The function of repeatability in experiments is NOT to confirm a hypothesis.

The function of repeatability is to check the reliability of the experimental result. — bert1

What's the difference? At least under most circumstances.

A single unrepeated experiment, if reliable, is enough to refute a hypothesis. You don't have to do it again. — bert1

So, how do you demonstrate that an experiment is reliable. I can think of two ways.1) review the premises, procedures, data, calculations, and conclusions for errors and unsound interpretations and 2) rerun the experiment. How far you have to go to show an experiment is reliable depends on the consequences of being wrong. If people's lives or millions of dollars are on the line, maybe you do need to rerun the experiment after all.

His writings shine a light on some of the darkest aspects of human nature; the things that we tell ourselves are fundamentally wrong, regardless of religion or upbringing, — Book273

I think you're right, but DeSade is way too much for me. I can never get through more than a couple of pages. Hurting children....I can't do it. On the other hand, I love comedians who open their black crusty souls to show what goes on inside men - e.g. Louis CK and Bill Burr. As a man, I find their comedy funny, but also moving. R. Crumb; a cartoonist who wrote and drew beautiful, funny, moving, and completely vile and unjustifiable stories about men, women, and sex; is another good example.

When I hear "logic" assert the Principle of Identity, I say "prove it." Logic's response seems to be, it's "self-evident". That response reminds me of a frustrated parent saying "because I said so." — James Riley

To start off, this is an interesting subject and a very well written opening post.

Here's a list of philosophical definitions I posted here a few years ago.

Definitions:

• A priori truth – An assertion I want to be true but that can’t be proven, that I can’t prove, or that I’m too lazy to prove
• Atheism – A philosophical system for explaining to people who don’t believe in God why you don’t either
• Logic – a philosophical method for determining the truth without having to actually know anything
• Common sense – See “A priori truth.”
• Knowledge - There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
• Philosophy – The search for the truth; the meaning of life; the nature of existence; and the definitions of long, obscure words translated from German
• Clarity – Expressing what you mean in a way that makes it obvious you’re wrong
• Self-evident – See “A priori truth.”

Anyway, I share your suspicion about "self-evident." I think you're exactly right, it's "because we must agree on that before we go forward into argument. Otherwise, we can't even converse." That's what R.G. Collingwood would call an absolute presupposition. Do you agree @tim wood? On the other hand, when I say "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...," it's something different. It's a statement of values. Actually, now that I think about it, maybe a value is an absolute presupposition too.

Nevertheless, it leaves me feeling somewhat an imposter to continue without a proof. — James Riley

If I may paraphrase that famous philosopher Joel Hodgson:

If you're wondering how it's justified
And other logic facts
Then repeat to yourself "It's just philosophy
I should really just relax"

In response to a demand for proof, I've also heard that a negative cannot be proven. — James Riley

This has always bothered me. Maybe you can't prove a negative is true, but you can show it's useful to act as if it is. To me, this shows how little people understand what "to know" means. I think the Hodgson paraphrase works even better here.

All the forgoing is a digression I'm trying to address in aid of another argument. I'm convinced that infinity must account for the absence of itself in order for it to be infinite. — James Riley

Mathematics is full of ideas that are absurd until we find a use for them, e.g. zero, irrational numbers, negative numbers, imaginary numbers. Infinity is useful, therefor it exists.

I think the failure of physicists to marry General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is due to their stipulation to the Principles of Logic which they think are required to allow them to converse. — James Riley

Is this based on some specific knowledge or understanding you have? Please explain.

Any help on the Principle of Identity or the Law of Contradiction would be appreciated. — James Riley

My pet peeve is logical fallacies. I think a lot of the arguments called that are useful and legitimate.

Anyway, good post.

I get the impression he's a rung above Tyson in terms of credentials and scientific accomplishment. I have read some critical reviews of his last book by Lisa Randall, also an academic physicist. I intend to do some more reading of these kinds of authors, I've just revisited some of Paul Davies' books. I'm thinking of working up an article on 'scientific idealism'. — Wayfarer

The standard by which I judge popular science writers is Stephen J. Gould. He's one of my favorite writers of any kind. He writes wonderfully and he taught me important things about what science is, how science works, and how knowledge works. His books aren't hard to read, but they're substantive. Gee whiz science really sets me off. As evidenced by Seven Brief Lessons, Rovelli is better than that.

I looked up "scientific idealism." It's not a term I'd heard before. I found very little. I did find this article, written in 1921, titled "Scientific Idealism." I have no idea if it is at all relevant to what you are talking about.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/6271.pdf

I didn’t get Rovelli’s last book, but am tempted by this one. — Wayfarer

I read "Seven Brief Lessons on Physics." I've also heard Rovelli being interviewed. Interesting guy and it sounds like his work is important. Seven Brief Lessons was very pop-sci, simplistic. I get the feeling he is a Neil deGrasse Tyson kind of guy. Not that there's anything wrong with that. If you read the book, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

I think this is just political stuff we don't have to mix governments with people. When I was in Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois and Wisconsin everything was so awesome and I have good memories.
True, nobody knew Spanish but this made me stronger to improve my English so I ended up winning in that journey. — javi2541997

I've been to Europe twice, three times if you count the time my family lived there in 1952 when I was one. Most recently my brother and I went there in 2014. I've always been treated well by the people I met. I loved trying to make myself understood using my five years of high school French and one year of college German.

