Descriptions. Ok, my point precisely. Those are not, however, inconsistent things events or facts to which descriptions might refer. Also, only 'theism' is inconsistent; atheism is consistent in negating it; and the relation of them is bivalent (or incommensurable), not "inconsistent". I think, Fool, you've lost the plot. :smirk: — 180 Proof

Your contention is that reality isn't inconsistent and inconsistency, if observed, is only "apparent" in that it occurs at the level of and is because of defective descriptions.

My brief investigation on the matter suggests that there are two strains of consistency/inconsistency relationships:

Type 1. Consistency/inconsistency of a model/theory/description with respect to reality. This kind of consistency/inconsistency is based on empricial observation and, it appears, is scientific in nature. In this we construct a model/theory/description, test it against observation, and if model/theory/description is consistent with observation, we retain the model/theory/description as "innocent until proven guilty"; if, on the other hand, observation and a model/theory/description are inconsistent, adjustments are made to the latter and if that doesn't work you know what happens.


Type 2. Consistency/inconsistency among models/theories/descriptions. This variety of consistency/inconsistecy needs no introduction and I'll merely cite some examples: the theism-atheism inconsistency, the physicalism-no life after death consistency.


At this juncture I'd like to call to the witness stand, since I couldn't make any headway with theism-atheism, the double-slit experiment which demonstrates that light behaves as both a particle and a wave. Before I proceed further, I'd like you to take note of the fact that being both a wave AND a particle is an inconsistency.

In accordance with type 1 consistency/inconsistency, the type that's apposite for the matter at hand - whether reality itself is consistent/inconsistent - we discover that with the double-slit experiment, light is a wave and light is a particle and not forgetting this is science, a field in which we're constantly reminded that reality is judge, jury, and executioner and that models/theories/descriptions must fit reality and not the other way round, we have to conclude, for reality has spoken, through the double-slit experiment, that it can be inconsistent with itself.

The wave-particle duality of light is not a description issue for reality, empirical observation, calls the shots in science and as far as we can tell, light behaves inconsistently. Reality, on occasion, can be inconsistent.

By ‘science’ I mean ‘modern science’, commencing with Newton. Traditional Taoism had no contact with modern science, obviously. Buddhism is different because it is more a global religion (‘Hinduism stripped for export’, in Alan Watts’ phrase.) ‘Science’ in the traditional meaning of ‘scientia’ is less sharply defined, and less inimical to traditionalism. — Wayfarer

:up: :ok:

↪180 Proof But that's begging the question isn't it? You haven't proven that all inconsistencies are due to "inadequate descriptions".
— TheMadFool
Strawman. In fact, you're the one guilty of what you accuse me of here. :shade:

I have asked you to counter my claim which I assert in the absence of evidence, as far as I know, to the contrary:
↪TheMadFool If possible, cite an example of an thing, event or fact the 'inconsistency' of which is N O T an artifact of a 'description' ...
— 180 Proof
:chin:

All you've done is asserted that to be so without argument. I'm calling you out on that. Need I say more?
— TheMadFool
Yeah, explain what it even means for you to "assert without argument" that the universe itself, outside our descriptions, is in any way "inconsistent". That's nonsense, but I'll consider any intelligible explain (or, as requested above, a consistent, factual, example as evidence counter to my claim) — 180 Proof

My experience informs me that I should defer to your better judgment but my gut instinct tells me I should, at the very least, raise an objection to your claims.

You're right that I haven't provided you with a counterexample to the claim that "ALL inconsistencies are description issues" and that, I believe, is what you refer to as "...the absence of evidence...". My reply is, and I'm sure you must've anticipated it, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Now let's get down to the brass tacks and explore what "ALL inconsistencies are description issues" means for a particular [example of] inconsistency. My choice of inconsistency is the theism-atheism duo. [If you prefer another inconsistency (wave-particle duality of light or something else) let's discuss that.] Anyway, since this, as per you, is only an apparent inconsistency, a frustrating byproduct of, in Spinozist terms, an "inadequate idea" it follows that we can resolve this apparent inconsistency by discovering an "adequate idea" which once found will make this [apparent] inconsistency go away. What is this "adequate idea" and what will the mutually inconsistent pair of theism-atheism look like after we succeed in describing them with the aforesaid "adequate idea"?

