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. — T Clark

Not sure about 'acting from our true natures' - what is your true nature ?
What do you think of how our egos and personality colour the way we understand and interact with others when we discuss the TTC ? I too see the TTC as a guidebook - but how we are guided depends on the translation. We can be led astray...

In Derek Lin's YouTube presentation of Ch13, lines 8-12 he paraphrases his translation:
The greatest misfortune is the self. How is it our biggest problem is the ego ? Think about all the troubles we get into when the ego is out of control. The issue here is to dial down the sense of self-importance.
13-16: The greatest rulers are the ones who can transcend the ego. They feel concern for the greater good. The greatest individuals are ones who love something greater than themselves; the family, team and community. They are the ones who can truly take charge of their own destiny.

Some might say, "Get over yourself !"...

For me, Lao Tzu is saying - look, over there. See that? Pay attention to that. See this here? Pay attention. — T Clark

I do agree with T Clark’s sentiment here. I think the TTC draws our attention to the relations in our experience, and invites us to look closer at what is going on. I also think it helps to get our ego/fear/desires/affect out of the way first, though. One could argue that this is similar to the call of scientific endeavour. Those who pursue intelligence for its own sake tell us to discard, reject or ignore affect/emotion as irrelevant; those who reject the pursuit of intelligence tell us that we cannot possibly understand, so just feel; the TTC recognises both intelligence and affect as part of who we are as human beings. We can allow for how we feel, even move it aside, but not ignore it - affect forms our potential to think, speak and collaborate. Without it, we cannot be aware that we exist. And intellect is a part of our way to the Tao, but not our goal. Without it, we cannot be aware of the Tao to follow, let alone construct a suitable path...

Some might say, "Get over yourself !"... — Amity

I like to say ‘get out of my own way’...

I do agree with T Clark’s sentiment here. I think the TTC draws our attention to the relations in our experience, and invites us to look closer at what is going on. I also think it helps to get our ego/fear/desires/affect out of the way first, though. — Possibility

Yes. I am sorry I missed that out in my earlier response.
Typically only zooming in on what I found question worthy. Here it is again:

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. — T Clark

The impact of the TTC on someone - here @T Clark - who is trying to become more self-aware is incredible. I just wonder about the actual effects; the if and how any behaviour patterns are changed. Anyone can jump in here ! @Valentinus @Wayfarer @javi2541997 et al...

I guess that the phrase 'another brick in the wall' is seen here as a positive - another way to build up towards the aim of increased self-awareness or self-realisation.

It brought to mind Pink Floyd's 'Another Brick in the Wall' which included the famous line: 'We don't need no education'.

The lyrics attracted controversy. The Inner London Education Authority described the song as "scandalous", and according to Renshaw, prime minister Margaret Thatcher "hated it".[11] Renshaw said: "There was a political knee-jerk reaction to a song that had nothing to do with the education system. It was [Waters'] reflections on his life and how his schooling was part of that."[11] — wiki

Anything that invites us to look closer at what is going on, including the education system is all to the good. And yes, the TTC reinforces that need - to be aware, to attend, to pay careful attention.
That can be part of our growing awareness as we experience life. If we listen to others as well as our own selves. To change if necessary...

I like to say ‘get out of my own way’... — Possibility

Well, I talk to myself too - and it's 'Get over yourself !' :smile:

We can allow for how we feel, even move it aside, but not ignore it - affect forms our potential to think, speak and collaborate. Without it, we cannot be aware that we exist. And intellect is a part of our way to the Tao, but not our goal. Without it, we cannot be aware of the Tao to follow, let alone construct a suitable path... — Possibility

Yes. I think that is right :sparkle:

A penguin has something to say on the subject of hope. Cartoon of the day. Hopeless and flightless.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/521859

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... — Possibility

I said I don't have any "strong, rational evidence." The TTC is not about rational anything. You keep coming back to my use of my "own personal judgement." I don't get it. Of course it's my personal judgement. Every thing I know, feel, or believe is based on my personal judgement. If you are implying that your understanding is based on more than that... well, that claim seems pretty arrogant to me.

