My favorite verses in the Tao Te Ching

Valentinus

I believe you are referring to verse 5.
I read the passage to say that the bellows are not exhausted in the way speech can be by continuing without end.
"Nature" may be presented in the verse but it should be seen in the context of other statements made in the verse. As one translation has it:

Heaven and earth are ruthless, and treat the myriad creatures as straw dogs., the sage is ruthless,
and treats the people as straw dogs.
Is not the space between heaven and earth like a bellows?
It is empty without being exhausted:
The more it works the more comes out.
Much speech leads inevitably to silence.
Better to hold fast to the void.

Translated by D.C. Lau

T Clark

↪Possibility

This is your original statement that set off the idea/concept discussion. Let's go back to it.

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’. — Possibility

Are you saying that, although the idea of hope is one of the 10,000 things and distracts us from the Tao, hope still somehow resides within the Tao as a concept? That's what lead me to say -

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

The TTC is clear - the Tao does not have anything inside it. It is undivided and indivisible. It isn't made up of anything else. It isn't a mixture. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say.

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. — Possibility

The Tao cannot be named, but objective reality can. It's a thing. It's one of the 10,000 things. It's just a bag full of everything. Things in objective reality exist without being named.

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. — Possibility

You can't relate to the Tao. Nothing can. The Tao has no logic. That's not how it works. I don't think all this arguing is getting us anywhere.

Possibility

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

↪Valentinus

I saw this a little differently. The functionality of emptiness is capacity, unrealised potential.

We are not so much in what we say, but in our capacity to speak. Likewise, the bellows utensil is not the air it blows, but its capacity to blow. The space between heaven and earth is not what exists, but the capacity for existence. In this way, the sage sees the value of humanity not in the ‘hundred family names’ - these are like straw dogs: fragile, temporary, indicative. Like the air that passes through the bellows.

Likewise, the Tao is not so much the 10,000 things, but the full potentiality that their existence, and subsequent ‘naming’, only temporarily, incompletely, indicates.

Possibility

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’.
— Possibility

Are you saying that, although the idea of hope is one of the 10,000 things and distracts us from the Tao, hope still somehow resides within the Tao as a concept? — T Clark

No, I’m saying that the concept of ‘hope’ is one of the 10,000 things, and directing effort and attention towards it as an objective or virtue in itself distracts us from the path. But this quality of hoping - like listening without hearing, or directing attention without understanding how to direct effort - is an inseparable aspect of experiencing the Tao.

The TTC is clear - the Tao does not have anything inside it. It is undivided and indivisible. It isn't made up of anything else. There's nothing inside it. It isn't a mixture. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say. — T Clark

Maybe, because I agree with all of these statements. Let me know your thoughts on my reply above to Valentinus regarding verse 5.

The Tao cannot be named, but objective reality can. It's a thing. It's one of the 10,000 things. It's just a bag full of everything. Things in objective reality exist without being named. — T Clark

I disagree with this. Have you ever tried to define ‘objective reality’? To say that it’s one of the 10,000 things is to say that we can name things that are not objective reality. Is that what you’re saying? If so, then we have a different understanding of ‘objective reality’. But it might explain why you say that objective reality and the Tao are ‘mutually exclusive’, like some form of dualism. I don’t know.

You can't relate to the Tao. Nothing can. The Tao has no logic. That's not how it works. — T Clark

You seem so certain of this, that what I say I’m doing just isn’t (logically) possible. That I can’t do this, or that you know what the Tao does or doesn’t have. Where does this certainty come from?

I don't think all this arguing is getting us anywhere. — T Clark

I don’t know - I think I’m getting better at understanding where you’re coming from now. Bear with me. I won’t necessarily agree with you, but I’m not going to try and tell you what you can’t do.

Possibility

The Tao has no logic. That's not how it works. — T Clark

It looks like I may have been using ‘logic’ where I mean ‘rationality’. This may not solve our disagreement, but I’m trying to be clearer...

TheMadFool

↪T Clark

I don't know if you'd like to pursue what I'm about to say further but just in case you might like to I'd like to put forth a line of inquiry in re Taoism. It's best illustrated with an example. See below:

Those who speak, dont know. Those who know, don't speak — Laozi

The quote above, without failing to do justice to it, can be interpreted as a claim in epistemology. The statement, itself a handiwork of an Eastern philosopher, is one about a Western philosophical concern viz. epistemology. Further reading Pyrrho, Agrippa, and Munchhausen's trilemma, The Problem Of The Criterion will shed light on how the two are actually one viz. that West and East, though dissimilar in approach and style are in fact on the same page. This is one example I can think of that's amenable to this interpretation.

Another minor nonetheless significant point is that Laozi seems to be deeply concerned by generalizations and that's a very easy mistake to make when one is intellectually lazy. Thus, Laozi is also sharing his views on logical fallacies.

Come to think of it, this is precisely how Taoism is interpreted in the West - selecting specific branches and their allied concepts/theories/whatnot of Western philosophies and using them to contextualize Laozi's many utterances with the aim being to grasp the message contained therein. However this approach to Taoism seems neither systematic nor deliberate i.e. we're doing it instinctively, automatically.

Perhaps if we follow our instincts in this regard and do what we're already doing but this time knowingly and in an organized fashion, what might come out at the other end could quite possibly be a better grasp of Laozi and his cryptic statements.

ghostlycutter

If the Tao has no logic then there is nothing to understand; do as I do, or do not and read what I say, inherently gaining nothing. What is thus to be taken from the TTC? Pleasurable texts, short spells of enlightenment. Of course, the TTC not perfect but the master-at-work may tower the average reader. Do as he does and you will learn from his mastery, or write a book as pleasurable and enlightening as his to intice students of your own.

Possibility

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. — T Clark

An interesting quote from Confucius with regard to naming, from a SEP article I’m reading on ‘Logic and Language in Early Chinese Philosophy’:

“An exemplary person (junzi) defers on matters he does not understand. When names are not used properly, language will not be used effectively; when language is not used effectively, matters will not be taken care of; when matters are not taken care of, the observance of ritual propriety (li) and the playing of music (yue) will not flourish; when the observance of ritual propriety and the playing of music do not flourish, the application of laws and punishment will not be on the mark; when the application of laws and punishments is not on the mark, the people will not know what to do with themselves. Thus, when the exemplary person puts a name to something, it can certainly be spoken, and when spoken it can certainly be acted upon. There is nothing careless in the attitude of the exemplary person toward what is said”. (Analects 13.3; tr. Ames and Rosemont 1998)

I noticed how the structure of this is similar to translations of verse 18 in the TTC...