Your thoughts...

Come to think of it, wu wei as "inaction" or "effortless action" is a natural consequent of the Taoist idea of Yin-Yang. All phenomena being an interplay of "two" opposing forces, with the interaction being a process of mutual chaotic cancellation and thus arriving at an ordered equilibrium, the one who has become aware of the Tao comes to the realization that fae must be, in one sense, active as a "force", choosing a side, and also passive as one is just a variable in the equation "spontaneously" balancing itself. One must "move" because one will be either yin or yang, there being no other viable alternative, and yet "stay still" and let nature do its thing. The end result is "always" favorable - order/equilibrium/peace/contentment/harmony.

Marketing creates... markets. Often for things of dubious quality. Hence the money spent on it. I learned early on with children that if they see it on TV they want it. If they hear it on the radio, they want it. If it has a cool clip, they want it. If it is in a movie, they want it. Etc. — Tom Storm

That's the downside. See any benefits? Material that are a pleasure to view, read, listen to? Yes, in the wrong hands, "marketing" can be dangerous, lethal even but, in the right hands it's the proverbial cherry on top. I hope I got that right. Food for thought...why are educators so bent on making learning "fun" and why does "fun" in this case resemble marketing tactics?

But that's begging the question isn't it? You haven't proven that all inconsistencies are due to "inadequate descriptions". All you've done is asserted that to be so without argument. I'm calling you out on that. Need I say more?

All I can say at this point is if you really believe what you're saying that we're in disagreement shouldn't bother you at all; after all, that we contradict each other is, at the end of the day, a description issue and all that the two of us and Banno need is the "right" description to realize that there really is nothing to argue about. If you agree then I don't see why we should squabble over anything.

Another issue has to do with how any given inconsistency will be resolved by an "adequate" description. Take for instance the inconsistency involving atheism and theism (one of your favorite topics going by your comment history). How would an "adequate" description resolve this particular inconsistency? Would it side with theism, would it side with atheism, would it reject both, accept both? How exactly would finding the "appropriate" description make this and all other inconsistencies...go away?

@T Clark@Possibility @WayfarerWhat the heck is wu wei really? Last I checked it means something along the lines of "doing without doing" but nec caput nec pedes as far as I'm concerned.

From my own experience and from the little that I've gleaned from the experiences of others, we definitely want "a world where everyone's desires are fulfilled" but we're not sure, as your question shows, whether such a world is desirable. There seems to be something going on between want and desirable and I can't quite put my finger on it at the moment.

Right! My point exactly. To wit:
Inconsistency, dear Fool, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are describers. — 180 Proof

So that means the universe can be inconsistent in ways that don't have anything to do with our descriptions even though our descriptions, due to inherent limitations, spawn their own variety of inconsistencies.

Perhaps. If possible, cite an example of an thing, event or fact the 'inconsistency' of which is not an artifact of a 'description' (i.e. what Spinoza referred to as an "inadequate idea" (E2P36d) centuries before Meinong opened his "Zoo" (esp. merely "subsistent objects") or Witty called bullshit endeavored "to shew the fly the way out of the fly-bottle" (PI)). :chin: — 180 Proof

You ask the impossible for any example I cite could be "explained away" - an accusation made against Daniel Dennett in re his claim that consciousness is an illusion - as borne of an "inadequate idea" (Spinoza).

By the way, the burden of proof, I'm sorry to say, rests on your able shoulders for it is you [and @Banno] who has made the claim that, "ALL inconsistencies are due to inadequate descriptive frameworks." I, on the other hand, am open-minded about the whole issue and am willing to countenance the possibility that reality could very well be able to conjure up, for our entertainment and to our exasperation, inconsistencies every now and then, here and there.

