Maybe he did not believe it. However that may be, he wasn't suggesting a pair of ruby slippers were a viable means of transportation.

I've been thinking about this. I have always thought that we can experience the Tao directly, but not with our conscious, verbal, rational minds. Above, you write that we will never experience the Tao. — T Clark

What I tried to say is that we will never experience the Tao that created heaven and earth. Lao Tzu claims that whatever that might be is the same Tao we can observe in our life as what is given birth here with us.

Verse 1 suggests we can catch some kind of glimpse of what we can never sense through some means of changing our relation to "desire."

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

The text seems to encourage a return to the good old days. Is there such a thing as an ideal past state ?
Is it desirable to return to a state of nature, whatever that might be ? — Amity

The Golden Age seems to be a reference in all the classical literature. There also seems to be striking differences of opinion about how to go about making the future more like the best of the past. Describing the "way of heaven" is how the good result happens. In Lao Tzu, there is a lot of energy spent on pointing out faulty approaches to establishing these "ways." I will quote Verse 18 since it seems less encumbered by wildly different translations:

When the great way falls into disuse
There are benevolence and rectitude;
When cleverness emerges
There is great hypocrisy;
When the six relations are at variance
There are filial children,
When the state is benighted
There are loyal ministers — Translated by D.C. Lau

.

What is being observed as negative results here are the bullet points others are selling as the best policy.

My take from this is that the Way that leads to good results hasn't changed from the beginning but the proliferation of bad advice requires an effort of negation that investigates why the bad could be taken for the good. The need to delineate between the named and the unnamed was not a problem the "old followers" of the way had to wrestle with in order to stop bad things.

I submit, if it is believed possible for humans to create consciousness, why should it be any less possible for human consciousness to be created? — Pantagruel

This element is what attracts me to Spinoza. Instead of introducing "God" as something that hurts our brains to even bring up, it is the first thing you think of when reflecting upon your own conscious existence. Aristotle said he didn't know much but that he was pretty sure he didn't dream all this up for himself.

Some of the confusion comes from what having a Credo could be as a form of life. Saying what you believe as a part of a ceremony is not something all "believing" people do. Is the comparison of different liturgies equivalent to the promulgation of theological opinion?

Lao Tzu’s solution seems to be to examine our history of relation to the Tao, and the very next verse begins with a description of the old masters. — Possibility

I think there is something worthy in framing the "solution" as a history of relation to the Tao, even if people disagree about what relationships are being brought into view. That element is good way to investigate the intention of the text but also how to see what came from framing reality this way. The "natural" is presented as a result of beings being created through opposites related to other opposites. In speaking of a "watershed" one line of thought that came from this understanding lead to empirical methods that were the foundation of medical research. Another way of proceeding can be found in the interest in divination via the The Book of Changes.

I can see some of the relational matrix you are promulgating in both of those outcomes. But they are very different in the agency one is supposed to assume to enter those systems.

That is why I brought up the question of mysticism earlier in responding to Wayfarer's remarks following the distinction he underlined between "existence" and the "real."

Whatever you might make of the above, something that has long struck me about Verse 15 is that the hidden quality of the old masters is being thrust into view in the context of a new conversation. It is not arguing upon the basis of authority. Nor is the matter a revolution that replaces one order with another by cancelling what has gone before.

What he did see was that, unable to examine these aspects closely as such, we tend to confuse them all as one. This doesn’t help. The blended confusion fails to sparkle at best; at worst, we can’t just ignore it. We can’t stop it or name it, and it appears to be nothing at all - the uncaused cause, unmoved mover, etc. — Possibility

I think your map differs from Lao Tzu's in that you are locating the "ineffable" as an ingredient in the experience of living amongst the ten thousand things where Lao Tzu is pointing outside to something we will never experience. The statement is made that the same agency is active on both sides. The "darkness" of the "xuán" in Verse 1 is asking how one can observe an equality like this. The "unmoved mover" is said to be on the job 24/7 on our side of the Heavenly Gate.

