The last two lines, "up is down" and "sideways is straight ahead" manage to encapsulate the crux or the heart of Taoism as a philosophy dealing exclusively and whole-heartedly in paradoxes. — TheMadFool

I think we think of Taoism as paradoxical for the same reason we see Quantum Mechanics that way - because they both deal with phenomena we can't talk about with our normal language. In both cases we've gone beyond our everyday human reality.

Now, what about paradoxes makes them so damn important to Taoism? My hunch is, paradoxes vis-à-vis Taoism, are purposed for one specific task - to do an exposè on language itself but the question is what exactly about language is being revealed through paradoxes? — TheMadFool

I think paradoxes are important for two reasons - 1) the truth of the Tao is unspeakable. When we try to say things about it, they come out goofy. 2) Maybe on of the things Lao Tzu is trying to achieve is to make people think about things differently than they normally do. He makes them beat their heads against the wall a few times to make them open up their eyes.

In a way then, Laozi paradoxes are designed to make us confront, come face to face with, reality directly by arranging rendezvous with semantics/meanings, get past the confusion of words, language. — TheMadFool

I'm lost in the discussion about semantics and meaning. I think you're making this too complicated. Lao Tzu writes in paradoxes because there is no way to describe the things he's trying to tell us about.

How can you describe the same thing when you are seeing different things ?
If we can't even see and describe a book with all its different translations the same way, how could we describe the whole world the same way ? — Amity

I don't think Lao Tzu would think that the Tao he experiences in ancient China is different than the one we experience here, 2,500 years later and 12,000 miles away. I think Immanuel Kant would think the world he described in the 1700s is the same world as Lao Tzu described and the one we live in today.

Also, I haven't looked at the Chapters you missed out. I think Ch 5- 10 ?
It makes me wonder why and what we might have missed. It can't be because they are not your favourites. We spent a lot of time on Ch11 which you said you never liked. — Amity

As I wrote in the OP, I am covering the verses I am most interested in discussing. As I noted, you are welcome to bring up and discuss any verses I leave out. I will be happy to participate in those discussions.

Addis and Lombardo say "The self embodies distress. No self, No distress." Illusion is my word.
— T Clark

Saige again: Yes, your word, and one that would need more textual support if you are to claim it is appropriate. — Amity

I'm comfortable that using the word "illusion" is appropriate.

Hope that we can now move on from this... — Amity

I think this is an issue that will come up again as we go along.

Heaven and Earth

I’ve looked through several verses looking for instances of “heaven” and “earth.” In all but one verse, “earth” is always found with “heaven,” although “heaven” is often found by itself. The last instance of “heaven and earth” is in Verse 39. Verse 38 is considered the first Verse of the second section of the TTC. The second section deals with “Te,” sometimes translated as “virtue.” I don’t know if that is significant or not. I’ve also included text from “The Great One Gives Birth to the Water” which is a document often associated with the TTC.

I don't really have anything to say about these texts. I just wanted to put them down so I can soak in them for a while.

From “The Great One Gives Birth to the Water”

{The Great One} gave birth to Water. Water returned to assist (A) {The Great One}, [and] by means of this the Heavens were completed/manifested. The Heavens returned to assist {The Great One}, [and] by means of this the Earth was completed. The Heavens and Earth [returned to assist each other] [and] by means of this the Spirits and Luminaries were completed. The Spirits and Luminaries returned to assist each other, [and] by means of this Yin and Yang were completed. Yin and Yang returned to assist each other, [and] by means of this the Four Seasons were completed. The Four Seasons returned to assist each other (E), [and] by means of this Cold and Hot (F) were completed. Cold and Hot returned to assist each other, [and] by means of this Wet and Dry (G) were completed. Wet and Dry returned to assist each other, completing the Yearly Cycle (H) and that‘s all….

…[What is] below [is] soil, but [we] call it Earth. [What is] above [is] air, but [we] call it Heaven. [It] takes ‗Dao‘ [as] its designation (O). Please may I ask its name? [One who] takes the Dao to engage in affairs, necessarily trusts in its name, Therefore [his] affairs are complete and [his] body [lives] long. [When] the sage‘s engaging in affairs, [he] also necessarily trusts in its name, therefore [his] work/merit is accomplished and [his] body is not harmed/distressed. [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] (Q).