Do you recall participating in the thread A cage went in search of a bird? Inconsistency is our problem, not the universe's, right?

Yes, and I also think that marketing - which has infested everything, including religion and spirituality - plays an instrumental (no pun intended) role. — Tom Storm

I don't see it that way. Marketing is the business analog of what we recognize as rhetoric in philosophy. I recall coming across an article or video, I forget, about how people aren't really listening to or paying attention to arguments when they decide to lend their ears to a cause/proposition. People, according to this source, are swayed more by the persuasive power of a speaker/writer than by how good/bad the arguments are if any have been offered in the first place. I don't have an issue with marketing tactics if that's what you're alluding to because one, a competent adversary is a good thing, keeps us on our toes ,and two, good arguments when well written/spoken are a treat to listen to or read through.

How right you are! There definitely is a link between if not religion per se at the very least spirituality and music. Both subjects (spirituality and music) being vast and complex it becomes rather difficult to pinpoint with precision how and where their relationship begins, goes through ups and downs, and even ends. Your hypothesis, if one could see it as such, that it's got to do with spiritual ecstacy and how music can put us in the right frame of mind to experience it is quite plausible. After all, music is, as you say, all about emotion which maybe elicited from the listener either through a particular combination of notes or through words if vocals also figure in the equation and if there's a feeing that's worth it all it has to be ecstacy, spiritual ecstacy being just one example.

I suppose with the decline of religion and spiritualism and the rise of the materialstic spirit musicians have had to adapt and explore other avenues of clicking with their audience - politics, social issues, romance, philosophy, etc. all are now game so long as there's a willing audience ready to listen and, most importantly, ready to pay the price for the performance.

Quite possibly this is a sign that a sizeable number of people have come to some sort of realization that spiritualism isn't necessarily a divine affair i.e. god(s) maybe, in a sense, "photoshopped out of the picture" with no downsides to the overall aesthetics of the human story.

The Relative and The Absolute stand opposed to each other as that which we use intellectually (the Relative) and that which exist outside of our intellect (The Absolute) — synthesis

How do you respond to Plato given that your idea of Relative vs Absolute truth shares similarities with his theory of forms (absolute & eternal) vs the world as simply imitations of these forms? I ask because per Plato, the mind is fully capable of apprehending forms, in fact this is precisely the raison d'être of philosophy (intellectualizing).

I've been in discussions about whether or not it is appropriate to bring Buddhist ideas, such as "illusion," into discussions about Taoism. I generally say "yes," keeping in mind that while I have spent time with the TTC, I have only flitted around Buddhism. One important thing they have in common is the focus on awareness of internal experience rather than ideas and rational thought, which is how most western philosophy works. That focus makes it possible to find common ground between Taoism and Buddhism — T Clark

There's no Taoist equivalent to Buddhist Maya (illusion) unless one interprets the innate drive of humans to view reality in terms of fixed generalities, something that figures prominently in the West and in Buddhism, as the most perniciously persistent illusion of all.

I'm not as certain about this as I'd like to be but "...awareness of internal experience..." is a part of Western philosophy as well - think Plato's chariot allegory, Aristotle's golden mean, Socrates' the good life, John Locke on the self & memory, etc. and there probably are "modern" Western thinkers whose philosophies are in the same vein. However, this similarity/convergence in re Taoism, Buddhism, and Western thought is only in the sense of what the subject matter is viz. the mind/the self and these traditions diverge significantly in what particular aspect of the mind/self is of interest, what methodology to use, what framework of knowledge provides the context to name a few.

