Hope you don't mind me chipping in on this point. — Wayfarer

You have always been welcome to do so dear Sir. :smile:

But there's another dimension to consider, and that is the sense in which deep spiritual or existential enquiry is necessarily first person. There are states of being, or states of understanding, which can only be realised in the first person. They can be conveyed to another, only in the event that the other has realised or has had access to insights of a similar nature. So that kind of insight is non-conceptual or non-discursive, so to speak - beyond words, which is the meaning of ineffable. But real, and highly significant, regardless. — Wayfarer

I absolutely agree, and that is precisely why in these cases language must take on a new active function, as opposed to the passive function of merely transporting concepts. Other methods may also be incorporated, such as the esoteric initiations practiced by the ancients. Drugs ("sacred plants") can achieve this, as can art, theater, adventure, and more in the correct context. Language, as the ancients recognized, is a kind of magic. The real magic. Language can be used to affect consciousness, and even perception making you believe things, see things, and behave in certain ways. Thus, language is able to influence the first-person experience of another if used skillfully and with knowledge of the art (rhetoric). Hitler is an excellent example of this power, yet it can be used for good as well as for deception. It can make you see what is not there, or make you not see what is there. Everything has its active and passive form, including language.

What is there to understanding a concept beyond understanding the words used to describe it? It seems to me that, in Taoism, conceptualizing something is the same as naming it, i.e. putting it into words. — T Clark

It would appear that way, but certain concepts are too big for words, apparently. When something is too vast, pointing at it becomes ambiguous. Some concepts are very mercurial and appear one way in a certain context, yet differently in another, much like how different colors appear to change depending on the surrounding and framing colors. Have you ever thought or felt something you couldn't say or even name? That is what is most interesting to me.

Each appearance is given a name, but these names are just facets of one overarching concept. I think it is actually very simple, but the complexity arises from the cultural implications of the words we use. I believe everything of consequence can be expressed in one way or another, but it's not always easy. The correct approach, in my opinion, is to use words as containers of meaning that can be poured into other containers. Deep meaning must be triangulated with the assistance of other meanings to ascertain the ineffable. One will never be able to do it with a single word, just as you can't describe the universe with a single number. We should use all available perspectives to hone in on the source which has no name.

I often say that there's only one world, so all the different philosophies and religions are describing the same thing in different words. I guess that means I agree with you. — T Clark

As i suspected. :smile: ... But my point is not really to get you to agree with me per say, but to help each other see more than we can by ourselves.

But to greatly oversimplify, there is only one kind of thing - an apple - yet a multiplicity of ways to describe it. That doesn't mean there is something missing from our understanding of apples. — T Clark

Before we understood what cells were, we were not able to describe that aspect of an apple. Similarly, before we had the idea or concept of atoms and molecules, we were incapable of describing an apple in those terms. A person who has only ever seen a red apple will have an incomplete description compared to one who has seen both red and green apples. The fact that apples can be green is missing from the first person's apple model. There are many layers and levels of description, and each one adds to the completeness of the meaning.

Each culture and tradition describes their experience of ultimate reality, but ultimate reality doesn't exist beyond those descriptions. — T Clark

Unless it is an attempt at fiction, i do not know what the point would be to describe anything that has no existence beyond the description itself. The real thing is what we are trying to describe, not the description. The description, like the name, is not the thing itself.

Whether or not you capitalize "god" depends on whether you consider it a name or a description. — T Clark

We have a difference in the significance of "God" with a capital 'G' and "god" with a lowercase 'g'. For me, the capital 'G' indicates the primordial source. The word "God" is not a name but a title, and the same applies to "god". Gods have names, just as the President of the United States has a name. "President" is not a name itself. God is not a name, but Jehovah is, and God is his title.

You see, even though we agree, you may not think so because words or names for you are static, while for me they are fluid. That is our difference. Whatever word you or i use makes no difference. I mean, even the Tao suggests that we see beyond the names of things down to their essence. — punos


I don't understand. — T Clark

Words are imperfect tools for communication. True understanding comes from grasping the underlying concepts, not just the words used to describe them. Flexibility in interpreting language can lead to deeper comprehension. In essence, i am advocating for a more holistic approach to communication and understanding, one that prioritizes meaning over specific terminology.

I don't see that there is an ultimate puzzle. Each understanding of ultimate reality stands on it's own. It can be interesting and enlightening to compare different religions and philosophies, but that doesn't mean something is missing. — T Clark

There is only one ultimate reality, not a multiplicity of ultimate realities. The structure and content of the diverse understandings throughout history are mostly the result of cross-pollination between different cultures. For example, Buddhism from India significantly influenced and contributed to Chinese philosophy and religion.

