I disagree. I think seeking to proscribe the manner and scope of a discussion is bad form - which is why I brought attention to it. I have nothing to say about making peace with politically correct activists, but I can at least explain why I despise them - which is, in my view, a positive contribution to the overall discussion. — counterpunch

The moderators sometimes take a dim view of ignoring the rules so transparently. We'll see.

I'm going to completely ignore your appeal against taking sides; and acknowledge from the outset that I am vehemently opposed to political correctness. — counterpunch

It is inconsiderate to ignore an explicit specification for the discussion clearly expressed in the original post. It's also against the rules of the forum.

We start with some basic axioms, and then to differing degrees of success, end up with intricate systems that we then apply to practical situations. But the axioms themselves are not susceptible to proof, it seems. — Philguy

This isn't ethics or morality, it's all of philosophy. That being said, you're right. All the meat is in the underlying assumptions. That's why many people say there can be no religion without God. God sets the axioms in an absolute way so we don't have to argue about them. Of course, we still do.

I believe the axioms are written inside us - by God or Darwin. Someone has created us as social animals. We like to hang around each other. It is part of human nature to like other humans. That sets the stage. Of course, this is complicated by other aspects of our humanity which are less positive.

that would make radicalization a positive feedback loop. — FlaccidDoor

That's a loop you can break at any time. It's almost completely in your hands. You can either 1) figure out a way to lower the temperature or 2) change the subject or leave.

That seems pretty bad though, since that would make radicalization a positive feedback loop. — FlaccidDoor

Hey - Same as it ever was. It's been particularly bad recently, but it's one of the things humans do.

With everything we have read and still reading and still being written to be read, why do humans cannot grasp the idea of humanity. Is it our ignorance? Lack of process? or we are built in such a way that we do understand but we cannot be understood? — RBS

As you can see from the forum, people disagree about everything. It would be impossible for us all to agree on something as important as humanity and human nature.

I'm quitting the discussion until I can think of something substantive — TheMadFool

My plan is to continue with this thread whether or not people respond. I'm having a good time and it's really helping me clarify my understanding. We'll see how long I can keep it going. We're just getting started. The responses you've made so far are worthwhile. Drop in and sound off any time.

To help me understand this, I replace 'being' with 'substance'. — Amity

I'm ok with that here, but just to be clear, I don't think the 10,000 things have to be substantial, i.e. material. I think love is one of the 10,000 things.

Our body as a container consisting of mere flesh and bones ( substance ) doesn't cut it.
To work, to be all we can be, we need our brain with mind, or spirit (non-substance).
To perceive, to think, to connect to others. To maintain the bodily functions together with the mind.
Some might be able to do this naturally, others need guidance. We are complex. — Amity

I'm ok with this too, but I don't see what it has to do with Verse 11.

I hope to be given feedback to this and my earlier post re the wei wu wei story. — Amity

I think you've seen that I'm pretty good at responding to others' posts. Generally, I try always to respond to posts that are addressed to me. I can't say I'm perfect, but I try. I respond to other posts if I think I have something worthwhile to contribute.

I have read the verse from the Chuang Tzu you quoted. I think it is a good example of wu wei.

The paradox: the existing definition of nothing is self-contradictory. — TheMadFool

I often think about this question - Can you get something from nothing. Answer - Sure, QM tells us that particles arise in the quantum vacuum continually. Response - Well, the vacuum state isn't really nothing.

The original symbol for zero, 0, came from the hole in the middle seat of a dhow, where the mast was put for the sail. It was by virtue of that hole, where nothing is, that the mast can be put, which makes it possible for the dhow to sail. That is very similar to what the verse you quoted says. I kinda get it intuitively. — Wayfarer

I think I get it too. It's just that the definitions of being and non-being used in this context don't seem the same as other verses. The ones used in this verse seem like weak tea, as the saying goes, when compared with those in Verse 1, for example. This is from one of Chen's alternate translation of that verse.

Therefore, by the Everlasting (ch'ang) Non-Being (wu),
We desire (yü) to observe (kuan) its hidden mystery (miao);
By the Everlasting (ch'ang) Being (yu),
We desire (yü) to observe the manifestations (chiao).

For me, that is one of the most powerful statements in the TTC.