Western philosophy has a deep concern for logic, an aspect of the mind that's of preeminent importance if we are to, according to it,discover any knowledge worthy of the name. Western philosophers have developed rigorous and exact logical systems (categorical logic, sentential logic, predicate logic, etc.) to the extent that such can be achieved with the aim of perfecting logic so that we can be reasonably confident in the results when it's employed. With logic now more or less under its belt Western philosophy brings it to bear on any and all matters, one of them being the mind/the self. The way this is done is by resorting to a divide and conquer tactic - the mind is broken up into "manageable" chunks like personhood, consciousness, understanding, intelligence to name a few, probably because these facets of the mind are worlds in themselves and need undivided, dedicated attention and study.

In addition, Western philosophy has science as an important collaborator as the latter has constructed a library of empirical knowledge which can't be ignored or, more accurately, must be given due consideration when philosophizing about anything, the mind/the self included. It might seem that science is more of a hindrance than a help in this regard because it seems to invariably place empirical obstacles for philosophers of mind but what we should not forget is that science provides instruments like fMRI, EEG, etc. that can be very useful in probing the brain - the seat of consciousness. Plus, the brain could be "it" you know.

Buddhism and Taoism, on the other hand, lacks these features in their philosophies. Logic is not treated to in-depth analysis and has only a functional role i.e. it's used but not studied. This was probably because logic as it existed back then during the times of the Buddha and Lao Tzu could comfortably handle the ideas of Buddhism and Taoism - there was no felt-need to put logic under the microscope. Science didn't even exist those days and neither its opposition nor its assistance were available to the Buddha and Lao Tzu. Perhaps it didn't/doesn't matter but I recall @Wayfarer saying:

He (the Dalai Lama) made the memorable statement in his book on philosophy of science, Universe in a Single Atom, that any Buddhist principles overturned by scientific discovery must give way. — Wayfarer

.

I don't have anything on Taoism along similar lines and that's what's interesting - Taoism has no beef with science and the question of how Taoism is incompatible with science never ever came up.

Last but not the least, returning to your comment, "...awareness of internal experience...", it's quite clear that all three - Western philosophy, Buddhism, and Taoism - have achieved this milestone in human thinking viz. meta-cognition but there are differences as I attempted to, as best as I could, outline in the preceding paragraphs.

the finger points at the moon, but don't mistake the finger for moon. — Wayfarer

Something Lao Tzu would probably have given his nod of apporval to. I wonder if Buddhism, the whole of it, is kinda like Wittgenstein's ladder:

My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them—as steps—to climb beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.)

   He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright. — Wittgenstein

You started a thread that has a similar tone: What are you saying?

Perhaps the similarity is superficial and there's nothing to it but...you never know.

What's a non-binary? Neither male nor female I suppose. My hunch is that there's a lot that's involved in gender determination and as we all know that translates to more ways for things to go wrong and I don't mean that in a disparaging way against any of the myriad gender identities that are around.

All mysticism is supra-rational — Wayfarer

Are you saying Buddhism is a tradition in mysticism? I must disagree with you on that for, if I'm not mistaken, both Buddhist beliefs and practices have an air of being well-considered, subject to rigorous logical analysis as it were. Its key doctrines are, among many others I suppose, are: 1. ALL life is suffering and 2. ALL things are ephemeral (impermanence). As you can see, the "ALL" plays a significant role, logically speaking, as it becomes the basis of arguments that lead to certain conclusions that become the core principles in Buddhism and any other system of beliefs thus founded for that matter.

To give you an idea of what I'm getting at consider the much-used categorical syllogism about Socrates' mortality:

1. ALL men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man
Ergo,
3. Socrates is mortal

The above argument gives you a glimpse of what's necessary for logic, at least in categorical logic, viz. universal statements like "All A's are B's" and it's contrary "No A's are B's". Without them, we couldn't formulate any worthwhile argument.

Such "ALL" statements are missing in Taoism and, in fact Taoism takes a different route to reality, shifting the emphasis from "ALL" to "SOME" for it, in its own way, highlights exceptions to generalities - it leaves no stone unturned in trying to let us in on a secret, the secret that "ALL" statements are untenable - they can't be held as true without losing touch with reality.

