Then what do you think it has to do with? — TaySan

I’ll start be clarifying that I agree masculinity and femininity are not toxic, per se. It’s how we wield these terms to corral, control or justify behaviour (in the name of survival, dominance or proliferation) that can become toxic.

‘Adapt to survive’ as a blanket justification for behaviour is a bit of a cop-out here. It’s a misunderstanding of evolutionary aims. We haven’t evolved as organisms equipped to maximise survival, domination and proliferation, but to increase awareness, connection and collaboration. This capacity and tendency in our behaviour far surpasses any survival necessity.

And if you think that the life and teachings of the Buddha or Christ was about survival, then you weren’t paying attention. The Dalai Lama and the Pope model distorted versions of this, geared towards the (unnecessary) survival of an institution.

Hum, what would we want in a captain of the ship or a captain of industry? Bill Gates is a take-charge person and he has accomplished a lot. We might not like how he got to the top, but we have all benefited from what he accomplished.

The Dalai Lama is very different from Bill Gates, and for all the good of his leadership, I don't think his leadership would lead to a high standard of living with schools and hospitals and the industry for a — Athena

Societal expectations about gender doesn’t have anything to do with captains of industry, either. The Dalai Lama is a spiritual leader - he’s not running the country, so I don’t know what a comparatively ‘high standard of living’ has to do with what he’s working to achieve. Bill Gates, for all his philanthropy, is doing it out of his surplus resources, not his compassion. To follow the example of Bill Gates is to wait until you’re a billionaire before giving.

Boys need to develop the masculine virtues. Men need to develop the feminine ones. Otherwise, one will be lopsided. First become what you are, and then transcend it. — unenlightened

There are masculine virtues?

:up:

What distinguishes "this version of masculinity" is an emphasis on physicality.

Sure, let it "have a place"; but it's mundane, somewhat anachronistic, and needlessly restricting. So let's not commend it. — Banno

Not how I’d put it, but I agree. I thought it was an honest place to start the discussion, though. This version of masculinity does have a ‘place’, whether we ‘let it’ have one or not. Recognising its limitations enables one to transcend it.

Your edits of the OP are definitely more to my liking. As for the physical-emotional dichotomy, my cruder(?) corollary has always been – observing 'grown females' among family & friends compared to 'grown males' – that males tend to be sprinters (out of the gutter, peeps) and females relay or distance runners. Explosive strength and endurance strength (which are complementary). Each sex is constituted by both strengths and individuals vary in the ratio of complementary strengths manifest in their respective dispositions. Yin-Yang, right? Still, perhaps due to the traditional straitjackets of gender-socialization, females, on average, are "built" to endure labor-pains, acute menses, child bereavement & interminable patience; males, on average, seem fragile by comparison and thereby psychologically "need" to overcompensate for our actual and perceived inadequacies. Whatever. 'Hermaphroditic polymorphs' shoehorned into (orthoprax) gender roles? :eyes: I don't know. — 180 Proof

As @BigThoughtDropper said in the OP, this is a comment on societal expectations. I think it’s not so much that we’re ‘built’ to endure (or that men are ‘built’ to act?), it’s more that we’re expected to.

I don’t think this has anything to with survival.

Well put, Isaac. :up:

The difference is the presumption that physical strength is a male characteristic, emotional strength, feminine.

Was that your intent? — Banno

It does highlight that presumption, doesn’t it? The use of ‘physical’ and ‘emotional’ probably aren’t even necessary. But it also highlights the question of potency.

Suppose we further altered the OP:

As a human you should not complain too loudly about difficulty or pain, you should expect hardship and bear the burden, you should never use your physical strengths to harm those weaker than you, you should use your physical strengths to help those weaker than you, you should be the first to volunteer, et al. — BigThoughtDropper

The last phrase I still think is focused on an observable/measurable reality - specifically evidence of potency. Why does someone need to be the first to volunteer? If you’re second or third, what does that mean?

Best OP and discussion of masculinity I’ve read on this forum so far. As one of the few women frequenting here, I sincerely appreciate your approach to the topic.

As a man you should not complain too loudly about difficulty or pain, you should expect hardship and bear the burden, you should never use your physical strength to harm those weaker than you, you should use your strength to help those weaker than you, you should be the first to volunteer, et al. — BigThoughtDropper

For me, it’s only the focus on actuality (observable/measurable reality) that differentiates your description from what is often expected from women (by men). A ‘good woman’ should not complain too loudly about potentially difficult or painful situations. She should bear the burden of emotional or circumstantial hardship. She should never use her capacity to make anyone feel less capable, and should instead use her capacity to build on the strength and ability of others. She should always be prepared to help without needing to be asked or acknowledged.

I don’t want to draw attention away from the core discussion here - I just found this an interesting parallel.

Which is why a ToE has to be inclusive of infinite possibility, or at least an inability to ‘know’ everything. Physics will fail at this as long as it brackets out qualitative uncertainty and feeling. It isn’t just about how falling and force work together, but also how they don’t work together. How they work independently of each other - ie. how they work on the observer, distorting how we think they work. What is the observer independent of falling and force?

If I experience that person without words or judgement and then act on that without forethought or intention, maybe put my arms around them, that is my understanding of what wu wei is. Acting from my true nature. Does that mean I'm experiencing the Tao at that moment? I'm working on that. — T Clark

If their reaction is to tense up or pull away, then I would say not. It’s the process from experience to action that is potentially inaccurate. We can misunderstand what someone needs from us in their grief if we’re unaware of how our perspective might differ from theirs. I don’t consider wu-wei to be acting from my true nature, especially in interpersonal relations, but aligning with a reliable model of intersubjective truth. Sometimes we don’t have to act or speak - sitting beside them, giving them space, or talking about trivial things don’t directly address their grief and can seem to onlookers that we’re not doing anything to help. But it could be precisely what they need, and we may be the only one in a relational position to effect this. Wu-wei is the difference between appearing to ‘do something’ and an effective use of our relational capacity.