It was just another way to look at it. That’s all. There are so many different translations of the TTC into English because of the relational and structural differences between alphanumerical and pictorial languages. — Possibility

But I won’t explore this approach further - there doesn’t seem to be much interest in it here... — Possibility

I have no problem with you discussing it here. It's just that the terminology is so unfamiliar, I don't know how to use it. I do plan to read the book you referenced. It's the kind of thing I'm interested in anyway.

Thoughts: sadly this is one of the most common tools or practices used by governors. When the people is ignorant it is easier to convince them with fake news. If it were possible probably they would remove all pillars of philosophy and thinking. Sometimes it looks like the State and government are enemies of knowledge. This is why it is impossible to find happiness. — javi2541997

There are interpreters of the TTC who see it as an authoritarian, Machiavellian handbook for rulers. Most people disagree with that, and I think I agree with them. China in 400 BCE was a very different place than here. The government Lao Tzu describes is paternalistic and definitely not democratic. It seems fruitless to apply today's standards.

So my conversations centered around trying to pry into the inner workings of the other, which while not quite explosive, may have been just as uncomfortable. — FlaccidDoor

Sometimes, though, I've found that sincere interest in another's way of seeing things will open up a conversation, even if it's with someone I have strong, important disagreements with.

How about you? — FlaccidDoor

I am a recreational thinker and I'm pretty competitive, so at times in the past I've been a... minor-league jerk. I've become more even-tempered as I've gotten older. The forum has had a lot to do with that. I am a strong liberal and I get involved in political discussions on the "American Conservative." It's a website and magazine I strongly recommend. This past 6 months has been ugly. As I'm sure you know, there is bitter anger on both sides.

I found I could have civil, sometimes friendly, discussions with strong supporters of President Trump, even though it felt like we lived in two different worlds. We were able to find common ground on some issues even though we didn't move on the primary ones. It's almost as much fun trying to calm an angry shouting match as it is to call someone a "dick."

So:

• State your positions strongly but civilly. Clearly.
• Show some respect.
• Take the other guys ideas seriously.
• Look for areas of agreement.
• Look for common values.
• Be self-aware about what's going on inside yourself while you're arguing.
• Be willing to change your mind.
• If it gets too hot, bail.

It is almost always completely in your power not to get involved in bad arguments. If you do, it's your fault.

Is a difference in language an accurate way to perceive this divide? — FlaccidDoor

Are you involved with these "explosive misunderstandings" with your own family, friends, and acquaintances? How do you behave? Do you participate in the vituperation or are you a voice for calm and understanding? If you participate in the melee, why? What does it feel like?

Verse 11 – Ellen Marie Chen

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).

Derek Lin’s commentary on Verse 11

In a wheel, thirty spokes come together in one hub. The hole in the center of the hub - the place where it is empty - is what makes the wheel useful as part of a vehicle.
When we mix clay to create a container, we notice that it is the empty space in the center of the container that give it the usefulness of holding things.
When we cut open a wall to make space for windows and doors, we notice that it is these openings that make the room truly useful to us. If such openings did not exist, we would have no way of accessing the room!
Therefore, we can see how we create solid objects to provide us with benefits and convenience, but it is actually the emptiness formed by, or embedded in such objects that really provide them with functionality and usefulness.

I’ve never liked this verse. It doesn’t make sense to me. It seems like it’s changing the meaning of being and non-being. In the wheel, pot, or house, the non-being is created by being. In other uses we’ve seen, non-being creates being. Is this just a metaphor? A pun on “emptiness”. Saying the emptiness of a pot is similar to the emptiness of the Tao. The Tao is not nothing, it is no-thing.

I don’t get the being = benefit, non-being = use thing. Again – I would have thought that we use a hammer, one of the 10,000 things, part of being. How do we use the Tao?

Before going further along my line of thought, I would like to ask if it seems like complete blather or is there a point of departure where it made some sense and then stopped making sense. — Valentinus

I don't know what "method" means in this context. What is a philosophical method? I guess it's how the philosopher goes about achieving his purpose. The actions he takes, or, the kinds of actions he takes. What is Lao Tzu's purpose? What actions did he take?

If this isn't a useful path, we don't have to go any further.

I don't understand. What is Lao Tzu's method?

Darkness

I went through various documents looking at how the words "dark" or "darkness were used." I don't have any point to make. I did it to satisfy my curiosity.

