be the result me putting my personal energy into an aspect of the world. Highlighting it. Making it separate from the rest of the world. I guess that could be similar to naming in a sense. I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Is wu wei better than benevolence and etiquette? Of course not!!! We don't make that kind of judgement. (whispering - Of course it is!) — T Clark

Your interpretation is that wu-wei is better than benevolence and etiquette. That makes sense from your experience and understanding of the world, and from my personal experience I would agree with you. But it’s not a judgement made by the TTC, and so I think it’s irresponsible to claim that the TTC or Lao Tzu makes this judgement, because it doesn’t: we do. It’s like claiming that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. Just because people agree on an interpretation, does not make the interpretation true.

in every action we take - whether it’s interpreting the TTC on a public forum or in our private behaviour - we are still responsible for how it impacts on others.
— Possibility

Not sure that I understand. Are you saying I'm responsible for the impacts my interpretations of the TTC have on others? That doesn't make sense. — T Clark

You’re responsible for the choices you make to block or enable the flow of chi in the world. This is not about what others do with the information you provide, but about your capacity to inform/deny, connect/isolate, and collaborate/exclude. Wu-wei is about recognising your influence of chi at the level of potentiality: the changes you effect without action; the influence you have on the world that cannot be directly attributed to you in a linear causal relation. With great power comes great responsibility. Just because no-one can blame me for misinformation, does not absolve me of responsibility - not according to wu-wei. If that means the TTC appears to lack confidence or seems ambiguous, I’m okay with that - it’s consistent with the example of the old masters. I don’t think it IS ambiguous, I think he’s being more accurate, not less.

The structure of the TTC is the original structure, consisting of Chinese characters (each signifying the quality of an idea) arranged in a particular logical sequence. Interpretation is how we rearrange this structure, ie. in English. — Possibility

We've had this discussion. For better or worse, I have decided that it makes sense for me to accept the translations we have of the TTC as a group as the basis of my understanding of what Lao Tzu is telling us. It's a good statistical method. Look at a lot of samples of the population and assume that will allow you to average out errors in the individual samples. That won't address systematic errors that affect all of the samples, but I've decided I can live with that.

This judgment is your interpretation. The structure includes a number of options, including thinking and waiting in hope. — Possibility

Yes, of course it's my interpretation, one that I think I have good justification for. Waiting in hope? As I've said several times, in my understanding, Lao Tzu does not think hope is a good thing.

I used confusing language. I was saying there is a fundamental and unavoidable conflict between intellect and wu wei.
— T Clark

I don’t agree with this. I think intellect that assumes a linear causal relation between potentiality and action is bound to conflict with wu-wei. But this is neither unavoidable nor fundamental. I think intellect that understands the dimensional or many-to-one relational structure between potentiality (or more specifically intentionality) and action has no conflict with wu-wei. — Possibility

I'm thinking back through this and trying to figure out whether I've overstated my case. Do I believe "...there is a fundamental and unavoidable conflict between intellect and wu wei," or do I believe something less absolute? My impulse is to stick with the stronger statement, but I'm not sure.

I’d like to explore your evidence for this. I would argue that what looks like ‘changing his mind’ stems from the choice of concepts in the English translations, not from Lao Tzu being deliberately vague. I think if that were the case, he would not be so repetitive with characters. — Possibility

I don't think I have any strong, rational evidence for this, but I don't feel as if I need any. Call it a conceit on my part if you want. I don't think it detracts from my understanding. I like it. It makes me feel like Lao Tzu is joking around with us. That Lao Tzu, what a character.

Your interpretation is that wu-wei is better than benevolence and etiquette. That makes sense from your experience and understanding of the world, and from my personal experience I would agree with you. But it’s not a judgement made by the TTC, and so I think it’s irresponsible to claim that the TTC or Lao Tzu makes this judgement, because it doesn’t: we do. — Possibility

I've tried to be clear about when I think something is true and when I think Lao Tzu thinks its true. Generally, I think I've been pretty successful in keeping the two separate both in my writing and in my own mind. In this case, I think wu wei is better than benevolence and etiquette and I think Lao Tzu does to. I might be wrong, but how could I possibly be "irresponsible?"