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. — Possibility

I don't understand why you are so worried about my understanding. I'm not after "an accurate understanding of the TTC," I want to hear and feel what Lao Tzu is saying. Those are two different things. Although you claim otherwise, you are saying there's something wrong with that.

This is not engineering — Possibility

Of course it is. Everything is engineering. I'm a hammer and the world is full of nails.

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

I've written three or four responses to this, but I keep erasing them. I guess I have no useful response.

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' — Amity

Yes, I was definitely influenced by Mitchell's translation. It was the first translation I read and those lines are some of the ones that jumped out at me the strongest. How does it make someone irresponsible not to value hope? I could see "wrong" or even "deluded," but why "irresponsible."

the Derek Lin translation and explanation — Amity

I reread Lin's translation and comments. He doesn't put it in the same terms as Mitchell, but I don't see anything inconsistent.

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. — Amity

I'm fine with this.

I see nothing there about hope not being a good thing.
It is this kind of translation that Possibility warns against. — Amity

It's ok if you and @Possibility disagree with the way I understand what Lao Tzu is saying. I don't understand why it seems to bother you both so much.

Not sure about 'acting from our true natures' - what is your true nature ? — Amity

I recognize my true nature. I can feel it. Sometimes. Wu wei is acting from our true nature. Sometimes I can do that. I know what wu wei feels like.

I too see the TTC as a guidebook - but how we are guided depends on the translation. We can be led astray... — Amity

No, I don't think we can be lead astray, not if we focus on the experience rather than the words.

The greatest misfortune is the self. How is it our biggest problem is the ego ? Think about all the troubles we get into when the ego is out of control. The issue here is to dial down the sense of self-importance.
13-16: The greatest rulers are the ones who can transcend the ego. They feel concern for the greater good. The greatest individuals are ones who love something greater than themselves; the family, team and community. They are the ones who can truly take charge of their own destiny. — Amity

This explication makes sense to me.

I guess that the phrase 'another brick in the wall' is seen here as a positive - another way to build up towards the aim of increased self-awareness or self-realisation. — Amity

Yes. Also, @Valentinus is a mason.

How does it make someone irresponsible not to value hope? I could see "wrong" or even "deluded," but why "irresponsible." — T Clark

That's not what I said. Here:

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 — Amity

My concern was that this translation appears negative about hope. I think that when we send out that kind of message, it is possible that we are not thinking enough about the implications for hopeful readers who don't look beyond...and take that at face value.
It concerns me when some talk of the body, fear and hope as being illusions. It is important to recognise the reality. The whole interaction of body, mind and spirit.
I suppose that is where any 'irresponsibility' could enter the picture. Hope can be seen as good or bad. It depends. Most times, I think, it is what motivates people to carry on in adverse circumstances.
Even if if is a false hope - isn't it something like 'love' ?
'Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all' - Tennyson.

I reread Lin's translation and comments. He doesn't put it in the same terms as Mitchell, but I don't see anything inconsistent. — T Clark

OK. But I will repeat:

I see nothing there about hope not being a good thing. — Amity

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/521793

It's ok if you and Possibility disagree with the way I understand what Lao Tzu is saying. I don't understand why it seems to bother you both so much. — T Clark

I can't speak for @Possibility - but I hope my attempt above offers some clarification.
We don't always disagree with the way you understand the TTC.
Your input is much appreciated, in any case. It makes me think. Thanks :smile:

Yes. Also, Valentinus is a mason. — T Clark

Really ? Does that mean he gets plastered :party:

I recognize my true nature. I can feel it. Sometimes. Wu wei is acting from our true nature. Sometimes I can do that. I know what wu wei feels like. — T Clark

OK. That could be the start of another debate but I'll leave it there.