From Verse 1 – Derek Lin

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things

From Verse 7 – Derek Lin

Heaven and earth are everlasting
The reason heaven and earth can last forever
Is that they do not exist for themselves

From Verse 23 – D.C. Lau

Hence a gusty wind cannot last all morning, and a sudden downpour cannot last all day.
Who is it that produces these? Heaven and earth.
If even heaven and earth cannot go on forever, much less can man.
That is why one follows the way.

From Verse 25 - Addis and Lombardo

Therefore Tao is great, And heaven, And earth, And humans. Four great things in the world. Aren't humans one of them?
Humans follow earth. Earth follows heaven. Heaven follows Tao. Tao follows its own nature.

From Verse 39 – Addis and Lombardo

Of old, these attained the One: Heaven attaining the One Became clear. Earth attaining the One Became stable. Spirits attaining the One Became sacred.
Valleys attaining the One Became bountiful. Myriad beings attaining the One Became fertile. Lords and kings attaining the One Purified the world.
If Heaven were not clear It might split. If Earth were not stable It might erupt. If spirits were not sacred They might fade.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) Article on Laozi (Lao Tzu):

The dominant interpretation in traditional China is that Dao represents the source of the original, undifferentiated, essential qi-energy, the “One,” which in turn produces the yin and yang cosmic forces. While the “lighter,” more rarefied yang energy-stuff rises to form heaven, the “heavier” yin solidifies to become earth. A further “blending” of the two generates a “harmonious” qi-energy that informs human beings…

…The Laozi makes use of the concept of ziran, literally what is “self (zi) so (ran),” to describe the workings of Dao. As an abstract concept, ziran gives no specific information, except to say that Dao is not derived from or “modeled” (fa) after anything (ch. 25). However, since “heaven and earth”—interpreted as nature in most modern studies—are said to be born of Dao and come to be in virtue of their de, the Laozi is in effect saying that the ways of nature reflect the function of Dao…

Really? Considering that the main topic is the Tao? — Possibility

The Tao is the most down-home, everyday, run of the mill, no big deal of all. You'll find that several places where the Tao is referred to as low or behind. This is from Chen's Verse 8:

Water is good in benefiting (li) all beings,
Without contending (cheng) with any.
Situated in places shunned (o) by many others,
Thereby it is near (chi) Tao.

I’m not sure I would trust a leader who claims to have no hope or fear - someone like Trump comes to mind...but I do get the notion of relating to honour and misfortune as if our own hopes and fears were irrelevant. — Possibility

I see hope and fear as keeping us from seeing things as they really are. To feel fear or hope, we have to try to see into the future rather than acting spontaneously, wu wei.

The only verse I remember is:

And a horse has no udders,
And a cow can't whinny,
up is down,
And sideways is straight ahead — TheMadFool

Saige does not wish to be linked to anyone else but me, myself, I. — Amity

Are you saying that you are Saige? If so, the fact that you speak with two different voices is confusing.

Flat out wrong. Even within the West and East what is being described differs. — Amity

Flat out wrong = I don't understand what you're saying.

Not necessarily. I can also have no body when I have seen through the illusion that my body is my self.
— T Clark

Even if you see through an illusion, you still need the body and mind to enable this. — Amity

Are you saying I need the illusion to see through the illusion?

Where does the text say this is an illusion? — Amity

Addis and Lombardo say "The self embodies distress. No self, No distress." Illusion is my word.

I guess I’m always open to the possibility, however remote, that none of the current translations are accurate. In hermeneutics, I’ve found that returning to the source language with fresh eyes can be enlightening. — Possibility

As I've said, I don't have the wherewithal to do a linguistic analysis, although I think your input in that regard is interesting and relevant. I just try to read several verses and glean my understanding from the multiplicity of voices. That all gets filtered through my personal understanding and experience. After all that, I just don't get that Lao Tzu is writing about the nobility of suffering.

In my view, courage is always needed. — Possibility

Courage, whether it roars or whispers, is not needed if fear is discarded.