From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Metaphysics in Chinese Philosophy

The Han dynasty collapsed in 220 CE, leading to a long period of fragmentation, instability, and uncertainty. The dominant philosophical movement is known as Xuanxue 玄學, “Profound Learning.” The term xuan means dark, obscure, or profound, but it also has a sense of what precedes any division, as it is used in the first chapter of the Laozi.

From Heshang Gong commentary on Verse 21

The Dao is obscure, dark, and without form. Within it is the
essence of reality. Spirit and radiance join together in one
thin line. Yin and yang blend together.


From Heshang Gong commentary on Verse 28

White is a metaphor for intense brightness. Black is a
metaphor for quiet stillness. Though someone may know
that they are full of light, they should understand the white
while holding onto quiet stillness, close themselves within
a darkness which cannot be seen, and be well aligned (with
Dao). This enables them to be a standard and guide for the
world. Then Virtue will always be with them.

From Verse 14 – Aldiss and Lombardo translation

The ancients who followed Tao: Dark, wondrous, profound, penetrating. Deep beyond knowing.


From Verse 41 – Aldiss and Lombardo translation

The bright road seems dark, The road forward seems to retreat, The level road seems rough.


From Wikipedia “Xuanxue.”

The name first compounds xuan (玄) "black,dark; mysterious, profound, abstruse, arcane." It occurs in the first chapter of the Tao Te Ching ("玄之又玄，眾妙之門"). The word xuan literally depicts a shade of deep, mystical, dark red. Tao Te Ching speaks of the Tao as Xuan, more specifically underpinning the depth, utter impenetrability, and the profound mystery of the Tao.

From Ursula K. LeGuin’s commentary on Verse 42

Lao Tzu keeps reminding us to value yin, the soft, the dark, the weak, earth, water, the Mother, the Valley.

From Ellen Marie Chen’s translation of Verse 6

The Valley Spirit (ku shen) is deathless,
It is called the dark Mare (hsüan p'in).
The door of the dark Mare,
Is called the root of heaven and earth.

From Ellen Marie Chen’s translation of Verse 10

In cleansing your mirror (lan) of the dark (hsüan),
Can you make it spotless?....

…To grow (chang) yet not to lord over (tsai),
This is called the dark virtue (yüan te).

From Ellen Marie Chen’s translation of Verse 15

On the decline of the great Tao,
There are humanity (jen) and righteousness (i)….
…When a nation is in darkness (hun) and disorder (lüan),
There are loyal ministers.

From Ellen Marie Chen’s translation of Verse 20

Worldly people (su jen) are luminous (chao);
I alone (tu) am dark (hun).
Worldly people are clear-sighted (ch'a);
I alone (tu) am dull (men),

From Ellen Marie Chen’s translation of Verse 57

In an empire with many prohibitions,
People are often poor;
When people have many sharp weapons,
The state is in great darkness (tzu hun);

A method is being promoted that often sounds like a rejection of all method. — Valentinus

I'm not sure what "method" means in this context. Could you expand a bit. What is Lao Tzu's method?

The purpose of this post is to encourage some sort of discussion about moral responsibility and free will, — ToothyMaw

I've been around the forum for a while, and I generally avoid free will discussions. By "generally" I mean "always." A new one shows up every couple of weeks. They're usually poorly laid out and sloppily argued. I wanted to post this to acknowledge that you've done a very good job setting up this discussion. You've given definitions and stated your assumptions clearly. You've laid out the arguments clearly and even-handedly. You've defined the question narrowly in a way that should be easy to keep on track. I wish all of the discussions started on the forum could be this good. It was a pleasure to read your opening post.

I especially like that you acknowledged the distinction between the free will/determinism argument and the question of whether or not there is moral responsibility. People usually don't address the distinction and just assume without stating it that determinism means no moral responsibility.

All that being said, I don't have much to offer to the discussion. It's your own fault. You've laid out your arguments so clearly and defined the question so well, I can see my way of seeing things does not fit in. That's a real accomplishment. Thank you.

I think this is a Western interpretation of the text. We find in the text what we’re looking for, I suppose. But I’m intrigued by the interpretations here that attribute relations of affect, value and morality where it doesn’t seem to exist in the traditional Chinese concepts themselves. — Possibility

Well, yes, of course my understanding is a "Western interpretation." As is yours.

