I am not qualified to comment on the intricacies of Taoist principles — Wayfarer

Pardon me, but I think that's rather disingenuous, considering the erudition you have shown — Wayfarer

I kindly suggest that you imagine these two quotes as if both of them were directed to yourself, by yourself. Then you will understand that you are indeed qualified to comment on the intricacies of Taoist principles: just not to the degree that you would like to have. And that, is why I have affectionately called you a "lumpen idealist" elsewhere: Phenomenology pales in comparison to Taoism. The former may be called, jokingly, "lumpen idealism", but the latter, Taoism, is not lumpen in any sense of the term. Taoism is serious. That is its tone. It is one of the elements of its tone. And that is something that you, from what I've read in your comments, have "in spades", so to speak.

That being said, I am listening.

I see that Tao as being one of the seminal forms of expression of 'the unconditioned' - not actually a hard case to make, considering many of the passages that have been quoted already. But what, then, is 'the unconditioned'? It is an exceedingly hard concept to frame, because by its nature it exceeds the grasp of discursive reason. That's why 'the tao that can be named is not the real Tao'. So what is the real Tao? will be the next question. To which the answer cannot be given propositionally, as it were. It is embodied in the practice and culture of Taoism, the Way. It is a way of life, embedded in a distinct cultural form. One of course may find the Taoist texts edifying and they may provide valulable insights, and there is nothing the matter with that at all. But the essence of it is beyond discursive ideation. 'Man cannot know the truth', said Yeats 'but he can embody it.'

That's why 'the tao that can be named is not the real Tao'. So what is the real Tao? — Wayfarer

Hmmm...

... there is a working theory today, which you have told me that you know, and which you do not accept: OOO. From the POV of OOO, there is a "real Tao" and a "sensual Tao", because every Object manifests itself, so to speak, as if it were two objects: a real object and a sensual object. Perhaps Tao is not an object. Perhaps it is a Quality. If so, in OOO there is a distinction between "real qualities" and "sensual qualities". Whatever the case may be, the following can be said, perhaps:

1) "The tao that can be named" = the "sensual Tao", in OOO-Speak.
2) "is not" = is not identical to
3) "the real Tao" = the "real Tao", in OOO-Speak. You will never access it. No one will. Nothing, no other subject, and no other object, can access it. Why not? Because the essence of a real object is forever inaccessible to every other object, even at the level of knowledge, even at the level of inorganic causation. But this is not to say that OOO is right about Tao, or about other topics. I agree with OOO on some things, yet not in others. On this one, if this were truly what OOO would say, then I would disagree with OOO. But not because I am a Taoist, since I am not. I would disagree for other motives.

I'm not an admirer of object-oriented ontology, (which I suspect was a catchphrase swiped from information technology.)

That distinction it makes between real and sensual seems to me a form of the distinction between the manifest and scientific images - that there's the real object which science discerns, then how it appears to us on a sensory level. It's another version of the age-old 'appearance reality' divide. (I have an offsite essay called 'The Objective Stance' which I'm sure you wouldn't agree with.) I parse the distinction, if there is one, in a completely different way, but that would take us far afield of this topic, so let's leave it there for now.

That distinction it makes between real and sensual seems to me a form of the distinction between the manifest and scientific images — Wayfarer

Yes, this is what "transcendental nihilists" (I'm not accusing you of anything, BTW) usually reply to Object-Oriented Ontology. The usual retort is that to trace a distinction between the scientific image of the world versus the folk image of the world is to focus on images, instead of objects (and consequently, instead of people, and of individual human beings. To say nothing of Nature in general).

there's the real object which science discerns, then how it appears to us on a sensory level. — Wayfarer

Not quite, for OOO holds that this happens even at the level of inanimate causation, even in the absence of ontological subjects. Perhaps the example of a meteor striking the Moon is too harsh for the soft tone of this tranquile discussion, a more appropriate one in tone would be the ancient Medieval Arab example of a flame slowly burning a ball of cotton. The flame burns the cotton, but it does not know what the essence of cotton is. It consumes the cotton until the cotton no longer exists. Then the flame no longer exists. There is nothing. And the moral of this story, is that the flame never knew what the cotton was, and the cotton never knew what the flame was. Flame had quintessence, cotton had quintessence. Neither knew each other, even though they burned together, until they both ceased to be.