No fair. You've brought in a whole new way of talking about things. I don't know what a "triadic relational model is." I guess I don't feel the need for another way to explain what's going on. For me, there are two ways of experiencing things - there is talking about, describing, kicking, thinking about, understanding, and naming the multiplicity of things and then there is the wordless, nameless experience of the Tao. Can you do them at the same time? Not sure. — T Clark

I find it interesting that you always refer to ‘experiencing’ things, even when you’re thinking, describing or understanding. Do you acknowledge that you interact with the world in ways that you’re unable to experience directly? Do you recognise that you construct most of your ‘experience’ of these interactions from a logical and qualitative structure of mind (developed from past experiences, language, cultural reality, knowledge, etc), and only minimally from your temporal, sensory being-in-the-world? I think this refers back to Barrett’s theory.

A ‘triadic relational model’ just refers to the type of logical structure that underlies the TTC. It differs from conventional logic in that it doesn’t reduce to a binary truth value (true-false), but has a triadic base (3). I’m just throwing terms like this in here in the hope that you recognise them from philosophical discourses that might enable us to discuss alternative logical structures. This one comes from commentaries on the work of Charles Sanders Peirce. That you’re unsure of the relation between your ‘two ways of experiencing things’ suggests to me that your model is insufficient, yet you seem unperturbed by the margin for error.

So again, just to be clear - some people who are not using reason to find out what's true (so just making shit up and pronouncing it) are nevertheless doing philosophy, right? — Bartricks

No, not right. Philosophy is not just about statements of what’s true. Pronouncing what is true is only a narrow perspective of truth, even when informed by reason.

Eastern philosophy would then be one of the words we could use to refer to that activity - the activity of 'not' using reason but just making shit up or talking nonsense. Yes? — Bartricks

Again, no. Your dichotomous thinking is getting in the way. It doesn’t come down to whether or not they’re using reason, nor whether or not their statements are true. Eastern philosophy doesn’t refer to the activity, but the approach - one that recognises reason as insufficient.

'Western' philosophy means 'using reason to find the truth' (hence why Augustine is a western philosopher and not an 'African' philosopher) and any other region that precedes the word philosophy means 'bullshitting'. — Bartricks

No. ‘Western’ philosophy again refers to the approach, not the activity. I think that the tradition of ‘Western’ philosophy is to give primacy to reason. And you still haven’t shown me where you got the label ‘African philosophy’ from. Sounds like you’re ‘making shit up’, but I’m happy to be proven ignorant on this.

Yes. I agree. It's just that philosophy doesn't actually mean bullshitting. It is the practice of using reason to find the truth. And Western philosophy and philosophy turn out to be synonymous. Glad we agree. — Bartricks

No, we don’t agree. Not even close. But then, I’m not surprised to see you ignore or dismiss anything that doesn’t fit with your narrow worldview.

Your definition of philosophy seems equivalent to mine insofar as you accept that it is about seeking the truth about a matter. But you have said 'using the imagination'. Yes, but the imagination's role is secondary to that of reason. We cannot make something the case by just imagining it to be so. But we can use our imagination to engage in thought experiments to which our reason can be applied. But until or unless we make some appeal to reason we are not doing philosophy, but just describing our thoughts or imaginings. — Bartricks

Reason is the interaction of imagination and judgement - so no, the imagination’s role is essential to that of reason. We cannot make any appeal to reason without it. But we are no closer to a reliable model of truth without understanding how we fit in: how we get our information, where the gaps are in our awareness and how we compensate for this lack. Reason can’t tell us this. Without understanding, we are not doing philosophy, but just describing how we think things ought to be.

And I still don't have the faintest idea what Eastern, or Chinese, or African philosophy is. All I know from you is that Augustine - an undisputed giant of philosophy who was also undisputablyAfrican - isn't anything to do with African philosophy. Kinda ridiculous, no? — Bartricks

No. You asked a question and I answered it from my limited understanding of Augustine. Not to mention that I haven’t seen the distinction ‘African philosophy’ used before - do you have an example of its use?

I offered my understanding of what might be meant by ‘Chinese philosophy’, which you rudely dismissed without so much as a discussion. If you’re not going to follow any of the links offered here to understand for yourself what those who use the terms ‘Chinese philosophy’ or ‘Eastern philosophy’ mean by it, then nothing we say is going to have any impact. But that’s no real surprise.

Allow me to revise my definition: Philosophy is exploring the faculties of imagination, understanding and judgement to determine a model of truth. Perhaps if you can accept this definition, then I would agree that it’s all just philosophy. Reason is only imagination and judgement. It understands nothing about truth.

It's not a narrow definition. It's what the word means. It usefully distinguishes one activity - using reason to find out what's true - from others. — Bartricks

No, it’s what you think it means. Narrowly useful is not always accurate - just ask Copernicus. I offered a broader definition.

I think ninety percent of the time, it doesn't matter what decision we make, as long as we make one and are willing to take responsibility for it. There just aren't that many issues that matter all that much. When I was working I had to deal with more and more significant ones. Even then, in most cases it was more important to keep things moving than it was to make the exactly right decision. — T Clark

It’s something I’m working on. I work in marketing and PR, so it’s often the little things that matter most. But with COVID regularly turning circumstances on a dime, I also can’t afford to be delayed by indecision.

Is my way of knowing the particle way? You say your son "can’t always trace the source of his information or critically examine his rational process once his mind is made up." I can, but I normally don't because I don't need to. — T Clark

I don’t think it’s as cut and dried as that. I imagine that most people have the capacity for both, but they lean towards one or the other. My husband is a mathematics teacher and has very obviously developed both to a high level. But he prefers the particle way, which means that he often needs to be prompted to switch. I can see the particle view, but I also need prompting to switch, and it requires more deliberate concentration on my part, like trying to write left-handed.

So, can we agree then that to qualify as doing 'Eastern' philosophy or what have you, it's important that you 'not' be using reason to find out what's true? — Bartricks

No, but it is important that you not define philosophy so narrowly. There is no ‘qualification’ required. It’s a comparative term, not a classification. Mere adjectives that you’re using to try and dismiss the practice of exploring the human faculties of reason, imagination and feeling to determine a model of truth - without necessarily defining or stating WHAT is true - as NOT philosophy.

oh, did you argue something? I didn't detect an argument. Just b.s. — Bartricks

There’s really no need to be rude. I wasn’t arguing, you were - it just wasn’t a particularly effective one. I was entering into a discussion. But that’s not how you do philosophy, is it?