I am not sure if the references to different realms are being presented as conflicting reports of phenomena. It is acknowledged at the beginning that you will never be able to prove the difference or the sameness. The Tao that cannot be named and all. But the difference and sameness under-lay the claim about what is happening. — Valentinus

My wave/particle duality reference related more to the state of mind it takes to accept an apparently impossible contradiction. There is no resolution to the contradiction. There's no way around it. It's not a misunderstanding. That's the way things are and you just have to learn to live with it.

The feeling that I have about the Tao and the 10,000 things is the same as I felt in physics class. That blank feeling of ...Oh.

But I find that idea very far from a way to put these ideas together. I read the proposal that the realms are so absolutely different and yet the same with astonishment every time. — Valentinus

I remember high school physics when we learned about the dual nature of light. Particle/wave. Wave/particle. Which is it? What do you mean both??? I remember the moment...Ding! The bell, the one in my head, rang. The fact that it seems weird is just my problem. There's something wrong with me, not the universe. That's just the way things are. That memory has been helpful in the 50 years since I graduated.

Sang ever so eloquently by the rock group, The Who:

"Meet the new boss!
Same as the old boss!"

To be completely frank, it was more screamed than sung. — god must be atheist

Ironically enough, the Who's recording of the song was used in a car commercial. Meet the new Nissan, same as the old Nissan.

The Golden Age seems to be a reference in all the classical literature... The need to delineate between the named and the unnamed was not a problem the "old followers" of the way had to wrestle with in order to stop bad things. — Valentinus

I don't think Lao Tzu actually believed there was a Golden Age. He was a pretty smart guy and he understood human nature. I think the idea should be taken as metaphorical. The TTC tells us time and again that we the world returns to the Tao. Maybe returning to the good old days is just another way of describing it.

English is important because is the basic language where we can communicate each other. — javi2541997

Which allows us Americans to avoid learning foreign languages or cultures. We'll make the others learn our language. It's one of the big reasons so many people in the world don't like us much.

But I don’t think the TTC was meant, originally. — Possibility

I think that's similar to what I meant when I said Lao Tzu didn't have a purpose in writing it.

I think we attribute an author to the text in order to distance ourselves from what we cannot yet grasp, but I think the TTC is so ambiguous because there IS no ‘what Lao Tzu says’ and no ‘what Lao Tzu means’ in the text at all. — Possibility

Sure. At the same time, I feel a relationship with Lao Tzu. I am learning something from him. It's personal. I'm grateful.

I’m thinking perhaps we see Taoism as either monist or idealist. I tend towards the monist perspective, myself. That may be why my interpretation often seems so out of step here. — Possibility

Isn't the Tao the ultimate monist concept? It's so monist, it isn't even a concept. If by idealist you mean the fact that reality has an established underlying form or forms, Taoism is anti-idealist. The Tao is explicitly formless. If I'm using the correct definitions for "monist" and "idealist," it seems like we're all monists in this discussion.

Thank you for providing the 2 different translations, the commentary and your thoughts. This provides access and allows for flexibility in reading the text. — Amity

I have been thinking that I haven't been putting enough thought into the selection of translations and commentaries when I post a verse. Sometimes I'm lazy and just slap something, usually Chen, down. I'm going to try to be more careful.

To help us find the Way or set us on the right course by teaching us not to be rigid with fixed beliefs or opinions. — Amity

"Fixed beliefs or opinions" are hard to justify given the problems of translating from ancient Chinese and Lao Tzu's intentional or unavoidable ambiguity.

I think your map differs from Lao Tzu's in that you are locating the "ineffable" as an ingredient in the experience of living amongst the ten thousand things where Lao Tzu is pointing outside to something we will never experience. — Valentinus

I've been thinking about this. I have always thought that we can experience the Tao directly, but not with our conscious, verbal, rational minds. Above, you write that we will never experience the Tao. Here are some words from different commentaries on Verse 14:

• Chen quoting Walter Stace - What mystics say is that a genuine mystical experience is nonsensuous. It is formless, shapeless, colorless, odorless, soundless.
  
• Stephan Senudd - ...he focuses on its obscurity as well as its infinity. The latter is the reason for the former. Because Tao has no limit in time or space, it cannot be described, not even perceived.
  
• Dan Reid translation of Heshang Gong commentary - What is without colour and appearance is called Clear. This is to say that Oneness is without accumulated colour and appearance. It cannot be inspected or observed.
  