Consider the parable of the blind men and the elephant. The parable illustrates the limitations of individual perception and the importance of considering multiple perspectives, including those from diverse cultures. The point is that no single person can perceive the totality of the elephant. However, if they were to come together and combine their perceptions, they would acquire a more complete understanding of what an elephant is, or more precisely, how an elephant is.

Are you saying that the god of monotheistic religions is fundamentally different from the gods of multi-theistic ones? I don't see that. My, perhaps idiosyncratic, understanding is that, in Taoism, the Tao comes before God or the gods, whichever you like. — T Clark

Well, what would you say is the difference between a God and a god? (Uppercase 'G' vs. lowercase 'g')

In Greek mythology, all the gods emerged from the primordial Chaos, personified as a female entity, just like the Taoists personified the Tao as the mother of all things and a void or chasm. In Greek mythology, there is no God, just gods. A monotheistic God is a unity, while the gods are a multiplicity.

You see, even though we agree, you may not think so because words or names for you are static, while for me they are fluid. That is our difference. Whatever word you or i use makes no difference. I mean, even the Tao suggests that we see beyond the names of things down to their essence.

My way of looking at it is that all the historical attempts to describe this "thing" at the base of reality are partial explanations. Each culture or religion contains a piece of the ultimate puzzle to some degree, and the art is in recognizing which pieces go together and how. Different cultures had different lenses through which they attempted to see and describe it.

I didn't understand your mathematical interpretation of ultimate reality the last time we discussed it and I don't understand it now. — T Clark

If you could understand Pythagoras, then you could understand what i'm trying to say. I can never really say it; i can only point at it, but everyone keeps looking at my finger instead of what i'm actually pointing at.

The Tao does not replace god, it comes before it. God is just one of the 10,000 things - the multiplicity of phenomena in our world brought into being by the Tao. — T Clark

God and gods are not the same thing. Native American tribes have a concept of the "Great Spirit", while Christians have the concept of the "Spirit of God" or the "Holy Spirit". The words "spirit" and "tao" can mean the same thing. They both signify "way", as in "the spirit of violence" or "the tao of violence", which means "the way of violence", Spirit, Logos, and Tao are all ways of saying "The Way".

When one speaks of God, it refers to "The Way", whereas when one speaks of "god", it refers to "a way", as in "the god of violence". All ways partake in the way of The Way, or all gods have their place within the God Way. The gods emanate from God as the 10,000 things, and inherit a portion of The Way.

Psalm 82:6 - "I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.'"

The first gods were the pure whole numbers which emanated from zero (the Source). The very first numbers to emanate were the twin 1s (-1, +1), represented by Janus, who is the namesake for January, the first month of the year.

The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used, but never filled.
Oh, unfathomable source of ten thousand things! — Tao Te Ching - Verse 4

Some people just don't like the use of the word "God" or "gods", or even "spirit" because of certain associations, but it's just a name. A cigar by any other name is still a cigar, yet a cigar is still just a name.

Very nice. :up:

An interesting question to think about that might help in regards to different sizes of infinity:

What is the length of the circumference of a circle with a radius of infinity?
The circumference would need to be 6.283185307... (Tau) times the size of the infinite radius.

If you can conceive that an infinite radius can form a circle, then it would logically make it necessary that the circumference be at least 6 times the size of the infinite radius. Perhaps this makes sense? If this is inconceivable to you, then disregard the suggestion.

If the Tao is eternal and there is a flow in time and space, it should not be limited to the TTC. Let it soar outside the text box. :sparkle: — Amity

In short, while physics provides empirical insights into the workings of the universe, metaphysics offers a framework for understanding the underlying principles that govern those observations. One can inform the other. — punos

Isn't this necessary if we are to have an holistic approach to understanding life?
It's similar to what I've just discussed with Fooloso4.
Regarding the play of opposites.
I see no reason why this would be objected to by the author/s of the TCC. — Amity

Absolutely, i agree. And thank you for the encouragement. :smile:

Those who want to relate the Tao to either physics or information or logos, might do well to look for those connections in the much older book, the I Ching. — unenlightened

I've done this, and it was supremely insightful regarding the binary computational nature of the universe. It actually inspired in me a new way of looking at quantum mechanics. I would get into it right now, but unfortunately, at the moment, i don't have the time. Perhaps i will at some point in the future.

For me - Tao = metaphysics; quantum vacuum = science. — T Clark

Yes, i understand completely that they are two different things, but i think of them in the same way we consider quantum mechanics and relativity two different and apparently incompatible theories. However, it is obvious to me at least that, although we currently have no way of uniting these two descriptions of the universe, they are definitely connected.

So, you're going to improve on the Tao Te Ching. I'm having a hard time figuring out how to respond. — T Clark

I don’t know if one should call it an improvement on the Tao Te Ching, but rather an extension, perhaps retranslated for the modern era. I would need to convince you at least that metaphysics and science are not as far apart as you or others might claim.