Perhaps a look there will help understanding. — Amity

I'll take a look and see if anything interesting pops out.

I have been listening to what @Possibility has been saying about translating from Chinese. I agree it is important to return to the roots. — Amity

I don't focus on the Chinese language like @Possibility does. I don't have the tools. I put myself in the hands of the translators and figure, if I read several, I'll figure things out.

Most Chinese characters can serve equally as both nouns and verbs, and modifiers too (adjectives and adverbs); apart from context no graph has a unique grammatical function. — Amity

This thread has made me think I might need to spend more time with the Chinese language. At the same time, I think second guessing other translators with our limited understanding will just increase the cacophony of meanings.

Oh, no - I'm falling way behind. I'll catch up.

But I do think that what he’s missing reduces what those who rely on his translation would be able to get out of the TTC. — T Clark

Agreed.

The structure of traditional Chinese pinyin appears to solve many of the issues I have encountered with articulating my own philosophical approach in English - in particular the Ontic Structural Realism aspect. — Possibility

I've never heard the term "ontic structural realism" before. I looked it up. Are you saying that the fact that Chinese words can act as any part of speech helps you break down artificial boundaries in our concepts? If not...

For me, this difference between fear and surprise relates back to affect, and Barrett’s theory that we predict our relation to the world in terms of valence (positive/negative) and arousal (high/low), and continually adjust our body’s energy distribution (in terms of attention and effort) accordingly. I’m not convinced that we’re able to not expect anything, but I think we can be aware of how affect influences our expectations, and remain sceptical of its positive/negative pull, at least. — Possibility

I'm reading Barrett's book and I like it a lot. Thanks for the reference. By "expect" in this context, are you talking about the mind's automatic filling in the blanks in incomplete perceptions that Barrett talks about? If so, I think that's a completely different phenomenon than we're talking about here. I think any intimation of "expectation" is a more common everyday use of the word, i.e. we are anticipating what will come next. We are living in the future rather than the present.

To say that hope is the same thing as fear seems to me an oversimplification. — Possibility

I think we come back to a big difference between your way of seeing the TTC and mine. I think it's about the experience of the Tao. Hope and fear feel the same. We process them the same.

Have you ever tried to not have any expectations? Your brain is still generating predictions and distributing energies accordingly - you’re simply refusing to participate in the decision-making process. — Possibility

I think you are using "expectation" in the sense that Barrett means it and not how Lao Tzu would and I do. So, yes I have tried and succeeded to not have expectations in the everyday sense of the word. It's hard to do unless I'm really paying attention.

We can let affect (desire) call the shots and entirely ignore both our existing expectations and anything unexpected, or we can relate to the unexpected as neither good nor bad, but simply as unexpected. — Possibility

Different translations seem to differ on whether fear or surprise is a bad thing or just a thing. I went back and looked at several different translations of Verse 13. I looked at this one by Thomas Cleary, which I hadn't looked at before. It really lays things out the way I've been thinking about it. He uses both "alarmed" and "startled."

Favor and disgrace seem alarming; high status greatly afflicts your person.
What are favor and disgrace? Favor is the lower: get it and you're surprised, lose it and you're startled. This means favor and disgrace are alarming.
Why does high status greatly afflict your person? The reason we have a lot of trouble is that we have selves. If we had no selves what troubles would we have?
Therefore those who embody nobility to act for the sake of the world seem to be able to draw the world to them, while those who embody love to act for the sake of the world seem to be worthy of the trust of the world.

Shen refers to the main part of a structure, whether that is the body, life, morality and conduct, mind or self. It’s all of it, really - as far as our awareness of it goes. — Possibility

"Self" and "body" are different, and I think that may be an important difference between the translations. I also think they have something in common - they refer to how we see ourselves, judge ourselves.

How we might define ‘self’ isn’t relevant here - it’s more about the relation.

The later fleshing out of this second idea I would translate as:

In order to exist, I am one who suffers greatly, and in the capacity of this living existence up until my death, I exist - how is this unfortunate? — Possibility

This, and some of your other interpretations, seem to me to be too lofty. To me, this verse, all the verses actually, describe things that are down-home, everyday, run of the mill, no big deal.

Therefore treasure the body as the world,
As if the body can be entrusted to the world.
Love the body as the world,
As if the body can be entrusted to the world.
— T Clark

This is not quite how I understand this part. There are two different sets of characters here that he has translated to read ‘as if the body can be entrusted to the world’. — Possibility

I wondered if this is a misprint and should be written "Love the body as the world; As if the world can be entrusted to the body." I checked in Chen's book and it's the same as listed on the webpage.

We are a temporary gift to the world. We can see that gift as one of expensive value and nobility, as if entrusted to the world. This perspective is dependent on the world to recognise that value and use our life carefully. The alternative is to see that gift as one of love, in which we are entrusted with the world. This perspective empowers us to collaborate with the world in a way that builds a lasting value and significance into our gift, so that it continues to give well beyond our death. — Possibility

I think this means something like "If you learn to deal with honors and misfortunes without hope or fear, you will be trustworthy" Chen thinks this verse is aimed at leaders, so it might be "a trustworthy ruler."

It has been really helpful to have you commenting on these verses. We often disagree, but that gives me an incentive to figure out what I really think Lao Tzu is saying. Thank you.

Mitchell seems attached to certain concepts such as hope, success and fear, and he restructures the text to help consolidate these, missing the variability of a more complex (and less tangible) rendering of these ideas such as how we evaluate our suffering, humility and life. — Possibility

Over the past year, I've spent time with a lot of different translations of the TTC. All and all, I think Mitchell's translation holds up well. He does tend to put a more western accent on some things. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

I've had disagreements with others about such words as "suffering" and "illusion," which are a big part of Buddhist teaching. I've taken the side that there are analogous concepts in Taoism, but the emphasis is different. I don't see suffering as a big theme in the TTC.

When we translate from Chinese to English, we try to translate all the characters, and then try to work out how the pieces fit together in our existing conceptual structures of experience and language. If it doesn’t seem to fit, there’s a tendency or temptation to distort the quality of these ideas, like forcing pieces of a jigsaw together. But the Chinese language has a very specific structure to it - and the way the ideas relate to each other in this structure is supposed to challenge the way we understand the world. — Possibility

Are you a Chinese speaker? You certainly seem to know a lot about the language. If you are, I have a few questions.

I like the suggestion from other translations that the idea may be more startling than scary - I think it removes the tendency to avoid, and rather suggests that we may simply feel unprepared. — Possibility

I'm still working on the difference between fear and surprise. As I said, I have a preference for "fear" because it speaks to me directly. What surprise and fear have in common is expectation. I think Lao Tzu may be telling us not to expect anything, good or bad. I think the sense of reaching for honor or cringing from shame, what you call a tendency to avoid, are a big part of the story here.

Contentment here is not about avoiding the challenges of life, but about not always needing to appear to be a success - about recognising that humility, embarrassment or failure is the first step to learning, and therefore has value in our lives. Whether we succeed or fail, this feeling of fear or unpreparedness doesn’t really go away, it only shifts. — Possibility

I think Lao Tzu is making a much stronger statement than that. Fear and surprise are a result of expectations. No expectations, no fear, no surprise. It's not about overcoming fear, it's about seeing that there's nothing there.

Hope is the same thing as fear. Success is the same thing as failure.

The second idea introduced in this verse is that of value or nobility in a life of great suffering, which also seems startling/scary. — Possibility

I really don't see this.

Overall, I think this verse is about the courage to face what can seem a frightening perspective on life. — Possibility

I think he's trying to help us get to a place where courage is not needed. I don't think sages are brave.

Your post is long, so I'm going to take a break and respond to the rest in a later post.

You descibe the experience much better than i do. It was and is curious about how this aptitude arrives in your conciousness every time you use it. — Steve Leard

It's really a help if you tag your response so people will know you are responding to them. There are two ways:

[1] Push the reply button under the text of the post. It will appear as an arrow if you place your curser next to the time stamp at the bottom. This will open a new post with a link to the person you are responding to.

[2] Better, you can highlight the specific text you want to respond to. Then, a small black tag that says "quote" will pop up. If you push on that, it will copy it down to where you are typing your post. If you push the quote button before you start your reply post, it will open it for you.

Both of these methods will notify the person that they have a response.

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. — Valentinus

The territory that can be mapped is not the eternal territory.

How's that? All Taoist and wise and all.

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

Yes, well, that is the most common response to my retirement suggestion.

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. — Valentinus

Our lives have some parallels. I dropped out of college and worked for 15 years before I went back and got my engineering degree at 36. I spent most of that 15 years as a cabinetmaker. I also spent years expanding and remodeling my house. I even spent 3 months taking care of my daughter right after she was born. I've told people that running a household is a lot like construction management. You plan ahead, but you spend most of your time taking care of one problem after another.

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. — Valentinus

This has always been really important to me - trying to figure out where the motivation for action comes from. How can you force action from the heart. Of course, you can't.

First off - In addition to being good with machinery, you're also a good writer. I wonder where that came from. It's definitely a different set of skills from mechanics.

This is not a very good site for factual information on human learning. This is a philosophy site - people here rarely actually know anything. Even when they don't they like to talk like they do. The kind of answer you'll get here is likely to be misleading. There are a few people here who have strong backgrounds in science and math. Maybe you will find someone like that to help.

Good luck.

I could add that saying "Means that something is more or less likely" just change the word probable for likely. — denis yamunaque

All definitions are just changing one word that you don't know the meaning of for another that you do.

A probability that an event P will have a result R is X if, when P takes place N times, on average, R will result X * N times.

I don't understand the instructions. — Valentinus

I think a lot of Lao Tzu's instructions are "Hey, Valentinus, over here, pay attention to this."

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. — Valentinus

This is something I've been thinking about a lot recently. I've had lots of talks with my son who lost his job and career to Covid 19 at the age of 35. He is horribly afraid that he has disappointed people. That he will disappoint people. I think this is something that is especially important for men. I think jobs, achievement, mean something different for men than they do for women. For women, they're something. For men, they're everything.

Retiring has put a whole new perspective on this issue. Suddenly, I'm not defined by my duties or people's expectations of me. That can be hard, but it can also be incredibly freeing. I recommend that everyone retire immediately.

Why do you ask ? What does it matter ? — Amity

Often when someone references a source, I go look it up on the web. I tried that but didn't find anything, so I wondered if this was someone you could give me a link to.

I think that the Tao is not a thing or an experience. It just is. It's the source from which all things come and to which all things return. Lao Tzu poetically guides us in the philosophy...the practice. The 'How to...' — Amity

I think the practice, the how to, refers to the experience of the Tao. It can't be known or understood, only surrendered to.

There is a close connection between those of the West and East. — Amity

There is only one world. All philosophers are describing the same thing.

What does it mean to see the world as yourself? What does it mean to treasure your body as the world? To see your self as part of the whole, as unified with the Tao? And your body? Again, the use of "self" vs. "body" seems to make a big difference in the meaning.
— T Clark

The individual is part of the whole - see later in post. I am not sure the difference between 'self' and 'body' is the issue here. Both are our concern - the physical and the mental or spiritual aspects. — Amity

My body and my self are both things I call "me," but they are really different. It means something different to say "See your body as the world" rather than "See your self as the world." Except, in some way, apparently, it's not different.

Ivanhoe talks of apprehension and reverence. — Amity

S. also sees apprehension and reverence as modes of care.
A central concern to individual bodies and the world. — Amity

I do like Ivanhoe's take on this verse, although I don't see the significance of apprehension/reverence.

when I no longer have a body I am dead. — Amity

Not necessarily. I can also have no body when I have seen through the illusion that my body is my self.

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." — Valentinus

D.C. Lau uses "startle" also.

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. — Valentinus

Some translations say "surprise" some say "fear". Some translations say "body" some say "self." The choices all make sense, but they mean significantly different things. I like "fear" better because it means more to me personally. In the same way, I like "self" better. That seems like a more profound meaning to me. For me, one version (fear/self) means look inside yourself. The other (surprise/body) seems more like "Hey, chill out."