So it reads more like this:

In caring for the state and governing its people, understanding our capabilities without acting in that capacity is uncertain - such is our relation to the Tao. How does this affect us? Does it hold us back from making decisions? Do we focus on attributing any apparent capability only to ourselves? Are we capable of governing without certainty in this regard? — Possibility

My understanding of the TTC and yours are so different, I don't think they have much in common. Maybe when I read the book you referenced I'll understand.

Who recognize that a reasonable discussion cannot take place without some preliminary aids being set out. I.e., he is asked to clarify his own usages. — tim wood

The forum is full of threads where the poster doesn't do a very good job of defining his terms. I would say it's the rule rather than the exception. In this case, I believe it is the possible political implications of the content that is setting off the horns. Gregory isn't toeing the acceptable line.

It seems to me that people switch the idea of the body and soul unknowingly. Soul is identity and maybe we can never know our own for sure but as Paul says in the Bible, we have no certainty in anything. I think everyone is either male or female in their true inner identity, but the body is not our direct identity. The body is us but we are not our body. If we are to say that the heights of our soul is beyond gender, then it is only the lower parts that feel gender identity and the person could never say what he is except as an example of God (genderless).

Are we to see gender disphoria as part of a social institution or it is part of people's spiritual lives? The priests of old who catrated themselves may have drawn the gender disphoric into their flocks — Gregory

I don't have any opinion on the issues in this discussion. I will say this - I don't think what you are saying is disrespectful to men, women, or transgendered people. You are getting jumped on by people who can't stand you not using the exact acceptable words to express your opinions about a sensitive subject.

The notion that women are just castrated men is profoundly corrupt. — Banno

Come on. You know he didn't say that.

What you say is wise and useful TC. I like the present time too, but I have met very few people in my extended circle who do. — Tom Storm

If you don't mind - how old are you? I'm 69. I won't be offended if you don't want to say.

Politically, aesthetically and emotionally, no one seems to much like the present time, no one seems to praise the modern and most folk seem afraid of the post-modern and the future. People seem to be going for pre-modernism. — Tom Storm

I do like the present time. I'm as happy now as I've ever been. I do think we may be in a very dangerous period. It seems like all of science at once has advanced to the point where we can modify the very ground of our existence. It started with nuclear weapons, but now it includes genetics, computer science, biology, physics. There are those who speculate that the reason we've never run into any aliens is that when a civilization advances to where ours is, it kills itself off. I worry for my children.

When people go on about the good old days, I usually say "Yeah, back in the days when only white people could vote and we could beat up gay people." But... I also think stable families are important. Parents rather than the government should be the primary force in a child's life. There is value in having a mother and a father. Marriage and sexual responsibility are valuable. Subsidiarity works best - social and political issues should be dealt with at the most immediate (or local) level that is consistent with their resolution. We should know our history and value, be grateful to, those who came before us.

Appreciate seeing the whole Verse or Chapter as it is called in the Philip Ivanhoe translation. — Amity

From now on I'll give the entire verse at the beginning of my post. Do you like the Ivanhoe translation particularly?

The interaction between ying (echo, answer, response) and pò (broken, expose the truth of) as internal aspects of our relation to the Tao, to me reflects Feldman Barrett’s proposed interaction between a constructed conceptual (‘spiritual’) reality and a constructed interocepted (‘bodily’) reality in an ongoing dialectic that manifests and refines consciousness. — Possibility

I still get lost in the terminology you use. So, ok, ok, I just downloaded Feldman Barrett's book. I can't promise I'll read it all in time to help with this discussion.

The verse in its entirety seems to outline the uncertainty in our relation to the Tao. — Possibility

The way I set up my post for Verse 10, but cutting it all up in pieces, made it so I never looked at the whole verse as one piece. So, anyway, here's the whole verse, Chen version:

In bringing your spiritual (ying) and bodily (p'o) souls to embrace the One,
Can (neng) you never depart (li) from it?
In concentrating your breath to attain softness,
Can you be like an infant (ying erh)?
In cleansing your mirror (lan) of the dark (hsüan),
Can you make it spotless?
In opening and closing heaven's gate (t'ien men),
Can you be the female (tz'u)?
In being enlightened (ming) and comprehending all,
Can you do it without knowledge?
In loving the people and governing the state,
Can you practice non-action?
To give birth, to nurture,
To give birth yet not to claim possession (yu),
To act (wei) yet not to hold on to,
To grow (chang) yet not to lord over (tsai),
This is called the dark virtue (yüan te).