I see the Tao Te Ching as metaphysics, you don't. For me, that's a fundamental and profound difference. — T Clark

I think there is a significant intersection between metaphysics and physics, particularly as both fields explore fundamental questions about reality, existence, and the nature of the universe. Many principles in physics rely on metaphysical assumptions that cannot be empirically tested. For instance, the stability of natural laws and the existence of a uniform space and time are taken as given in physics but represent fundamentally metaphysical claims.

Metaphysical ideas can guide theoretical research in physics, especially when empirical data is limited or when looking at concepts like time, causality, and the nature of particles. Theoretical constructs in physics often lead to metaphysical speculation. For example, discussions about the multiverse or the nature of dark matter, as you mentioned in a previous post, involve assumptions that extend beyond current empirical validation.

In short, while physics provides empirical insights into the workings of the universe, metaphysics offers a framework for understanding the underlying principles that govern those observations. One can inform the other.

I found that our discussion has piqued my interest in the apparent divide between physics and metaphysics, and i will be looking deeper into it in my studies. I might address this issue again in the future if i find any worthwhile insights to share. Thank you very much for your time and patience, T. Clark.

Gdanian - The Inner Sun (feat. Ruptured World)




Gdanian - The Prospect of Our Dismal Wonders (feat. Ruptured World)

I think this was the first AI written short film i ever saw, and i found it hilarious.

No, I think you and I have diametrically opposed understandings of what Lao Tzu was trying to say. — T Clark

Can anyone truly claim to know exactly what Lao Tzu meant? Was Lao Tzu the only person in the history of the universe capable of understanding the Tao as he did? When two people observe the same event, will their accounts match up perfectly? No, not really. Does this mean that both are wrong, or could it indicate that they saw different aspects of the same phenomenon? For me, Lao Tzu is merely supplemental; he is not the last or only word on the matter.

You and I are just repeating our arguments without adding anything new. I suggest we leave it here. — T Clark

I would just like to ascertain the fundamental difference between our notions of the Tao. Perhaps if you state it more precisely i can make more appropriate clarifications. Personally, i have not detected a significant difference, but of course, i might be wrong about that. Either way, good night good Sir. :up:

What is measurable is always connected fundamentally to what is not measurable. — punos

I don't know what this means. — T Clark

I don't have a better way of explaining this here right now. I'll come back to it after i get some rest. It's a bit late here, and i'm i bit tired. probably going to bed soon.

Whatever scientists did to hypothesize dark matter is, in my view, the same as what the old Taoist sages did to hypothesize the Tao. — punos


You and I understand this very differently. — T Clark

This is probably a good thing. I believe i have a different way of relating to the same concepts. I use physics terms to describe ideas that were expressed in a time without physics or even science. I understand that many people prefer to keep things traditional and compartmentalized, but i believe there is more to the Tao than what was written a thousand years ago. The principles of the Tao are applicable to everything in existence. The Tao holds no meaning for me if it cannot be universally applied to all that exists. The Tao is generally equated with nature and its workings; therefore, why would it not be applicable to the sciences, which aim to understand the workings of nature? In other words, the way nature works (the Tao) should be relevant to scientific inquiry.

Admirably condescending. — T Clark

It was not my intention to sound condescending. Please forgive.

The Tao can, in part, be conceived as the mathematical value (or non-value/non-thing/nothing) of 0 (zero)... This is also the kind of thing that happens with the quantum, or false vacuum at the very foundation of our universe. — punos


I don't know what the first sentence means and in the second sentence are you mixing up metaphysics and physics again. — T Clark

The first sentence suggests that, as a mental or cognitive device, we can consider the Tao as the value zero, representing the silent void that is the Tao. The second sentence explains that what occurs in the quantum vacuum is similar to how a zero (the vacuum) can spontaneously transition from a true vacuum to a false one. The same procedure i used to derive the -1 and +1 values from zero is analogous to how the vacuum spontaneously produces particle-antiparticle pairs. It follows the same pattern.

I actually agree with much of this, although I suspect I mean something different by it than you do. — T Clark

I think you and i agree more than we know. Sometimes words just get in the way as the old ones noted and wrote "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao". :smile:

I'm glad you're on the forum: you have a lot to offer! — PoeticUniverse

I'm glad i can talk to intelligent people as yourself about these heavy ideas. I don't have many people in my life i can talk to about these things. So.. thank you very much. :smile:

There are damning problems with the scheme of Presentism as a sequence of nows with the past not kept and the future not yet existing, the first problem being its unrelenting besiegement by Einstein’s relativity of simultaneity. — PoeticUniverse

I think this is a perceptual phenomenon, which is why it's called relativity. There is no relativity in the universe when it comes to the actual local occurrence of events. The difference arises because the speed of light, which carries information about events that happened at a certain distance, can result in that information arriving at different times for observers in different spatial locations or moving frames of reference. Time is occurring at essentially the same rate everywhere in the universe, but the time it takes for information to reach different places varies for different observers, and is thus relative. This is the essence of what "relative" means in this context.

