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.

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.

Reading into this too much I think, the point is to remove it as a variable because experience comes from inputs to the brain. So it's not important how you would do it but more so what it would mean to be without it. it just simplifies the argument. As you don't have memories without inputs, so it's just really a simplification of the argument because it must logically follow anyway. — Dale Petersen

I disagree. I think the fact that you don't know how to remove memories or even if it can be done or what would happen if you did undermines your argument.

I honestly don't see why that’s an issue. But I was using this argument to pre-empively refute the Soul & mind are separate arguments. — Dale Petersen

You were talking about an afterlife, which is a religious concept. I see no reason to believe the objections you raise would apply to a supernatural phenomenon.

So would you agree that is like saying the code of a program/Mind follows different rules to the hardware/brain which runs it? — Dale Petersen

This probably isn't a good analogy. Let's say it is for discussion's sake. Are you saying the software is the hardware?

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.

To answer your first question, I'll ask you that question, what would your mind/consciousness be without these things? Even if I missed an obscure sense we have, the same logic applies then to that. The point is you removing all inputs to the brain & their effect, so what is then your mind? I argue nothing. Try to imagine it. — Dale Petersen

I understand what you're talking about, but I disagree with what you're saying. If by destroying memory you mean removing all changes to the brain that have ever happened, then I think the person would clearly die. Otherwise, brain processing pathways would still be there. I don't know how that might show up as consciousness. Memories are not all stored in one place. They are stored throughout the brain. How do you remove them without otherwise disrupting brain function? I don't think you can.

To your second point. To reframe the thought, If you receive a brain injury that renders you unable to feel emotions, why would you then when your entire brain fails aka dies, would this ability come back to you, or would you then live in the afterlife emotionless forever. Basically, the point is everything we can attribute to our soul/mind/consciousness is dependent on certain regions of the brain, saying that there is nothing outside it that is part of the soul/mind/consciousness whatever would like to call it. Nothing un-materialistic. — Dale Petersen

You are applying the reasoning we might use in a scientific discussion to a spiritual or religious phenomenon.

I don't quite understand this. The physical and chemical actions and reactions that make it up is all that it is. That's what it is, entirely. Unless you can show otherwise? So why would you talk about it as something separate? Because a living organism is alive but the sum of its parts is not? Is that what you're saying? — Dale Petersen

One type of emergence, the type I think applies here, identifies a phenomenon, life, that arises out of lifeless matter. Life has to follow all the rules of lifeless matter, i.e. physics and chemistry, but it is not derivable from them. Here's a link to a famous paper:

https://cse-robotics.engr.tamu.edu/dshell/cs689/papers/anderson72more_is_different.pdf

I think the mind arising out of a living organism is the same thing. The mind is not the brain. They are different phenomena. They follow different rules.

When we know the cells and tissues are made from electrons and molecules why would you consider them separate? Where would you draw the line. I argue there is no line to be drawn. I really hope I have not misunderstood what you're saying. — Dale Petersen

Here's what you wrote in your opening post - "Conclusion: The Mind/Soul/Consciousness is the effect on potentials in the brain from its inputs." By your logic, that's wrong. It should be - Conclusion: The Mind/Soul/Consciousness is the effect of the motions of subatomic particles.

You would be left with only your memories that you're forced to reflect on, as your mind can do nothing else. But say then the virus erases your memory, then what is your mind? How conscious are you? We would not consider these things on their own part of consciousness but when removed so is then awareness. No other factors come into play.

Even if you are alive you are in no part conscious without all these things. — Dale Petersen

This doesn't seem obvious to me. How do you know?

We know when the brain is affected so is our consciousness but miraculously, when we die & our entire brain fails, and no longer functions its thought our mind remains unchanged, unaffected as it passes into the afterlife. The ridiculousness of this idea seems monumental. — Dale Petersen

I don't have any belief in an afterlife, but the idea does not seem ridiculous to me.

There is nothing un-materialistic about consciousness, just the remarkable emergent property of billions of years of evolution resulting in more complex & aware life on earth...

The mind & brain are not separate but the same thing. — Dale Petersen

I think this is clearly wrong. When I talk about brains, I use words such as "neuron" and "synapse." When I talk about consciousness I use words such as "thought" or "awareness." Let's try another example - does it make sense to talk about living organisms as something different from the physical and chemical actions and reactions that make them up? To me it seems clear that it does. Again, with physics we talk about electrons and molecules. With life we talk about cells and tissues.

I think you've misunderstood what people call the "hard problem of consciousness." For many, the unjumpable chasm is that conscious experience is qualitatively different from all other phenomena and is not explainable by any current science. I disagree with that. I agree with you that consciousness is no big deal, nothing special, although there is a lot we don't know about it. My reasons for believing that seem to be different than yours.