• Derek Lin - The Tao is not a material object, therefore it cannot be seen or touched. We say it is invisible and colorless because it is without form or substance. Sound also cannot be seen or touched. But unlike sound, the Tao cannot be heard. It cannot be detected by any of our physical senses, because it is metaphysical in nature.

So, what do I mean when I say something can be experienced without being seen, perceived, or observed?

Verse 16

Addis and Lombardo

Attain complete emptiness, Hold fast to stillness.
The ten thousand things stir about; I only watch for their going back. Things grow and grow, But each goes back to its root.
Going back to the root is stillness. This means returning to what is. Returning to what is Means going back to the ordinary.
Understanding the ordinary: Enlightenment. Not understanding the ordinary: Blindness creates evil. Understanding the ordinary: Mind opens. Mind opening leads to compassion, Compassion to nobility, Nobility to heavenliness, Heavenliness to Tao.
Tao endures. Your body dies. There is no danger.

Derek Lin

Attain the ultimate emptiness
Hold on to the truest tranquility
The myriad things are all active
I therefore watch their return
Everything flourishes; each returns to its root
Returning to the root is called tranquility
Tranquility is called returning to one's nature
Returning to one's nature is called constancy
Knowing constancy is called clarity
Not knowing constancy, one recklessly causes trouble
Knowing constancy is acceptance
Acceptance is impartiality
Impartiality is sovereign
Sovereign is heaven
Heaven is Tao
Tao is eternal
The self is no more, without danger

Heshang Gong Commentary

致虛極，得道之人，捐情去欲，五內清靜，至於虛極。
“Arrive at supreme emptiness”
Become a man of Dao. Give up strong emotions and discard desires. Then the five internal organs will be clear and tranquil, arriving at supreme emptiness.

守靜篤，守清靜，行篤厚。
“Embrace deep silence”
Hold onto clarity and tranquility until it is deep and substantial.

萬物並作，作，生也。萬物並生也。
“Myriad creatures arise together”
Arise, here, means they are born. The myriad creatures are born side by side.

吾以觀復。言吾以觀見萬物無不皆歸其本也。人當念重
其本也。
“I thereby observe them returning”
Lao Zi is saying “I watch and observe the myriad creatures, and there is not one which does not return to the root foundation.” People should consider the heaviness of the foundation.

夫物芸芸，芸芸者，華葉盛也。
“So many things blossoming”
Blossoming refers to abundant flowers and leaves.

各復歸其根，言萬物無不枯落，各復反其根而更生也。
“And each returns back to its roots”
There is not one of the myriad things which does not dry out and fall. Each returns back to the root, and then many more are born.

歸根曰靜，靜謂根也。根安靜柔弱，謙卑處下，故不復死也。
“Returning to the roots is called silence”
Silence is another word for the root. The root is peaceful and still, soft and pliant. Modestly and humbly, it remains below. Thus, it does not return to death.

是謂復命。言安靜者是為復還性命，使不死也。
“This means returning to one’s destiny-life-force (ming)”
Lao Zi is saying that peace and stillness are the correct way to return to pure nature (xing) and the destiny-life-force (ming). Then one will not die.

復命曰常。復命使不死，乃道之所常行也。
“Returning to one’s destiny-life-force is called eternality”
By returning (to) the destiny-life-force, one will not die but will follow Dao eternally.

知常曰明；能知道之所常行，則為明。
“Understanding eternality is called enlightenment”
Knowing how to follow Dao at all times is to be enlightened.

不知常，妄作凶。不知道之所常行，妄作巧詐，則失神明，故凶也。
“Oblivious to eternality, one is reckless, and author of their own misfortune”
Not knowing how to follow Dao at all times, people recklessly work on developing deceptive skills. As a result, they lose spiritual intelligence. Disaster then befalls them.

知常容，能知道之所常行，去情忘欲，無所不包容也。
“Know how to embrace eternality”
Know how to follow Dao at all times. Leave strong emotions and forget desires. Then there will be nothing which is not wrapped in this embrace.

容乃公，無所不包容，則公正無私，眾邪莫當。
“This embrace shows the way of impartiality”[55]
When there is nothing which is not wrapped in this embrace, there is impartiality, uprightness, and
unselfishness. No wickedness can obstruct it.

公乃王，公正無私，可以為天下王。治身正則形一，神明千萬，共湊其躬也。
“The way of impartiality shows the way of a king”
Impartial, honourable, and unselfish, one can become king of all under Heaven. By governing and aligning the body, form is unified. Countless spiritual lights then assemble in the body.

王乃天，能王，德合神明，乃與天通。
“The way of a king shows the way of Heaven”
Being a king, here, means that Virtue will gather spiritual lights and take you through the Heavens.

天乃道，德與天通，則與道合同也。
“The way of Heaven shows the way of Dao”
When Virtue takes you through the Heavens, you follow Dao and become united as one with it.

道乃久。與道合同，乃能長久。
“The way of Dao shows the way of longevity”
Following Dao and becoming united with it, one can endure indefinitely.