Consider now a hypothetical categorical syllogism with only "SOME" statements:

Premise 1: Some people are good people.
Premise 2: Some good people are Chinese (homage to Lao Tzu)
Ergo,
Conclusion: ???

No conclusion follows from a syllogism that has only "SOME" statements. In other words, as I alluded to in my previous post, logic is useless with a capital U when it comes to making sense of reality. That's the crux of Taoism.

That out of the way, I would like to ask you how Taoism and Buddhism were brought together in Zen Buddhism? What difficulties existed at the level of core principles and what were the points on which both were on the same page so to speak?

Popular wisdom says that Chinese Buddhism in particular was deeply influenced by Taoism and that Ch’an Buddhism (Japanese Zen) had many Taoist elements. However, a Zen teacher I know and respect is highly critical of this interpretation. But I differ with him on that, I think there is a well-documented influence between the two.

It’s not right to say Buddhism is ‘rational in spirit’. The Buddha by definition is not limited ‘by mere logic’ - ‘the dharmas I teach are deep, subtle, difficult to fathom, beyond mere logic, perceivable only by the wise.’ Buddhism employs logic but it’s ultimate aim is beyond logic - not irrational, but supra-rational, which is an important distinction. — Wayfarer

Perhaps my eagerness to confirm my own understanding/suspicions on the matter makes me jump to conclusions. Anyway, I'd like to pick your brain regarding how Buddhism is "supra-rational"? What does that even mean by the way?

What are the similariities/differences between Buddhism and Taoism?

I ask because both are recognized to be "eastern" in spirit but there's a major difference.

Buddhism makes a big deal out of logic and professes to be rational in spirit and it's systematic approach to reality as we know it bears a striking resemblance to mathematical axiomatic systems beginning as it does with four postulates aka four noble truths and Buddhism is presented as a set of beliefs and practices that proceed logically from them.

Taoism, on the other hand, doesn't lay so much stress on logic, relying on common sense rather any rigorous logical systems. Plus, Taoism's emphasis on exceptions to rules maybe intended to expose the utter uselessness of logic considering the fact that, drawing from Aristotle, for at least categorical syllogisms there must be at a minimum one universal statement (All A's are B's or No A's are B's).

The two meet in Zen and that's where it gets interesting I suppose.

Just checking, because suggested previously there wasn't. — 180 Proof

By the way, what's a virtuous circle. I'm not familiar with that concept. I've always thought of ALL instances of circular logic to be vicious in character, disastrous for any argument.

Reflective equilibrium, to my knowledge, doesn't seem to justify the proposition "some instances of circular logic are virtuous." As I mentioned in my previous post, reflective equilibrium is itself susceptible to and probably may be an examplar of circular logic for it, in one sense, continually, as part of a feedback loop, chips away at the very meaning of general principles in order to accomodate particular judgments which don't quite fit in so to speak and in the aftermath of these alterations, general principles are supplanted by what is literally a list of particular judgments which is just another way of saying that there are no general principles - the defendant now sits on the judge's seat and this is exactly what circularity means.

You might want to have a look at Reflective Equilibrium

I must warn you though, the Western spirit of wanting to make sense of the world in terms of generalities still persists in that concept.

So you're denying that the distinction between (e.g.) reflective equilibrium & begging the question makes a difference or that the latter is a negative feedback loop and the former a positive feedback loop? — 180 Proof

Reflective equilibrium is about adjustments made to general principles and particular judgments to achieve coherence in a set of beliefs.

Begging the question is ultimately about commiting the logical error of assuming the conclusion in the premises.

There definitely is a difference between the two.

In the context of feedback loops, sure, reflective equilibrium is a positive feedback loop in the sense the overall coherence is improved upon and true that begging the question is a negative feedback loop in that commiting the fallacy renders the argument null and void.