No, I don't think we can be lead astray, not if we focus on the experience rather than the words. — T Clark

As above.

This explication makes sense to me. — T Clark

Yay !! :up: to Derek Lin :starstruck:

My concern was that this translation appears negative about hope. I think that when we send out that kind of message, it is possible that we are not thinking enough about the implications for hopeful readers who don't look beyond...and take that at face value. — Amity

I want them to take what I say at face value. I believe, and I think Lao Tzu would agree, that hope distracts us from the path he is trying to show us.

It concerns me when some talk of the body, fear and hope as being illusions. It is important to recognise the reality. The whole interaction of body, mind and spirit. — Amity

I have no problem with you disagreeing with the way I see things, but, I'm having a hard time figuring out how to respond to this. Are you asking me to stop giving my understanding because you don't like it? The TTC is a radical rejection of convention. Maybe "dismissal" is a better word than "rejection." Don't be surprised if you find it in conflict with some of your beliefs. You don't have to agree with me and you don't have to agree with Lao Tzu.

OK. That could be the start of another debate but I'll leave it there. — Amity

No need to go into it any deeper now, but this is at the heart of how I use the TTC. As I've said many times, for me, the primary value of the TTC is as a guide to the experience of my true nature and the Tao.

As we go forward, I will look for places in the text that are relevant to this issue. We can use those discussions to go deeper into this.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with the way I see things, but, I'm having a hard time figuring out how to respond to this. Are you asking me to stop giving my understanding because you don't like it? The TTC is a radical rejection of convention. Maybe "dismissal" is a better word than "rejection." Don't be surprised if you find it in conflict with some of your beliefs. You don't have to agree with me and you don't have to agree with Lao Tzu. — T Clark

It is not a matter of me convincing you or of you convincing me but of putting forward different perspectives for all interested to read, watch, listen and consider. Even if there are limited participants...this thread has received a lot of 'views'.

As we go forward, I will look for places in the text that are relevant to this issue. We can use those discussions to go deeper into this. — T Clark

That might be interesting, thanks. However, I am taking a break.
Following this, on your Mysticism thread:

I had never heard of 'unselfings' before this but have read Iris Murdoch.
I found this article by Jules Evans:
https://www.philosophyforlife.org/blog/iris-murdoch-on-techniques-of-unselfing

I think my time would be better spent on reading such.
A re-visit to Iris Murdoch and listening to her might be just what is right for me, right now.
Either way, I need to get out for a breather... — Amity

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/522233

:sparkle:

I said I don't have any "strong, rational evidence." The TTC is not about rational anything. You keep coming back to my use of my "own personal judgement." I don't get it. Of course it's my personal judgement. Every thing I know, feel, or believe is based on my personal judgement. If you are implying that your understanding is based on more than that... well, that claim seems pretty arrogant to me. — T Clark

What I’m claiming is that there exists an underlying logical framework to the TTC that is... well, eternal. It contains none of my personal judgement or yours, not even Lao Tzu’s experience of the world. It is a pure mathematical structure to reality, that we each populate with values from our own relative experience. It is ‘the way’ we can experience objective reality, regardless of where or how we start. Everything else is either variability (quality) or relativity (affect).

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. — T Clark

It’s more like an overall distribution of the energy/entropy of a local system in terms of attention AND effort. I think that all physical existence could be perceived as consisting of affect, but it’s highly relative, with a wave-like potentiality at a quantum level. At the level of conscious experience, affect does highlight (or overlook/avoid) an aspect of reality, yes. But that’s only part of the naming process. We determine its attractive/destructive qualities as an idea, and then quantify it as a positive/negative/immeasurable thing.

I think the issue that Lao Tzu has with this naming process is that it’s backwards. It constructs the world from how an aspect of the world affects us, immediately distorting our perspective of reality. What doesn’t appear to suit our needs we reject, what seems to benefit us we idolise and pursue as if it’s something separate from the rest of the world, yet exists exactly as we perceive it - like the Confucian attitude towards filial piety, or the Christian attitude towards ‘spiritual gifts’ such as knowledge, righteousness, courage, etc.