沒身不殆。能公能王，通天合道，四者純備，道德弘遠，無殃無咎，乃與天地俱沒，不危殆也。
“And for the body to be without peril”
If one can follow the way of impartiality and kings, they can travel through Heaven and unite with Dao. These four things prepare one for Dao and Virtue to expand immensely. One will be without misfortune and without error. Then they can be a companion of Heaven and Earth until both have disappeared, yet they will not be endangered.

My thoughts

The ultimate emptiness is the Tao. The path to the Tao is through tranquility, constancy, clarity, acceptance, impartiality.

Everything, the 10,000 things, returns to its root, to its nature. Returns to the Tao. The 10,000 things are created from the Tao but continuously return to it. This is a theme that comes up time after time in many verses. To me this means that, even though the TTC includes a creation story, the process of creation didn’t happen once when the world began, but happens over and over all the time. The Tao and the 10,000 things are always both there. It’s our job to see that.

Don't leave something as important as your health to the experts because you never know when they are going to take the drill out of their black bag and... — synthesis

I have said to my friends and family many times, "I don't see how anyone survives the American medical system without a nurse in the family." My wife is a nurse. My sister-in-law and many of my neighbors are nurses, with one doctor in the bunch. One neighbor, a maternity nurse, was at the birth of all three of my children. So, my solution to the problem, only partly in jest - marry a nurse.

Also, never leave anyone you care about in a hospital alone. See them every day. Make sure you understand what is going on and who is responsible. They probably won't be able to do that. Even without whatever problem they came there with, hospitals are disorienting and discouraging for patients. Someone needs to be paying attention to the patient's well being above all else. That's probably you.

That is exactly what I was going to do. Leave. — Amity

Does this have to do with the fact that we have been barking at each other the last couple of pages? I would be sorry to see you leave. Your thoughts have contributed to our movement down the path we are on. I understand you are uncomfortable with the way the thread is organized, but this really is the discussion I had envisioned from the beginning.

If I am one of the 'some', then you can and will do whatever you like. It's your thread.
Re: the thread. You disagreed with me re its disjointed nature. Again, only quoting part of my post. Did you not appreciate my thoughts about a meandering path ? — Amity

Your comments about the thread being disjointed were among those I was considering when I wrote that. I have thought about that more. I do believe that my approach is a reasonable one. It reflects my understanding that our primary relationship with the TTC is the experience not understanding.

Did you not appreciate my thoughts about a meandering path ? — Amity

It definitely is a meandering path. The TTC itself is a meandering path. I think that is reflected in the way the discussion is running. That is my intent.

However, sometimes off-shoots, like this, just get in the way...
They need to be cut back, reduced, so that the tree can grow to its full potential. — Amity

I don't agree.

This is where I sign off... — TheMadFool

I think you have contributed in a very useful way to this discussion. Sorry you're leaving.

I don’t have much to argue over with this translation at all, nor with Chen’s detailed comments. I can see why you use this version - its descriptions of the Tao itself seem quite clear to me. It reminds me of qualitative descriptions in quantum field theory. — Possibility

I have no objection to this comparison, as long as it is clear that whatever connection there is between Taoism and QM is completely metaphorical. Some people - Fritjof Capra, I'm talking to you - get that mixed up.

This verse is a watershed of different views. Are the things being named as awkwardly related to each other as the problem of talking about them? Or is there an order that is consistent to itself as how things come about that we only understand poorly through deficient means?... — Valentinus

Therefore it is called the formless form,
The image (hsiang) of nothing.
Therefore it is said to be illusive and evasive (hu-huang).
Come toward it one does not see its head,

I'm going to take this verse as an endorsement of the approach to the TTC I've been discussing over the past few posts. Again, I see the TTC as an impressionistic collage of ideas from lots of different translators, commentators, and people in this and other discussions. That started out as a little joke, but I really do think that is something like what Lao Tzu is trying to say.

It's vague. It's confusing. It's hard to see, understand. It's small. Don't look directly at it. See it out of your peripheral vision.

I don’t expect you to see things the way I do - only to explore its potential from your own perspective, to ask yourself why you don’t see fear in the body as well as the mind, how your perspective might change if you did, and if that’s such a bad thing... — Possibility

I think I've shown that I'm paying attention to what you say and trying to fit it into my way of seeing things. Can you say the same about what I've written?

Except you do think that Lao Tzu wrote the TTC for a specific communicative purpose, and I think you’d agree that the text uses a particular language, and employs a particular style and structure in itself. That a reductionist methodology, right there - a way of rendering an understanding of the Tao in a relational structure of strokes on a page. Like the choices an artist makes to render a 4D experience of light and movement in 2D. — Possibility

When you first started using the language you use to discuss the TTC, I found it....well, I thought it distracted from the discussion. Since then, I've come to enjoy the kinds of things you talk about. Evidence that I take your arguments seriously - 1) I bought and am reading, slowly, Barrett's book 2) As I discussed in an earlier post, I'm trying to include some of the information about how emotions play out when I think about the experience I am trying to understand. All that being said, your way of understanding the Tao is not my way.