I still haven't heard an answer to my question - there's a prominent proponent of moral particularism who is Chinese. I am familiar with his work. Does his work qualify as Chinese philosophy?
When I read philosophy articles, I typically don't notice who the author is. I read the content. I don't look or think about the author. I think I speak for most philosophers when I say that. After all, that's how the peer review system works. Articles are assessed on their own merits and authors have to avoid saying anything that would allow a reviewer to identify them. So articles stand alone and who wrote them is entirely irrelevant - which is good, no?

So again, am I reading Chinese philosophy when I read Peter Tsu's workonmoral particularism, or is Chinese philosophy something else? If so, what? — Bartricks

No, I don’t think his work should be referred to as ‘Chinese philosophy’, unless perhaps he refers to it that way himself - in which case I’d assume he’s differentiating his approach from what he would consider to be a ‘Western’ or ‘Indian’ foundation of thought. I don’t think it’s about where you were born, and I don’t think it’s a useful label outside of historical discussions comparing philosophical traditions or approaches. It certainly has nothing to do with his name or nationality.

What about when I read St Augustine - am i doing African philosophy? If not, why not? — Bartricks

Not in my book. As far as I’m aware there were three main culturally differentiated approaches or traditions in developing philosophy: Aristotlean or Western philosophy, Chinese and Indian. These labels refer to their foundations in thinking approaches and language structure, not to any permanent regional divide. From memory, St Augustine’s philosophy has a pretty standard ‘Aristotlean’ approach.

B.S. Pure and simple. — Bartricks

A riveting argument, as usual.

Does this use words, even ones you only speak to yourself? For me, understanding means words. — T Clark

I thought as much. No, for me, understanding can be beyond words. When I understand someone’s grief, putting it into words, even to myself, is profoundly insufficient to that understanding.

As I've said, I don't think seeing the TTC through the eyes of Barrett or other scientists is useful, at least not for my purposes. I also think equating chi with affect is is like equating the mind with the brain, which I reject. I'll think more about that. — T Clark

I will say that I understand affect as more of a localised, ongoing and internal perception of chi. But I wouldn’t say that I equate them. The reason I keep using them alongside each other is because I can see how they would both apply in the situation, but they do so on different dimensional levels of awareness. I’m sorry if this is confusing - it’s how my mind works. Incidentally, I also perceive the brain to some extent as a localised, ongoing and external observation of mind - but that’s another discussion, so I’ll leave it there.

Are you implying that it's wrong or somehow not true to Lao Tzu's intentions? First, I doubt that. Second - it doesn't really matter. I've found a spiritual vision that matches my intellectual, perceptual, experiential, and emotional understanding of how things work. — T Clark

No, you’re implying that I’m intending to judge your view, but I’m in no position to determine with any certainty what is wrong or true. My perspective is that I think you’re missing an aspect of what Lao Tzu was trying to show. But there isn’t much point, as you say. As long as it works for you, no one will convince you otherwise.

I'm not sure about this. I don't think you can follow the path without experiencing the Tao. Is that enough? Maybe? I think whatever value understanding the Tao has may be in helping to experience it. I'm out on a limb here. Over my head. — T Clark

I also don’t think you can follow the path without experiencing the Tao. I think the value in understanding the Tao is in aligning your logic, which does help to experience it, but also to follow it.

In an holistic view of reality, an observer is necessarily one aspect of the whole, but is unable to view itself as one of these aspects. A triadic relational model of reality is the most efficient and accurate - if the observer is indeterminate and can alternate between embodying two of these aspects. Embodying one will give it a view of the other two, but it can neither view itself, nor differentiate between the other two. But if it can embody one and then embody the other, and differentiate between the two perspectives, then the observer can differentiate between all three, and gain an accurate perspective of the reality in which it is an indeterminate aspect. This has to be the simplest model for truth.

I certainly don't think I'm following the path in any rigorous or disciplined way. — T Clark

I don’t claim to be following the Tao rigorously, either. But I think I understand when I am and when I’m not, at least. This seems like I’m claiming more, but it isn’t. This is just because the TTC deliberately has no chi. So, while I have a pretty good idea of what he’s saying, it means that any failure to follow the Tao is mine alone. I can’t blame it on a misunderstanding, a lack of knowledge or experience. Something else is attracting my attention and effort, and I allow it. It still takes lots of practise to direct the flow of energy through your body.

We interact in the world of the 10,000 things. — T Clark

Yes, but we don’t necessarily interact as one of the 10,000 things. We can also interact as an indistinguishable aspect of the indeterminate whole. This is how I understand an experience of wu-wei: no resistance or effort, no consolidation of self, just harmonious movement with the world...

I'm ok with this, but I don't see the relevance to our discussion. Are you talking about wu wei and how it grows out of the Tao? — T Clark

That’s a strange way to describe it. I don’t see wu-wei as ‘growing out of the Tao’, but as completion of Tao - it’s the chi that is missing from the evidence of our actions. It’s what Lao Tzu draws our attention to, because it exists in the gap between the Tao and the 10,000 things.

I experience the working of my mind. Do I experience logic? Interesting question. I don't think I do. I guess most of what I know I know intuitively. I previously described an image I have of a cloud of knowledge that I think of when I think of the Tao. I've been thinking about that for a while - how we gain knowledge by osmosis. I'm far enough in the Barrett book to be interested in what she calls statistical learning as a candidate. Don't hold me to that. I've just gotten to that part. — T Clark

This is interesting to me. You use words such as ‘intuitively’ and ‘osmosis’, as if the knowledge just kind of turns up in your head. I’ve been aware recently that most people tend to perceive the world as particles, but I’ve always perceived it as waves (I couldn’t describe this difference until I looked at quantum physics). In this way, I can often follow the formation of knowledge through my past experiences. My son has a particle view - once he recognises knowledge as such, it’s like all relational structures collapse and only one possibility exists. I’ll admit it’s a more efficient way to learn, but he can’t always trace the source of his information or critically examine his rational process once his mind is made up. He just knows. In our family, he’s the strange one, but I think perhaps he might be more neuro-typical than I often give him credit for. I can be crippled by indecision, while he’s happy to follow a well-worn path of effective decision-making.

Philosophy is not just the practice of using reason to find out what is true, especially since it so rarely arrives at such a destination. There is plenty of philosophical practice that explores human experience beyond what might be considered ‘true’, to understand why the unknown motivates, intrigues or frightens us, among other things. The way I see it, Eastern traditions have tended to automatically include this aspect in their reasoning, while Western traditions generally seemed to exclude it. This is very generalised and has to do with an overall approach to ‘truth’, but I think it has influenced the way that language, logic, thinking and philosophical discussion has developed though history.

Analogical inference is not only a method that has been drawn from particular or specific to particular or specific; it also represents a type of inference in which the premises are not necessarily connected to the final conclusion. The link between the premise and the conclusion belongs to the sphere of probability, which is why this kind of inference belongs to the category of “probability inferences”. In spite of these considerations, the ancient Chinese method of analogical thought met the basic requirements of scientific demonstration: it included the clarification of the origin of certain knowledge, the logical inevitability of the sources and the support of the demonstration (Cui & Wen 2001: 110). One of the most important characteristics of traditional Chinese analogism is that it was not exclusively limited upon the forms without considering their contents, something which could prove useful for advocating one’s own ideas, while refuting the viewpoints of others. It also provided a foundation for an awareness of ethical, political and social problems. Such analogism is an inference which is rooted in similarities between the known and unknown. It could therefore not only function as a model that could be applied to existing experience; in addition, it also included certain epistemological effects. Hence, this method could relatively easy also function as a model of truth. — Jana S Rosker

So, while I think it’s important to recognise the difference from an historical perspective, I also think that labelling a philosophy as ‘Eastern’ or ‘Western’ is purely a relational term, useful for comparative philosophy - which, incidentally, is not a reductive practice that simply ‘uses reason to find out what is true’.

I mean, what does 'Western' philosophy mean? Does it mean philosophy 'as practiced' in the west? But that's just 'philosophy'. There's nothing 'western' about it. It is just the practice of using reasoned argument to find out about reality. So it can't mean that, as the word 'Western' is doing no work.

Does it denote a worldview that has been arrived at by Western philosophers? Well, there isn't one, as anyone who has read the canon knows. The big name philosophers who fell out of vaginas located in western countries do not agree in their conclusions about the nature of reality. So anyone using the term in that way is simply evincing ignorance, surely?

Does it denote the entire collection of worldviews that have been held by philosophers who fell out of vaginas in western countries? Well, in that case it is not a helpful term at all, given that those worldviews are very different and the only thing they all have in common is that those who arrived at them did so by using philosophy.

Or does it - and I think this is increasingly the case - function to express contempt at the very exercise of using reason to find out about the world? There are some who find reasoned argument oppressive, because reason only permits there to be one true view, and thus if one undertakes to use reasoned argument to find out about the world, one is almost certain to discover that many of one's preexisting views about the world are false. Practitioners of philosophy - proper philosophy - are therefore imperialist oppressors, who are trying to colonize others at a conceptual level with their western reason. The 'west' has previously practiced physical colonization, and all 'western' philosophy represents is the attempt to extend the colonization to the realm of ideas. — Bartricks

It’s a bit like saying “What does ‘patriarchal system’ mean? That’s just the system, there’s nothing patriarchal about it”. The word appears to do no work when you have no awareness external to it.

If you think the only distinction of ‘Western philosophy’ is the use of reason, then it would seem you have little to no understanding of Eastern philosophy at all. Just opinion. Take a look at “Specific Features of Chinese Logic: Analogies and the Problem of Structural Relations in Confucian and Mohist Discourses” by Jana S Rosker (2012). At the very least it should highlight that the logic underlying Eastern philosophies is far from lacking in reason, even if you don’t necessarily agree with the reasoning as such.

I noticed that I’ve been using ‘understand’ in two different senses, and I wanted to clarify.

In a metaphysical sense, to ‘understand’ is to align with a way of thinking about or conceptualising reality. It’s an internal restructuring of ideas, and can be achieved simply by trusting in an alternative model or expression of reality, such as the TTC.

In a more academic sense, though, to ‘understand’ is to present knowledge in explaining or supporting the argument for a restructuring of reality. It is to provide ‘proof’ of this metaphysical understanding. But this academic sense of understanding is not required in following the Way, and it does distract us from the path.

I have engaged in attempts at explanation here, mainly in my references to Kant, quantum physics and Barrett’s theories in relation to affect, among others. My aim in doing so was to show that, firstly, there IS an alternative construction of reality in the TTC - one that does not align easily with conventional Western logic. Secondly, I was trying to point out that this alternative construction of reality does contend with, and arguably help to dissolve, current dilemmas in Western thinking. So, even if we have no intention of following the Way, its structure of conceptual reality is not as ‘a-rational’ as it first seems. It is more that conventional (Western) logic is inaccurate, insufficient beyond classical physics, for an holistic understanding of reality (ToE).

I also recognise that understanding the Way is not following the Way. What is missing is chi, the energy of life, one’s distribution of attention and effort. I have suggested that we can discuss how chi (or affect) fits into this by drawing from experience, but that perhaps we need to separate subjective experience into quality and energy (and the TTC into quality and logic) before this starts to make sense. I’ve (eventually) noticed that you’re not really exploring the TTC on this level. In fact, I get the sense that your aim is to recognise an experience of the Tao as a guide in those situations when conventional logic is insufficient. This seems to be a common Western approach to Taoism and other Eastern philosophies.

I just thought we should be clear that experiencing the Way is not following the Way, any more than understanding it is. Giving the impression that one can follow the Way simply by experiencing it is what I’ve been taking particular issue with here, but I’ve not been very clear in this. I have no doubt that many of the scholars who painstakingly translated the TTC do experience the Tao subjectively, but whenever they expressed this as an understanding of the TTC, they’ve necessarily applied at least some conventional Western logic to their choice of words (inherent in the English language). When readers then experience this understanding, they’re aligning with this Western way of thinking, not with that of the TTC. They might also experience the Tao, but they’re not entirely following the Way, because they only understand an English interpretation of ‘the Tao that can be spoken’, which is not structured the same as Lao Tzu’s TTC.

I recognise that your efforts to bring together many different interpretations does go some way towards a broader understanding of the TTC, but not of its structure - and I realise that you’re okay with that. You’ve said that systematic errors are not a problem for you, because your aim is to express your experience of the Tao, not to understand it. But if you say that you’re following the Tao, then I may dispute your accuracy from time to time, to which you will say that you don’t understand and you aren’t trying to. I think perhaps you’re following it to the extent that you’re willing to understand it, which is distinct from your working knowledge of logic - beyond the perceived effectiveness of the hammer, so to speak. Personally, I think any restructuring of reality in understanding the Tao goes deeper than this, but I accept that mine may be a minority view, lacking in clear explanation and relatively untested.

either everything is and the blob is the indeterminate whole in which we are indistinguishable, or nothing is part of it, and everything except the blob exists (10,000 things).
— Possibility

Or both. I'm serious. — T Clark

I agree with this as the overarching idea. But in order to be or interact, we fall either side of this coin. This is unavoidable. ‘Do or do not - there is no try’.

This was the energy (attention and effort) directed elsewhere or without result as each stroke is made: not-doing (wu-wei).
— Possibility

I'm not sure what you are referring to. — T Clark

I’m referring to the act of writing down the TTC. When we create something in the world, we cannot put all of ourselves and the world (ie. the blob) into it. With every interaction, we embody an aspect of the indeterminate whole that is necessarily missing from what we create. The energy (attention and effort) that keeps us alive cannot simultaneously be directed into what we create.

No matter how much he included of himself in his writing, something would always be missing...

...They are the difference we are invited to embody between the Tao and what Lao Tzu has accomplished in the TTC.
— Possibility

I think this difference between you and me is the result of how we see the TTC differently. I think Lao Tzu is trying to show us the way to follow, not tell us about it. The words are incidental. He is painting a picture with words. I'm trying to see the picture, not understand the words. — T Clark

Right - you’re aiming to experience the Way, not to understand it, and not to follow it. Here’s the thing: following the Way involves BOTH experiencing and understanding. The Way is neither in the experiencing nor in the understanding, but in the instructive difference between the two: effectively, it is the issue we have with each other’s methodology here.

The logic underlying my words and actions remains pretty much how it suits me best, regardless of the TTC.
— Possibility

Can you describe or give an example of how the logic underlying your words and actions works. I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I've tried to do the same for you when I describe the bubbling spring image I feel sometimes when I act. — T Clark

What I’ve described here refers specifically to experience, from a perspective of understanding. Here’s a question for you: do you experience logic? Not understand and not adhere to, but experience it - does it have a quality to it, or a feeling? If what you’re doing is simply experiencing the world, is there ever logic in that? Not just in reference to the TTC or the Tao, but in any experience...

For my money, Laozi employing language in this fashion - to describe stuff that lies beyond the reach of language - is not entirely without merit. He was a clever man I suppose and all that he would have to do is probe the boundaries of language - stress language to the breaking point and what comes out at the other end is a, hopefully, better understanding of the limits of language and through that get a feel of, get some idea of, what Laozi means by "The Tao that can be named is not the Eternal Tao". — TheMadFool

I think Lao Tzu engaged the Chinese system of language in its purest, most straightforward format as the framework for an expression of reality that is fully transferable. For years, philosophers such as Russell and Peirce have tried to find a way to bring alphanumeric language to a logical simplicity in describing reality, that would minimise its ambiguity of meaning between different experiencing subjects. What Peirce in particular was working on is a more complicated version of what Lao Tzu had managed thousands of years ago: an irreducible triadic relation. The beauty of Lao Tzu’s version is that we are able to position ourselves in all three aspects (logic, quality, affect), and so refine and correct our interaction with, as well as our experience and understanding of, reality.

Most texts are structured to control meaning, to limit the freedom of the experiencing subject in interpreting the text by incorporating the value, significance or potential perceived by the author in the choice of word. The TTC doesn’t do this. This appears to be consistent with other ancient Chinese texts, with no use for a copulative and very few sentence structures linking verbs with predicates. Chinese characters usually express what I refer to as the quality of an idea, or what has been differentiated from the names of things by Mohist scholars as ‘kinds’. It is the practice of ‘naming’ - what was a Chinese process of officially assigning cultural hierarchies of value to things, families, people, etc - to which the TTC seems most strongly opposed. Rather, it appears to be deliberately structured so that judgements of value, significance and potential remain ambiguous, in the realm of probability. This makes it difficult to translate into English, where guidance for the reader on affected judgement is incorporated into many of our words and concepts.

But it is in this unusual reluctance to reduce language to concepts that the TTC comes into its own. When value is ambiguous, the reader/translator assigns it arbitrarily, based on cultural conventions (similar to ‘naming’) AND/OR on their own experience at the point of interaction with the text. The point of setting it out this way is to be introspectively aware of affect (desire) as it occurs, to pay attention to where we draw our judgements of value, significance and potential from, and why. This purpose is suggested later in the first verse:

Therefore, always (ch'ang) without desire (wu-yü),
In order to observe (kuan) the hidden mystery (miao);
Always (ch'ang) with desire (yu-yü),
In order to observe the manifestations (chiao). (trans. Ellen Marie Chen)

I think maybe it isn’t so much that reality is more than meets the eye, but that it’s more than language can describe. The structure of the TTC is designed so that the reader is theoretically able to shift ‘outlook’ between what is ‘subtle/indigenous/wonderful’ and what is a ‘boundary’ (like an event horizon?), and in doing so recognise the Way.


This interesting article on the special features of Chinese logic provides some background.

The Tao is knowledge, but in it's truest form. When we gain knowledge, we become more knowledgeable, our knowledge (referring to it's one-ness) is like the Tao; and so the Author projects his knowledge (again, one-ness) upon his readers. Is his book to be worshipped? Can you forsee that the author may be less knowledgeable? I don't think his aim was to be egotistical. However, he expressed knowledge. Knowledge in it's pure form begs to be understood but doesn't point nor ponder. — ghostlycutter

I think that referring to the Tao as ‘knowledge in its truest form’ overlooks what the TTC says (and what we have been discussing here) about knowledge. I can relate to this - I also leapt to the defence of ‘knowledge’ here, thinking that any effort to understand the TTC was being dismissed as pointless, and that we were in danger of promoting ignorance.

But I don’t think that Lao Tzu projects ‘his knowledge’ upon his readers. I think, like Socrates, he would probably claim to know nothing. It isn’t about what he knows, but about how he structures a rendered expression of reality so that one need not ‘know’ anything to understand. And, in fact, that in order to understand, we must recognise our own lack of knowledge. Any knowledge we think we have is distorted by our limited sensory capacity, our desire for what appears lacking and our fear of being wrong.

I think what Lao Tzu understood was how to render the Tao as a stable and all-inclusive three-fold reality. His true gift was in structuring the TTC so that nothing is ever located outside of this system, regardless of what we may learn. Others have tried and failed to render absolute reality with such simplistic and eternal elegance. That someone thousands of years ago understood with so little scientific knowledge suggests that it isn’t knowledge that begs to be understood.

It's not that gaining knowledge is not THE way, it's not A way. You can't follow the Tao by gaining knowledge. Gaining knowledge distracts from the path. — T Clark

Ok. You can’t follow the Tao by gaining knowledge as a possession. You can’t experience the Tao by using knowledge. But you can’t relate to the Tao by ignoring information: not as knowledge to be gained, but as relational structure to be understood.

I’ll get there...

But this quality of hoping - like listening without hearing, or directing attention without understanding how to direct effort - is an inseparable aspect of experiencing the Tao.
— Possibility

Without getting back into the whole idea/concept thing, I really disagree with that. Nothing resides within the Tao. — T Clark

I’m not saying it is an aspect of the Tao, but of experiencing the Tao. You can’t deny this quality without diminishing the experience.

No to frustrate you, but the Tao has no rationality either. Forgive me for this, but I'm serious - the Tao that can be rationalized is not the eternal Tao. It can't be spoken. It can't be understood. It can't be analyzed. It can't be divided. It has no parts. Nothing is inside it. You can't think about it. It's not a concept or an idea. It's just a big blob, except the blob that can be spoken is not the eternal blob. — T Clark

Language is not going to explain this, because you have to put yourself into it. This is what Lao Tzu understood. We are not separate from this ‘big blob’ that is the Tao. So you can continue to argue that anything I name is not part of this ‘big blob’, but either everything is and the blob is the indeterminate whole in which we are indistinguishable, or nothing is part of it, and everything except the blob exists (10,000 things). I’m saying that whether we experience, relate to or follow the Tao, there is rationality, quality and energy somewhere in this, which cannot be bracketed out. Any description, expression or instruction that is not inclusive of all three is not the Tao.

This is the dilemma that Lao Tzu recognised. No matter how much he included of himself in his writing, something would always be missing. This was the energy (attention and effort) directed elsewhere or without result as each stroke is made: not-doing (wu-wei). And no matter how forceful his instructions, something would always be beyond it. This is the energy (attention and effort) directed towards not following the Tao: not-intending or functional emptiness (wu yòng). Likewise, no matter how clear his description, something will always be missing from the relation. This is the energy (attention and effort) directed towards not relating: ignorance, or an upper limit of knowledge (jué xué).

These three will show us the Tao, but they are not the Tao. They are the difference we are invited to embody between the Tao and what Lao Tzu has accomplished in the TTC. The idea is not to understand them each as something, but to embody one or another in a structural relation with the TTC, in order to achieve a structure of ‘oneness’ with the Tao. When we embody not-doing, we experience the Tao through the TTC as all movement and change inclusive of our action, and we will never fail to achieve. When we embody a functional emptiness, we follow the Tao through the TTC as fullness inclusive of our existence, and we will never be without. And when we embody not-knowing, we relate to the Tao through the TTC as wisdom inclusive of what we think we know, and we will never misunderstand.

I figured our aim here is to understand. So, abandoning what I know, I have been deferring to the original text of the TTC as the only source of wisdom. If it’s not in there, it’s not accurate. If what I think I know conflicts with the text in its purest form, then the text must be correct. If what the translations or anyone else here is saying conflicts with the original text, then the text must be correct. It feels very unusual to do it this way, but the result is a clarity that can’t be expressed in language. And I can’t claim knowledge of anything, all I can do is appeal to the original text. It’s a strange feeling, and I understand that you assume my words are my personal opinion. There’s no way I can get around that, except to observe a simplified structure of the Chinese text, reduced to logic and quality, with all affect bracketed out.

If you look at the Zhuangzi in comparison, its narrative composition makes it impossible to bracket out affect without ignoring elements of the text. Names exist outside of the text for people and their occupations, assuming a complex social structure that implies hierarchies of value and judgement. People feel, think, speak and make mistakes. But the TTC is structured carefully so that no affect, no feeling, emotion or value judgement is necessarily implicit in the text (except where speech is indicated, and very specific verses such as 20, written in the first person). I do think this is deliberate.

But if I’m exploring only the English translation of the TTC, then the aspect I can effectively bracket out is rationality. In doing so, I can only experience the Tao in not-doing: stillness, meditative practice, unconscious randomness, etc. Everything else requires logic. I can observe and restructure my thoughts and feelings to align with the TTC only in this stillness. But this means that how I consciously express myself or act then lacks logical relevance to the Tao. It is constructed from a logic that is not the Tao - it is mine. It has not come under scrutiny in relation to the TTC, freed from affect or subjectivity. The logic underlying my words and actions remains pretty much how it suits me best, regardless of the TTC.

Before you lecture me about certainty, I'll remind you that you told me it was irresponsible for me to express an opinion about the TTC that's different than yours. I'm telling you what I think Lao Tzu is saying. — T Clark

Are you still smarting from that? That is NOT what I said at all. I have tried to clarify, and your response was that you’d prefer to ignore it. This is not ignoring it. Either we let it go, or lay it out, because it’s clearly still affecting you.