Second, the turning of a ‘now’ into the next ‘now’ sits on the thinnest knife edge imaginable, the previous ‘now’ wholly consumed in the making of the new ‘now’ all over the universe at once in a dynamical updating—the present now exhausting all reality. The incredibly short Planck time could be the processing time. — PoeticUniverse

I believe the entirety of the universe is updated once every Planck time, but please explain what you believe the problem is with this concept.

Third, what is going to exist or was existent, as the presentist must refer to as ‘to be’ or ‘has been’ is indicated as coming or going and is thus inherent in the totality of what is, and so Presentism has no true ‘nonexistence’ of the future and the past—which means that there is no contrast between a real future and an unreal future, for what is real or exists can have no opposite to form a contrast class. — PoeticUniverse

What has been is contained in the present as memory (space), and what will be is contained in the potential of the present state of space, determined by the memory of the past. The future does not exist, but its determinants do exist in the present. So, in essence, this is how i define the past and present in my own understanding. Does this address the issue you raised?

I just think Taoism is an attempt to remind us that while we produce concepts, no matter how genius and functional, we can reduce/alleviate our universal anxiety by simply being aware that we are just producing concepts. — ENOAH

It's like we can play football and take it as seriously as we want, even with complete determination to win, and so on, but if we forget we're just playing a game, we risk all of the suffering associated with winning/losing. — ENOAH

A Taoist perspective is, in my opinion, a suitable and excellent worldview to alleviate existential anxiety as you say, but it could be much more. I personally do not suffer from this kind of anxiety, and so I push its utility into other areas, which i find very insightful when I do.

Since I was a teenager, i've thought about the world almost exactly as a game. It's part of the reason why i don't play video games, because i believe i'm already in one - the greatest game ever created, the game of games. Even though i know it's all a game or a simulation of sorts, i still like to take it seriously every once in a while, because it makes it more fun. Try to play a game with no stakes, and you'll get bored in short order. In the end... nothing gained, and nothing lost, back to zero... the Tao.

I need to know whether time is linear, as in Presentism, or if there is an all-at-once block-universe, as in Eternalism. No one yet seems to know, since both modes of time would appear the same to us. I'm stuck having to always figure out things two ways. — PoeticUniverse

I definitely do not believe in the all-at-once block universe, except to say that each time step happens throughout the entire spatial universe all at once. I do believe in Presentism, but depending on how one defines Presentism, i would need to qualify some aspects of it in my personal view.

In my view, time acts on the whole of the universe simultaneously, but there are no past or future copies of the universe in different time states. I believe that change occurs in space, and the state of space changes or evolves as time progresses. The state space of the universe is, in a sense, copied, processed, and reinstantiated in the same space once every Planck time. Any information that is not reinstantiated is considered lost forever, except that space acts as a memory that holds the change caused by time. If there were no space, and only time existed, then any potential change of any kind would be lost at the next time step, or simply impossible.

If the universe were a computer system, then space would be its memory, time would be its processor, and the Tao or Logos would be its internal logic (the Way it operates). These three things are absolutely necessary for anything to even happen in a computer or in the universe. These three things are also the basic requirements for a mind, and thus i consider the universe a kind of computational mind. The way a computer's memory changes as the processor operates upon it is the same way i believe time works in our universe.

Perhaps shorten this to "I'm a monist, and thus i believe that whatever things are, they are made of one "thing", for the Tao would be the only fact, as you said, ever identical to itself, as the only real thing, whereas the temporaries from it are never identical to themselves over time, but are semblances, such as the sun burning its fuel, but remaining as a sun semblance to us. — PoeticUniverse

Sounds good to me.

Change is the only constant. It is only the Tao that changes without changing. The constancy of change is what remains unchanging and thus constant throughout time. Or something like that.. :smile:

How does one measure a single 0-dimensional point inside a non-zero dimensional space? It cannot be measured because measurement requires a beginning and an end point. It cannot be done with a single point. How does one measure one instance of time? It cannot be done for the same reason; one needs two instances to measure the time interval between them. For anything to be measurable and quantifiable, it must have a beginning and end point of measurement. — punos


I don't understand how this is relevant. Scientists hypothesize physical dark matter based on requirements of theories of gravitation even though it's never been measured. I can know that a question will have a true or false answer even if I don't know what it is yet. — T Clark

I'm just saying that some things can't be measured, and yet are true, because they must be in order to observe other higher-level phenomena that are dependent on unmeasurables. And of course, some things, on the other hand, can be measured. What is measurable is always connected fundamentally to what is not measurable. This is i believe the difference between physical and metaphysical?