Did Lao Tzu write the TTC for a specific purpose? This is from Addis and Lombardo, Verse 63.

Act without acting. Serve without serving. Taste without tasting....
Therefore the Sage Never attempts great things and so accomplishes them.

So, I guess, no... Lao Tzu didn't have a purpose in writing the TTC. I think Lao Tzu meant what he said and said what he meant.

The structure of the English language insists that biology is not chemistry and psychology is not anatomy - that each ‘level of organisation’ must be spoken about in a different way, using different words. — Possibility

It strikes me as ironic that you discuss the TTC using unfamiliar technical language and then find fault with me for using everyday English. As I said, I find you approach interesting, but it's not mine. The same goes for your linguistic discussion. Another thing you and @Amity have convinced me of is that I need to spend some time with the Chinese language. Even so, I am comfortable putting myself in the hands of the many people who have translated the TTC.

Each attempted translation of the TTC proposes an alternative reductionist methodology, a set of hypotheses to be tested by relating to experience, life and objective reality. We’re not testing what is written, therefore, but our own relation to it. — Possibility

I don't understand what you're trying to say. As I said in an earlier post - I take an impressionistic approach to the TTC. I wonder how different that is from what you are talking about.

Welcome. I hope you find what you want here.

If you have doubts as to whether this is the correct way to understand Taoism, I have no real reason to counter that. — TheMadFool

You must have noticed that each of the people in this discussion have different ideas about what the Tao Te Ching means. We all speak with different words. You say "paradox." @Possibility says "affect." I say "experience." These are the ideas we use to open up what TTC means. I think that the words we use have special meaning to us that provides a key. I've noticed in your other posts that paradoxes mean a lot to you, so the key for you is to look at the paradoxes. You seem to have gained a lot of confidence since this thread started.

That out of the way, what do you think "the 10,000 things" means? For my money, the exact figure of 10,000 is not as important as what it suggests viz. multiplicity, plurarlity, or what Laozi is really worried about viz. division that then becomes the cause of strife, chaos, and, of course the main antagonist, suffering. — TheMadFool

Some translations say "10,000 things." Some say the "multiplicity of beings." I have a personal affection for 10,000 things. You're right, it's not really 10,000, it's the ancient Chinese version of a bajillion.

Laozi wants us to see past differences, the very foundation of all division, "the 10,000 things", and try and grasp what I can only refer to as the unity which is the Tao. — TheMadFool

Lao Tzu doesn't find fault with the 10,000 things. He acknowledges that they are a manifestation of the Tao. The fact that they are different, but are also aspects of the same thing he calls the "mystery."

We need to pay close attention to "...to defy all reason..." the words that appear at the end of the last sentence in the paragraph above because Laozi isn't proposing that we should now give up on logic and reason, embrace irrationality. — TheMadFool

The things Lao Tzu writes about are not rational or irrational. They're non-rational. I'm not sure what his thoughts on logic would be.

The eternal dance of opposites, the masculine dominating, the feminine yielding, and our job, according to Laozi, is not, as I thought earlier, to be some kind of harmonizing force, heroically bringing balance to the world but simply to yield willingly and to the best of our ability to the yin and the yang as both converge on us as both do on each and every one of us. — TheMadFool

I'm not sure what Lao Tzu thought our job is, if he thought about that at all.

Deleted

That "those who speak don't know and those who know don't speak" is an explicit statement on the nature of the Tao as something beyond language and in order to give eager enthusiasts of Taoism a feel for that Laozi resorts to paradoxes because, — TheMadFool

I agree.

1. To understand paradoxes, we have get down to the level of semantics - what the words mean - and semantics is, if you really look at it, reality itself, the many ways it presents itself to us. Words are there only as labels for aspects of reality, be it an object, state, or phenomenon. Thus, paradoxes serve the important function of forcing us to think about reality itself. — TheMadFool

I'm ok with this, as long as, when you say "reality" you mean "the 10,000 things" and not "the Tao."

However, if I were to say "straight"' means curved, then the contradiction's resolved. — TheMadFool

I think it's more than that. It looks like your quote comes from Verse 45, so we'll get back to it. We could skip directly to that verse, but some don't like my habit of jumping around.

I see hope not as an illusion. It underlies the present and is an important motivator.
If you are writing words in a post, this involves hope.
You have a hope that your words might mean something to somebody.

The author of the TTC had a goal.
He hoped that he could achieve this by using words.
Words that could express his thoughts in poetic form.

He hoped that his words might mean something to somebody.
In the act of writing, he was thinking about the future.
He was also paying attention.

Hope is an important part of living. It is a driving force. — Amity

I don't agree with this and I don't think Lao Tzu would either. Don't you like how I can authoritatively put words into Lao Tzu's mouth.