As I claimed in my old discussion, I find the Tao a more useful concept than objective reality. I think it is fruitful to claim that objective reality doesn't exist, although I'll say again, both "Tao" and "objective reality" are metaphysical entities. We decide which to use, if we use them at all. The universe is also one of the 10,000 things. Can you name something that isn't part of the universe? A suitcase full of shirts is one of the 10,000 things. So are each of the shirts. — T Clark

‘The Tao’ and ‘objective reality’ are not concepts, they’re both placeholder names for what cannot be named, and it’s fruitful to claim that neither of them exist. We talk about them as possible notions, not as concepts, because they are indeterminate at this level. Mistaking them for concepts is what creates confusion in understanding how ‘the Tao’ relates to ‘the 10,000 things’. But I’m not going to get into a discussion with you about the notion of ‘objective reality’ here. I understand them as the same notion described in an alternative discourse, so I think our current discussion will suffice.

You seem so certain of this, that what I say I’m doing just isn’t (logically) possible. That I can’t do this, or that you know what the Tao does or doesn’t have. Where does this certainty come from?
— Possibility

I'm not certain of what Lao Tzu means, but I am certain of how I experience the world. If I got to that place by following a path which is not the one he described, won't that be ironic. But I don't think that's what happened. You seem just as certain as I do. — T Clark

I do see a difference of certainty here in you telling me that I can’t relate to the Tao - that “that’s not how it works”. I don’t think anyone can be certain that they are even accurately describing how they experience the world, however certain they might feel about the experience itself, beyond language. As soon as you use concepts, you’re assuming that how I qualitatively constitute each concept is identical to yours, but there’s no certainty that I do. This is the difficulty with discussing the TTC in terms of experience.

You may not think that anyone can relate to the Tao, and from your perspective that would seem to be the case - but this doesn’t mean I can’t. It just means that you can’t see how it’s possible. But I’m saying that I can see how it’s possible. I don’t need to be certain of that, and I don’t need you to agree.

There is some ambiguity in these lines. Both knowledge and wisdom are bad? In Verse 18, Chen talked about “intelligence and knowledge.” It seems like the argument against wisdom, if there is one, is different than knowledge or intelligence. We’ve had a difference of opinion about what the TTC says about knowledge. — T Clark

I’ve said knowledge distracts us from the path that Lao Tzu is trying to show us. Flipping that, gaining knowledge is not the way to follow the Tao. I think you could also say that “knowledge” means “conventional knowledge.” The conventional way of categorizing and classifying things is misleading. I’ve also said that it seems to me that knowledge is connected to desire. — T Clark

There is ambiguity here, for the same reason I have been arguing: all these scholars are bringing their own experience into their interpretation. I’m not arguing in opposition to you. I do agree that gaining knowledge is not THE way to follow the Tao. But I disagree that the TTC is saying ‘knowledge is bad’, and certainly not that ‘wisdom is bad’. I will continue to call out your use of a ‘good-bad’ dichotomy in your interpretation of the TTC, because I believe this is your subjective experience of the text, and therefore not inherent in the TTC - especially since the text portrays this dichotomy as arbitrary limitations set by human perception. That others have a similar experience is not a sufficient argument in my book, and qualifying an interpretation of ‘knowledge’ as ‘conventional knowledge’ (based on what?), which equals ‘categorising and classifying’, etc sounds a lot like apologist methodology of ‘playing with metaphors’, so you’ll pardon me for my skepticism here.

Abandon wisdom, discard knowledge,
And people will benefit a hundredfold.
Abandon benevolence, discard duty,
And people will return to the family ties.
Abandon cleverness, discard profit,
And thieves and robbers will disappear.
These three, though, are superficial, and not enough.
Let this be what to rely on:
Behave simply and hold on to purity.
Lessen selfishness and restrain desires.
Abandon knowledge and your worries are over. — T Clark

There is a lot about this verse that I’ve struggled with. The main difficulty I have is that the first character, jué, translated here as ‘abandon’, is translated everywhere else as ‘absolutely’. Literally everywhere else, except for this verse of the TTC. To me, with my limited experience of hermeneutics, this is a red flag. It says that there’s more to this than the translations allow. With hundreds of translations disagreeing with me, I’m aware that I’m in the minority here - but everything I understand tells me to trust the original text over the translations. And further research shows that the quality attributed to the character jué is actually about cutting someone off at an upper limit.

So, while I will argue that ‘abandon’ is an unsatisfactory translation, I don’t think it’s as simple as choosing wisdom/learning over knowledge, benevolence/humanity over duty/righteousness and cleverness/artistry over profit-seeking, either. It’s more about recognising that wisdom is not about maximising knowledge, humanity is not about maximising righteousness, and cleverness is not about maximising profit. To ‘lessen selfishness and restrain desires’ is not the same as abandoning the self or eliminating desire. Pulling back from knowledge short of pursuing intelligence as the aim in itself will eliminate most of our modern worries. We don’t have to return to the Dark Ages or long for ignorance by seeking to ‘abandon knowledge’.

I think we’re a little too keen to accept that Daoism longs for some past ‘golden age’ of ignorance, or is even particularly conservative. Wisdom is about understanding when NOT to pursue knowledge, as well as when it’s needed.

Google Translate? I've found that DeepL usually has beter translation results.
https://www.deepl.com/translator — Ying

Thanks for the tip. The advantage of Google is that it doesn’t just offer it’s most likely translation, but a range of alternatives. This gives me a clearer view of the different kind (quality) of ideas that Chinese speakers have in constituting different concepts, rather than assuming they think the same way that I do and so compose concepts in the same way.

At first glance, I think the biggest difference between the TTC and the Zhuangzi is the narrative composition. This gives readers an opportunity to relate to the text on another level, one that isn’t offered in the TTC. But I think the simplistic structure of the TTC is deliberately confronting. If a verse or a phrase doesn’t make sense in relation to our experiences, then it’s inviting us to reconsider how we structure our understanding of the world - how we interrelate logic, quality and affect (chi) in this instance. To do that, we need to defer to the ‘natural’ logic and quality of the language only, in the same way that it seems Lao Tzu did, and pay attention to the affect of the text on our chi. This seems to me both more difficult and in some ways easier to do approaching it from outside the language. When I break a concept down into composite ideas or quality, the logic-quality-affect structure makes much more sense.

