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. — Manuel

This is my understanding. Other's disagree.

You're exactly right. The opening lines of the Tao Te Ching are:

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name

So, the book is words about something that can't be put into words. Lao Tzu recognized the irony. What I believe is that Lao Tzu's purpose is to help us experience something that comes before words, the Tao. The focus should be on the experience, not the meaning of the words. As I said, others on the thread disagree with me.

Does intuition has to play a role in this, as in, I have a particular kind of experience that reveals something to me about the world, but as soon I express it, it necessarily gets lost in the expression?

Does intuition has to play a role in this, as in, I have a particular kind of experience that reveals something to me about the world, but as soon I express it, it necessarily gets lost in the expression? — Manuel

Yes, although there's a lot more going on than that in the Tao Te Ching. Getting "lost in the expression" has consequences in our lives.

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. — T Clark

Are you still smarting from that? That is NOT what I said at all. I have tried to clarify, and your response was that you’d prefer to ignore it. This is not ignoring it. Either we let it go, or lay it out, because it’s clearly still affecting you.

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.
— Manuel

This is my understanding. Other's disagree.

You're exactly right. The opening lines of the Tao Te Ching are:

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name

So, the book is words about something that can't be put into words. Lao Tzu recognized the irony. What I believe is that Lao Tzu's purpose is to help us experience something that comes before words, the Tao. The focus should be on the experience, not the meaning of the words. As I said, others on the thread disagree with me. — T Clark

That's a nice succinct intro. I am too Western and modern for this approach but I have enjoyed the discussion. Although it does surprise me that something so ambiguous and ostensibly benign should lead to acrimony as it has here. The battles over interpretation are not just for the profane.

Although it does surprise me that something so ambiguous and ostensibly benign should lead to acrimony as it has here. — Tom Storm

This thread has gone for a month and almost 700 posts. I think we're doing pretty well. There has been a lot of frustration about differences in understanding, but no acrimony that I can see.

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. — T Clark

I’m not saying it is an aspect of the Tao, but of experiencing the Tao. You can’t deny this quality without diminishing the experience.

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

Language is not going to explain this, because you have to put yourself into it. This is what Lao Tzu understood. We are not separate from this ‘big blob’ that is the Tao. So you can continue to argue that anything I name is not part of this ‘big blob’, but either everything is and the blob is the indeterminate whole in which we are indistinguishable, or nothing is part of it, and everything except the blob exists (10,000 things). I’m saying that whether we experience, relate to or follow the Tao, there is rationality, quality and energy somewhere in this, which cannot be bracketed out. Any description, expression or instruction that is not inclusive of all three is not the Tao.

This is the dilemma that Lao Tzu recognised. No matter how much he included of himself in his writing, something would always be missing. This was the energy (attention and effort) directed elsewhere or without result as each stroke is made: not-doing (wu-wei). And no matter how forceful his instructions, something would always be beyond it. This is the energy (attention and effort) directed towards not following the Tao: not-intending or functional emptiness (wu yòng). Likewise, no matter how clear his description, something will always be missing from the relation. This is the energy (attention and effort) directed towards not relating: ignorance, or an upper limit of knowledge (jué xué).

These three will show us the Tao, but they are not the Tao. They are the difference we are invited to embody between the Tao and what Lao Tzu has accomplished in the TTC. The idea is not to understand them each as something, but to embody one or another in a structural relation with the TTC, in order to achieve a structure of ‘oneness’ with the Tao. When we embody not-doing, we experience the Tao through the TTC as all movement and change inclusive of our action, and we will never fail to achieve. When we embody a functional emptiness, we follow the Tao through the TTC as fullness inclusive of our existence, and we will never be without. And when we embody not-knowing, we relate to the Tao through the TTC as wisdom inclusive of what we think we know, and we will never misunderstand.

I figured our aim here is to understand. So, abandoning what I know, I have been deferring to the original text of the TTC as the only source of wisdom. If it’s not in there, it’s not accurate. If what I think I know conflicts with the text in its purest form, then the text must be correct. If what the translations or anyone else here is saying conflicts with the original text, then the text must be correct. It feels very unusual to do it this way, but the result is a clarity that can’t be expressed in language. And I can’t claim knowledge of anything, all I can do is appeal to the original text. It’s a strange feeling, and I understand that you assume my words are my personal opinion. There’s no way I can get around that, except to observe a simplified structure of the Chinese text, reduced to logic and quality, with all affect bracketed out.

If you look at the Zhuangzi in comparison, its narrative composition makes it impossible to bracket out affect without ignoring elements of the text. Names exist outside of the text for people and their occupations, assuming a complex social structure that implies hierarchies of value and judgement. People feel, think, speak and make mistakes. But the TTC is structured carefully so that no affect, no feeling, emotion or value judgement is necessarily implicit in the text (except where speech is indicated, and very specific verses such as 20, written in the first person). I do think this is deliberate.