I don't share your confidence in finding a unifying viewpoint amongst these different thinkers regarding the experience of consciousness.
For what it's worth, here is Sartre's statement in the Transcendence of the Ego:

We may therefore formulate our thesis: transcendental consciousness is an impersonal spontaneity. It determines our existence at each instant, without our being able to conceive anything before it. Thus each instant of our conscious life reveals to us a creation ex nihilo. Not a new arrangement, but a new existence. There is something distressing for each of us, to catch in the act this tireless creation of existence of which we are not the creators. At this level man has the impression of ceaselessly escaping from himself, of overflowing himself, of being surprised by riches which are always unexpected. And once more it is an unconscious from which he demands an account of this surpassing of the me by consciousness. Indeed, the me can do nothing to this spontaneity, for will is an object which constitutes itself for and by this spontaneity. The will directs itself upon states, upon emotions, or upon things, but it never turns back upon consciousness. — Sartre, translated by Forrest Williams and Robert Kirkpatrick

What I found most interesting in The Transcendence of the Ego by Sartre is the argument that Kant meant the "ego" could be assigned to any action at any time but that the experience comes from another source.

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

The answer or problems toward answering that question tempers the element of Mysticism that has been represented in so many different ways, here, and in the academic commentary.

Put another way, the strong language about how one set of conditions leads to another points to one kind of observation. The ground where we make comparisons points to something else.

Would a motley crowd like this – made up of bloviating bricoleurs manifestly dedicated to (dialectically) thinking for themselves – give a rat's ass what snobby academics derisively think of us? — 180 Proof

For myself, it is the problem of Jude the Obscure. Too well read to be accepted by my fellow workers; Under qualified to be taken seriously by academics. I resented the location for several decades but now no longer care. All the texts are still here. The places I was hoping to be invited into are unappealing.

I don't think analyses of systems of implicit power in social institutions is helpful here, and I don't know much about Lacan. But getting understanding of the "right" view is not therefore impossible because it is not easy. — Constance

Your are correct that those analyses do involve the power of social institutions. I brought them up more in the interest of introducing personal development as seen through psychological models as an element that deserves a seat at the table if one is to bridge across so many expressions of thought regarding the "ego" as you are endeavoring to do. I threw out one conversation I am interested in. That is not to put them above, Piaget, Maslow, Vygotsky, Jung, etcetera.

When I said: "The right thing to do is is incumbent upon understanding what is happening correctly", I was thinking of that as the ethical component of all these philosophies under discussion in this discussion.

I struggle to relate to Cleary’s translation - I don’t think that ‘surprise’ or ‘alarm’ describe qualitatively how it feels to gain favour or to lose it AT ALL. The sentences are logically structured, and the character translations are all quantitatively accounted for - but it’s lacking accuracy in qualitative structure as it relates to experience. That this qualitative aspect seems such an insignificant thing to us is what concerns me. — Possibility

I don't know how to see the matter through the text as it been given but favor and disgrace are existential.

I don't have a view that solves differences. But the difference between Lacan and Foucault strikes me as a sharp disagreement about what is happening. We live our experiences and the mirror we view them through is significant. The right thing to do is is incumbent upon understanding what is happening correctly.
Easier said than done.

What limits? — Constance

Many of the thinkers you have been referring to have presented themselves as resisting an error of one kind or another. Along with the version that is being put forth as the truth is an explanation where others have gone wrong. Discourse may require the continuing lack of of answers on some level.

t was mentioned above about how Kierkegaard felt about Hegel, and it common knowledge that he called on spiritual beings to save him from anxiety — Gregory

So, something you claimed earlier as a point of common knowledge is supposed to be a point of reference to a body of work you have no familiarity with.
Pardon me if I am not engaged by the logic.

What text are you referring to in both cases?