Whatever scientists did to hypothesize dark matter is, in my view, the same as what the old Taoist sages did to hypothesize the Tao. Neither have been measured directly, and the gravitational effects attributed to dark matter may be something else. Our theory of gravitation may be flawed in some way, making it seem as though there is some other kind of matter that we can't see or measure directly. Some people i suppose may then consider dark matter a metaphysical concept for this reason. Dark energy certainly appears to be metaphysical as well. In the same way that our theory of gravitation may be very useful and mostly correct, it can also be incomplete and yield false artifacts, such as the concept of dark matter potentially.

I'm sorry if I'm not making sense, but some of this stuff is pretty abstract to express concretely, and some of our definitions don't appear to be nicely aligned.

I don't need people to agree with me about my views, but I need to test whether I really understand, even believe, what seems right to me. I also find that hearing other people's ideas and their responses to my statements helps me clarify, and sometimes even change, how I see things. — T Clark

Best way to go about it in my opinion as well.

I definitely don't agree with you about energy. — T Clark

Energy is the source of causality, which you characterized as metaphysical, but it doesn't matter. If it doesn't make sense to you then do not accept it, until it does.

Geez Louise, you're getting way ahead of me. Give me a chance to catch up. — T Clark

Apologies..

I'll say what I always say - the Tao is metaphysics. I'm an admirer of R.G. Collingwood who said that metaphysics is the study of absolute presuppositions - the underlying assumptions, usually unspoken and unconscious, that underly our understanding of reality. Absolute presuppositions are not true or false - they have no truth value. — T Clark

Ah, interesting. I've not heard of R.G. Collingwood, and i'm not sure if i understand what not having a truth value means in this context. I shall do some homework, and familiarize myself with his ideas. Thank you.

I see Taoist principles as useful perspectives on how to think about the world. Why would that change? — T Clark

It shouldn't not change, and i do as well. Because i take Taoist principles to heart i use those principles to understand my world better as well, and that includes my understanding of science and other fields. I can use these principles to help know how to act in the world, how to relate to myself in my thoughts and emotions, and to others, but i can not help recognizing these Taoist principles in other areas like physics, and particularly quantum physics. In fact it was what i've learned about science and physics that gave me what i consider insights into the Tao, and to further elaborate what the ancients were apprehending.

If something is not the Tao, then what is it, what could it be instead? — punos


One of the 10,000 things. — T Clark

Yes, but what is a thing really in relation to the Tao, such that things should come from it? Are things made of the Tao, or are they made of something else that did not originate in the Tao? I'm a monist, and thus i believe that whatever things are, they are made of one "thing" or, more precisely, one "non-thing".

One of the ways i conceive of the 10,000 things coming from the Tao goes something like this:

The Tao can, in part, be conceived as the mathematical value (or non-value/non-thing/nothing) of 0 (zero). This zero has an infinite potential to manifest things out of it we call numbers, which is really another word for "name". Zero can be decomposed into two opposing values such as -1 and +1 which, when recombined, return to a 0 value (from nothing, to something, back to nothing). The interesting thing is that even though this zero was decomposed into two numbers, the zero that manifested these two numbers is still there as zero along with the two values. The result is not just (-1) and (+1), but the original 0 remains unchanged. This can happen indefinitely; this one zero can continue to produce number and anti-number pairs. This is also the kind of thing that happens with the quantum, or false vacuum at the very foundation of our universe.

Now imagine an infinite field of these 0s. The sum result of all the zeros and all the manifest numbers equals exactly zero. This is why there are conservation laws. So it produces values, but as a whole, there is no value to the field. Nothing is taken away, and nothing is added, and yet it grows in complexity. Furthermore, these numbers can combine such that a (+1) and a (+1) can produce the value of (+2), a (+2) with a (+1) yields a (+3), and a (+2) and a (+2) yield a (+4). In this way, all 10,000 things come about. In the end, all things are parts of the Tao or the Great Zero, but because values come in opposing pairs, the Tao remains unbroken, and perfectly balanced.

I agree causality is metaphysical. I'm not sure about information. — T Clark

Information is interesting in this regard because it needs "physicality" in order to instantiate itself, yet it can be transferred from one physical substrate to another, and so it is not tied to any one physical substance. Consider that the information that makes you who you are remains mostly the same over long periods of time, even though the turnover rate of your cells that contain that information is relatively high in relation to how long your information pattern remains. The information that makes you who you are is distinct from the actual matter that you are made of. Information has the quality of spirit in this regard, and in this sense can be considered both physical and metaphysical simultaneously. Energy has a similar quality as well.