T Clark

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

I read the passage to say that the bellows are not exhausted in the way speech can be by continuing without end. — Valentinus

The functionality of emptiness is capacity, unrealised potential.

We are not so much in what we say, but in our capacity to speak. Likewise, the bellows utensil is not the air it blows, but its capacity to blow. — Possibility

I've never gotten the bellows thing. Does it have something to do with Verse 11 - emptiness? This is Chen's translation:

Thirty spokes share one hub to make a wheel.
Through its non-being (wu),
There is (yu) the use (yung) of the carriage.
Mold clay into a vessel (ch'i).
Through its non-being (wu),
There is (yu) the use (yung) of the vessel.
Cut out doors and windows to make a house.
Through its non-being (wu),
There is (yu) the use (yung) of the house.
Therefore in the being (yu-chih) of a thing,
There lies the benefit (li).
In the non-being (wu-chih) of a thing,
There lies its use (yun).

Or maybe verse 55. Again Chen.

One who contains te in fullness,
Is to be compared to an infant...
...Such is the perfection of its life-force (ching).
Crying all day, yet it does not get hoarse.

The bellows has a cyclic motion - empty, fill, empty, fill - like the 10,000 things returning to the Tao.

T Clark

The quote above, without failing to do justice to it, can be interpreted as a claim in epistemology. The statement, itself a handiwork of an Eastern philosopher, is one about a Western philosophical concern viz. epistemology. Further reading Pyrrho, Agrippa, and Munchhausen's trilemma, The Problem Of The Criterion will shed light on how the two are actually one viz. that West and East, though dissimilar in approach and style are in fact on the same page. This is one example I can think of that's amenable to this interpretation. — TheMadFool

I don't know if you've been following along at all. We've been having a discussion of knowledge and how it is handled in the TTC. Why don't you go back and read the posts on Verse 18. Here's the start:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/520217

Does your interest fall anywhere in that area? Also, how Taoism fits in with western philosophies has come up a few times in the thread.

Valentinus

↪T Clark

Yes, the emptiness in this verse is tied to how it appears in the other verses.

I hear what Possibility is saying about potential in contrast to what actually comes into being. I see what you recognize as your "true nature" as one of the beings who appear. But it seems to me that distinctions we make in discussing the emergence of the 10,000 things needs to connect with where the text compares the more "immortal" to the completely "mortal". In verse 7 the matter is put this way:

Heaven and earth are are enduring. The reason why heaven and earth can be enduring is that they do not give themselves life. Hence they are able to be long-lived.
Therefore the sage puts his person last and it comes first,
Treats it as extraneous to himself and is preserved.
Is it not because he is without thought of self that he is able to accomplish his private ends? — Translated by D.C. Lau

The bellows has a cyclic motion - empty, fill, empty, fill - like the 10,000 things returning to the Tao. — T Clark

That is what struck me about the metaphor. In line with my emphasis upon mortality, I think the comments I made about verse 10 still apply. The Tao is said to be the same on both sides of the gate.

Ying

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

Hi!

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.

Ooh the Terebess site looks nice! Thnx for the heads up and thank you T Clark for providing the link!

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.

Google Translate? I've found that DeepL usually has beter translation results.
https://www.deepl.com/translator

As for the specific usage of Chinese characters, well, sorry to say, but my Chinese is non-existent. Particularly bad for me, since I'm actually Chinese. :shade: I am, however, fairly well read when it comes to daoist philosophy; I believe the following passage from the "Zhiangzi" might help with interpreting the verses you mentioned. I've also added some notes from guidebooks on world history to highlight that neither Zhiangzi nor Laozi where talking about mere imaginings. I made those notes hidden since it's not particularly important to this thread imho.

"According to my idea, those who knew well to govern mankind would not act so. The people had their regular and constant nature: they wove and made themselves clothes; they tilled the ground and got food. This was their common faculty. They were all one in this, and did not form themselves into separate classes; so were they constituted and left to their natural tendencies. Therefore in the age of perfect virtue men walked along with slow and grave step, and with their looks steadily directed forwards. At that time, on the hills there were no foot-paths, nor excavated passages; on the lakes there were no boats nor dams; all creatures lived in companies; and the places of their settlement were made close to one another. Birds and beasts multiplied to flocks and herds; the grass and trees grew luxuriant and long. In this condition the birds and beasts might be led about without feeling the constraint; the nest of the magpie might be climbed to, and peeped into. Yes, in the age of perfect virtue, men lived in common with birds and beasts, and were on terms of equality with all creatures, as forming one family - how could they know among themselves the distinctions of superior men and small men? Equally without knowledge, they did not leave (the path of) their natural virtue; equally free from desires, they were in the state of pure simplicity. In that state of pure simplicity, the nature of the people was what it ought to be. But when the sagely men appeared, limping and wheeling about in (the exercise of) benevolence, pressing along and standing on tiptoe in the doing of righteousness, then men universally began to be perplexed. (Those sages also) went to excess in their performances of music, and in their gesticulations in the practice of ceremonies, and then men began to be separated from one another. If the raw materials had not been cut and hacked, who could have made a sacrificial vase from them? If the natural jade had not been broken and injured, who could have made the handles for the libation-cups from it? If the attributes of the Dao had not been disallowed, how should they have preferred benevolence and righteousness? If the instincts of the nature had not been departed from, how should ceremonies and music have come into use? If the five colours had not been confused, how should the ornamental figures have been formed? If the five notes had not been confused, how should they have supplemented them by the musical accords? The cutting and hacking of the raw materials to form vessels was the crime of the skilful workman; the injury done to the characteristics of the Dao in order to the practice of benevolence and righteousness was the error of the sagely men.[/i}"
-Zhuangzi, Horses Hoofs 2