Kierkegaard probably read less Hegel than I've read of Kierk. — Gregory

"Kierk" went to Berlin specifically to read Hegel along with other people. The notes to Kierkegaard's books include detailed references to his objections to Hegelians in his milieu.
Perhaps you are mistaken about the conversation that happened there.

I don't get how you could assert such a claim with only having a passing familiarity with what Kierkegaard actually said.

It sounds like you are mainly interested in finding echoes of what you already have concluded.

it's like someone holding you by the back of your neck and pressing your face against something. The artificial gap created by language between mind and reality is closed in that moment when you encounter a paradox. — TheMadFool

I understand how the language is an "artifice" But judging the merits of what is said through it is paradoxical itself. It is not like we have another option that we have been blowing off because we are stubborn people.

What have you read of Kierkegaard?

What the "ego" may seen to be in these different psychologies that you refer to is not self explanatory from my point of view. Noting the limits in each theory makes me less inclined to state what is true for everybody than to see the works collectively pointing to one thing.

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

All creation stories seem to involve recognition of the "boundary" between the "named and unnamed." How they serve as a mirror can be very different. The sequential orders of birth in Verse 42 reminds me of Plato's Timaeus where the creation is presented as a sequence. While filling out the "tribes of mortal beings", the "Creator" says:

On the other hand, if they were created by me and received life at my hands, they would be on an equality with the gods. In order then that they may be mortal, and that this universe be truly universal, do ye, according to your natures, betake yourselves to the formation of animals, imitating the power which was shown by me in creating you.
The part of them worthy of the name immortal, which is called divine and is the guiding principle of those who are willing to follow justice and you--of that divine part I will myself now sow the seed, and having made a beginning, I will hand the work over to you. And do ye then interweave the mortal with the immortal and make and begat living creatures, and give them food and make them to grow, and receive them again in death. — Plato, Timaeus,41b, translated by Benjamin Jowett

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

Thanks for linking to that memorial. The man certainly crossed many rivers.
Interesting web site, too. I will check it out.

“The Great One Gives Birth to the Water” — T Clark

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

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

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

I had a similar set of experiences where I found out i was good at some things without it seeming to have any relation to what i had experienced before.
I question the "lack of interest" component as a piece of evidence. For myself, the interest was reunited with the ability.
Something like:
"i want to order things in a certain way but what is waiting for me to do that?"

We can talk around it, about it, how it fits, is contextualized; we just can't interpretatively nail it down like I can nail down what a bank teller is or an igneous rock. — Constance

One of the qualities Kierkegaard exhibited in The Concept of Anxiety is that the "self" who loves or not is always represented as a result of a process geared toward completing a certain end. The possibility of being an agent is presented in contrast to that.

The prospect of selecting between "competing" desires is interrupted by another dimension where the options are not easily laid side by side.

I think a lot of Lao Tzu's instructions are "Hey, Valentinus, over here, pay attention to this." — T Clark

I am always up for a good koan. The map and the territory are always difficult to line up. All these different interpretations of the verse suggests to me that I am not the only one looking at the map with some confusion.

I recommend that everyone retire immediately. — T Clark

As my Sifu, Ry Cooder, once sang: "Romance without finance is a nuisance, so honey, give me your dough."

I have had the good fortune to take my work seriously without it having it be the only thing that was important for me to take care of. In fact, I only dedicated myself to treating it as a career in my early forties. Some of that was a matter of wanting to work at a certain level and some of that was existential in needing the dough for me and mine. I got to spend several years as the stay at home dad. I spent years remodeling my place.

As a result, I am conditioned (or biased, perhaps) to read the Taoists as calling for disengaging from some values and motivations while also acknowledging the need for work to happen. The "letting things happen" side of Wu Wei certainly seems to involve a lot of people working with serious dedication. In Zhuangzi, there are many interchanges between trades-people and scholars that show the groups in tension regarding the "instructions" without suggesting the points of view possible by each side can be removed by the other. Amongst all the strongly voiced declarations, ambiguity has found a place to abide.