I don't see space, time, and energy as metaphysical entities. They are observable, measurable, and quantifiable. I agree causality is metaphysical. I'm not sure about information. — T Clark

How does one measure a single 0-dimensional point inside a non-zero dimensional space? It cannot be measured because measurement requires a beginning and an end point. It cannot be done with a single point. How does one measure one instance of time? It cannot be done for the same reason; one needs two instances to measure the time interval between them. For anything to be measurable and quantifiable, it must have a beginning and end point of measurement.

As 3-dimensional beings, 2-, 1-, and 0-dimensional objects are unobservable to us, but does that mean they do not exist? Of course not, because our 3-dimensional existence depends on the lower dimensions. So 3-dimensional objects are physical (observable, tangible, and measurable within a 3D manifold), while objects made of fewer than 3 dimensions are, to us, metaphysical because we cannot interact directly with those dimensions. No one has ever seen any object that is not 3-dimensional.

Objects that are hyperdimensional (hypothetically above 3 spatial dimensions) are partly observable to us. We would only be able to interact with a 3-dimensional cross-section of that object while its other higher-dimensional aspects are hidden from our 3D perception. Consider also the perspective of a Flatlander (a hypothetical two-dimensional being) and what they would consider physical or metaphysical in respect to these dimensions.

I don't want to stray too far from the original poster's intended subject, but i just wanted to clarify my perspective on the relation between metaphysical and physical, since you and i have different notions about it. Also, I'm not trying to convince you or anyone about anything. My project is personal and for my own understanding. Since my methodology is quite different, to varying degrees, from how most people think about these things, i always assume from the very get-go that my perspective is significantly different from almost everyone's. If we really agreed on everything, then we wouldn't really have anything to talk about... don't you think? :smile:

To name is to divine or distinguish one thing from an other. Zhuangzi's Cook Ting (Ding) divides the ox along its natural joints. To divide things in a way that is contrary to their natural divisions is to force things. The proper division of things requires knowing the natural patterns and organization of things. Knowing what belongs together, what is a part of some larger thing as well as what is separable toward some end or purpose.

He says:

At the beginning, when I first began carving up oxen, all I could see was the whole carcass.
After three years I could no longer see the carcass whole ...


It is because he had been dividing oxen for three years that he no longer see the carcass as an undifferentiated whole. He saw that it is made up of parts. He say now:

I follow the natural form slicing the major joints I guide the knife through the big hollows ... — Fooloso4

This reminds me of the verse in the Bible:
Hebrews 4:12 - "For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart."

Also, i make a strong connection between what the Greeks called the Logos to the Tao. I believe they were trying to explain the same thing, but in different cultural contexts. The concept of mathematical zero was quite foreign to both cultures, and they did not have this knowledge to give them further insight. I sometimes wonder how these sages and philosophers would reassess their thoughts on this matter if they were to be transported to our present time and presented with what we know today.

The word of God obviously in reference to the Logos.

Also, i make a strong connection between what the Greeks called the Logos to the Tao. I believe they were trying to explain the same thing, but in different cultural contexts. The concept of mathematical zero was quite foreign to both cultures, and they did not have this knowledge to give them further insight. I sometimes wonder how these sages and philosophers would reassess their thoughts on this matter if they were to be transported to our present time and presented with what we know today.

They called it the "Tao" because they were able to recognize that what was most fundamental was not a material substance but a process, a way of doing, and this implies a rule, a program, an algorithm that makes all things possible. This algorithm is time itself (primordial time). Time is the logic of existence: a supremely simple logic that is singular yet simultaneously infinite in potential. — punos


I'm ok with this, but maybe I see it differently than you do. I see what you call a rule or an algorithm as a representation of the process of naming that brings the world into existance. Is that what you're talking about? — T Clark

I guess one can put it in those terms. The world that comes into existence by naming is the world in our own minds, the world of culture or in the world of the "King". When a baby is born and has opened its eyes for the first time it does not see things, it just sees a buzzing confusion, but as soon as the child learns to connect a word or a name to a thing, then it is able to bring that thing into its own world view, and by doing this the child enters or becomes a citizen of the human condition, the world of culture, the "King".

For me the term "name" symbolizes pattern. A thing is its pattern, and things with different patterns are assigned other patterns that we call names. It is a way of translating the physical world into the mental and cultural world. The universe does not have a name for water for example except for the intrinsic pattern of the water molecule. For the universe a thing's pattern is its name.

The above can be confirmed by Quantum Field Theory. The temporary physical 'things' share in the fundamental property that is the Simplest - the Permanent quantum field with its wave nature, of which the elementary particles are directly field quanta, not new substance, which go on to form all the higher temporaries, as the sort of dream. — PoeticUniverse

I'm in full agreement, and nice poem.. i like it. :smile:

but that doesn't mean the Tao is actually the quantum vacuum. — T Clark

If the Tao is supposed to be the origin of all things, then how is the quantum vacuum not at least in some way the Tao? What is it about the quantum vacuum that tells you it is not the Tao? What feature of the Tao is missing in the quantum vacuum in your view?