It seems from what you’re saying here that you subscribe to some form of dualism or idealism, — Possibility

No, I'm not talking about dualism. I'm talking about different levels of organization. Biology is not chemistry. Psychology is not anatomy. When I talk about "mind," I talk about fear, thought, sight, experience. When I talk about "body," I talk about neurons, brain, stomach, blood. Mind is not self. Mind can be our experience of our bodies.

You seem reluctant to explore this, preferring to see fear as all in the mind. — Possibility

It's not fair (stomps feet). I tell you I don't see things the way you do and you say I'm "reluctant to explore."

But I also think Lao Tzu describes our relational structure as dissolving any quantitative distinction between mind and brain. More often than not we’re not paying that much attention introspectively. We should acknowledge, with humility, those times when, in failing to predict accurately, we find ourselves surprisingly affected by our expectations. Despite physiological preparation to fight or flee, we need not act on this, but often we’re left to explain an unconscious response after the fact. How readily do we acknowledge fear as an explanation then - especially if we believe that fear is just a mental experience? — Possibility

I don't think Lao Tzu ever thought in those terms, even beyond differences in language. I don't see how the process you describe is reflected anywhere in the TTC. That's not saying the description you're giving is wrong, it's just not what the TTC is talking to me about. I understand you see things differently.

And in your defense - since the beginning of our discussions, I've tried to pay attention to how fear and other emotions play out as experience to see if Barrett's way of seeing things is useful. I've always been aware that fear expresses itself differently at different times. I'm trying to watch that better.

This is a common intellectual, even Western, description of ‘mindfulness’. It’s a restructuring of our conceptual reality that consolidates the mind as isolated from the body. — Possibility

This is not true for me.

In this state, for me it isn’t so much that fear isn’t there, or that expectation dissolves, but that it just isn’t what we think it is. What ‘fear’ consists of still exists as variable qualitative experience - it’s just not a thing in itself. — Possibility

I don't see how this is different from what I described. Actually, I do. Once I become aware of fear and face it contemplatively, the physiological markers that we identify as fear go away. The "variable qualitative experience" of fear is gone.

Ok - seeing through it makes sense. I just get a sense that we’re intellectually accepting these translations because they have a satisfying quantitative or logical structure to them, regardless of whether or not they’re qualitatively accurate. I think we need to be more thorough than that. — Possibility

I see what we're doing, at least what I'm trying to do, differently than that. I'm an intellectual, verbal guy. So there's a natural tendency for me to work with words. That's ok with Lao Tzu, because he has set the TTC up as an obstacle course for over-intellectual people. I see every verse, every translation, every discussion, every commentary as a snapshot of the Tao made up of words. As a cross-section through it. Maybe like a cat scan. These snapshots are full of contradictions, inaccuracies, misunderstandings, language confusion. Once we've taken enough of these cross-sections, even though they are made up of words, we can get a non-verbal, impressionistic feel for what the experience of what the Tao might be like.

So, when I come up with another explanation, question, thought, contemplation, it's not that I believe that it's the answer. It's just another picture for the pile. I like some pictures better than others. And I can use all of your explanations, questions, thoughts, and contemplations as snapshots too. That's the value of doing this as a group. I'm not accepting any of the verses or any of the translations. I'm using them. I focus on the ones that speak to me, but I also take a look at those that don't. That's what I mean when I say we can't know or understand the Tao, but maybe we can experience it. This is fun.

They are concepts in our social reality, a product of human agreement — Possibility

I.e. they are included in the 10,000 things.

Fear is identified by neural firing patterns as a mental event, in a categorisation method (proposed by Darwin) known as population thinking. Fear as an event has been demonstrated as irreducible to a particular location or set of neurons in the brain, leading to an understanding of degeneracy: a many-to-one relational structure between neurons and the firing patterns that identify as mental events. — Possibility

Fear, at least as I'm talking about it, and as I think Lao Tzu thought about it, is a mental experience. It's part of the mind. Let's not get into a discussion of mind/brain identity. For me, the mind and the brain are completely different things. The nervous system, the whole body, is a living organ made up of cells. Fear is an experience. We typically use different words to describe them. Now I'm trying to figure out how the things Barrett says fit into this picture. I think maybe the findings of cognitive science have added a new level or organization between mind and brain. Not sure, and I don't want to get deeply into that.

The process of understanding the Tao includes constructing a reductionist methodology that renders this understanding in how we think, speak, act and generally relate to the world - all of which is necessarily bound by affect. — Possibility

As you might intimate from what I wrote above, I don't agree with this. I don't think there is a reductionist methodology within 10 miles of the TTC.

Verse 14

Mitchell Translation

Look, and it can't be seen.
Listen, and it can't be heard.
Reach, and it can't be grasped.

Above, it isn't bright.
Below, it isn't dark.
Seamless, unnamable,
it returns to the realm of nothing.
Form that includes all forms,
image without an image,
subtle, beyond all conception.

Approach it and there is no beginning;
follow it and there is no end.
You can't know it, but you can be it,
at ease in your own life.
Just realize where you come from:
this is the essence of wisdom.