What I think Lao Tzu shows in this group of verses is that each of these ‘named things’ refer to aspects of reality that interrelate in an eternally logical structure, regardless of how any of it affects us. If we always start from an understanding of this rational framework, then everything falls into place for us, and we can interact without resistance - effortlessly, like the butcher with his knife.

But to get to this logical framework, we need to parse our experience into affect (relativity), quality (variability) and logic. This is what Lao Tzu attempts with the TTC. He describes a broad variety of human experience, asking us to pay attention to where the affected structure of our own thoughts, words and behaviour conflict with a natural logic that ‘bubbles to the surface’.

I don't understand why you are so worried about my understanding. I'm not after "an accurate understanding of the TTC," I want to hear and feel what Lao Tzu is saying. Those are two different things. Although you claim otherwise, you are saying there's something wrong with that. — T Clark

You seem to think I’m worried or bothered by our disagreements. I’m not, but I’m also not one to simply ‘agree to disagree’. I think that’s a missed opportunity. Disagreement highlights an area of the discussion where chi is blocked or resisted. My intention is to free the flow, not to attack your particular approach. I honestly don’t think of it as your understanding, so I’m sorry if it feels as if I’m implying that you are wrong by association.

Of course it is. Everything is engineering. I'm a hammer and the world is full of nails. — T Clark

My point was that this thinking is not consistent with wu-wei. But I get the feeling that you think the TTC explains only how the world outside of engineering works, as if it’s for everything that’s beyond rationality, but doesn’t change how you understand the physical world...

So, uh, yeah. I guess I'll chime in. First off, here:

https://www.yellowbridge.com/onlinelit/daodejing.php

That website contains 3 translations of the "Daodejing", each chapter having the three translations side by side. This helps with interpreting the words, since the "Daodejing" is somewhat hard to translate, or, at least, get the meaning "right".

My way of reading and understanding Laozi is somewhat inspired by the approach of neo-daoism, though I'm not actually all that interested in the neo-daoists themselves; rather, my understanding of the dao is contextualized by other daoist/zen texts and two of the "Five Classics", which I think Li Er (the historical Laozi) was familiar with, those being the ""I Ching" and the "Shang Shu". Li Er was employed as a "keeper of the archives" (a court librarian), according to traditional views, so it's not particularly far reached to assume he indeed was familiar with certain texts from and before his time.
The neo-daoist curriculum consisted of the "I Ching", the "Daodejing" and the "Zhuangzi". I believe the "Liezi", "Huahujing" and the "Wunengzi" also are relevant to a better understanding of the dao, as are the works of Takuan Soho (a zen monk with an interest in daoism), and the works of his correspondents (those being Miyamoto Musashi and Yagyu Munenori).

As for daoism actually being a religion, yeah, it is. There are temples, priests and nuns on Wudangshan. They claim that Yinxi, the guard who allegedly asked Laozi to write the "Daodejing" down when he passed through the area after giving up his post as a librarian, was the founder of Wudang daoism. This makes Yinxi effectively the first daoist. That the "Daodejing" and other daoist texts can be read as philosophical treatises doesn't detract from that. The "Upanishads" can be read as a philosophical text too, but this doesn't negate the issue that Hinduism is a religion.

Anyway, here's one of my favorite chapters from the "Daodejing". Make of it what you will:

"Sincere words are not fine; fine words are not sincere. Those who are skilled (in the Dao) do not dispute (about it); the disputatious are not skilled in it. Those who know (the Dao) are not extensively learned; the extensively learned do not know it.

The sage does not accumulate (for himself). The more that he expends for others, the more does he possess of his own; the more that he gives to others, the more does he have himself.