Remember that for me, the Tao is primordial time itself only, meaning no actualized space like a spatial quantum vacuum. The vacuum with all its energy and virtual particles is a direct emergence from the Tao, which is primordial time. The primordial 0-dimensional point is not a spatial dimension, but a temporal one.

The ancient Taoists had no idea of the way we name things here in the future, so they gave it their own name: the Tao. They had no access to the knowledge we have today and were limited in that respect. Part of my project is to update the Taoist perspective with what is known about nature in our present time. It is great to understand the Taoists on their own terms, from their own time, but what good will it do to simply reiterate what they said today in the same way they said or meant it back then?

Another question: If something is not the Tao, then what is it, what could it be instead?

The "silence and the void" refers to an informationless state, which is a pure description of primordial time absent of space. "Standing alone and unchanging" refers to the zero spatial dimensional state and zero entropy. In this state, time has no arrow, while simultaneously possessing the potential for infinite spacial dimensionality out of which the arrow of time emerges. — punos


I'm ok with this if you are being metaphorical, but, in my understanding, Taoist principals are metaphysical, not factual. It doesn't make sense to attribute physical properties to the Tao. — T Clark

"The greatest thing by far is to be a master of metaphor; it is the one thing that cannot be learnt from others; and it is also a sign of genius, since a good metaphor implies an intuitive perception of the similarity in the dissimilar." - Aristotle

A metaphor is a containment device for holding and transmitting universal patterns across space and time for the purpose of recognizing the patterns in other apparently unrelated things. It is a meta-form of the underlying patterns in the universe. Almost every idea, concept, word, or term we have is ultimately derived from some metaphor. A metaphor may not be explicitly true, but the patterns that they express are implicitly true.


For me, the Tao is a fact, and in fact, it is the only permanent fact. It is not the Tao that has physical properties; rather, physical things share in the fundamental property that is the Tao. From the perspective of the Tao, the physical world is like a dream. An emergence in the universe is a dream object that doesn't fundamentally exist.

For example, what is water? Water does not have fundamental existence. It can only exist if one oxygen atom bonds to two hydrogen atoms to form a water molecule. If these bonds are broken in all the water in all the universe, water would cease to be real (existing only in potential). However, if we take all the oxygen atoms and break it down into their quark, gluon, and electron components, then not even the potential for water exists. What is real is what is absolutely fundamental, while what is composite is dreamlike. It comes and goes, but the Tao (primordial time) is always there, everlasting and never-ending.

Either way, aren’t space and time normally considered metaphysical concepts? Information and causality are also metaphysical concepts. Energy can be seen liminally as both a metaphysical and a physical concept. The Tao has everything to do with these.

It's hard to describe what i mean, but i don't make much of a distinction between the physical and the metaphysical. For me, these are relative terms; what is metaphysical for one entity may be considered physical for another, and vice versa.

Here is my perspective, and my attempt at explaining it in commentary form:

"Something mysteriously formed,
Born before heaven and Earth."

This is their attempt to describe primordial time. It is not "something", and it is not "formed", nor is it "born"; yet it is eternally eminent and therefore considered "mysterious", since it cannot have a beginning or an end.

"In the silence and the void,
Standing alone and unchanging,
Ever present and in motion."

The "silence and the void" refers to an informationless state, which is a pure description of primordial time absent of space. "Standing alone and unchanging" refers to the zero spatial dimensional state and zero entropy. In this state, time has no arrow, while simultaneously possessing the potential for infinite spacial dimensionality out of which the arrow of time emerges.

"Ever present and in motion" refers to the nature of primordial time. The basic function of time can essentially be termed "self-remembering".

One way to help conceptualize this idea is to imagine a single stationary pixel displaying on a screen or monitor. To maintain this pixel on the screen, the monitor must constantly reinstate the pixel at every time step. This gives the illusion that the pixel is the same one moment to the next. This constant reinstantiation of the pixel on the screen can be said to be unchanging, present, and in motion. The motion is not spatial but temporal; it supplies temporal continuity and persistence to all that exists.

It can also be thought of as a copy and paste function. It copies its state and pastes it back in the same place over and over again in order to keep the pixel in place and existing on the screen. If the copy or the paste part is not performed then information is lost and would thus break the logic of the universe (The Tao).

"Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things."

Yes, it is.

"I do not know its name;
Call it Tao.
For lack of a better word, I call it great."