Chen Translation

What is looked at but not (pu) seen,
Is named the extremely dim (yi).
What is listened to but not heard,
Is named the extremely faint (hsi).
What is grabbed but not caught,
Is named the extremely small (wei).
These three cannot be comprehended,
Thus they blend into one.
As to the one, its coming up is not light,
Its going down is not darkness.
Unceasing, unnameable,
Again it reverts to nothing.
Therefore it is called the formless form,
The image (hsiang) of nothing.
Therefore it is said to be illusive and evasive (hu-huang).
Come toward it one does not see its head,
Follow behind it one does not see its rear.
Holding on to the Tao of old (ku chih tao),
So as to steer in the world of now (chin chih yu).
To be able to know the beginning of old,
It is to know the thread of Tao.

Chen Commentary

General Comment

This chapter is on fundamental ontology. It captures the dynamism of Tao at the transitional point between being and non-being. What we have here is the via negativa, the language of the mystics. The character u, the not, appears nine times in the chapter. Walter Stace writes: “What mystics say is that a genuine mystical experience is nonsensuous. It is formless, shapeless, colorless, odorless, soundless”.

Detailed Comment

1. As the extremely small, Tao is invisible, inaudible, and intangible. It is also the extremely small and extremely great (ch. 41.3). Either way it is beyond our sensual experience. The existence of Tao cannot be verified. Here we move from the phenomenal world of the many to the hidden Tao as one.

2. Our translation of the first line follows the Ma-wang Tui texts. The beginnings of both versions A and B contain two additional characters, i the (as to the one), not found in other editions. This addition makes for better continuity between (1) and (2). In these lines Tao, as the one further recedes and reveals itself to be nothing or chaos (hu-huang). On the non-being aspect of Tao the Chuang Tzu (ch. 22) muses: Bright Dazzlement asked Nonexistence, “Sir, do you exist or do you not exist?” Unable to obtain any answer, Bright Dazzlement stared intently at the other’s face and form—all was vacuity and blankness. He stared all day but could see nothing, listened but could hear no sound, stretched out his hand but grasped nothing. “Perfect!” exclaimed Bright Dazzlement. “Who can reach such perfection? I can the existence of nonexistence, but not of the nonexistence of nonexistence. Yet this man has reached the stage of the nonexistence of nonexistence. How could I ever reach such perfection!” (Watson: 244.)

3. The “Tao of old” (ku chih tao) in line 3 pairs with “the world of now” (chin chih yu) in line 4. From his philological study Kao Heng determined that yü (being) in the Tao Te Ching has the same meaning as yü (space). Whatever has being occupies space. Thus, chin chih yu, the realm of being at the present moment, is “the world (yu) of now.” If “the world of now” as being means space, “the Tao of old” as non-being (wu) is time. The priority of non-being over being (ch. 40) means the priority of time over space, of dynamism over form. This “Tao of old,” which is the formless form, the image of nothing, giving rise to beings (yu) that have form and occupy space (yü), is none other than the flux of time. This “Tao of old” that informs “the world of now” is what Jean Gebser calls the “Ever-Present

It occurs to me that we use a song by the Bee Gees to achieve the right timing of chest compressions for CPR. — frank

Come on - tell us the song. "I'm going back to Massachusetts, something's telling me I must go back" (patient dies).

favor and disgrace are existential. — Valentinus

Do you mean that they threaten the basis of our lives? The foundation we stand on? Or something else?

The entire physical structure of intentional action and consciousness necessitates anticipating what will come next - ‘living in the future rather than the present’. — Possibility

I'll keep reading.

So, while it makes sense to say that there is the same quality of expectation in experiences of both hope and fear, those experiences differ markedly in affect (one being pleasant and the other unpleasant), and so we process them differently, and they feel different. Once we acknowledge this, then we can begin to understand the quality of expectation beyond our affected distinction of hope and fear, and also understand affect in relation to our expectations. — Possibility

As Barrett points out, it can be hard to tell two emotions apart. It's also true that the same emotion may vary from instance to instance. I think what it comes down to is that both hope and fear deal with something happening in the future. You can't act spontaneously, wu wei, if you're not paying attention because you're thinking about the future.

What we’re calling ‘expectation’ here, Barrett refers to as prediction. — Possibility

We'll have to come back to this when I've read more.

When you do appear to succeed at not having expectations, are you aware of what it is you are paying attention to? And what you are ‘discarding’? — Possibility

I don't want to give the impression that it's something I can do on an extended basis. Do you meditate at all? I don't in any formal way, but if I pay attention, I can go to state of mind where I am aware of what is going on inside me with no words. When that happens, fear, expectation, dissolve. I haven't forgotten them and I'm not hiding them, they're just not there. This is a pretty common description of a meditative, now they're calling it "mindful," state.

I struggle to relate to Cleary’s translation — Possibility

Cleary isn't normally my favorite. I've found, though, that I'll often find a translation that really works for me from different authors, even those that aren't usually my favorites. That's why I have really enjoyed paying attention to a lot of different translations.