The equality of success and failure concerns a connection that doesn't involve how obviously different the results are for us as benefits. — Valentinus

I think that's the point - we need to reexamine whether the benefits of success are really benefits, since it puts us in a vulnerable position. It seems to go back to the old "Don't struggle for honors' argument.

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

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.

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

Free will is not a thing, — Mww

Most people would disagree with you. That's why there is a new "Is there free will" thread every week. As if it matters.

Truth is objective reality which can lead to wisdom while pleasure serves our subjective desires. They do seem to be mutually exclusive. — Nikolas

You see things differently than I do.

"does there exist in man a natural attraction to truth and to the struggle for truth that is stronger than the natural attraction to pleasure?" — Nikolas

Our choices are not truth and pleasure. Truth and knowledge are instrumental - we look for them, we're built to look for them, because we need them in order to ask the only real question - What do I do now? I haven't thought much about it, but I guess pleasure is instrumental too. It's the signal our body sends us to let us know we're doing what we're supposed to do.

Truth smooth. What the heck am I supposed to do next?

Verse 13

Stephen Mitchell

Success is as dangerous as failure.
Hope is as hollow as fear.

What does it mean that success is as dangerous as failure?
Whether you go up the ladder or down it,
you position is shaky.
When you stand with your two feet on the ground,
you will always keep your balance.

What does it mean that hope is as hollow as fear?
Hope and fear are both phantoms
that arise from thinking of the self.
When we don't see the self as self,
what do we have to fear?

See the world as your self.
Have faith in the way things are.
Love the world as your self;
then you can care for all things.

The more I read other translations of the TTC, the more I feel that Stephen Mitchell leaves too much out. On the other hand, I might not have ever read the TTC at all if it hadn’t been as accessible as his is. This verse has always been one of my favorites. “Success is as dangerous as failure. Hope is as hollow as fear,” are the lines that really struck me the first time I read it. There’s another, similar line in Mitchell’s version of Verse 46 – “There is no greater illusion than fear….Whoever can see through all fear will always be safe.”

Learning to deal with fear has been a big struggle in my life. To be able to approach it from the outside as an illusion makes sense to me, but making sense and leading to change are two different things. I think if I had one wish it would be to be fearless. I understand what the lines mean. I even have an idea of what it feels like, but it’s not something I can do consistently. On the other hand, being retired has finally given me a chance to live without hope for success. That comes naturally to me. It’s wonderful.

I’m going to take a look at some of the lines.

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.

Hope and fear are both phantoms that arise from thinking of the self.

Chen writes “I have great misfortunes, Because I have a body.” That’s a really interesting difference. Some say “self,” some say “body.” When they say “self” they generally seem to be talking about social misfortunes. When they talk about the “body,” they talk about physical or medical misfortunes. That seems like a big difference. With the first, I get the feeling of the self as an unfortunate illusion. With the second I get the feeling of the body as something good that I can’t have if I’m not willing to face the negative consequences.

When we don't see the self as self, what do we have to fear?

Chen writes "If I don't have a body, What misfortunes do I have?" Addis and Lombardo say "No self, No distress." Ivanhoe translates "When I no longer have a body, what calamity could I possibly have?

See the world as your self.
Have faith in the way things are.
Love the world as your self;
then you can care for all things.

Chen writes

Therefore treasure the body as the world,
As if the body can be entrusted to the world.
Love the body as the world,
As if the body can be entrusted to the world.

What does it mean to see the world as yourself? What does it mean to treasure your body as the world? To see your self as part of the whole, as unified with the Tao? And your body? Again, the use of "self" vs. "body" seems to make a big difference in the meaning.

One stanza says you can care for all things, the other says you can let the world care for you. Is that right? I'm not sure. I think this ties in with wu wei. If we let our actions arise spontaneously, we won't damage the world.

Stupid questions like this can't be asked unless there are fools to ask or answer them. — 180 Proof

Be nice. He's a new guy.

Thanks for the advice. I have never participated in this sort of thing before and that is compounded by the fact that i am virtually computer illiterate. I appreciate the help. — Steve Leard

More advice. I assume this is directed at me, but I'm not sure. You can make it clearer in two ways:

[1] Make your response by clicking on the "reply" arrow next to the time stamp at the bottom of the post. That will tag your reply as a response to that person.

[2] Better yet, highlight the text you want to quote. A little black "quote" tag should show up. Click on that and the text in quotes with an attribution will be copied down to the reply you are writing. If you haven't opened a reply yet, it will open one. This is what I have done at the top of this post.

There are a bunch more tricks that will make posting easier and more effective. Try some of the tags at the top of the post you are writing. That's for formatting text and attaching images or videos to the post.

took the opportunity to visit the zoo — Steve Leard

I do hate zoos.

What if it is ever determined that animals are sentient creatures and possess that slippery thing we humans think of as the soul? — Steve Leard

As @tim wood indicated, scientists believe that a diverse set of animals may be self-aware e.g. crows, dolphins, octopi, and chimpanzees. Does that mean they have a soul? That's not the way I think of it. I won't eat any of those animals. As for other animals - scientists are working on growing meat directly from cells. Apparently they've gotten to the point where they can do it. Now they're working on taste, texture, and economics.

I suggest you change the name of your thread to make it clearer what it is talking about. I would think a lot of people would be interested in this subject. I'm surprised the moderators haven't talked to you about it yet. They don't like vague titles.

I agree that the context of heaven and earth is important. — Valentinus

I'm working on the next verse now. When I'm done with that I'll do a post on heaven and earth so we can talk about it.

The Tao is one but not a thing — Possibility

Yes. The thing that is a thing is not the eternal Thing.

And the TTC is like a self-diagnostic program that can be run on any integrated structure of relations to help refine its operation in relation to the Tao, regardless of the level of awareness, connection or collaboration. — Possibility

I have no trouble with that description, as long as it doesn't mean that the TTC is all things to all people. I think Lao Tzu wrote it with specific things in mind. I've said this before - The Tao is not a thing, it is an experience. Lao Tzu is leading us to experience the Tao. Maybe the path will be different for different people.

ThusSpakeSagaxa. — Amity

Is this a friend of yours? I couldn't find her on the web.

Whatever the name, she is Heaven Scent and the message good :halo: — Amity

So, you're saying she smells nice?

I read the NYT article. Then fiddling around looking up the author of the review, I came across one of his books, "Quantum Mechanics and Experience," in a downloadable form. Thought you might be interested

http://www.rivercitymalone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/David-Albert-Quantum-Mechanics-Experience-1992.pdf

there is no effective treatment for psychopathic personalities. — Bitter Crank

Elect them president.

Nevertheless, I also grudgingly admit that the OP has a point - the 'big bang theory' (an awful name, by the way) has many vast anomalies. And it's impossible to deny that it seems to converge with the idea of 'creation ex nihilo'. It has often been resisted by scientists because of this very fact. — Wayfarer

I think I'm well aware of the limits of science. Even so, within those limits, and discounting the arrogance and narrow-minded of many scientists, it works pretty well.

As for creation from nothing, I remember getting in an argument with @apokrisis about virtual particles arising in the quantum vacuum. I said - Isn't that creation from nothing. He said - If it creates something, it's not nothing.

I prayed to God for a solution to the confusion. He sent me a sage in shining armour who spake thus: — Amity

Whose commentary is this?

The nameless Tao is the beginning of Heaven and earth. — Amity

What the commentator has written is similar to the other translators and commentaries. What are your thoughts about it?

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.

All perspectives count...for their potential value...
Does that sound about right ? — Amity

Yes, of course. But then, some interpretations are not just ambiguous, they're wrong. More likely - that I'm not understanding what Lao Tzu and/or the interpreter are trying to say. The TTC is ambiguous, but it's not loosey-goosey or new age. I'm sure that's not what you meant to say.

I don't see it as a problem that meanings or use of a word changes in different verses depending on what subject is being addressed. Being and Non-Being can describe different states of affairs. — Amity

I got confused. I thought "What does this have to do with the five sounds?" Then I realized it comes from the previous verse.

There certainly is a lot of ambiguity in what Lao Tzu writes. "Being" and "non-being" are among the most important concepts in the TTC. The two possible different uses we are talking about are really different. There may come a time when I accept things are as you've said. I'm a pretty lazy person and I tend to move along if I can't figure things out right away. That being said, I've found that, if I give up digging too soon, I miss important things. I have a feeling that may be happening here.

When we assess the value or quality of anything e.g. the book, the TTC, we don't just look at the primary objective properties or qualities of it ( the cover, presentation ), we look at the secondary qualities, the subjective ( the reading, the meaning, the subjective interpretations). — Amity

As I said, if I give up digging too soon and just assume it's just one of those ancient inscrutable Chinesey things, I am likely to miss something important.

The Tao, for me, IS the diverse quality of the world as a relational whole, inclusive of wu. — Possibility

That's where I keep coming up against a wall. The Tao is completely not diverse. It is all one no-thing. The 10,000 things are diverse. You know, 10,000 and all.

Chen and Wang Pi seem to relate to the text as an ethical position, as if it’s telling the reader how they should behave, what is good and what is bad. This is common practice in relation to ancient metaphysical texts, but I think it’s a mistake to assume that either the text or its author has that kind of authority over us (and I think Lao Tzu makes a disclaimer to this effect in the second verse). — Possibility

The TTC clearly intends to provide guidance to rulers about how to lead their country. I don't really see that as an ethical issue, more of a how-to. I wonder if maybe that tone is an artifact of translation from ancient Chinese into English.

..I disagree with the isolated message ‘that humans should be content with the simple pleasures of life’ - I think this is a misunderstanding. Having said that, I do think that contentment with simple pleasures has merit in relation to certain situations, but it cannot stand alone as an instruction for a ‘good’ life. — Possibility

I don't think that is a misunderstanding by either you or Lao Tzu. I think you just disagree with him. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm trying to understand what Lao Tzu is saying. Once I've got that, I can decide whether it's something that works for me.

he terms ‘being’ and ‘non-being’ refer to a particular level of awareness, which is often associated with human consciousness. The terms ‘substance’ and ‘lack’ I used in relation to the previous verse because it referred to a different level of awareness - a tangible, observable relation to the world. — Possibility

I agree with the first sentence. I still don't get your usage of "substance" and "lack." It seems like it trivializes something profound. The most profound thing in a profound book.

The difference between ‘the 10,000 things’ and ‘the Tao’ is the same idea again at a more complex level of awareness - but at some point we have to accept that it’s the relation we’re referring to, not two different ‘things’. ‘The 10,000 things’ refers to, but is not, the Tao. And ‘the Tao’ refers to, but is not, the Tao. They’re relative aspects of one absolute. — Possibility

In agreement with this, here is text from Derek Lin's translation of Verse 1:

Thus, constantly free of desire
One observes its wonders
Constantly filled with desire
One observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders

Not necessarily. Imagine two dots drawn on a balloon, that is then inflated. The dots move apart exponentially as the angle from the radius increases. — counterpunch

I agree. As I wrote, I believe it, but it seems like a cheat. God may not play dice, but he cheats at cards.

But anyway, I linked to the wrong page, my bad. :yikes: — Wayfarer

But I liked the page you linked to. It gave me a chance to feel all smart and superior.

Here's a quote from the website you linked:

Classic quantum mechanics seems to exhibit some of the characteristics that Immanuel Kant described about the relation between phenomenal reality in space and time and things-in-themselves.

Kant's things-in-themselves have been interpreted as analogous to the Tao as described by Lao Tzu. That seems like a reasonable interpretation to me, keeping in mind I have not read a lot of Kant. The concept of the Tao is a metaphysical, not a physical, concept. Quantum mechanics is a physical concept. Any similarity between them is metaphorical. It's a trap many people have fallen into. One of the most prominent is Fritjof Kapra in "The Tao of Physics," which is a bunch of baloney.

Or did I misunderstand your point.

Neoliberalism started as an ideological reaction to the regulated, pro-labor environment created by this set of values. It had little influence until the late 70s when stagflation seemed to be opening the door to an increased presence of socialism. — frank

Thanks for the information.