Reveal

III. Let us now turn to the questions of when agriculture was introduced, the complexities of its introduction, and its implications for the future.
A. The introduction of agriculture, sometimes called the Neolithic revolution, was a crucial change in the human experience. Some would argue that, other than the emergence of the species itself, the development of agriculture and the later replacement of agricultural economies with industrial economies are the two key developments of the human experience.
B.Agriculture was invented in at least three separate places.
1. The first invention occurred in the northern Middle East/Black Sea region with domestication of wheat and barley.
2. The second invention occurred in South China and continental Southeast Asia around 7000 BCE with the introduction of rice.
3. The third invention was the domestication of corn, or maize, in Central America about 5000 BCE.
4. Agriculture may also have been invented in other places, including sub-Saharan Africa and northern China.
C. By 5000 BCE, agriculture had gradually spread and was becoming the most common economic system for the largest number of people in the world. Despite the advantages of agriculture over hunting and gathering, its widespread adoption was slow.
1.One reason for this slow spread was that contacts among relatively far-flung populations were minimal.
2. Not all regions were suitable for agriculture; some were heavily forested or arid.
3. An alternative economic system based on nomadic herding of animals prevailed for a long time over agriculture in the Middle East, Africa, the Americas, and Central Asia.
4.Agriculture involves settling down,which might not have been attractive to some hunting-and-gathering societies that treasured their capacity to move around.
IV. When agriculture was introduced, it brought massive changes in the human experience.
A. Agriculture involves more work, particularly for men, than hunting and gathering; thus, it redefined and increased the work expectations of human society.
B.Agriculture also redefined gender relations. In most hunting-and-gathering societies, men did the hunting and women did the gathering, but because both groups contributed to the food supply, women usually had some influence in society. In agricultural societies, however, patriarchal systems predominated.
1. The most obvious reason for the increase in male dominance was that agriculture both permitted and required an expansion of the birthrate.
2. Men increasingly assumed the role of principal cultivator of the crucial food crops, resulting in the development of patriarchal societies.
3. In hunting-and-gathering societies, children had few functions until they reached their early teens. In agricultural societies, childhood and work became more closely associated, and the idea of obedience tended to follow this shift.
V. The advent of agriculture raises interesting questions about human progress.
A.Despite what many of us learned in grade school, the adoption of agriculture had a number of drawbacks. In some cases, these drawbacks affected some groups willingness to adopt agriculture.
1.The first drawback is the introduction of new kinds of inequality, particularly between men and women.
2.The second is that agriculture allowed people to settle down into clustered communities, which exposedthe inhabitants to increased incidences of epidemic disease.
3.The third is that agricultural societies altered the local environment in a way that hunting-and-gathering societies did not do, to the extent of damaging and even destroying a regional environment and the communities that existed there.
B.The advantages of agriculture, however, allowed it to spread.
1.One not entirely frivolous theory toexplain this spread is that agriculture allowed the growth of products that could be fermented to create alcohol.
2.More systematically, agriculture significantly improved food supplies, which in turn allowed families to have more children and resulted in population expansion.
3.These conditions prevailed for a long time, between about 9000 BCE until 300 to 400 years ago.
C.Agricultural economies were constrained by limitations in the amount of food that a given worker could generate. Even the most advanced agricultural economies required about 80 percent of the population to be engaged primarily in agriculture, which limited the amount of taxation that could be levied and limited the size of cities to no more than 20 percent of the populationa crucial feature to remember about agricultural societies in general.
D.Agricultural societies also generated cultural emphases, especially by encouraging new attention to the spring season and to divine forces responsible for creation.
E.The crucial features of agriculture were its role in population increase and its capacity to generate discernible surpluses, which freed at least some people to do other things, such as manufacturing pottery. As we will see in the next lecture, manufacturing could lead to yet additional developments in the human experience, including the emergence of cities and advancements in other areas of technology.
-Peter Stearns, "A Brief History of the World" Guidebook 1, p. 9, 10, 11
F. It is a mistake to think our ancestors were unsophisticated.
1. To survive using Stone Age technologies, they needed detailed scientific knowledge of their environments, accumulated through millennia of collective learning and stored in stories and myths.
2. Southwestern Tasmania was one of the most remote environments on Earth in the Paleolithic era. Yet modern archaeological studies of Kutikina Cave, which was occupied from 35,000 years ago to perhaps 13,000 years ago, have revealed hundreds of stone tools, ancient hearths, delicate spear points of wallaby bone, and knives made from natural glass (Mithen, After the Ice, pp. 30607). The first Tasmanians exploited their environment with great efficiency.
-David Christian, "Big History" Guidebook 1, p. 63
B. To many, it may seem obvious that Paleolithic lifeways were harsh, brutal, and unpleasant. Yet in 1972, American anthropologist Marshall Sahlins wrote a famous article, The Original Affluent Society, in which he questioned these assumptions. Sahlins argued that in some ways Paleolithic life was not too bad.
1. Being nomadic, people had little desire to accumulate goods. This, he describes as the Zen path to abundance: a feeling that everything you need is all around you.
2. Diets were often healthy and varied.
3. Modern studies of foraging societies suggest that people often survived on just 3 - 6 hours of work a day.
4. Because there was little accumulated wealth, Paleolithic societies were more egalitarian than those of today (though this does not mean there were no conflicts between individuals, or divisions by age, lineage, and gender).
C. On the other hand, studies of Paleolithic skeletons suggest that most people died young, usually from physical trauma of some kind.
D. Sahlins may have overstated the case, and we can be sure that someone reared in a modern society would struggle to survive in a Paleolithic society. Nevertheless, Sahlinss article reminds us that we should not
assume without question that history is a story of progress.
-Ibid.
2. Agriculture did not necessarily improve living standards, which is why many foragers who knew about farming rejected it. Archaeological evidence suggests they may have been right, for many early farmers suffered from poor health and nutrition. This idea encourages us to look for push rather than pull explanations, for factors that forced people to take up agriculture whether they wanted to or not.
-Ibid. p. 72
V. How well did the first farmers live? Did agriculture necessarily mean progress?
A. We saw in Lecture Twenty-Two that, by some criteria, Paleolithic foragers lived quite well.
B. The evidence on early farmers is mixed.
1. The first generation or two probably lived well, enjoying improved food supplies.
2. However, within a few generations, population growth created problems that nomadic foragers had never faced. Sedentary villages attracted vermin and rubbish, and diseases spread more easily with a larger pool of potential victims to infect, particularly after the introduction of domesticated animals, which passed many of their parasites on to humans. Studies of human bones from early Agrarian communities hint at new forms of stress, caused by the intense labor of harvest times, or by periodic crop failures, which became more common because farmers generally relied on a more limited range of foodstuffs than foragers. Periodic shortages may explain why skeletons seem to get shorter in early Agrarian villages.
3. On the other hand, early Agrarian communities were probably fairly egalitarian. Relative equality is apparent even in large sites such as Catal Huyuk, where buildings are similar in size, though differences in burials show there were some, possibly hereditary, differences in wealth.
VI. The early Agrarian era transformed a world of foragers into a world of peasant farmers. Within these denser communities new forms of complexity would begin to emerge. Yet by some criteria, living standards may have declined. Complexity does notnecessarily mean progress!
-Ibid. p. 75
By modern standards, Paleolithic and early Agrarian communities were simple and egalitarian. However, during the early Agrarian era, institutionalized hierarchies began to appear, dividing communities by gender, wealth, ethnicity, lineage, and power. About 5,000 years ago there appeared the first tribute-taking states. These were controlled by elites who extracted labor and resources, partly through the threat of organized force, just as farmers extracted ecological rents from their domesticated plants and animals. The appearance of states was a momentous transition in human history.
-Ibid. p. 77
V. Now we return to the early Agrarian era to trace how power structures became more significant and more institutionalized. It will help to imagine two distinct ways of mobilizing power. Though intertwined in reality, we can distinguish them analytically.
A. Power from below is power conceded more or less willingly by individuals or groups who expect to benefit from subordination to skillful leaders. People expect something in return for subordination, so power from below is a mutualistic form of symbiosis. As societies became largerand denser, leadership became more important in order to achieve group goals, such as the building of irrigation systems or defense in war.
1. Familiar modern examples of power from below include the election of club or team officials or captains.
2. When we think of power as legitimate (e.g., the right to tax in a democratic society), we are generally thinking of it as power from below, even if it is backed by the threat of force.
B. Power from above depends on the capacity to make credible threats of coercion. That depends on the existence of disciplined groups of coercers, loyal to the leader and able to enforce the leaders will by force when necessary. In such an environment, people obey because they will be punished if they do not. This aspect of power highlights the coercive (or parasitic) element in power relationships.
1. The existence of jails, police, and armiesis evidence that such power exists.
2. Yet no state can depend entirely on coercion becausemaintaining an apparatus of coercion is costly and depends on maintaining the willing support of the coercers. No individual can single-handedly coerce millions of others.
C. In practice, the two forms of power are intertwined in complex ways. Protection rackets, for example, offer a service. Yet it is often the racket itself that is the likely source of danger, so does the payment of protection money count as a form of power from below or above?
D. Building coercive groups is complex and costly, and the earliest forms of power emerged before such groups existed. That is why the first power elites depended mainly on power from below.
-Ibid. P. 78