A gem of a statement. What if it's a narrative-like composition? You know, like a story. A story has no logic per se, it's simply a report of events, emotions, actions of characters in that story. — TheMadFool

A story does have logic to it, even a report of events does. Action occurs in a sequence, for starters. A narrative necessarily has characters, affect, shape, etc. We take for granted the logic of narrative, just like we take for granted the logic of language, and of physical reality, and bracket it all out of our experience. We assume agreement on these aspects of the story. That’s what logic IS.

Seems like you're talking about what I call "naming," but you're examining how it works as a process while I don't. As I've said in previous posts, I'm still unclear on how things get from the Tao to the 10,000 things. I'll think on what you've said from that perspective. We can talk about this more as we go along. — T Clark

An interesting quote from Confucius with regard to naming, from a SEP article I’m reading on ‘Logic and Language in Early Chinese Philosophy’:

“An exemplary person (junzi) defers on matters he does not understand. When names are not used properly, language will not be used effectively; when language is not used effectively, matters will not be taken care of; when matters are not taken care of, the observance of ritual propriety (li) and the playing of music (yue) will not flourish; when the observance of ritual propriety and the playing of music do not flourish, the application of laws and punishment will not be on the mark; when the application of laws and punishments is not on the mark, the people will not know what to do with themselves. Thus, when the exemplary person puts a name to something, it can certainly be spoken, and when spoken it can certainly be acted upon. There is nothing careless in the attitude of the exemplary person toward what is said”. (Analects 13.3; tr. Ames and Rosemont 1998)

I noticed how the structure of this is similar to translations of verse 18 in the TTC...

The Tao has no logic. That's not how it works. — T Clark

It looks like I may have been using ‘logic’ where I mean ‘rationality’. This may not solve our disagreement, but I’m trying to be clearer...

I do think that our affected relation to this concept of ‘hope’ does distract us from the path, but that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with the idea or quality of hope in the world. The issue I think Lao Tzu has is with the naming of ‘hope’ as something separate in the world that we strive to obtain or possess for its own sake, like with ‘knowledge’.
— Possibility

Are you saying that, although the idea of hope is one of the 10,000 things and distracts us from the Tao, hope still somehow resides within the Tao as a concept? — T Clark

No, I’m saying that the concept of ‘hope’ is one of the 10,000 things, and directing effort and attention towards it as an objective or virtue in itself distracts us from the path. But this quality of hoping - like listening without hearing, or directing attention without understanding how to direct effort - is an inseparable aspect of experiencing the Tao.

The TTC is clear - the Tao does not have anything inside it. It is undivided and indivisible. It isn't made up of anything else. There's nothing inside it. It isn't a mixture. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say. — T Clark

Maybe, because I agree with all of these statements. Let me know your thoughts on my reply above to Valentinus regarding verse 5.

The Tao cannot be named, but objective reality can. It's a thing. It's one of the 10,000 things. It's just a bag full of everything. Things in objective reality exist without being named. — T Clark

I disagree with this. Have you ever tried to define ‘objective reality’? To say that it’s one of the 10,000 things is to say that we can name things that are not objective reality. Is that what you’re saying? If so, then we have a different understanding of ‘objective reality’. But it might explain why you say that objective reality and the Tao are ‘mutually exclusive’, like some form of dualism. I don’t know.

You can't relate to the Tao. Nothing can. The Tao has no logic. That's not how it works. — T Clark

You seem so certain of this, that what I say I’m doing just isn’t (logically) possible. That I can’t do this, or that you know what the Tao does or doesn’t have. Where does this certainty come from?

I don't think all this arguing is getting us anywhere. — T Clark

I don’t know - I think I’m getting better at understanding where you’re coming from now. Bear with me. I won’t necessarily agree with you, but I’m not going to try and tell you what you can’t do.

Nature is like a bellows, the more it moves, the more it yeilds. — ghostlycutter

I saw this a little differently. The functionality of emptiness is capacity, unrealised potential.

We are not so much in what we say, but in our capacity to speak. Likewise, the bellows utensil is not the air it blows, but its capacity to blow. The space between heaven and earth is not what exists, but the capacity for existence. In this way, the sage sees the value of humanity not in the ‘hundred family names’ - these are like straw dogs: fragile, temporary, indicative. Like the air that passes through the bellows.

Likewise, the Tao is not so much the 10,000 things, but the full potentiality that their existence, and subsequent ‘naming’, only temporarily, incompletely, indicates.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no need to discuss this more. Which doesn't mean you can't if you want to. — T Clark

:up:

In my dictionary, "concept" and "idea" are synonyms. I don't understand the distinction. — T Clark

Synonym does not mean identical - it just means people use them without regard for any difference between them. In design, however, there is a clear difference. Basically, an idea is partial or not fully formed, while a concept often includes form and viability. Here’s an in-depth explanation of the difference.

I think you and I have different understandings of the relation between the Tao and the 10,000 things. — T Clark

I would have thought that was obvious from the start. You have said a couple of times now that you’re unclear on this relation.

Both objective reality and the Tao are metaphysical entities, two different ways of seeing the nature of reality. One way of seeing things is not right while the other is wrong, they are more or less useful in a particular situation. I find the Tao a more useful idea in most situations. — T Clark

It’s just a name, a placeholder for what cannot be named, and doesn’t change. So I don’t think that what you name it has much use at all, to be honest. It doesn’t change how we see it - not at the level that we can ‘see’ it as such, anyway. But I have to keep remembering that you’re experiencing, not relating to the Tao. So of course how you name it changes how you experience it, and it’s only ‘objective reality’ if it’s consistent with your logic, which the Tao is not.

I'm still confused by "affect." Does that come from Barrett? I haven't gotten any further in her book yet. — T Clark

Yes. I use affect to describe what we do with energy because her description of the process is apt.