I see this differently than you do. To me this looks like a list of requirements for being a sage. Almost a checklist:

Embrace the Tao - check
Clear your mind - check
Be gentle and accepting - check
Abandon concepts - check
Non-action - check
No desire - check

I think the use of questions is just a literary device. Instead of "can you" it could just have easily have been "if you can." If you did that, the pattern would be a lot like "If" by Rudyard Kipling:

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

And - which is more - you'll be a Sage, my son.

In D.C. Lau's version of verse 10, he makes a reference to how the Heavenly Gate is described in Zhuangzi that may interest the ongoing discussion of being and non-being: — Valentinus

This is really helpful. Thanks.

It's one of the most opaque and difficult issues in all Eastern studies, however, so don't think it can be easily understood. — Wayfarer

I'm not going to go any further with this right now, but the similarity between the TTC, at least the Chen version, and the verses was interesting.

Deleted by author.

The whole story of his ascent to the role of Patriach pivots around a poem he writes on the temple wall about exactly this point. — Wayfarer

I went and looked. Is this the verse you are talking about?

Bodhi originally has no tree,
The mirror(-like mind) has no stand.
Buddha-nature (emptiness/oneness) is always clean and pure;
Where is there room for dust (to alight)?

Alternate version:

The mind is the Bodhi tree,
The body is the mirror stand.
The mirror is originally clean and pure;
Where can it be stained by dust?

I think this gives some insight into the meaning of the mirror in the Chen translation. The Bodhi Tree is the tree Buddha sat under. A fig dropped down on him and he discovered gravity... I mean enlightenment.

'Darkness' is a symbol of the 'divine darkness', the unknowable-yet-known nature of the ground of being. There's a school or movement called Dark Zen which is also reminiscent of these verses. — Wayfarer

"Darkness" seems to have different meanings in different verses. Sometimes it has a negative connotation. I've been going through various verses and picking out examples. If it turns out interesting, I'll put it in a post.

Some philosophers say we are still living in modernity, for some we are in post-modernity, some say we never modern. — Warren

A lot of good traditional stuff has been tossed out. We could use some of it back. Does that make me a reactionary?

Modernity is characterised by the idea of progress, trust in science, confidence in civilized values, the idea of destiny. — Wayfarer

I would also add skepticism about traditional culture and institutions. It's always seemed to me that modernity is a rejection of the past as much as it is confidence in the future.

I have a rather ambitious theory that this forced ‘disconnect’ is unnecessary - that we can strive to understand the mental processes in relation to our actions and vice versa, and develop a scientifically sound methodology that enables us to consciously align our conceptual and sensory realities, rendering oneness with the Tao an effortlessly intellect-driven process. For me, the key to that is affect. — Possibility

As I've said, you and I see things differently. I'm satisfied of three things 1) I understand your viewpoint better than I did at the start. 2) Although we're think differently about this, we can still have useful discussions. You're really articulate about your views. 3) There's no need to, and it's unlikely we'd be able to, get to a point where we fully agree.

Verse 10

I skipped Verses 5 through 9 and went straight to Verse 10. If you want to discuss any of the verses I skipped, please go ahead. I’m going to try to use both Mitchell’s and Chen’s verses in this discussion. I think Mitchell has oversimplified it by leaving out too much of the original language. Chen, on the other hand, can be pretty obscure. Chen’s text for this verse is italicized. Mitchell’s is bolded.

In bringing your spiritual (ying) and bodily (p'o) souls to embrace the One,
Can (neng) you never depart (li) from it?

Can you coax your mind from its wandering
and keep to the original oneness?

I don’t know what the “spiritual and bodily souls” are. This is the only place in either translation where “soul” is used. Does “embracing the One” mean experiencing the Tao? What part of us experiences the Tao? Self? Heart? Mind? Probably not mind.

In concentrating your breath to attain softness,
Can you be like an infant (ying erh)?

Can you let your body become
supple as a newborn child's?

I’m not sure what to say about this couplet. Maybe it’s another example of the undertone in the TTC of emptying, releasing, shrinking, weakening, etc. that I mentioned in my thoughts on Verse 3.

In cleansing your mirror (lan) of the dark (hsüan),
Can you make it spotless?

Can you cleanse your inner vision
until you see nothing but the light?

Not sure what to say about his either. Not many of the other references to “light” in these versions of the TTC are really relevant. Here’s a stanza from Mitchell’s Verse 52:

"Seeing into darkness is clarity.
Knowing how to yield is strength.
Use your own light
and return to the source of light.
This is called practicing eternity."

“Source of light” seems to mean the Tao, but darkness is sometimes used to describe it too. Maybe it’s as simple as “seeing the light,” i.e. understanding. Maybe, as Mitchell quotes in Verse 52, it’s more about clarity than light. Seeing things as they really are.

In opening and closing heaven's gate (t'ien men),
Can you be the female (tz'u)?

Can you love people and lead them
without imposing your will?

These two translations are really different. I checked to make sure I didn’t get them mixed up. I’ll talk about the Chen version. It matches other translations better than Mitchell. The subject of female and male comes up often in the TTC and other sources. It’s not clear if female and male are supposed to be the same thing as yin and yang. Here is a discussion of that line from a well-known commentary written by Heshang Gong about 300 years after the TTC -

“Those who govern the body should be like a female (bird on
its nest eggs) – peaceful, still, soft, and gentle. Those who
govern the nation should adapt to changes and unite (with
the people), rather than sing songs (of conquest and try to
appear dominant like the male bird).”

In being enlightened (ming) and comprehending all,
Can you do it without knowledge?

Can you step back from you own mind
and thus understand all things?

This is a theme that comes up a few times in the TTC. This is from Chen, Verse 3:

"Always he keeps his people in no-knowledge and no-desire,
Such that he who knows dares not act.
Act by no-action (wu-wei),
Then, nothing is not in order."

Hey, wait a minute, I’ve been saying that no-action and wu wei are different!! Anyway, knowledge and desire go together.

In loving the people and governing the state,
Can you practice non-action?

Can you deal with the most vital matters
by letting events take their course?

Again with the non-action. We’ve already said a lot about this.

To give birth, to nurture,
To give birth yet not to claim possession (yu),
To act (wei) yet not to hold on to,
To grow (chang) yet not to lord over (tsai),
This is called the dark virtue (yüan te).

Giving birth and nourishing,
having without possessing,
acting with no expectations,
leading and not trying to control:
this is the supreme virtue.

To give birth and nurture – To create? To act? To lead? To support?
To give birth yet not claim possession – Not taking credit. Not grasping for acclaim.
To act yet not to hold on to – Act and then go on without looking back. No regrets. No pride.
To grow yet not to lord over – To grow as in to grow a plant? Don’t overwater?
This is called the dark virtue – “Dark” gets used a lot. Sometimes it’s good. Sometimes not. This is worth looking in to more. Here is a stanza from an alternate translation of Verse 1 by Chen:

"By the Everlasting (ch'ang) Being (yu),
We desire (yü) to observe the manifestations (chiao).
These two issue from the same origin,
Though named differently.
Both are called the dark (hsüan).
Dark and even darker,
The door to all hidden mysteries (miao)."

Have you ever experienced a moment when you have felt 'at one' with the world. You felt at peace.
I have and wanted to capture that essence in a bottle so I could take it out and sniff later.
To regain a sense of balance. Most of the time, I swing about...if you know what I mean... — Amity

This is a scene from Billy Elliot, a wonderful movie. It comes after his audition:

I think you might be misinterpreting me here - I’m not saying to practise wu wei is to avoid fame and fortune - I’m saying in a modern, Western context ‘greatness’ suggests fame and fortune, but I think this aspect of greatness is more likely to elude those who practise wu wei particularly in a modern, Western setting. — Possibility

Well, I don’t see it as gut feeling - that still implies conscious intention, and I think you’ve been clear about its absence here in your interpretation. I agree that non-rational is more accurate than irrational, and I also agree that action without reflection still takes what we know into account. I don’t think I suggested otherwise with what I wrote. — Possibility

I've enjoyed this back and forth. I feel like I have a pretty good understanding of where you are coming from. I'm going to try to practice non-action from now on when it comes to our differences in viewpoint.

This runs counter to earlier verses in the TTC that suggest a clearer understanding of the Tao is achieved when we are free from desire (affect). Why would Lao Tzu encourage action that can never be determined free from desire? — Possibility

There's a lot of stuff that seems contradictory in the TTC.

Just think of the Tao as the Force. Here is Obi Wan Kenobe teaching Luke to use wu wei the Force.