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.

Well, you're in for a treat if you like daoism and haven't read the "Zhuangzi". It's a philosophical treatise which is actually funny at times. I highly recommend reading at least the "Inner Chapters"..

Anyway, here's a link to the "Zhuangzi":
https://ctext.org/daoism

... The "I Ching"
http://www2.unipr.it/~deyoung/I_Ching_Wilhelm_Translation.html

And the "Liezi":
https://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/tt/

Finally, the "Shang Shu":
https://ctext.org/shang-shu

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? — T Clark

There are several angles one can take when it comes to the relationship between the "I Ching" and the "Daodejing" in my opinion:
-Li Er (historical Laozi) worked as a court librarian before leaving his post. This means that he was most likely familiar with the "I Ching".
-The "I Ching" isn't just an oracle text. It also spells out the cosmology in which the ancient Chinese intellectuals did their thinking.
-It also acts as a sort of conceptual dictionary for ancient Chinese texts. Words like "heaven" and "earth" are easy to translate, but harder to interpret within the right framework.

Take ch. 1 of the "Daodejing" for example:

"(Conceived of as) having no name, it is the Originator of heaven and earth;
(conceived of as) having a name, it is the Mother of all things."

So, when wanting to know what the Laozi was talking about here, it helps when you're familiar with the cosmology he was thinking in. He mentions "the Originator of heaven and earth". Heaven, in this case, refers to the concept talked about in hexagram 1, earth to the concept talked about in hexagram 2. When he's talking about "the originator", he's talking about wuji / taji, but those are merely names...

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.

Will do. :up:

TheMadFool

If the Tao has no logic then there is nothing to understand — ghostlycutter

:up: :clap: A gem of a statement. What if it's a narrative-like composition? You know, like a story. A story has no logic per se, it's simply a report of events, emotions, actions of characters in that story.

I don't know if you've been following along at all. We've been having a discussion of knowledge and how it is handled in the TTC. Why don't you go back and read the posts on Verse 18. Here's the start:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/520217

Does your interest fall anywhere in that area? Also, how Taoism fits in with western philosophies has come up a few times in the thread. — T Clark

I'll get back to you. Thanks.

Amity

Well, you're in for a treat if you like daoism and haven't read the "Zhuangzi". It's a philosophical treatise which is actually funny at times. I highly recommend reading at least the "Inner Chapters"..