All creation stories seem to involve recognition of the "boundary" between the "named and unnamed." How they serve as a mirror can be very different. — Valentinus

Yes. It's something I've thought about a lot recently. As I had always seen it, the process by which the Tao is differentiated into the 10,000 things was simple. We, humans, do it by naming things. Three steps - Tao; humans; 10,000 things. It's clear from reading the TTC more thoroughly that it's more complicated than that. From verse 42 it's Tao; One: Two: Three; 10,000. And then there's "The Great One." In that, it goes from Tao to 10,000 things through St. Louis with a stop in Boise. And, as you say, where along the path is the boundary? Where does it become the named world we live in.

I think there is common ground in framing the conditions on our side of the "heavenly gate" as interweaving the mortal with the immortal. I think the difference is that Lao Tzu is learning the lesson through navigating the world as it finds him rather than Plato framing it as a class taught by his ancestors. — Valentinus

I'm not sure if this is the same thing you meant - In the worlds of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Plato's Creator there's a design/builder to take care of figuring out how to put things together. Lao Tzu's world has to do all that for itself. That world has to grow up out of the Tao spontaneously. Wu Wei on a cosmic scale.

The repeated acts of giving birth and the new being "returning to assist" is like knitting or weaving a fabric that permits the multiplicity of the myriad things. — Valentinus

I find "The Great One Gives Birth to the Water" perplexing. It seems by its style that it doesn't belong with the rest of the TTC, but in at least one copy found it is included on the same scrolls. It seems much more prosaic, scholarly, less poetic, than the TTC. I do like it because it has the longest "ladder." That's what I call the path downward from the Tao to the 10,000 things. Here's an example from Verse 42 by Mitchell:

The Tao gives birth to One.
One gives birth to Two.
Two gives birth to Three.
Three gives birth to all things.

So, what is the One, Two, and Three. Everyone seems to have a different idea. Is the Two Heaven and Earth? Yin and Yang? As I said, I like "The Great One" because it gives us some ideas about what the ladder might look like. Although, in reality, it probably makes things more confusing than they were before.

[Regarding] Heaven and Earth, [their] names and designations stand side by side, therefore [if we] go beyond these areas, [we] cannot think [of something] appropriate [to serve as a name]
— T Clark

This suggests that the "boundary" of names can only be conceived by presuming a dimension beyond the boundary. Staying near the boundary seems to be the emphasis of Verse 5. — Valentinus

There's a lot going on with "The Great One." I've only given you a part of it. I don't have a good grasp of how it's supposed to fit in with the TTC.

How do we ‘discard’ fear? — Possibility

To oversimplify - I am afraid because I think I am my self, but that's just a story I tell. When I see through the illusion of my self, my story, there's nothing to be afraid about.

When we supposedly ‘discard’ fear we just ignore its capacity to affect us. This can be useful as a selective strategy in the short term, but this kind of ignorance can be harmful as an overall perspective. — Possibility

We don't discard fear, we see through it. See through the illusion.

The Tao is not about words, it's about what Kant calls "ding an sich" understood in the broadest sense possible. The "ding an sich" is precisely what words through "meaning" is supposed to capture. — TheMadFool

I haven't read much Kant. I remember when I first came across the idea of noumena, which is similar to ding an sich, I thought it seemed similar to the Tao. I looked on the web and actually found a paper that discussed the similarity. It's just another example of why I say that Kant, Lao Tzu, and all the rest of us are all describing the same world.

The artificial gap created by language between mind and reality is closed in that moment when you encounter a paradox. This view is counterintuitive and may even bear the hallmark of lunacy but...it can't be denied that when one is presented with paradoxes, one must eventually dive, headlong I suppose, into "meaning" for it's at that level where paradoxes exist. — TheMadFool

I wouldn't say it the way you have, but I don't think you're wrong.

Why would you approach the TTC like this ?
It's a bit like searching a Bible Concordance for 'Heaven'.
The second section deals with “Te,” sometimes translated as “virtue.” I don’t know if that is significant or not.
— T Clark
Why would it not be significant in its own right ?
Are you trying to make connections before we even get there ?
I don't find this helpful. It is another case of chopping up the text and the discussion... — Amity

I find this way of looking at things very useful. I've been in TTC groups where the other members did too. It's also fun. If you don't find it helpful, just skip it.

It sounds like you are searching for bits of the TTC (birds) to tie in to your own constraints (cage).
Confusion seems to arise when it doesn't all fit together to suit your way of looking.
So, any disagreement with what is found in the texts you view as a problem with the text and not with your lack of understanding. At least that is how it seems to me. But I am just as likely to be wrong. — Amity

Again, as I said, if you don't find my particular way of looking at things useful, you can skip it.

The way we are discussing the TTC is quite disjointed... — Amity

I've been happy with how well we have stayed on the path I envisioned when I started this thread. It doesn't feel disjointed to me at all.