It appears that reflective equilibrium can itself lead to logical circularities as the desire for coherence might force one to tweak certain beliefs to such an extent that it begs the question i.e. the presmises assume the very thing that they're supposed to prove. As a crude example, if the general principle is "don't kill people" and someone does kill but in self-defense, the "don't kill" principle needs to be revised to "don't kill unless one's life is at risk."

Continuing along this trajectory, incorporating more and more exceptions to the principle "don't kill" has an expected, not too surprising, endpoint viz. the principle "don't kill" becomes meaningless and we might as well do away with it for it serves only as a source of confusion. The net effect is that particular judgments slowly replace the general principle and, in what can be likened to a twist of fate, what's to be judged becomes the judge [circularity].

I still feel that Taoism is both a resignation to and a celebration of the inherent complexity of reality. The verses of Taoism, not that I've read it in full, seem to convey what are essentially instances in which rules/principles that are designed as all-purpose break down.

When the world practices Tao,
Fast horses are used for their dung. — T Clark

The rule/principle that's "problematic" in the above verse is that fast horses should be used for racing, to serve as conveyance for messengers, in the military, etc.; dung is the last thing on people's minds when they see/hear of fast horses. I believe this theme defines and is the heart of Taoism. I wish I could remember it's Western equivalent but the only thought that crosses my mind comes from logic and is called the Fallacy Of The Accident. Perhaps the point Lao Tzu wants to make is that reality can't be/shouldn't be thought of as a docile and obedient ass - behavior predictable - but that it can, when one least expects it, be as unruly and willful as a wild horse - behavior unpredictable. Since reality is of such a character, it becomes impossible to zero in on an all-encompassing, fixed "law" that unifies it all and thus "the Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao".

Does that seem equivalent to a black hole? — Tom Storm

There's a certain unresolved tension in a paradox; to quote Daniel Dennett, "...we're tugged in [many] two different directions..."' with the net effect like that of an aircraft that experiences a mid-air stall; the aircraft at least knows the default direction it should be on viz. straight down but we, on the other hand, go through something akin to being frozen at the same spot, no particular option, assuming they aren't illusory, seems satisfactory.

The resemblance of a paradox to a blackhole is only to the extent that no familar frame of reference can aid us in our attempt at a clear understanding of what an issue is all about. It's just a thought...that's all there i to it...can anything claim to be more though?

To my way of thinking, 'circular reasoning', where needed, is not problematic IFF 'the circle' is virtuous (i.e. a positive feedback loop) and not vicious (i.e. a negative feedback loop). 'Formal & informal fallacies' tend to exemplify the latter and -axiomatic systems of valid inferences' exemplify the former. Maybe you can cite some examples of (philosophical) circumstances, Fool, in which virtuous circles are problematic (or self-defeating/refuting) as well — 180 Proof

The distinction vicious/virtuous circle seems to me a desperate attempt to save the phenomena. As far as I can tell, the instant a critical premise's justification is the conclusion in an argument, the argument collapses into a flat assertion and therein lies the rub some would say.

Well, sure, in a way. If a philosophical argument were indisputable fact it would have already crossed over into the threshold of science already, graduating from a theory or proposal to that of a fact or law. Wouldn't it? — Outlander

What bothers me the fact that all philosophical and, if you really look at it, all human affairs seem to be stuck in the debate stage and resolution of issues seem a rather distant proposition. It's a sign that we haven't yet figured things out and it's here things get interesting: is the continual state of controversy on philosophical issues due to paradoxes that lurk at the heart of them all? I mean if we begin with a paradoxical proposition, what we'll have in our hands at the end of the day is controversy.

I think that each of us has a black hole within our consciousness, to work with and climb out of, and perhaps we need to find our own inner philosopher to guide the way through this darkness. But, it is like an alchemical quest of healing, of finding the treasure within the depths of the blackness and, of transmuting the dark energies into radiant wisdom. — Jack Cummins

:up:

You've got to be kidding. Think about this statement for, say, five seconds. :roll: — jgill

Have I made a boo boo, a big one at that? Expand and explain.

They're "baffling" when one forgets or denies that only as one deviates farther from this – our – scale-perspective the more "inconsistent" those higher or lower scales seem, and like Banno points out, the more necessary it is to abandon descriptions adequate to this – our – scape-perspective and adopt descriptions adequate to those higher and lower scales. It's analogous to apparent "inconsistencies", or nonsense, which confuse us whenever we play one language-game (e.g. describing the movement of stars) in terms of another language-game (e.g. describing the impact of the zodiac on horoscopes). All that we "encounter" is, first and foremost, the "inconsistencies" of our inadequate descriptions. — 180 Proof

Are you saying inconsistences are mere artefacts of our descriptive paradigms, that they're apparent inconsistencies and not real ones? The inconsistencies people have discovered in the world being nothing more than a sign of poor/deficient descriptive frameworks and that once we hit upon the correct way of describing things, these inconsistencies will disappear.

The way it seems to me, your notion of "descriptions" is synonymous with theories and hypotheses devised for explaining the world. @Banno gave an example of how light behaves inconsistently - like a wave and a particle - and as per the two of you this is only an apparent inconsistency waiting for the right theory/hypothesis to come along for a satisfactory resolution i.e. we should expect the inconsistency to vanish away.

It's a nice way to look at the entire issue of inconsistencies as they are found in nature but to say that ALL inconsistencies are simply manifestations of poor descriptions is a really big claim. Perhaps the two of you are coming at it from a Wittgensteinian perspective but that's where you two lost me.

An apparent contradiction means that our description is wrong, not that the world is inconsistent. — Banno

Sorry to butt in but my personal view, supposing it's worth anything, is that consistency is probably a feature of the world at the human scale. Go up a few levels and enter cosmic scales or go down a few levels into the world of the very small and what we encounter are baffling inconsistencies. It's kinda like the frog in the pond story - the frog assumes, at its own peril, that the pond which it calls home is all there is.

Also, let's not forget what seems to be an ever-growing list of paradoxes that people are discovering lying at the heart of so many important philosophical and non-philosophical issues we're grappling with. It reminds me of the prevailing wisdom in astronomy that at the center of every galaxy for which there's a gravitational equation there's a supermassive blackhole inside which these equations break down.

My two cents.

I don't get you. To my reckoning, the point of contention between us is the meaning/definition of a person. My definition is the standard one as far as I can tell, having to do with mind and body while yours is rather "unorthodox", revolving around a "...causally interconnected network..." I, for one, don't mind engaging in speculation every once in a while but your take on personhood runs so against the grain that it has the, fortunate or unfortunate, effect of sending us all back to square one, forcing us to start from scratch as it were. I'm reluctant to participate in what seems to be a major reworking of known theories on personhood. You may do so of course and let us know if you chance upon anything worthy of our attention.

Secondly, what exactly do you mean by "reference" as opposed to definition. It's not at clear from your post what and how exactly you mean to use that idea to make a case against the fact that "if physically identical and also mentally identical then the same person". By way of showing how counterintuitive and for that reason probably false your position is imagine the following scenario:

There's a person X and fae's presented before you in all faer splendor. Fae is then taken out of sight and then brought back into your field of vision. How do you know that X is the same person and not someone else? Could you answer that question for me please? I think we might be able to resolve our differences with the answer.

Sure. That's why it's good to read more than one translation. Also, I think differences in translations mirror differences in meaning in the TTC itself. I'm not sure about that. For me, the whole exercise is impressionistic.

Most importantly - this is not an intellectual exercise and I don't think Lao Tzu intended it to be. I think he was trying to transmit an experience to us. The Tao is not a thing, it is an experience. If you can experience that, it can really clarify what he's trying to say. The Tao is a pathway. That is how TTC is often translated - The Book of the Way. — T Clark

The natural question is, if Taoism not an intellectual exercise why does it feel like one? After all, it's being discussed in a philosophy forum, no less. Too, I remember Taoism as being classified as a philosophy although the source that made that claim categorizes it as eastern philosophy, implicit in that is another claim viz. that eastern and western minds differ in fundamental ways.

Perhaps the takeaway is that Taoism isn't amenable to analysis as understood in Western philosophy as the application of logic with the utmost rigor. This interpretation seems right on the money for Taoism is basically a collection of occasions in which the universe defies generalizations western philosophy is so fond of. The lesson of Taoism then is that instead of getting our knickers in a twist trying to construct better and better generalizations to accommodate exceptions what we should be doing is assume a flexible stance, a necessity if one is to recognize that each situation is unique in and of itself and deserves to be treated as such and not in accordance to some rule/principle that's intended to cover all cases...because that's "impossible"???

The big question is, is something lost in the translation?

Is truth shocked that we're shocked by the truth?

He who knows does not speak. He who speaks does not know. — Pantagruel

Does he who thus spoke therefore know or not know?

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name. — T Clark

Me again, sorry but I can't seem to have enough of the Tao.

I have a very severe mental handicap - I can't think logicallu even if it were the case that my life depended on it and the other side of that coin seems to be able to apprehend/comprehend stuff that I can't put into words.

Let me try and be logical about the above stanza from this Eastern gem of philosophical poetry, the Tao Te Ching.

First off, everything that can be told i.e. that which can be expressed in language isn't/can't be the Tao [ref: The Tao that can be told is NOT the eternal Tao].

Secondly, that which can be named, again we see a linguistic slant here, is also NOT the Tao [ref: The name that can be named is not the eternal Name]

What does that leave us with? My hunch is Lao Tze is trying his very best to, and may have pressed into service his poetic license, express the inexpressible. He's taking on the role of the proverbial person who beats around the bush, secretly hoping I bet that all the noise will, at the very least, lead us to the location of Tao's bush.

Under the simplest of interpretations, Lao Tze want us to move beyond language but the million dollar question is whether that's a progression towards something new and wonderful or a regression towards something old and mundane? In short, is the Tao a step forward into an exciting future or a step backward into a been-there, done-that past?

What bothers me is the difference between "supernatural" and "unnatural"; the former has an aesthetically pleasing ring to it while the latter smacks of the grotesque but both are about things that aren't natural. What gives?

Why is April the first all fools day, when fools prattle on every day? — unenlightened

Excellent! A word to the wise though...the world is not what it seems. Anyone who spends 5 minutes in a street in New York knows that. :lol:



NOT a woman but also NOT in New York

"Do Women Actually Control The World?"

Sounds like a good title for an exposé long overdue.

Imagination and fiction make up more than three quarters of our real life. — Nikolas

I wonder what the implications of the above sentence are for Plato's view that we're all chained to the floor of a cave, forced to perceive only the shadows of truth? If the mind itself is susceptible to and does create its own false reality, what hope do we have?

There was this other time when I saw a small crowd gathered in a street corner. In the the center was a man talking in as loud a voice as he could manage and he had his arm stretched out, his index finger also extended. He was saying, "there, can you see it?" I got as close to this man as possible, lined my eyes along his outstretched hands but, unfortunately or fortunately, there were just too many things the man could've been pointing at for me to see what he wanted us to see.

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name. — T Clark

I believe the above is the crux of what Taoism is all about. Lao Tzu attempts to point at "something" that can't be pointed at. It reminds me of the time when I used my index finger to single out a person walking on the side of the road - I wanted to comment about the person for some reason - and my daughter severely admonished me saying, "don't point at people!" I struggled for a few moments, searching for the right words, and eventually...as fate would have it...I gave up. Lao Tzu was a rude fellow, pointing at the Tao like that.