‘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.

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).

The more you give your beliefs definite, actionable form, the more and better feedback you will receive, allowing you to adjust, correct, or otherwise optimize your beliefs. — Pantagruel

I think it's even more than that. I've found that I don't even know what I believe until I've put it in "definite, actionable form," or at least in words.

The problem is that if you don't want to do it, you either take the abuse or go to their level, both are bad options. — schopenhauer1

I don't want to shock you, but I am imperfect in this regard. Like you, I am mostly responsive rather than aggressive. Mostly, but not completely. I've been working on being more civil for years. Decades. When I'm being all mature and everything, I address uncivil posts by calling them out directly. I usually say something like "that's not a valid argument" and then repeating it till they get sick. That's civil disobedience passive-aggressiveness.

Is there something that you feel or think you truly know. Perhaps some universal truth or intuitional feeling? What about something from experience? I would like to see your answers below. — Thinking

"Know" does not mean to be absolutely certain. It means to believe with adequate justification. By that standard I know lots of things. The sun will come up tomorrow. I love my children. All living organisms are the genetic descendants of an organism or organisms which lived more than a billion years ago. Cottage cheese is made with milk.

One wonders how the concept of an insult might be defined for purposes of logic. — Zophie

It's no more logical than a punch in the nose.

is it legitimate to use insults, puts-downs, sneering sarcasm, fake exasperation and the like as part of your argument? — schopenhauer1

There is rational discussion, where the goal is to find the truth, and there is rhetoric, where the goal is to convince, i.e. to win the argument. Insults are not legitimate in a rational argument. They don't lead to achieving the goal. Are they legitimate in a debate, polemic, or political speech? They're not nice. They're not civil or honorable. They might work or they might backfire. Are they legitimate? I guess the answer is "who cares."

They just don't have the right educational history to either be highbrow, or to produce the verisimilitude of natural born highbrow elitism. — Bitter Crank

"Verisimilitude" - highbrow or middlebrow? I'd say highbrow. For me, there is no worse insult than "middlebrow." Wayne Dyer, Malcolm Gladwell, most of TED, "Scientific American" now (As opposed to how it used to be), "Time" magazine. Sorry, off track.

The abusive type of ad hominem argument can be defined in terms of the concept of insult. Personal integrity, moral character, psychological health, or intellectual ability are classic examples. — Zophie

I've been thinking about starting a discussion about how ad hominem arguments are different from insults. They are, but I sometimes have trouble deciding if an example is one or the other. An insult is not an argument.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly. — Possibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

So this is how Sisyphus felt? — Manuel

Are we Sisyphus? Are anti-natalists Sisyphus? I think of myself more as Prometheus, bringing knowledge to the benighted masses here on the forum.

In some Dharmic religions, it is believed that in order for conception to occur, the will of the prospective father, the will of the prospective mother, and the will of the prospective child need to be in accord. An implication of such an outlook is that in those religions, they believe that whoever was born, in fact wanted to be born, so people are deemed as being responsible for their own existence. — baker

I like this, both as insight and as rhetoric. I'm going to save it in case I ever accidentally get involved in an anti-natalist discussion.

Is this more antinatalism? — Manuel

Seems like it. Maybe Bartricks or Schopenhauer1 will respond and we can see if they differ.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I guess I'll chime in. — Ying

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So something like a referee function (role) for the scientific community. That would be reasonable. — spirit-salamander

Guys doing experiments, calculating, theorizing, investigating following the scientific method - that's science. The scientific method itself - that's metaphysics, i.e. philosophy.

How should philosophy relate to all (current) scientific research? — spirit-salamander

One role I can think that is fundamentally philosophical rather than scientific is addressing issues related to the scientific method rather than results or theories. Examples:

• Appropriate levels of significance
• Replication of results
• Reporting of results, e.g. reporting of negative findings
• Review of methods and results
• Requirements for data validation and analysis, e.g. statistical methods

Also - ethical issues. Examples:

• Consent
• Possible harm to study participants
• Fraud
• Conflicts of interest

Is an 'eternal' Trinity a philosophical fallacy? — ernest meyer

I'm not a Christian, or even a theist, of any sort, so I don't have an opinion on anything you've written. Even so, I wanted to complement you on an interesting and well expressed opening post.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. Also, @Valentinus is a mason.

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

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

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

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

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

This explication makes sense to me.

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

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

the Derek Lin translation and explanation — Amity

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

Our biggest problem is the ego that reacts to words of praise or criticism; there is a tendency to desire positive opinions and avoid criticism perceived as negative. — Amity

I'm fine with this.

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

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