This refers to their acknowledgment of how difficult it is to describe this concept of what i call primordial time especially to another person. The traditional notion of time as a measurement of change interferes with our understanding of the pure primordial concept of time, which is not a measurement but rather the cause of what is measured instead. It represents the active aspect of time, not the passive one that only recognizes its effects.

Calling it great is akin to calling it good, in the same way God in the Bible says, "and it was good". It is good because without this fundamental feature of the universe, we would not even have a universe. They called it the "Tao" because they were able to recognize that what was most fundamental was not a material substance but a process, a way of doing, and this implies a rule, a program, an algorithm that makes all things possible. This algorithm is time itself (primordial time). Time is the logic of existence: a supremely simple logic that is singular yet simultaneously infinite in potential.

"Being great, it flows;
It flows far away.
Having gone far, it returns."

This describes a wave that begins at the origin, travels an arbitrary distance from that origin, and then returns. It illustrates how (Tao) time flows. This also describes the creation of spatial dimensions, which originate at the zero-dimensional temporal point and extend into the first dimension, then the second, then the third, and finally back.

"Therefore, Tao is great;
Heaven is great;
Earth is great;
The king is also great."
These are the four great powers of the universe,
And the king is one of them."

This describes emergence, the method by which nature creates further complexity and novelty. From primordial time ("Tao"), "heaven" emerges as the first or primary emergence and represents the realm of fundamental particles, atoms, and even molecules (pre-biology). Heaven is good because it serves as the ground from which higher forms can emerge to increase complexity and novelty. From "heaven," "Earth" emerges, symbolizing the emergence of biology and ecosystems. From this emerges the "King", which symbolizes culture and social structures.

At the time when the Tao Te Ching was written, the highest level of emergence known was human culture. A time will come when there will be five great powers of the universe. I believe this next level of emergence from culture is tied to the development of AI (ultimately ASI).

"Man follows Earth.
Earth follows heaven.
Heaven follows the Tao.
Tao follows what is natural."

This is merely a reiteration of the hierarchy of emergence but in reverse, back to the origin (Tao).

However there are two forms of monism. — Clearbury

What do you think about neutral monism? I believe neutral monism is a better interpretation of monism than materialistic or idealistic monism. In my view, the choice between materialism and idealism is arbitrary. Let me try to explain:

If one assumes substance to be fundamentally physical, then things appear to be physical as you would expect according to one's own definition or assumption (you expressed the same thought as well). Conversely, if one assumes substance is fundamentally ideal, things still seem to appear physical regardless of one's definition or assumption. In either case, materialistic or idealistic monism appears to result to our subjective senses in the same experiences of the physical and the ideal. It is a difference that makes no difference.

For this reason, i tend to lean towards a kind of neutral monism, which proposes one substance with two potential relative fundamental expressions. I think i would venture to say that this neutral substance is most probably spacetime itself. Thoughts?

the physical is not mental because physical stuff cannot be mental stuff. — Manuel

How is it then that in the dream state, things appear as real physical stuff, even though it is all dream stuff or mind stuff? Is it possible that the "real" world operates in a similar way? How would one be able to distinguish physical stuff from mental stuff in these two scenarios? What if all there is is mental stuff at different levels, but that mental stuff only appears physical to other mental stuff?

Somewhere along the line I started thinking of identity as analogous to music. The bass notes are physicality, the middle tones are emotions, and the high notes are the intellect. Themes play out and change over time. — frank

That's a beautiful way to look at it. So within the context of your analogy; what would you say is vibrating to produce the sound of music?

The intellect is the only part that deals with ontology. To the rest of the psyche, everything encountered is real, so "real" is meaningless. — frank

I agree, which is why i think people generally accept the reality they present themselves with in dreams, believing it all to be true and normal, even in cases of absolutely bizarre dreams. The critical-thinking areas (intellect) of the brain are dampened during sleep, and in that condition, all things appear as real as can be to the rest of the brain (without the aid of intellect), as you stated. But this is all happening because there is a kind of neural self-simulation still going on in the brain even when sleeping. If the intellect wakes up in the middle of the dream, that's when you get lucid dreams.

Edit:
Notice also that in the dream, you have a visible body, and a sense of you body in the dream. A copy of your real body in the dream.

It's a worldview mashup. :grin: — frank

Same here. :wink:

This may be true, but I don't think we know enough about how consciousness works to make any assertions one way or the other. — frank

Okay, but we can know some things, and we do. What do you think the implications are of the "phantom identity" i described? You seem to agree with the veracity of the description i gave. Do you believe that this "phantom identity" is identical with what you call your identity, or is there another identity behind the phantom identity?

But it's entirely conceivable that property dualism exists. — frank

So you believe that there is one substance, but two properties: physical and mental? If so, then we may be in agreement, but to be sure: what do you think the nature of the mental property is? Is it contingent upon the physical, or can it exist in isolation from the physical?