Anyway, here's a link to the "Zhuangzi":
https://ctext.org/daoism — Ying

Just popping in to say thanks for all the information you provided.
Luckily for me and my level of understanding @Wayfarer mentioned this on p4 - about a month ago...doesn't time fly...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/510086
Also @Valentinus p8
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/511050
And @Amity
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/511470
'An instructive story regarding wei wu wei, literally 'doing not-doing'.
Cook Ding Cuts Up an Ox'
Appreciated later feedback from both Wayfarer and Valentinus, an example:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/512233

I had downloaded the Zhuangzi, the Burton-Watson translation from the terebess website. Shared with @Jack Cummins and I am still reading it.
https://terebess.hu/english/tao/Zhuangzi-Burton-Watson.pdf

However, your link is quite amazing. I clicked on Ch1:
https://ctext.org/zhuangzi/enjoyment-in-untroubled-ease
And found not only a translation by Legge but small clickable boxes:
Blue: jump to dictionary; you can hover over each Chinese character for the meaning; opposite is the translation.
Yellow: show parallel passages
Orange with blue arrow: show added information

More importantly for this thread - the same can be done for the TTC:
https://ctext.org/dao-de-jing#n11592
The dictionary:
https://ctext.org/dictionary.pl?if=en&id=11592

I am taking time out from the thread but following closely, reading beyond...
I include this in the hope that it is helpful:
https://iep.utm.edu/zhuangzi/

Paying close attention to the textual associations, we see that wandering is associated with the word wu, ordinarily translated ‘nothing,’ or ‘without.’ Related associations include: wuyou (no ‘something’) and wuwei (no interference). Roger Ames and David Hall have commented extensively on these wu expressions.

Most importantly, they are not to be understood as simple negations, but have a much more complex function. The significance of all of these expressions must be traced back to the wu of Laozi: a type of negation that does not simply negate, but places us in a new kind of relation to ‘things’—a phenomenological waiting that allows them to manifest, one that acknowledges the space that is the possibility of their coming to presence, one that appreciates the emptiness that is the condition of the possibility of their capacity to function, to be useful (as the hollow inside a house makes it useful for living).
The behavior of one who wanders beyond becomes wuwei: sensitive and responsive without fixed preconceptions, without artifice, responding spontaneously in accordance with the unfolding of the inter-developing factors of the environment of which one is an inseparable part. — Steve Coutinho

[emphasis added]

* wandering off now *

ghostlycutter

↪TheMadFool

thank you theMadFool your posts are always interesting, beautiful interpretation. Yes, teaching via example.

I attempt here to write a short story-form lesson.

Welcome to what was.
What will be may not be.
Within a warm place comes warmth.
Ride, jump and be.
See where the flower manifests.
Time struggles to remember.

Something a little more complex...

Life tied mort, wallow in tame facts.
Catch, rip, lease, mellow stomach loch.
Marble fine leap stim, move leave.

Possibility

A gem of a statement. What if it's a narrative-like composition? You know, like a story. A story has no logic per se, it's simply a report of events, emotions, actions of characters in that story. — TheMadFool

A story does have logic to it, even a report of events does. Action occurs in a sequence, for starters. A narrative necessarily has characters, affect, shape, etc. We take for granted the logic of narrative, just like we take for granted the logic of language, and of physical reality, and bracket it all out of our experience. We assume agreement on these aspects of the story. That’s what logic IS.

Possibility

Google Translate? I've found that DeepL usually has beter translation results.
https://www.deepl.com/translator — Ying

Thanks for the tip. The advantage of Google is that it doesn’t just offer it’s most likely translation, but a range of alternatives. This gives me a clearer view of the different kind (quality) of ideas that Chinese speakers have in constituting different concepts, rather than assuming they think the same way that I do and so compose concepts in the same way.

At first glance, I think the biggest difference between the TTC and the Zhuangzi is the narrative composition. This gives readers an opportunity to relate to the text on another level, one that isn’t offered in the TTC. But I think the simplistic structure of the TTC is deliberately confronting. If a verse or a phrase doesn’t make sense in relation to our experiences, then it’s inviting us to reconsider how we structure our understanding of the world - how we interrelate logic, quality and affect (chi) in this instance. To do that, we need to defer to the ‘natural’ logic and quality of the language only, in the same way that it seems Lao Tzu did, and pay attention to the affect of the text on our chi. This seems to me both more difficult and in some ways easier to do approaching it from outside the language. When I break a concept down into composite ideas or quality, the logic-quality-affect structure makes much more sense.

TheMadFool

A story does have logic to it, even a report of events does. Action occurs in a sequence, for starters. A narrative necessarily has characters, affect, shape, etc. We take for granted the logic of narrative, just like we take for granted the logic of language, and of physical reality, and bracket it all out of our experience. We assume agreement on these aspects of the story. That’s what logic IS. — Possibility

Smith left the room in a huff, his shadow flitting across the wall in the soft light of the setting sun. I looked outside the small window in the room and caught sight of some birds probably on their way to roost for the coming night. The sky was clear except for a few scattered clouds that were glowing red and orange. I picked up the cup and gulped down the remaining coffee.

A sample prose for your consideration. Where's the logic in it? Which are the premises and which are the conclusions?

thank you theMadFool your posts are always interesting, beautiful interpretation. Yes, teaching via example.

I attempt here to write a short story-form lesson.

Welcome to what was.
What will be may not be.
Within a warm place comes warmth.
Ride, jump and be.
See where the flower manifests.
Time struggles to remember.

Something a little more complex...

Life tied mort, wallow in tame facts.
Catch, rip, lease, mellow stomach loch.
Marble fine leap stim, move leave. — ghostlycutter

:up: I'm fond of verse/poetry but not as good as I'd like to be in creating them.

T Clark

Verse 19

Ellen Marie Chen

Eliminate sagacity (sheng), discard knowledge (chih),
People will be profited (li) a hundredfold.
Eliminate humanity (jen), discard righteousness (i),
People will again practice filial piety and parental love.
Abolish artistry (ch'iao), discard profit-seeking (li),
Robbers and thieves shall disappear.
These three pairs adorn (wen) what is deficient (pu tsu).
Therefore, let there be the advice:
Look to the undyed silk, hold on to the uncarved wood (p'u),
Reduce your sense of self (szu) and lessen your desires (yü).

Stefan Stenudd

Abandon wisdom, discard knowledge,
And people will benefit a hundredfold.
Abandon benevolence, discard duty,
And people will return to the family ties.
Abandon cleverness, discard profit,
And thieves and robbers will disappear.
These three, though, are superficial, and not enough.
Let this be what to rely on:
Behave simply and hold on to purity.
Lessen selfishness and restrain desires.
Abandon knowledge and your worries are over.
Verse 19 is similar to Verse 18, although it’s sliced a bit differently.

Line by line - Ellen Marie Chen

Eliminate sagacity (sheng), discard knowledge (chih),
People will be profited (li) a hundredfold.