But if I’m exploring only the English translation of the TTC, then the aspect I can effectively bracket out is rationality. In doing so, I can only experience the Tao in not-doing: stillness, meditative practice, unconscious randomness, etc. Everything else requires logic. I can observe and restructure my thoughts and feelings to align with the TTC only in this stillness. But this means that how I consciously express myself or act then lacks logical relevance to the Tao. It is constructed from a logic that is not the Tao - it is mine. It has not come under scrutiny in relation to the TTC, freed from affect or subjectivity. The logic underlying my words and actions remains pretty much how it suits me best, regardless of the TTC.

discard knowledge (chih) — T Clark

Shouldn't we stop reading the Tao Te Ching at this point?

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. — T Clark

Ok. You can’t follow the Tao by gaining knowledge as a possession. You can’t experience the Tao by using knowledge. But you can’t relate to the Tao by ignoring information: not as knowledge to be gained, but as relational structure to be understood.

I’ll get there...

The Tao is knowledge, but in it's truest form. When we gain knowledge, we become more knowledgeable, our knowledge (referring to it's one-ness) is like the Tao; and so the Author projects his knowledge (again, one-ness) upon his readers. Is his book to be worshipped? Can you forsee that the author may be less knowledgeable? I don't think his aim was to be egotistical. However, he expressed knowledge. Knowledge in it's pure form begs to be understood but doesn't point nor ponder.

The Tao is knowledge, but in it's truest form. When we gain knowledge, we become more knowledgeable, our knowledge (referring to it's one-ness) is like the Tao; and so the Author projects his knowledge (again, one-ness) upon his readers. Is his book to be worshipped? Can you forsee that the author may be less knowledgeable? I don't think his aim was to be egotistical. However, he expressed knowledge. Knowledge in it's pure form begs to be understood but doesn't point nor ponder. — ghostlycutter

I think that referring to the Tao as ‘knowledge in its truest form’ overlooks what the TTC says (and what we have been discussing here) about knowledge. I can relate to this - I also leapt to the defence of ‘knowledge’ here, thinking that any effort to understand the TTC was being dismissed as pointless, and that we were in danger of promoting ignorance.

But I don’t think that Lao Tzu projects ‘his knowledge’ upon his readers. I think, like Socrates, he would probably claim to know nothing. It isn’t about what he knows, but about how he structures a rendered expression of reality so that one need not ‘know’ anything to understand. And, in fact, that in order to understand, we must recognise our own lack of knowledge. Any knowledge we think we have is distorted by our limited sensory capacity, our desire for what appears lacking and our fear of being wrong.

I think what Lao Tzu understood was how to render the Tao as a stable and all-inclusive three-fold reality. His true gift was in structuring the TTC so that nothing is ever located outside of this system, regardless of what we may learn. Others have tried and failed to render absolute reality with such simplistic and eternal elegance. That someone thousands of years ago understood with so little scientific knowledge suggests that it isn’t knowledge that begs to be understood.

discard knowledge (chih)
— T Clark

Shouldn't we stop reading the Tao Te Ching at this point? — TheMadFool

I think if you'll read Verse 82, which is left out of all but one version of the TTC, things will be clearer. It's known as Lao Tzu's lost verse:

Hey you gettin' drunk
So sorry, I got you sussed
Hey you smokin' mother nature
This is a bust
Hey hung up old Mr. Normal
Don't try to gain my trust
'Cause you ain't gonna follow me
Any of those ways
Although you think you must

But seriously folks - I think Lao Tzu was fully aware of what he was doing and recognized the irony. My take - He was trying to show us a path, not help us understand. He was trying to use words to guide us to a place where words don't work. So, no. We shouldn't necessarily stop reading.

The opening lines of the Tao Te Ching are:

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name — T Clark

I realized that there are two ways of interpreting these lines and they are:

1. There's more to it than meets the eye: We observe the world and there's a way that it appears to us but, we've learnt and we suspect, appearances can be deceiving or, more to the point, there's more to reality than just what it presents to us. On this reading, language has a blind spot as it were and there are certain aspects of reality that's beyond the reach of language. Laozi then is asking us to, at some point, abandon language for it's utterly useless if one aims to grasp the facets of reality that language can't tackle. Whether it's worth it is a pressing matter but if Laozi's stature is given due consideration, it seems almost priceless. The Toa That Is Eternal is definitely a prize worth the effort spent in attempts to acquire it.

2. What you see is it (but we refuse to accept it): Reality is exactly as it appears to us and that's all there is to it. The problem is that's a hard pill to swallow for us who yearn for something much grander. Language is fully capable of describing all of reality but that fails to quench the thirst for greatness that's become somewhat of a trademark of humanity. If this is Laozi's message then the Tao Te Ching serves as a warning to posterity that we should steer clear of fantasizing which to "...yearn for something much grander..." is. That he did it in so many words, 9510 to be exact, suggests that this simple message - cease and desist fantasy - isn't going to go down well with people and he needed to use every available linguistic resource (words) to put the point across to the readers. In this case, The Tao That Is Eternal is nothing more than a warning sign whose correct transaltion should be, in my humble opinion, "DON'T GO THERE!"

The "abandon language" option is not on the menu because of all the language invested in talking about the quality that is difficult to describe.

The idea that there is no hope of figuring out what is important is offset by a clear agenda to fix agendas that misunderstand the problem.

This text is not a testimony of skepticism but a call to act a certain way to achieve a better result than the others who talked this way.

The opening lines of the Tao Te Ching are:

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
— T Clark

I realized that there are two ways of interpreting these lines and they are:

1. There's more to it than meets the eye: We observe the world and there's a way that it appears to us but, we've learnt and we suspect, appearances can be deceiving or, more to the point, there's more to reality than just what it presents to us...

2. What you see is it (but we refuse to accept it): Reality is exactly as it appears to us and that's all there is to it. — TheMadFool

Third option - This is my way of thinking about it. Others see it differently.

3. The Ground of Being, the Tao, was there before humans existed. Before any sentient life existed anywhere. Before god or gods existed. There were no electrons, planets, solar systems, galaxies, globular clusters, space. No quantum field. No universe. There was one unified, undifferentiated blob that wasn't really a blob, because "blob" did not exist. If there had been anyone around to take a picture, it would look pretty much exactly like it looks now. When sentient creatures who could use language evolved, the world came into existence. It was words that created what we call reality. Reality is a human concept, words.

Keep in mind, I'm not talking about magic or other supernatural phenomena. The Tao is a metaphysical concept - a way of looking at things. Taoists live in the same world we do. If you don't buy the description above, don't find it a useful way of seeing things. Fine. There are lots of other ways to experience the world. I find it very useful.

I'm sure there are more than just our three options too.

The "abandon language" option is not on the menu because of all the language invested in talking about the quality that is difficult to describe. — Valentinus

Agreed. However, note that language in re the Tao Te Ching is like a carpenter who, upon arriving at his workplace, discovers that the only tool that's available to faer is a hammer and thus, he must do everything he has to do, whether its got to do with nails or sawing planks, with the hammer; in other words, this hapless carpenter has no choice. Laozi, under one interpretation - attempting to express the inexpressible - was in a similar situation. He had a message that transcended language but, fortunately or unfortunately, the only way of getting that message across was language.

For my money, Laozi employing language in this fashion - to describe stuff that lies beyond the reach of language - is not entirely without merit. He was a clever man I suppose and all that he would have to do is probe the boundaries of language - stress language to the breaking point and what comes out at the other end is a, hopefully, better understanding of the limits of language and through that get a feel of, get some idea of, what Laozi means by "The Tao that can be named is not the Eternal Tao".

This text is not a testimony of skepticism — Valentinus

I have a different opinion on that matter. Just take a look at the contents and form of Laozi's great work the Tao Te Ching. I have little to say about the contents but what interests me is the form of the Tao Te Ching. I use the word "form" with the meaning it has in logic (arguments). The Tao Te Ching's form consists of contradicting what appears to be generalizations. In one sense, Laozi is trying to rattle our cage, the metaphor of a "cage" is apt, our cages invariably consisting of generalizations (prisons), rules as it were that are key to constructing a coherent/consistent worldview that we rely on to both make sense of reality and also to live out our lives in it. What Laozi achieves with this rather ingenious technique is to create a state of doubt as regards our understanding of the world. Every view of the world is hopelessly deficient and one will always, given enough time, encounter situations that overturn any given view. It reminds me of the children's game snakes & ladders. You might pride yourself in having made progress regarding your grasp of reality and what life, the world, the universe is all about but Laozi rigs the next die roll you make in such a way that you land on a snake's head and down you go, through the snake's belly, to where you began your journey on the board - the square marked number 1, utterly puzzled and violently frustrated that what you thought was true reality was just another illusion. In the simplest of terms, Laozi wants to shake our confidence - rock our boat and even intentionally causing it to capsize (in the worst weather conditions possible would be best) - and one message, among others I guess, is that we must be skeptical of what's bandied about as wisdom/knowledge.

Third option - This is my way of thinking about it. Others see it differently. — T Clark

Excelente Senor/Senora! Kudos to you for seeing that. Percpetive.

The Tao is a metaphysical concept - a way of looking at things — T Clark

if you read my reply to Valentinus above, the Tao is exactly the opposite of what you say it is viz. it is not "...a way of looking at things". In fact it goes to great lengths to disabuse us of the belief that there's "...a way of looking at things" that's complete (everything can be comprehended) and consistent (free of contradictions). In a way the Tao Te Ching is like Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. :chin:

if you read my reply to Valentinus above, the Tao is exactly the opposite of what you say it is viz. it is not "...a way of looking at things". — TheMadFool

It is one way of seeing reality. It includes everything, anything, so it is complete. The words may seem contradictory, but the vision and the path are straightforward, pragmatic, down-to-earth, every day, meat and potatoes. You're trying to make it more than it is or was intended to be.

You're trying to make it more than it is or was intended to be. — T Clark

And that brings us to what I said earlier:

2. What you see is it (but we refuse to accept it): Reality is exactly as it appears to us and that's all there is to it. The problem is that's a hard pill to swallow for us who yearn for something much grander. Language is fully capable of describing all of reality but that fails to quench the thirst for greatness that's become somewhat of a trademark of humanity. If this is Laozi's message then the Tao Te Ching serves as a warning to posterity that we should steer clear of fantasizing which to "...yearn for something much grander..." is. That he did it in so many words, 9510 to be exact, suggests that this simple message - cease and desist fantasy - isn't going to go down well with people and he needed to use every available linguistic resource (words) to put the point across to the readers. In this case, The Tao That Is Eternal is nothing more than a warning sign whose correct transaltion should be, in my humble opinion, "DON'T GO THERE!" — TheMadFool

For my money, Laozi employing language in this fashion - to describe stuff that lies beyond the reach of language - is not entirely without merit. He was a clever man I suppose and all that he would have to do is probe the boundaries of language - stress language to the breaking point and what comes out at the other end is a, hopefully, better understanding of the limits of language and through that get a feel of, get some idea of, what Laozi means by "The Tao that can be named is not the Eternal Tao". — TheMadFool

I think Lao Tzu engaged the Chinese system of language in its purest, most straightforward format as the framework for an expression of reality that is fully transferable. For years, philosophers such as Russell and Peirce have tried to find a way to bring alphanumeric language to a logical simplicity in describing reality, that would minimise its ambiguity of meaning between different experiencing subjects. What Peirce in particular was working on is a more complicated version of what Lao Tzu had managed thousands of years ago: an irreducible triadic relation. The beauty of Lao Tzu’s version is that we are able to position ourselves in all three aspects (logic, quality, affect), and so refine and correct our interaction with, as well as our experience and understanding of, reality.

Most texts are structured to control meaning, to limit the freedom of the experiencing subject in interpreting the text by incorporating the value, significance or potential perceived by the author in the choice of word. The TTC doesn’t do this. This appears to be consistent with other ancient Chinese texts, with no use for a copulative and very few sentence structures linking verbs with predicates. Chinese characters usually express what I refer to as the quality of an idea, or what has been differentiated from the names of things by Mohist scholars as ‘kinds’. It is the practice of ‘naming’ - what was a Chinese process of officially assigning cultural hierarchies of value to things, families, people, etc - to which the TTC seems most strongly opposed. Rather, it appears to be deliberately structured so that judgements of value, significance and potential remain ambiguous, in the realm of probability. This makes it difficult to translate into English, where guidance for the reader on affected judgement is incorporated into many of our words and concepts.

But it is in this unusual reluctance to reduce language to concepts that the TTC comes into its own. When value is ambiguous, the reader/translator assigns it arbitrarily, based on cultural conventions (similar to ‘naming’) AND/OR on their own experience at the point of interaction with the text. The point of setting it out this way is to be introspectively aware of affect (desire) as it occurs, to pay attention to where we draw our judgements of value, significance and potential from, and why. This purpose is suggested later in the first verse:

Therefore, always (ch'ang) without desire (wu-yü),
In order to observe (kuan) the hidden mystery (miao);
Always (ch'ang) with desire (yu-yü),
In order to observe the manifestations (chiao). (trans. Ellen Marie Chen)

I think maybe it isn’t so much that reality is more than meets the eye, but that it’s more than language can describe. The structure of the TTC is designed so that the reader is theoretically able to shift ‘outlook’ between what is ‘subtle/indigenous/wonderful’ and what is a ‘boundary’ (like an event horizon?), and in doing so recognise the Way.


This interesting article on the special features of Chinese logic provides some background.

I share your appreciatation of Lao Tsu. However, I feel you are misunderstanding his metaphysics.

For instance, you say " Part of that understanding is that the description of reality in the TTC is not true or false. It’s a metaphysical description."

If a metaphysical description is not true or false then it is meaningless. Some care is needed with the notion of 'true'. Lao Tsu's description is rigorous and demonstrably true in dialectical logic, but it is not true in the sense that it truly describes what cannot be described.

He say elsewhere that true words seem paradoxical. For the reasons given above some translators prefer 'Rigorous words seem paradoxical'. This means that a metaphysical theory may be true,(in the sense of rigorous) but only if it seems paradoxical.

His neutral or 'non-dual' metaphysical scheme seems paradoxical and speaking casually I'd say it is true. But in metaphysics, as in physics, we're not looking for the 'true' theory just the best. It is logical processs of inference to the best explanation. To know it a theory is true we would have to abandon metaphysics for Yoga and self-enquiry.

Unless we are a serious practitioner a study of metaphysics as a science of logic is indespensible to an understanding of Lao Tsu. if we know why true words seem paradoxical then we understand both him and metaphysics. It is only because Lao Tsu's metaphysical view is a 'true' model of Reality that true words seem paradoxical. He explains the language of mysticism and the Perennial philosophy, which is well-known for seeming paradoxical. .

Note that the statement 'The Tao cannot be spoken' fails his test for true words. Elsewhere he says 'Tao must be spoken', and only read together would these atomic statements be true. We must speak of it, but always be aware that our words cannot capture its true nature. Blblically-speaking this is why we cannot build a tower of logical inferences all the way to Heaven. When we try the result is the sort of endless babble we see in academic philosophy. .

His metaphysics is actually very simple. All positive theories would be false just as their failure in logic implies, such that the Ultimate lies beyond the categories of thought and speech. This is a neutral; metaphysical theory and in principle it explains everything.

This is the metaphysical key that unlocks the meaning of the Tao Te Ching. It is the doctrine that Consciouness is Reality and All is One beyond all division and distinction. Better known these days as 'non-dualism'. .

Pardon so many words. I got carried away. .

. . .

I’m not saying it is an aspect of the Tao, but of experiencing the Tao. You can’t deny this quality without diminishing the experience. — Possibility

Agreed. Given my tendency to say "Xing without Xing" in just about every response, it would be unreasonable for me to argue with you when you talk about hoping without hoping.

Language is not going to explain this, because you have to put yourself into it. This is what Lao Tzu understood. — Possibility

Agreed.

either everything is and the blob is the indeterminate whole in which we are indistinguishable, or nothing is part of it, and everything except the blob exists (10,000 things). — Possibility

Or both. I'm serious.

I’m saying that whether we experience, relate to or follow the Tao, there is rationality, quality and energy somewhere in this, which cannot be bracketed out. Any description, expression or instruction that is not inclusive of all three is not the Tao. — Possibility

That's not how I see it, although I'm not sure whether or not this is just a difference of language. Unless you mean that rationality is the same as what the TTC calls "naming," which would make sense.

This was the energy (attention and effort) directed elsewhere or without result as each stroke is made: not-doing (wu-wei). — Possibility

I'm not sure what you are referring to.

No matter how much he included of himself in his writing, something would always be missing...

...They are the difference we are invited to embody between the Tao and what Lao Tzu has accomplished in the TTC. — Possibility

I think this difference between you and me is the result of how we see the TTC differently. I think Lao Tzu is trying to show us the way to follow, not tell us about it. The words are incidental. He is painting a picture with words. I'm trying to see the picture, not understand the words.

If what the translations or anyone else here is saying conflicts with the original text, then the text must be correct. — Possibility

We've discussed this. I'm not criticizing your way of seeing things, but that's not how I'm doing it. I'm using the translations as a group as the basis of my understanding.

If you look at the Zhuangzi in comparison, its narrative composition makes it impossible to bracket out affect without ignoring elements of the text. Names exist outside of the text for people and their occupations, assuming a complex social structure that implies hierarchies of value and judgement. People feel, think, speak and make mistakes. But the TTC is structured carefully so that no affect, no feeling, emotion or value judgement is necessarily implicit in the text (except where speech is indicated, and very specific verses such as 20, written in the first person). I do think this is deliberate. — Possibility

I agree with all of this. I think this is why I like the TTC so much and have not gotten into the Zhuangzi. Also - I acknowledge that the value judgements I've identified in the TTC are my judgements based on the situations described in the text.

I can only experience the Tao in not-doing: stillness, meditative practice, unconscious randomness, etc. Everything else requires logic. I can observe and restructure my thoughts and feelings to align with the TTC only in this stillness. — Possibility

I think the path shown us in the TTC is the normal way people are made to operate. Lao Tzu points out that babies follow the Tao without knowledge or thought. Logic, words, rationality, fear, hope, desire, and all the rest are overlays on that original simplicity. I think some of that is inevitable for social, language-using creatures. For me, experiencing the Tao means removing some of those overlays. I feel like I can do that partially, sometimes.

The logic underlying my words and actions remains pretty much how it suits me best, regardless of the TTC. — Possibility

Can you describe or give an example of how the logic underlying your words and actions works. I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I've tried to do the same for you when I describe the bubbling spring image I feel sometimes when I act.

I think, like Socrates, he would probably claim to know nothing. It isn’t about what he knows, but about how he structures a rendered expression of reality so that one need not ‘know’ anything to understand. — Possibility

I think this is a good way of putting it.

I feel you are misunderstanding his metaphysics.

For instance, you say " Part of that understanding is that the description of reality in the TTC is not true or false. It’s a metaphysical description."

If a metaphysical description is not true or false then it is meaningless. Some care is needed with the notion of 'true'. Lao Tsu's description is rigorous and demonstrably true in dialectical logic, but it is not true in the sense that it truly describes what cannot be described. — FrancisRay

I disagree. We clearly have different understandings of what "metaphysical" means. You say "Lao Tsu's description is rigorous and demonstrably true in dialectical logic." I don't see that. Can you show me?

But in metaphysics, as in physics, we're not looking for the 'true' theory just the best. It is logical processs of inference to the best explanation. To know it a theory is true we would have to abandon metaphysics for Yoga and self-enquiry. — FrancisRay

Instead of "best" I would say "most useful in this particular situation," with the understanding that other ways of seeing things may be more useful in different situations.

It is only because Lao Tsu's metaphysical view is a 'true' model of Reality that true words seem paradoxical. — FrancisRay

I don't understand.

His metaphysics is actually very simple. All positive theories would be false just as their failure in logic implies, such that the Ultimate lies beyond the categories of thought and speech. This is a neutral; metaphysical theory and in principle it explains everything. — FrancisRay

I don't know whether I understand what you are saying or not. Can you briefly describe what you think Lao Tzu's metaphysics is.

In an academic context metaphysics is science of logic which uses a process of abduction (inference to the best explanation) by which we identify and reject theories that cause logical contradictions. Here 'best' means best by the objective standards of analysis.

I cannot show you here how the metaphysics of the TTC is provable in logic, but if you check out the Buddhist philosopher/sage Nagarjuna and his text Fundamental Wisdom of the middle Way this is the most famous proof. He demonstrates that all other metaphysical positions are logically absurd. (Just as metaphyscians everywhere discover). .

I think if you see what Nagarjuna is proving, which is the absurdity of all positive metaphysical theories, then you'll see that Lao Tsu carefully avoids ever endorsing one. Thus Nagarjuna explains the metaphysics of the TTC, and also that of the Upanishads, Middle Way Buddhism and more generally the Perennial philosophy. .

The basic point is that Lao Tsu endorses non-dualism, and this translates into metaphtysics as a neutral theory. This is the theory or doctrine endorsed by the mystics everywhere, and it is the only theory for which their knowledge of reality is possible.

You may have doubts about all this but what I;m saying here is not in any way idiosyncratic.There is only one metaphysical theory for which true words seem paradoixcal, and it is a neutral one. . .



. .





. .

either everything is and the blob is the indeterminate whole in which we are indistinguishable, or nothing is part of it, and everything except the blob exists (10,000 things).
— Possibility

Or both. I'm serious. — T Clark

I agree with this as the overarching idea. But in order to be or interact, we fall either side of this coin. This is unavoidable. ‘Do or do not - there is no try’.

This was the energy (attention and effort) directed elsewhere or without result as each stroke is made: not-doing (wu-wei).
— Possibility

I'm not sure what you are referring to. — T Clark

I’m referring to the act of writing down the TTC. When we create something in the world, we cannot put all of ourselves and the world (ie. the blob) into it. With every interaction, we embody an aspect of the indeterminate whole that is necessarily missing from what we create. The energy (attention and effort) that keeps us alive cannot simultaneously be directed into what we create.

No matter how much he included of himself in his writing, something would always be missing...

...They are the difference we are invited to embody between the Tao and what Lao Tzu has accomplished in the TTC.
— Possibility

I think this difference between you and me is the result of how we see the TTC differently. I think Lao Tzu is trying to show us the way to follow, not tell us about it. The words are incidental. He is painting a picture with words. I'm trying to see the picture, not understand the words. — T Clark

Right - you’re aiming to experience the Way, not to understand it, and not to follow it. Here’s the thing: following the Way involves BOTH experiencing and understanding. The Way is neither in the experiencing nor in the understanding, but in the instructive difference between the two: effectively, it is the issue we have with each other’s methodology here.

The logic underlying my words and actions remains pretty much how it suits me best, regardless of the TTC.
— Possibility

Can you describe or give an example of how the logic underlying your words and actions works. I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I've tried to do the same for you when I describe the bubbling spring image I feel sometimes when I act. — T Clark

What I’ve described here refers specifically to experience, from a perspective of understanding. Here’s a question for you: do you experience logic? Not understand and not adhere to, but experience it - does it have a quality to it, or a feeling? If what you’re doing is simply experiencing the world, is there ever logic in that? Not just in reference to the TTC or the Tao, but in any experience...

You may have doubts about all this but what I;m saying here is not in any way idiosyncratic.There is only one metaphysical theory for which true words seem paradoixcal, and it is a neutral one. . . — FrancisRay

I looked up "Fundamental Wisdom of the middle Way" on Wikipedia. It looks interesting, so I put it on my list of books to read. Some of the quotations provided were consistent with my understanding of the Tao Te Ching and reality. I love the Tao Te Ching and it's view of the world is consistent with how I see things, but I'll stick to my position that that is a choice I've made because I find it useful rather than any absolute judgement. I'll read the book and see if it changes my mind.

Edit - I downloaded a copy of the book. Can you steer me to the metaphysical argument you referenced.

I noticed that I’ve been using ‘understand’ in two different senses, and I wanted to clarify.

In a metaphysical sense, to ‘understand’ is to align with a way of thinking about or conceptualising reality. It’s an internal restructuring of ideas, and can be achieved simply by trusting in an alternative model or expression of reality, such as the TTC.

In a more academic sense, though, to ‘understand’ is to present knowledge in explaining or supporting the argument for a restructuring of reality. It is to provide ‘proof’ of this metaphysical understanding. But this academic sense of understanding is not required in following the Way, and it does distract us from the path.

I have engaged in attempts at explanation here, mainly in my references to Kant, quantum physics and Barrett’s theories in relation to affect, among others. My aim in doing so was to show that, firstly, there IS an alternative construction of reality in the TTC - one that does not align easily with conventional Western logic. Secondly, I was trying to point out that this alternative construction of reality does contend with, and arguably help to dissolve, current dilemmas in Western thinking. So, even if we have no intention of following the Way, its structure of conceptual reality is not as ‘a-rational’ as it first seems. It is more that conventional (Western) logic is inaccurate, insufficient beyond classical physics, for an holistic understanding of reality (ToE).

I also recognise that understanding the Way is not following the Way. What is missing is chi, the energy of life, one’s distribution of attention and effort. I have suggested that we can discuss how chi (or affect) fits into this by drawing from experience, but that perhaps we need to separate subjective experience into quality and energy (and the TTC into quality and logic) before this starts to make sense. I’ve (eventually) noticed that you’re not really exploring the TTC on this level. In fact, I get the sense that your aim is to recognise an experience of the Tao as a guide in those situations when conventional logic is insufficient. This seems to be a common Western approach to Taoism and other Eastern philosophies.

I just thought we should be clear that experiencing the Way is not following the Way, any more than understanding it is. Giving the impression that one can follow the Way simply by experiencing it is what I’ve been taking particular issue with here, but I’ve not been very clear in this. I have no doubt that many of the scholars who painstakingly translated the TTC do experience the Tao subjectively, but whenever they expressed this as an understanding of the TTC, they’ve necessarily applied at least some conventional Western logic to their choice of words (inherent in the English language). When readers then experience this understanding, they’re aligning with this Western way of thinking, not with that of the TTC. They might also experience the Tao, but they’re not entirely following the Way, because they only understand an English interpretation of ‘the Tao that can be spoken’, which is not structured the same as Lao Tzu’s TTC.

I recognise that your efforts to bring together many different interpretations does go some way towards a broader understanding of the TTC, but not of its structure - and I realise that you’re okay with that. You’ve said that systematic errors are not a problem for you, because your aim is to express your experience of the Tao, not to understand it. But if you say that you’re following the Tao, then I may dispute your accuracy from time to time, to which you will say that you don’t understand and you aren’t trying to. I think perhaps you’re following it to the extent that you’re willing to understand it, which is distinct from your working knowledge of logic - beyond the perceived effectiveness of the hammer, so to speak. Personally, I think any restructuring of reality in understanding the Tao goes deeper than this, but I accept that mine may be a minority view, lacking in clear explanation and relatively untested.

I agree with this as the overarching idea. But in order to be or interact, we fall either side of this coin. — Possibility

We interact in the world of the 10,000 things.

I’m referring to the act of writing down the TTC. When we create something in the world, we cannot put all of ourselves and the world (ie. the blob) into it. With every interaction, we embody an aspect of the indeterminate whole that is necessarily missing from what we create. The energy (attention and effort) that keeps us alive cannot simultaneously be directed into what we create. — Possibility

I'm ok with this, but I don't see the relevance to our discussion. Are you talking about wu wei and how it grows out of the Tao?

Right - you’re aiming to experience the Way, not to understand it, and not to follow it. Here’s the thing: following the Way involves BOTH experiencing and understanding. The Way is neither in the experiencing nor in the understanding, but in the instructive difference between the two: effectively, it is the issue we have with each other’s methodology here. — Possibility

I say I am trying to experience the Tao and not understand it, but I acknowledge there's more to it than that. I'm an intellectual. A lot of how I interact with the world is through my mind and, ultimately, words. As @TheMadFool points out, we work with the tools we have. Lao Tzu did too. Am I talking about the same thing you are?

What I’ve described here refers specifically to experience, from a perspective of understanding. Here’s a question for you: do you experience logic? Not understand and not adhere to, but experience it - does it have a quality to it, or a feeling? If what you’re doing is simply experiencing the world, is there ever logic in that? Not just in reference to the TTC or the Tao, but in any experience... — Possibility

I experience the working of my mind. Do I experience logic? Interesting question. I don't think I do. I guess most of what I know I know intuitively. I previously described an image I have of a cloud of knowledge that I think of when I think of the Tao. I've been thinking about that for a while - how we gain knowledge by osmosis. I'm far enough in the Barrett book to be interested in what she calls statistical learning as a candidate. Don't hold me to that. I've just gotten to that part.

I do call up what I think of as rational thought when I have to justify or communicate my understanding to others or deal with a lot of information in a documentable way. I spent a lot of time doing that as an engineer. How does that feel? Good. Have you ever written stories or poetry. Kind of like that. I have this vision of pouring information in a funnel at the top of my head and then watching as words come out on the computer. It's happening now. I'm really interested in what I'm going to write. Sometimes it comes as a surprise.

In a metaphysical sense, to ‘understand’ is to align with a way of thinking about or conceptualising reality. It’s an internal restructuring of ideas, and can be achieved simply by trusting in an alternative model or expression of reality, such as the TTC. — Possibility

Does this use words, even ones you only speak to yourself? For me, understanding means words.

In a more academic sense, though, to ‘understand’ is to present knowledge in explaining or supporting the argument for a restructuring of reality. It is to provide ‘proof’ of this metaphysical understanding. But this academic sense of understanding is not required in following the Way, and it does distract us from the path. — Possibility

This sounds like what I call "rational thought" in the last paragraph of my previous post.

I have engaged in attempts at explanation here, mainly in my references to Kant, quantum physics and Barrett’s theories in relation to affect, among others. My aim in doing so was to show that, firstly, there IS an alternative construction of reality in the TTC - one that does not align easily with conventional Western logic. — Possibility

I have no problem with this. It's interesting to me how foundational themes found in eastern philosophies show up as relatively minor themes in western philosophy, e.g. Tao vs. noumena. Also, what Barrett writes interests me, although I don't think it has a lot to say to me about the TTC.

Secondly, I was trying to point out that this alternative construction of reality does contend with, and arguably help to dissolve, current dilemmas in Western thinking. So, even if we have no intention of following the Way, its structure of conceptual reality is not as ‘a-rational’ as it first seems. It is more that conventional (Western) logic is inaccurate, insufficient beyond classical physics, for an holistic understanding of reality (ToE). — Possibility

I agree with this strongly. As I've said, I see the Tao as a concept as a good replacement for the idea of objective reality. I think that has profound implications for our understanding of how the world works, e.g. in science. I won't go into this any more here.

I also recognise that understanding the Way is not following the Way. What is missing is chi, the energy of life, one’s distribution of attention and effort. I have suggested that we can discuss how chi (or affect) fits into this by drawing from experience, but that perhaps we need to separate subjective experience into quality and energy (and the TTC into quality and logic) before this starts to make sense. — Possibility

As I've said, I don't think seeing the TTC through the eyes of Barrett or other scientists is useful, at least not for my purposes. I also think equating chi with affect is is like equating the mind with the brain, which I reject. I'll think more about that.

In fact, I get the sense that your aim is to recognise an experience of the Tao as a guide in those situations when conventional logic is insufficient. This seems to be a common Western approach to Taoism and other Eastern philosophies. — Possibility

Are you implying that it's wrong or somehow not true to Lao Tzu's intentions? First, I doubt that. Second - it doesn't really matter. I've found a spiritual vision that matches my intellectual, perceptual, experiential, and emotional understanding of how things work.

I just thought we should be clear that experiencing the Way is not following the Way, any more than understanding it is. Giving the impression that one can follow the Way simply by experiencing it is what I’ve been taking particular issue with here, but I’ve not been very clear in this. — Possibility

I'm not sure about this. I don't think you can follow the path without experiencing the Tao. Is that enough? Maybe? I think whatever value understanding the Tao has may be in helping to experience it. I'm out on a limb here. Over my head.

I have no doubt that many of the scholars who painstakingly translated the TTC do experience the Tao subjectively, but whenever they expressed this as an understanding of the TTC, they’ve necessarily applied at least some conventional Western logic to their choice of words (inherent in the English language). When readers then experience this understanding, they’re aligning with this Western way of thinking, not with that of the TTC. — Possibility

Sure. I think that's inevitable. Then again, many of the translators are native Chinese speaking scholars. I am reluctant to second guess them. I'd guess my western way of seeing things is more of a barrier than the translations. My answer to that is that I sometimes have experiences that seem to match what Lao Tzu described. If that's not enough, it's at least enough for me.

But if you say that you’re following the Tao, then I may dispute your accuracy from time to time, to which you will say that you don’t understand and you aren’t trying to. — Possibility

I certainly don't think I'm following the path in any rigorous or disciplined way. I just come back to what I said - I sometimes experience things that seem to match what Lao Tzu described. That's it. That's all I'll claim. I don't think I've ever claimed more. If I did, I was wrong.

Personally, I think any restructuring of reality in understanding the Tao goes deeper than this, but I accept that mine may be a minority view, lacking in clear explanation and relatively untested. — Possibility

I think you may think I am claiming more than I actually am.

I experience the working of my mind. Do I experience logic? Interesting question. I don't think I do. I guess most of what I know I know intuitively. I previously described an image I have of a cloud of knowledge that I think of when I think of the Tao. I've been thinking about that for a while - how we gain knowledge by osmosis. I'm far enough in the Barrett book to be interested in what she calls statistical learning as a candidate. Don't hold me to that. I've just gotten to that part. — T Clark

This is interesting to me. You use words such as ‘intuitively’ and ‘osmosis’, as if the knowledge just kind of turns up in your head. I’ve been aware recently that most people tend to perceive the world as particles, but I’ve always perceived it as waves (I couldn’t describe this difference until I looked at quantum physics). In this way, I can often follow the formation of knowledge through my past experiences. My son has a particle view - once he recognises knowledge as such, it’s like all relational structures collapse and only one possibility exists. I’ll admit it’s a more efficient way to learn, but he can’t always trace the source of his information or critically examine his rational process once his mind is made up. He just knows. In our family, he’s the strange one, but I think perhaps he might be more neuro-typical than I often give him credit for. I can be crippled by indecision, while he’s happy to follow a well-worn path of effective decision-making.