You’re responsible for the choices you make to block or enable the flow of chi in the world. This is not about what others do with the information you provide, but about your capacity to inform/deny, connect/isolate, and collaborate/exclude. Wu-wei is about recognising your influence of chi at the level of potentiality: the changes you effect without action; the influence you have on the world that cannot be directly attributed to you in a linear causal relation. — Possibility

There is an important concept in engineering - consequences of failure. If I'm going to make an important decision that will cost lots of money and may put people at risk, I have to be very careful about my justification for the action I'm going to take. On the other hand, if nothing bad will happen if I'm wrong, then who gives a shit. I don't have to be careful. I can take more risks. My interpretations of the TTC definitely come under the who gives a shit standard.

With great power comes great responsibility. — Possibility

And, I guess, with no power comes no responsibility.

Just because no-one can blame me for misinformation, does not absolve me of responsibility - not according to wu-wei. If that means the TTC appears to lack confidence or seems ambiguous, I’m okay with that - it’s consistent with the example of the old masters. I don’t think it IS ambiguous, I think he’s being more accurate, not less. — Possibility

It sounds like you're saying I should withhold my opinion because you think I'm wrong. Not just wrong, but, somehow, irresponsibly wrong. Don't make me bring out my Ralph Waldo Emerson quotes again.

I appreciate your explanations and would be grateful for an example of how it changed the way you relate to the world... also T Clark. — Amity

For me, the TTC was like a pair of gloves I found. I put them on and they fit, so I've worn them ever since. My intellectual, spiritual, emotional, and social path for more than 50 years has been toward more self-awareness. For me, the TTC is another brick in that wall, but it's also a guidebook. It's about acting from our true natures. For me, Lao Tzu is saying - look, over there. See that? Pay attention to that. See this here? Pay attention.

So, does the TTC have a structure? Am I mixing the TTC up with the Tao? First off, of course the TTC has a structure - 81 verses. First 37 are about Tao. 38 through 81 are about te. — T Clark

Yes, the TTC has 81 verses, but what they are about is an interpretation, not part of the original structure. The TTC is written using traditional, literary Chinese - this language has a clear and logical structure, including some very straightforward grammar rules, without exception:

1. What precedes modifies what follows.
2. Words do not change.
3. Chinese is topic-prominent - the topic of a sentence comes first, not the subject.
4. Aspect, not tense.
5. Chinese is logical.

In traditional literary Chinese, logic and simplicity is the key. Think a mathematics of ideas. Two characters won’t be used where one will suffice. If two different characters are used for one idea, they describe two different aspects of that idea. If a character set is repeated, those aspects of each structure are identical. If the character is different, even if they could be translate roughly the same, the aspect is different.

This much we know. Everything else is an interpretation of structure that brings our experiential (affected) relationship with the ideas themselves into focus.

The first verse modifies what follows: This book does not define the Tao. Any naming is indicative only. This is an attempt at a ToE that explains both the underlying structure and how we perceive it. The trick is to keep personal judgement/affect out of the intellectual framework, by striving to understand how everything we experience is unavoidably coloured by it, at every level of awareness. This correct framework, together with affect, brings us to the most accurate experience of the mystery that is the Tao.

I find that most translations do not take all of these basic structures and rules into account when they interpret verses. The English language has many exceptions to the rules, especially in poetry and literature. But literary Chinese sticks to the rules. So, when our interpretation seems confusing, I think it helps to fall back to this, and be prepared to challenge our personal and ideological relationship to the ideas that form each concept, trusting that this basic, logical structure is sound.

This is the ultimate wu-wei. Trying to find Lao Tzu’s intention in the text loses sight of the reason it’s structured this way: so that his affect (including his own ignorance) doesn’t obstruct the flow of chi in any way. In this way, the more we learn about the world, the more the TTC makes sense.

Another question. I think it's a different one - does the TTC provide an intellectual structure by which we can comprehend the Tao? I don't think it does. I don't think it can. There is no intellectual structure by which we can comprehend the Tao. Do I really believe that? Vehemently, fiercely, indisputably! Most of the time. — T Clark

Comprehend the Tao? No, I don’t think it can either. But if we comprehend the intellectual structure provided by the TTC, and in doing so embody that structure fully (in other words, restructure our own affected methodology of interacting with the world to align with the TTC), then I believe we can relate directly to the Tao, in our capacity as a human being. We can experience a oneness with the Tao, which is not the same as being the Tao, nor is it the same as understanding the Tao, as the first verse clarifies.