Back to knowledge. Here are some different translations of the first line:

Banish learning, discard knowledge – Addiss and Lombardo
Discontinue sagacity, abandon knowledge – Lin
Eliminate sagacity (sheng), discard knowledge (chih) – Chen
Throw away holiness and wisdom - Mitchell
Give up sainthood, renounce wisdom - Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English
Cut off sageliness, abandon wisdom – Ivanhoe
Abandon wisdom, discard knowledge - Stenudd

There is some ambiguity in these lines. Both knowledge and wisdom are bad? In Verse 18, Chen talked about “intelligence and knowledge.” It seems like the argument against wisdom, if there is one, is different than knowledge or intelligence. We’ve had a difference of opinion about what the TTC says about knowledge. Possibility wrote:

In my view, the TTC is not against knowledge and rational thought - it’s against revering knowledge for its own sake or as an illusion of power, and against acting on knowledge simply because we can or want to. — Possibility

I’ve said knowledge distracts us from the path that Lao Tzu is trying to show us. Flipping that, gaining knowledge is not the way to follow the Tao. I think you could also say that “knowledge” means “conventional knowledge.” The conventional way of categorizing and classifying things is misleading. I’ve also said that it seems to me that knowledge is connected to desire. This is from Chen’s Verse 48.

To pursue (wei) learning one increases daily.
To pursue (wei) Tao one decreases daily.
To decrease and again to decrease,
Until one arrives at not doing (wu-wei).

This seems at the heart of the matter to me. Knowledge is taking in. Following the Tao is sending out, emptying, surrendering.

Eliminate humanity (jen), discard righteousness (i),
People will again practice filial piety and parental love.

I think this is consistent with other verses, such as this from Lin’s Verse 38:

Therefore, the Tao is lost, and then virtue
Virtue is lost, and then benevolence
Benevolence is lost, and then righteousness
Righteousness is lost, and then etiquette

This from Lin’s Verse 18 seems contradictory.

The six relations are not harmonious
There is filial piety and kind affection

Here filial piety is shown as a good thing. In Verse 18 it seems to be on a level with etiquette or ritual – a formal show needed when authentic family feeling is lost.

Abolish artistry (ch'iao), discard profit-seeking (li),
Robbers and thieves shall disappear.

In other translations “industry” and “skill” are used instead of “artistry.” “Industry” could mean business. That would make sense with “profit.” As for skill – it makes me think of the verse from the Zhuangzi that someone linked to. In that, the butcher’s skill was used as a model for behavior in accordance with the Tao. The butcher says the following:

What I care about is the Way, which goes beyond skill. When I first began cutting up oxen, all I could see was the ox itself. After three years I no longer saw the whole ox. And now — now I go at it by spirit and don’t look with my eyes. Perception and understanding have come to a stop and spirit moves where it wants. I go along with the natural makeup, strike in the big hollows, guide the knife through the big openings, and following things as they are. So I never touch the smallest ligament or tendon, much less a main joint.

These three pairs adorn (wen) what is deficient (pu tsu).
Therefore, let there be the advice:
Look to the undyed silk, hold on to the uncarved wood (p'u),
Reduce your sense of self (szu) and lessen your desires (yü).

Uncarved wood has been used in other verses to refer to unprocessed, undivided reality or even the Tao. As I’ve noted, I have a tendency to simplify things. I like to say that anything that refers to an origin or purity means the Tao. I think this loses some of the subtleties of the text. Then again, there’s this from Chen Verse 32 – “Tao everlasting (ch'ang) is the nameless uncarved wood (p'u).” And then there’s “undyed silk.” That means the Tao too. Everything means the Tao.

We’ve discussed “desire” before. In a way that’s somewhat similar to Buddhism, Lao tzu identifies desire as the primary obstruction to following the path.

T Clark

If the Tao has no logic then there is nothing to understand; do as I do, or do not and read what I say, — ghostlycutter

I agree that there is no logic to the TTC or the Tao. Others posting on this thread disagree. And yet, here we all, or most of us, are - trying to understand the TTC. I assume the original audience was scholars and government officials. It would seem to me they were trying to understand also.

What is thus to be taken from the TTC? Pleasurable texts, short spells of enlightenment. — ghostlycutter

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that there is no lasting benefit from following the path, I disagree.

T Clark

Getting behind again. I hope I haven't responded to this before. If I have, I at least hope I'm not inconsistent.

Are you saying that, although the idea of hope is one of the 10,000 things and distracts us from the Tao, hope still somehow resides within the Tao as a concept?
— T Clark

No, I’m saying that the concept of ‘hope’ is one of the 10,000 things, and directing effort and attention towards it as an objective or virtue in itself distracts us from the path. But this quality of hoping - like listening without hearing, or directing attention without understanding how to direct effort - is an inseparable aspect of experiencing the Tao. — Possibility

Without getting back into the whole idea/concept thing, I really disagree with that. Nothing resides within the Tao.

The TTC is clear - the Tao does not have anything inside it. It is undivided and indivisible. It isn't made up of anything else. There's nothing inside it. It isn't a mixture. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say.
— T Clark

Maybe, because I agree with all of these statements. Let me know your thoughts on my reply above to Valentinus regarding verse 5. — Possibility

I went back and looked. I'm not sure what you meant or how it applies to this point.

Have you ever tried to define ‘objective reality’? To say that it’s one of the 10,000 things is to say that we can name things that are not objective reality. Is that what you’re saying? If so, then we have a different understanding of ‘objective reality’. — Possibility

Yes, I have tried to define "objective reality" before. This is from a discussion of mine from four years ago called "Deathmatch – Objective Reality vs. the Tao."

In this corner – the challenger, Tao.

[1] The ground of being
[2] The Tao that cannot be spoken
[3] Oneness is the Tao which is invisible and formless.
[4] Nature is Tao. Tao is everlasting.
[5] The absolute principle underlying the universe
[6] That in virtue of which all things happen or exist
[7] The intuitive knowing of life that cannot be grasped full-heartedly as just a concept

In this corner – the reigning champion, objective reality.