With all the sharpness of the Way of Heaven, it injures not; with all the doing in the way of the sage he does not strive."
-"Daodejing", Legge translation, ch. 81
https://www.yellowbridge.com/onlinelit/daodejing81.php

My concern was that this translation appears negative about hope. I think that when we send out that kind of message, it is possible that we are not thinking enough about the implications for hopeful readers who don't look beyond...and take that at face value.
— Amity

I want them to take what I say at face value. I believe, and I think Lao Tzu would agree, that hope distracts us from the path he is trying to show us. — T Clark

I do think that our affected relation to this concept of ‘hope’ does distract us from the path, but that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with the idea or quality of hope in the world. The issue I think Lao Tzu has is with the naming of ‘hope’ as something separate in the world that we strive to obtain or possess for its own sake, like with ‘knowledge’. I think this structural difference between the affected concept/thing and the unaffected idea/quality is a common thread in this part of the TTC. Lao Tzu describes what we call ‘hope’ in verse 14 as ‘what we listen for but do not hear’: the truth that we recognise as such, but can make no practical use of as yet. We all hope for peace, for instance, but striving to attain ‘peace’ should not be our focus. This narrow path can force us to make compromises in other areas, such as sincerity or loyalty, and to ignore, isolate or exclude information, people and opportunities to connect, all for the sake of ‘peace’. If we follow the Way, recognising that peace is not a ‘thing’ that we achieve or obtain but a quality that we can bring to our relations with the world - regardless of fear or desire, pain, loss or lack, etc - then peace will always be an option, a choice that we make.

Hi Ying, and welcome to the discussion. I’m interested in reading more of your personal perspective on the TTC here.

I have been using the Yellow Bridge site throughout this discussion - I’ll admit I’m not a fan of the three translations offered, although I think they do give an interesting span of the types of translation attempts available. T Clark’s suggestion of the Terebess site gives a wide choice of translations, some of which also provide commentary and the Chinese text alongside.

I do find the pop-up translation of each Chinese character on Yellow Bridge to be invaluable, although I think that cross-referencing with Google Translate sometimes provides a clearer understanding of what can seem to be contradictory English words - the use of jué at the beginning of verses 19 and 20 is one that particularly confused me: I’d be interested in your perspective here.

I’ll admit that I’m not familiar with any of these other ancient Chinese texts (there have been a number of references in this discussion to the Zhuangzi and the I Ching), although I am intrigued by Neo-Daoism as a philosophy - so thank you for the SEP reference. I think the notion of ziran might be what @T Clark has been referring to as his ‘true nature’, so I’d also be interested in fleshing out this idea in relation to Neo-Daoism as he makes reference to it in later verses (as promised). I see this as tending more towards a natural logic than an essential self, but I could be misunderstanding it.

What I’m claiming is that there exists an underlying logical framework to the TTC that is... well, eternal. It contains none of my personal judgement or yours, not even Lao Tzu’s experience of the world. It is a pure mathematical structure to reality, that we each populate with values from our own relative experience. — Possibility

For me, the TTC is the antithesis of a logical framework. As I've said before, it's non-rational. Non-logical. Non-mathematical. I don't understand what you mean when you say it is. Can you give an example of the logical framework from the text.

It is ‘the way’ we can experience objective reality, regardless of where or how we start. — Possibility

I use the Tao as a replacement for objective reality in my understanding of the world. I think the two views of reality are mutually exclusive. The Tao is not objective.

It’s more like an overall distribution of the energy/entropy of a local system in terms of attention AND effort. I think that all physical existence could be perceived as consisting of affect, but it’s highly relative, with a wave-like potentiality at a quantum level. At the level of conscious experience, affect does highlight (or overlook/avoid) an aspect of reality, yes. But that’s only part of the naming process. We determine its attractive/destructive qualities as an idea, and then quantify it as a positive/negative/immeasurable thing. — Possibility

This paragraph and the next three - I don't understand what you're trying to say. We've had this issue from the beginning. You use language I'm not familiar with and don't understand. I'm really trying.

You seem to think I’m worried or bothered by our disagreements. I’m not, but I’m also not one to simply ‘agree to disagree’. I think that’s a missed opportunity. Disagreement highlights an area of the discussion where chi is blocked or resisted. My intention is to free the flow, not to attack your particular approach. I honestly don’t think of it as your understanding, so I’m sorry if it feels as if I’m implying that you are wrong by association. — Possibility

I'm very comfortable with my path on the way to understanding of the TTC. I have no objections to our disagreements. Both you and Amity have stated that I'm irresponsible for expressing my understanding because I might mislead others. That's an invalid argument and that bothers me.

I guess I'll chime in. — Ying

Thanks for the information. I've spent time with the Tao Te Ching and Zhuangzi, but not the other documents you listed. I'll take a look at them. I have looked at the I Ching, but not in depth. It is my understanding it is older than the Tao Te Ching and I couldn't really see how they fit together. Any insight?

We're on Verse 18 right now and moving through verse by verse. We'll see how long we last. Please chime in whenever you'd like.

I do think that our affected relation to this concept of ‘hope’ does distract us from the path, but that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with the idea or quality of hope in the world. — Possibility

Are you making a distinction between the concept of hope and the idea or quality of hope? If so, I don't understand. When I say hope is bad, I just mean that it distracts us from the path. The TTC is ambiguous about value judgements.

The issue I think Lao Tzu has is with the naming of ‘hope’ as something separate in the world that we strive to obtain or possess for its own sake, like with ‘knowledge’. — Possibility

If we don't name "hope" as something separate in the world, it's not hope. It's something else. That's wrong, it's not something else, it's not a thing.

It's really hard for me to match up your way of seeing things with mine.

I think the notion of ziran might be what T Clark has been referring to as his ‘true nature’ — Possibility

I think you may be right. I'll be on the lookout for verses where we can discuss this.

For me, the TTC is the antithesis of a logical framework. As I've said before, it's non-rational. Non-logical. Non-mathematical. I don't understand what you mean when you say it is. Can you give an example of the logical framework from the text. — T Clark

I thought I already did - here.

But I’m not explaining myself very well here. I believe that the TTC structures all of reality as consisting basically of logic, quality and energy, at any level of awareness. Because we obviously cannot view the TTC from outside of reality, I think we do so from one of these three points:

From a purely logical standpoint, the TTC describes the feeling of ideas, the subjective quality of experiencing the Tao. This, I would imagine, is close to how you see it. As an engineer, your perspective of the world is grounded in logic and rationality. You position yourself according to logic, and notice the world according to how much everything diverges from rationality. You’re less likely to see the logic of a structure when you naturally embody that structure.

From a perspective of pure aesthetics, the TTC describes the logic behind human experience, an instructional manual or moral code for thinking, speaking and acting in relation to the Tao. This, I would imagine, is how many literary translators have approached the TTC. As linguists, art historians and literature professionals, their perspective of the world is grounded in the quality of aesthetic ideas. Positioning themselves according to ‘the Beautiful and the Good’, they notice the world according to how everything diverges from this ideal.

From the perspective of an experiencing subject, the TTC describes the logic of qualitative relational structure, a strategic framework for relating to the Tao. This is close to how I have been approaching it. My perspective of the world is grounded in the natural flow of energy or chi. Positioning myself according to how I effect this flow of energy (as the only thing I could possibly be, the part of the world that is me) allows me to notice the world according to how I might relate to it, how I distribute this energy (attention and effort) as it flows though me.

I don’t really think there’s anything wrong with the other two approaches. And looking at it this way, I can see how my own approach seems more than a little bit ‘out there’. But this unusual perspective has given me the clearest intellectual understanding of wu - the stillness or emptiness at the centre of both ziran and wu-wei. From a logical perspective, such emptiness seems to amount to not-thinking (which obviously one can’t really think about or discuss), and from an aesthetic perspective it seems to amount to something like amorality (which perhaps explains all the drunken intellectuals of early Neo-Daoism!).

I guess the main criticism I might make about your approach is that it renders the TTC as indescribable as any other subjective quality of experience. It’s difficult to participate in a philosophical discussion of the TTC if we agree that it is entirely non-rational. It’s like philosophical discussions of qualia: largely pointless, consisting of everyone talking across purposes or expressing their ineffable uniqueness. It can be quite cathartic and creative for a while, but not much philosophy gets done, I’m afraid.

I'm very comfortable with my path on the way to understanding of the TTC. I have no objections to our disagreements. Both you and Amity have stated that I'm irresponsible for expressing my understanding because I might mislead others. That's an invalid argument and that bothers me. — T Clark

Let me clarify my use of ‘irresponsible’: it was in particular reference to your unfounded claims that Lao Tzu thinks a certain way as distinct from - and in relation to - your own way of thinking, and your ‘who gives a shit’ approach to making such claims on a public forum, as it relates to the notion of wu-wei. It wasn’t a judgement against expressing your understanding, but an observation of how you perceive (or don’t perceive) its broader potential to reverberate in the world.

Are you making a distinction between the concept of hope and the idea or quality of hope? If so, I don't understand. When I say hope is bad, I just mean that it distracts us from the path. The TTC is ambiguous about value judgements. — T Clark

Then why say ‘hope is bad’ if that’s not what you mean? If the TTC is ambiguous about value judgements, especially if it seems deliberate, then shouldn’t we try to keep value judgements out of our interpretation?

The distinction I’m making is a structural one, between a concept and an idea. It’s about attributing value/significance/potential.

If we don't name "hope" as something separate in the world, it's not hope. It's something else. That's wrong, it's not something else, it's not a thing. — T Clark

Exactly.

I use the Tao as a replacement for objective reality in my understanding of the world. I think the two views of reality are mutually exclusive. The Tao is not objective. — T Clark

I don’t understand how you can replace objective reality with the Tao, as if the two were interchangeable, and also claim that they are mutually exclusive, and that the Tao is not objective. That’s seems a contradiction to me.

This paragraph and the next three - I don't understand what you're trying to say. We've had this issue from the beginning. You use language I'm not familiar with and don't understand. I'm really trying. — T Clark

I, too, need to work on being clearer. I have gone back and tried to remove some of this language from a recent post. I will try the same with this explanation of affect - let me know if it helps:

I see affect as the process (conscious and unconscious) of restructuring HOW energy (chi) flows through me in terms of not just attention, but also effort. Energy (chi) flows through everything, but is always relative, subjective, localised. At the level of conscious experience, affect can highlight an aspect of reality, as you say. It can also avoid or overlook an aspect - by blocking chi or directing flow (attention and effort) away from it. But highlighting or avoiding an aspect by directing the flow of chi is only part of the process called ‘naming’. We also judge certain immeasurable qualities, ideas or forces that we highlight (or cannot avoid/ignore) as attractive/destructive ‘things’, and judge certain quantities, objects or concepts as valuable/terrible ‘things’ - all by re-directing the flow of chi. This is affect. It’s what we do with energy/information, how we distribute it internally and direct it back out into world.

Nature is like a bellows, the more it moves, the more it yeilds.

Note - I've responded to more than one of your posts in this one response.

Let me clarify my use of ‘irresponsible’: it was in particular reference to your unfounded claims that Lao Tzu thinks a certain way as distinct from - and in relation to - your own way of thinking, and your ‘who gives a shit’ approach to making such claims on a public forum, as it relates to the notion of wu-wei. — Possibility

As far as I'm concerned, there's no need to discuss this more. Which doesn't mean you can't if you want to.

Then why say ‘hope is bad’ if that’s not what you mean? If the TTC is ambiguous about value judgements, especially if it seems deliberate, then shouldn’t we try to keep value judgements out of our interpretation? — Possibility

I've had disagreements about value judgements in the TTC, and not just with you. If hope distracts me from the path, from following Lao Tzu's path, that's a bad thing. That's my judgement. Lao Tzu might wag his finger at me if he were here. So, no, I don't think I have to keep my value judgements out of my interpretation as long as I'm clear and recognize the ambiguity.

The distinction I’m making is a structural one, between a concept and an idea. It’s about attributing value/significance/potential. — Possibility

In my dictionary, "concept" and "idea" are synonyms. I don't understand the distinction.

If we don't name "hope" as something separate in the world, it's not hope. It's something else. That's wrong, it's not something else, it's not a thing.
— T Clark

Exactly. — Possibility

I think you and I have different understandings of the relation between the Tao and the 10,000 things.

I don’t understand how you can replace objective reality with the Tao, as if the two were interchangeable, and also claim that they are mutually exclusive, and that the Tao is not objective. That’s seems a contradiction to me. — Possibility

Both objective reality and the Tao are metaphysical entities, two different ways of seeing the nature of reality. One way of seeing things is not right while the other is wrong, they are more or less useful in a particular situation. I find the Tao a more useful idea in most situations.

I see affect as the process (conscious and unconscious) of restructuring HOW energy (chi) flows through me in terms of not just attention, but also effort. Energy (chi) flows through everything, but is always relative, subjective, localised. At the level of conscious experience, affect can highlight an aspect of reality, as you say. It can also avoid or overlook an aspect - by blocking chi or directing flow (attention and effort) away from it. But highlighting or avoiding an aspect by directing the flow of chi is only part of the process called ‘naming’. We also judge certain immeasurable qualities, ideas or forces that we highlight (or cannot avoid/ignore) as attractive/destructive ‘things’, and judge certain quantities, objects or concepts as valuable/terrible ‘things’ - all by re-directing the flow of chi. This is affect. It’s what we do with energy/information, how we distribute it internally and direct it back out into world. — Possibility

This sounds ok, although I still don't get some of it. Seems like you're talking about what I call "naming," but you're examining how it works as a process while I don't. As I've said in previous posts, I'm still unclear on how things get from the Tao to the 10,000 things. I'll think on what you've said from that perspective. We can talk about this more as we go along.

I'm still confused by "affect." Does that come from Barrett? I haven't gotten any further in her book yet.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no need to discuss this more. Which doesn't mean you can't if you want to. — T Clark

:up:

In my dictionary, "concept" and "idea" are synonyms. I don't understand the distinction. — T Clark

Synonym does not mean identical - it just means people use them without regard for any difference between them. In design, however, there is a clear difference. Basically, an idea is partial or not fully formed, while a concept often includes form and viability. Here’s an in-depth explanation of the difference.

I think you and I have different understandings of the relation between the Tao and the 10,000 things. — T Clark

I would have thought that was obvious from the start. You have said a couple of times now that you’re unclear on this relation.

Both objective reality and the Tao are metaphysical entities, two different ways of seeing the nature of reality. One way of seeing things is not right while the other is wrong, they are more or less useful in a particular situation. I find the Tao a more useful idea in most situations. — T Clark

It’s just a name, a placeholder for what cannot be named, and doesn’t change. So I don’t think that what you name it has much use at all, to be honest. It doesn’t change how we see it - not at the level that we can ‘see’ it as such, anyway. But I have to keep remembering that you’re experiencing, not relating to the Tao. So of course how you name it changes how you experience it, and it’s only ‘objective reality’ if it’s consistent with your logic, which the Tao is not.

I'm still confused by "affect." Does that come from Barrett? I haven't gotten any further in her book yet. — T Clark

Yes. I use affect to describe what we do with energy because her description of the process is apt.