I've tried to be clear about when I think something is true and when I think Lao Tzu thinks its true. Generally, I think I've been pretty successful in keeping the two separate both in my writing and in my own mind. In this case, I think wu wei is better than benevolence and etiquette and I think Lao Tzu does to. I might be wrong, but how could I possibly be "irresponsible?" — T Clark

Like this:

I don't think I have any strong, rational evidence for this, but I don't feel as if I need any. Call it a conceit on my part if you want. I don't think it detracts from my understanding. I like it. It makes me feel like Lao Tzu is joking around with us. That Lao Tzu, what a character. — T Clark

I guess I just wanted you to acknowledge that you have no evidence for saying that Lao Tzu thinks the same way you do here. It’s all based on your own personal judgement, affect, desire...

I happen to think it does detract from your understanding, but what do I know? You’re not after an accurate understanding of the TTC, only one that you can live with. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that - just try not to get too defensive at how a different perspective might makes yours appear.

There is an important concept in engineering - consequences of failure. If I'm going to make an important decision that will cost lots of money and may put people at risk, I have to be very careful about my justification for the action I'm going to take. On the other hand, if nothing bad will happen if I'm wrong, then who gives a shit. I don't have to be careful. I can take more risks. My interpretations of the TTC definitely come under the who gives a shit standard. — T Clark

This is not engineering - you’re talking about a direct causal relation between action and consequence. Wu-wei is about the indirect relations - such as the risk your decision has for the environment, the local economy, etc. These effects can’t be traced back to your decision in a linear causal relation, but are nevertheless influenced by it. Where do you think your ‘who gives a shit’ standard sits on the ‘ladder’ of virtue?

It sounds like you're saying I should withhold my opinion because you think I'm wrong. Not just wrong, but, somehow, irresponsibly wrong. Don't make me bring out my Ralph Waldo Emerson quotes again. — T Clark

That’s not what I’m saying at all. It doesn’t matter whether I think you’re wrong or not. It’s not my place to say anything more than I disagree with you. What matters is that you take responsibility for whatever inaccuracies you might be putting out there - that you claim them as your own, not attribute them to the TTC or to Lao Tzu. What makes the TTC so enduring is that any inaccuracies from Lao Tzu’s understanding of his place in the world have had no impact whatsoever on the underlying logical structure.

I find this particularly buoyant, incorporating it into one's comportment or ethos can help buffer you against the woes of the day or your life if sought consistently enough. Put another way, develop relations with those that create this dynamic and one can find purpose in routine interactions or even existence. It does invite a certain degree of suffering but then again, what doesn't.

This judgment is your interpretation. The structure includes a number of options, including thinking and waiting in hope.
— Possibility

Yes, of course it's my interpretation, one that I think I have good justification for. Waiting in hope? As I've said several times, in my understanding, Lao Tzu does not think hope is a good thing. — T Clark

[emphasis added]

I think this is where I disagreed with you most due to my concern that I couldn't see how any responsible person would believe that hope is not a good thing. Discussed 20 days ago, p11.
I think that you were influenced by the Stephen Mitchell translation of Ch13.
The second line 'Hope is as hollow as fear'.
Expanded to 'Hope and fear are both phantoms'
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/513854

I have returned to Ch13 and listened to the Derek Lin translation and explanation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlLSFJlQAo
Again, it is lengthy just over an hour. However, the short paraphrase and summary starts at 55.27.
Well worth listening to re the structure. How the first 2 lines are the key statements, followed by an expansion as to their meaning.
Line 1 - Favour and disgrace make one fearful
Line 2 - The greatest misfortune is the self

It is best you listen for yourself, including the Summary re Introspection as inspired by the TTC.
Basically, to elevate your thinking beyond yourself, to care for something greater than yourself.
Our biggest problem is the ego that reacts to words of praise or criticism; there is a tendency to desire positive opinions and avoid criticism perceived as negative.

I see nothing there about hope not being a good thing.
It is this kind of translation that @Possibility warns against.
I agree that great care must be taken when reading the TTC and to ask 'Does this sound right?'
Modern language might not be as accurate as we would wish, it depends on the knowledge and experience of the translator. They take the responsibility of making the text and meaning as accessible and clear as possible so that we can get a bit closer to the original, whatever that was.

As @Possibility makes clear to us all:

What matters is that you take responsibility for whatever inaccuracies you might be putting out there - that you claim them as your own, not attribute them to the TTC or to Lao Tzu. — Possibility