Looking more closely at the surprise/fear; body/self thing makes me think I have missed something in this verse. — T Clark

I feel the same. The ball gets more slippery the more I handle it. However one frames the fear, it seems like the verse goes from not being overwhelmed by one means or another to the good leader treating his milieu as if it was his own self/body. I don't understand the instructions.

I think there is dread for the future in both success and failure. Or at least Lao Tzu thinks so. I'm not sure what you mean by "isolation" in this context. — T Clark

For me, the inequality between being shamed or being honored is connected to the fear of failing to accomplish a task or duty. Beyond the pain of embarrassment or the pleasure of recognition, what is most scary about the prospect of failure is the withdrawal of trust by others to do something. During 40 years of work in the building trade, the confidence of others grew as my skills became more capable and my familiarity with what was in front of me grew.

But that process only happened because I risked the loss of that confidence by trying something that was not mine yet. When the risk didn't work out, I became relatively isolated by those I gambled with.

In the realm of personal relationships, the loss of trust can end the party entirely.

I agree. You can't complain about the rent. You move in and learn how to do some things for yourself.

"You are a fluke of the universe, you have no right to be here."

That is a parodist response to the Desiderata, which "argues" that a person has reason to think otherwise.

The question has the quality of asking for comfort in a hostile place. I would like to take my very existence as proof of something but existence keeps suggesting I should stop that.

I am grass, trying to stay out of range of the lawnmower.

Success is as dangerous as failure.

Some other translations are more explicit about this. Chen writes “Honors elevate (shang),
Disgraces depress (hsia).” Addis and Lombardo translate “Favour debases us. Afraid when we get it, Afraid when we lose it.” So, success leads to fear and failure leads to fear. — T Clark

The A.C Muller version gives a different emphasis on the quality of the fear by translating the character of jīng in its meaning: "to startle."

Muller's first line reads: "Accept humiliation as a surprise." The rest of his version is too intent upon drafting a maxim than explaining the text for my liking but the physicality of interpreting the first line is interesting.
Only "bodies" react to surprises. Using the word "self" seems counterproductive here. The equality of success and failure concerns a connection that doesn't involve how obviously different the results are for us as benefits. The alternative to fear is not a change in the reaction itself but where the "body" is.

Beyond the shock of humiliation, there is dread for the future. Maybe this verse is about isolation.

It just struck me we haven't talked about heaven and earth yet. I went back and checked. Maybe I'll do a post just on that. It's an important idea that I haven't got a good feel for. — T Clark

I agree that the context of heaven and earth is important. I brought up Verse 5 earlier because the "cosmology" sharply differentiates the two realms the same Dao is said to bring about.
Seeing as how all of our experience happens on "this" side of the Heavenly Gate, it is remarkable that any of our observations could inform us of anything about the other side.

He describes the error from different points of view. I am not sure about it as an act of "naming." That is an interesting question. I will think about it.

But for the purposes of the present discussion, the error is described in Proposition 18 when he says:

"Therefore God’s intellect, insofar as it is conceived as constituting the divine essence, differs from our intellect both in respect of essence and in respect of existence, and it cannot agree with it in anything except name."

That passage suggests the act of naming is one of the elements that need to be brought into a circle of doubt.

Again, I asked ↪Valentinus
a simple question, but he avoids a clear answer. — Eugen

I gave a clear answer. It involved challenging the way you are asking the question.
You aren't doing any work here, just repeating what you think without taking on challenges to your point of view.

You are right. I wished I hadn't piled on.

As someone who self identifies as a rigid narrow-minded moron, I take offense at your attempts to cancel me.

I don't recognize any of my previous statements in your reply.

Spinoza went further than that by diagnosing the "wonder" as the result of thinking of God as making stuff to satisfy our ends. To that extent, he is not building a fence we can look through but cannot pass; He is saying that the very speculation is a category mistake.

That sort of projection of human experience is precisely what Spinoza went to great effort to reject.