[1] The collection of things that we are sure exist independently of us
[2] How things really are
[3] The reality that exists independent of our minds
[4] That which is true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings
[5] The world as seen by God
[6] Things that we are sure exist — T Clark

To say that it’s one of the 10,000 things is to say that we can name things that are not objective reality. Is that what you’re saying? If so, then we have a different understanding of ‘objective reality’. — Possibility

As I claimed in my old discussion, I find the Tao a more useful concept than objective reality. I think it is fruitful to claim that objective reality doesn't exist, although I'll say again, both "Tao" and "objective reality" are metaphysical entities. We decide which to use, if we use them at all. The universe is also one of the 10,000 things. Can you name something that isn't part of the universe? A suitcase full of shirts is one of the 10,000 things. So are each of the shirts.

You seem so certain of this, that what I say I’m doing just isn’t (logically) possible. That I can’t do this, or that you know what the Tao does or doesn’t have. Where does this certainty come from? — Possibility

I'm not certain of what Lao Tzu means, but I am certain of how I experience the world. If I got to that place by following a path which is not the one he described, won't that be ironic. But I don't think that's what happened. You seem just as certain as I do.

T Clark

It looks like I may have been using ‘logic’ where I mean ‘rationality’. This may not solve our disagreement, but I’m trying to be clearer... — Possibility

No to frustrate you, but the Tao has no rationality either. Forgive me for this, but I'm serious - the Tao that can be rationalized is not the eternal Tao. It can't be spoken. It can't be understood. It can't be analyzed. It can't be divided. It has no parts. Nothing is inside it. You can't think about it. It's not a concept or an idea. It's just a big blob, except the blob that can be spoken is not the eternal blob.

T Clark

Smith left the room in a huff, his shadow flitting across the wall in the soft light of the setting sun. I looked outside the small window in the room and caught sight of some birds probably on their way to roost for the coming night. The sky was clear except for a few scattered clouds that were glowing red and orange. I picked up the cup and gulped down the remaining coffee. — TheMadFool

To be a nitpicker, that isn't really a story, it's a description. Also - it does have a structure. It's is linear and chronological. It follows the rules of English grammar.

Possibility

There is some ambiguity in these lines. Both knowledge and wisdom are bad? In Verse 18, Chen talked about “intelligence and knowledge.” It seems like the argument against wisdom, if there is one, is different than knowledge or intelligence. We’ve had a difference of opinion about what the TTC says about knowledge. — T Clark

I’ve said knowledge distracts us from the path that Lao Tzu is trying to show us. Flipping that, gaining knowledge is not the way to follow the Tao. I think you could also say that “knowledge” means “conventional knowledge.” The conventional way of categorizing and classifying things is misleading. I’ve also said that it seems to me that knowledge is connected to desire. — T Clark

There is ambiguity here, for the same reason I have been arguing: all these scholars are bringing their own experience into their interpretation. I’m not arguing in opposition to you. I do agree that gaining knowledge is not THE way to follow the Tao. But I disagree that the TTC is saying ‘knowledge is bad’, and certainly not that ‘wisdom is bad’. I will continue to call out your use of a ‘good-bad’ dichotomy in your interpretation of the TTC, because I believe this is your subjective experience of the text, and therefore not inherent in the TTC - especially since the text portrays this dichotomy as arbitrary limitations set by human perception. That others have a similar experience is not a sufficient argument in my book, and qualifying an interpretation of ‘knowledge’ as ‘conventional knowledge’ (based on what?), which equals ‘categorising and classifying’, etc sounds a lot like apologist methodology of ‘playing with metaphors’, so you’ll pardon me for my skepticism here.

Abandon wisdom, discard knowledge,
And people will benefit a hundredfold.
Abandon benevolence, discard duty,
And people will return to the family ties.
Abandon cleverness, discard profit,
And thieves and robbers will disappear.
These three, though, are superficial, and not enough.
Let this be what to rely on:
Behave simply and hold on to purity.
Lessen selfishness and restrain desires.
Abandon knowledge and your worries are over. — T Clark

There is a lot about this verse that I’ve struggled with. The main difficulty I have is that the first character, jué, translated here as ‘abandon’, is translated everywhere else as ‘absolutely’. Literally everywhere else, except for this verse of the TTC. To me, with my limited experience of hermeneutics, this is a red flag. It says that there’s more to this than the translations allow. With hundreds of translations disagreeing with me, I’m aware that I’m in the minority here - but everything I understand tells me to trust the original text over the translations. And further research shows that the quality attributed to the character jué is actually about cutting someone off at an upper limit.

So, while I will argue that ‘abandon’ is an unsatisfactory translation, I don’t think it’s as simple as choosing wisdom/learning over knowledge, benevolence/humanity over duty/righteousness and cleverness/artistry over profit-seeking, either. It’s more about recognising that wisdom is not about maximising knowledge, humanity is not about maximising righteousness, and cleverness is not about maximising profit. To ‘lessen selfishness and restrain desires’ is not the same as abandoning the self or eliminating desire. Pulling back from knowledge short of pursuing intelligence as the aim in itself will eliminate most of our modern worries. We don’t have to return to the Dark Ages or long for ignorance by seeking to ‘abandon knowledge’.

I think we’re a little too keen to accept that Daoism longs for some past ‘golden age’ of ignorance, or is even particularly conservative. Wisdom is about understanding when NOT to pursue knowledge, as well as when it’s needed.

Possibility

As I claimed in my old discussion, I find the Tao a more useful concept than objective reality. I think it is fruitful to claim that objective reality doesn't exist, although I'll say again, both "Tao" and "objective reality" are metaphysical entities. We decide which to use, if we use them at all. The universe is also one of the 10,000 things. Can you name something that isn't part of the universe? A suitcase full of shirts is one of the 10,000 things. So are each of the shirts. — T Clark

‘The Tao’ and ‘objective reality’ are not concepts, they’re both placeholder names for what cannot be named, and it’s fruitful to claim that neither of them exist. We talk about them as possible notions, not as concepts, because they are indeterminate at this level. Mistaking them for concepts is what creates confusion in understanding how ‘the Tao’ relates to ‘the 10,000 things’. But I’m not going to get into a discussion with you about the notion of ‘objective reality’ here. I understand them as the same notion described in an alternative discourse, so I think our current discussion will suffice.