(edited for the sake of clarity - Arcane Sandwich)

there is a purpose in life, it's to find what your purpose is and be the best at it as your authentic, genuine self. — MrLiminal

The idea and application in our lives of "purpose" is made-up. If it serves one well, so be it. Often, however, it is distracting, misleading, even blinding or entrapping. I think "Taoism" (if there is such a unified, identifiable, thing), is pointing in a direction away from the conventional attachment to, even fixation with, purpose. Be an uncarved block, it suggests. Have no adherence to any purpose outside of sustaining life--as is the so called purpose of every other living organism. The rest, for humans, is a perpetual flow of stories we construct and project. Given that, "Taoism" suggests we be always free and ready to adapt to the narratives which flow in our direction, and surround us. One popular example is (extremely abridged here) the 'parable' of the aged and deformed tree--not suitable for lumber. Conventional think condemns it as useless and pathetic, Taoism recognizes it as an undisturbed place for shade...and so on. Another (also extremely abridged) is the parable of the man able to survive the rapids of a powerful river. He does so by allowing the flow to carry him, while adapting to it, rather than by trying to oppose or overcome it [with his own purpose/notions about the river and swimming].

that there's the real object which science discerns, then how it appears to us on a sensory level. — Wayfarer

Granted, certain animals may sense differently than humans. But the 'subjective' you are alluding to and discuss in your very interesting paper (offsite) applies to perception--as you say 'experience. The Narratives shaping us (as specifically human) and stored in our so called individual memories 'color' our sensation. That does not mean our sensations are subjective. If there were no Narratives coloring our experience, you and I might 'see' a red rose in exactly the same way. Of course, we would not be able to confirm that without creating and sharing a narrative about it. But that will in turn, bump the vision out of sensation and place it in perception/experience...and so on.

Taoism suggests we remain free and easy about our Narratives so that we can navigate through them without getting caught or trapped.

I think "Taoism" (if there is such a unified, identifiable, thing), is pointing in a direction away from the conventional attachment to, even fixation with, purpose. Be an uncarved block, it suggests. — ENOAH

Taoism suggests we remain free and easy about our Narratives so that we can navigate through them without getting caught or trapped. — ENOAH

Both your posts are good clear summaries of what Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu have to say. I'll steal it and use it when someone asks for a quick summary of the basics and a bit beyond the basics. I'll give you an attribution. I especially like your emphasis on narratives.

No need to attribute. Happy to contribute.

Indeed. Well said.

our so called individual memories — ENOAH

Forgive me, I became "lost at this point", so to speak. I sincerely believe (and I might be wrong) that memories are individual. You say "so called". And I ask: what can a memory be, if not individual? Are you perhaps suggesting that there are "collective" memories, so to speak?

Or perhaps an underlying, "unifying" memory?

Please help me understand this point, for it is very rare for me to encounter someone of your admirable intellect in my ordinary life, and I say that as one would when in recognition of a fact.

I used 'so-called' because, given I am not a brain scientist (etc) I wish to reserve the possibility that I am mistaken/open to tweaking needed for precision.

However, your secondary point, regarding [so called] collective memory, seems to have grasped tge point I was trying to make. A red rose is whatever it is to our organic senses. But our perception of red rose, as 21st C, humans able to converse in English, has been reshaped by our common narratives--eg. romance, beauty, thorny, fragrant, Shakespeare, English history and so on. Because of this collective memory, a red rose is not what it might have been to a prehistoric human animal. Try as we might, we cannot see it with our senses, unmediated by our shared Mind.

a red rose is not what it might have been to a prehistoric human animal. Try as we might, we cannot see it with our senses, unmediated by our shared Mind. — ENOAH

This theme is something similar to what Umberto Eco intended to portray in his novel The Name of the Rose. A very interesting book, but very difficult to follow at times. I remember when I learned Medieval Philosophy at the University, one of my Professors was obsessed with that novel, as in, she would talk about it almost every class, whenever she had to state her personal opinion on some Medieval philosophical thesis or whatnot. She was quite good, actually. She knew "Medieval stuff", you could say.

Do I think that she had an extra-ordinary memory, in some sense of the term? Hmmm... that is actually an excellent question, I think, because our "folk" idea of what memory actually is, has become somewhat "tarnished", if you will, by the "commonality" of our ordinary lives, if that makes any sense to anyone.

because our "folk" idea of what memory actually is, has become somewhat "tarnished", if you will, by the "commonality" of our ordinary lives, if that makes any sense to anyone. — Arcane Sandwich

Makes sense to me.
I should read Eco. Does the film do it justice? Thanks

Makes sense to me.
I should read Eco. Does the film do it justice? Thanks — ENOAH

Sure. Sean Connery wouldn't have acted in it otherwise (or at least I would hope not).

I'm really not that passionate about Eco myself. In fact, I am not passionate about any aspect of his theory. It just seems to me that there are more sophisticated semiologists in the world. And on the literary side of things, The Name of the Rose just sounds unappealingly "Europe-ish" to me. It's not "close enough to my heart", you could say. As far as Literature goes, I prefer the work of Macedonio Fernández and the work of J.R.R. Tolkien.