You seem so certain of this, that what I say I’m doing just isn’t (logically) possible. That I can’t do this, or that you know what the Tao does or doesn’t have. Where does this certainty come from?
— Possibility

I'm not certain of what Lao Tzu means, but I am certain of how I experience the world. If I got to that place by following a path which is not the one he described, won't that be ironic. But I don't think that's what happened. You seem just as certain as I do. — T Clark

I do see a difference of certainty here in you telling me that I can’t relate to the Tao - that “that’s not how it works”. I don’t think anyone can be certain that they are even accurately describing how they experience the world, however certain they might feel about the experience itself, beyond language. As soon as you use concepts, you’re assuming that how I qualitatively constitute each concept is identical to yours, but there’s no certainty that I do. This is the difficulty with discussing the TTC in terms of experience.

You may not think that anyone can relate to the Tao, and from your perspective that would seem to be the case - but this doesn’t mean I can’t. It just means that you can’t see how it’s possible. But I’m saying that I can see how it’s possible. I don’t need to be certain of that, and I don’t need you to agree.

T Clark

There is ambiguity here, for the same reason I have been arguing: all these scholars are bringing their own experience into their interpretation. — Possibility

As am I. As are you.

I do agree that gaining knowledge is not THE way to follow the Tao. — Possibility

It's not that gaining knowledge is not THE way, it's not A way. You can't follow the Tao by gaining knowledge. Gaining knowledge distracts from the path.

But I disagree that the TTC is saying ‘knowledge is bad’, and certainly not that ‘wisdom is bad’. I will continue to call out your use of a ‘good-bad’ dichotomy in your interpretation of the TTC, — Possibility

I believe that Lao Tzu is saying that gaining knowledge is not the way to experience the Tao. Turning away from our intellect is necessary to follow the path. Knowledge distracts us. There's a contradiction here - Lao Tzu points out the arbitrariness of human judgement of good and bad, beautiful and ugly. At the same time he shows a preference for actions that help us follow the path as opposed to those which distract us. I'll stop saying good/bad, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a value judgement.

I believe this is your subjective experience of the text, and therefore not inherent in the TTC — Possibility

Of course it's my subjective experience of the text. I've been saying that from the beginning - following the path is about experience, not knowledge. I'm trying to tune my experience to the signal Lao Tzu is sending. Your understanding is also inseparable from you subjective experience.

qualifying an interpretation of ‘knowledge’ as ‘conventional knowledge’ (based on what?), which equals ‘categorising and classifying’, etc sounds a lot like apologist methodology of ‘playing with metaphors’, so you’ll pardon me for my skepticism here. — Possibility

I don't know if Lao Tzu had that in mind or not, but I thought it was worth mentioning. It's another way to look at it. It's another possible shade of meaning on "knowledge." I've said this many times - for me, since he can't talk about it directly, Lao Tzu is painting an impressionistic picture of the Tao.

With hundreds of translations disagreeing with me, I’m aware that I’m in the minority here - but everything I understand tells me to trust the original text over the translations. — Possibility

As I've said, I have put myself in the hands of the translators, all of them together. I can accept your opinion as another one of those shades of meaning to be taken into account, but I won't discard what the other translators say.

It’s more about recognising that wisdom is not about maximising knowledge, humanity is not about maximising righteousness, and cleverness is not about maximising profit. — Possibility

Except I think it's more than that. We're not just talking about moderation in all things, although I'm sure Lao Tzu was all for that. He's not saying "do this, don't do that." He's saying "if you want to follow the Tao, this is what will work." I think this is pretty unequivocal:

To pursue (wei) learning one increases daily.
To pursue (wei) Tao one decreases daily.
To decrease and again to decrease,
Until one arrives at not doing (wu-wei).

T Clark

‘The Tao’ and ‘objective reality’ are not concepts, they’re both placeholder names for what cannot be named, — Possibility

I disagree. For me, objective reality is a thing. It exists and can be named. It's like an apple or an electron.

I understand them as the same notion described in an alternative discourse, so I think our current discussion will suffice. — Possibility

Ok with me.

I do see a difference of certainty here in you telling me that I can’t relate to the Tao - that “that’s not how it works”. — Possibility

Before you lecture me about certainty, I'll remind you that you told me it was irresponsible for me to express an opinion about the TTC that's different than yours. I'm telling you what I think Lao Tzu is saying.

I don’t think anyone can be certain that they are even accurately describing how they experience the world, however certain they might feel about the experience itself, beyond language. — Possibility

Who, other than me, can describe my experience? Can I be unaware of my own experience? Interesting question.

As soon as you use concepts, you’re assuming that how I qualitatively constitute each concept is identical to yours, but there’s no certainty. — Possibility

That is the fundamental problem with language beyond this particular situation. You and I are struggling with that here. But I also think we have fundamental disagreements about what Lao Tzu was trying to say, above and beyond language issues.

This is the difficulty with discussing the TTC in terms of experience. — Possibility

As I've said, in my view the TTC is about experience. How can we avoid talking about it?

You may not think that anyone can relate to the Tao, and from your perspective that would seem to be the case - but this doesn’t mean I can’t. It just means that you can’t see how it’s possible. But I can see how it’s possible. — Possibility

As I've noted, you and I have disagreements about what Lao Tzu was trying to show us. That's no surprise and it doesn't bother me.

I have a question: how do you know when you ‘experience the Tao’? — Possibility

The most vivid experience I have is one I've described before. I experience inspirations to action arising from within me which I picture as a bubbling well. Unless my conscious will stops me, I act on them without intention. I interpret those actions as wu wei.

ghostlycutter

↪T Clark

That's not what I meant, what I meant was more poetic.

The Author has reduced the face print to nothing, to draw more attention to meaning alone, like an art piece, there are pleasurable sights and fashionable enlightenment.

Manuel

No to frustrate you, but the Tao has no rationality either. Forgive me for this, but I'm serious - the Tao that can be rationalized is not the eternal Tao. It can't be spoken. It can't be understood. It can't be analyzed. It can't be divided. It has no parts. Nothing is inside it. You can't think about it. It's not a concept or an idea. It's just a big blob, except the blob that can be spoken is not the eternal blob. — T Clark

I actually have a question about this.

If one can't speak about the Tao or know about it, what is one speaking of? It seems like like trying to capture a mirage in one's hands.

My favorite verses in the Tao Te Ching

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions