As you say, wu wei is spontaneous and natural. But it's not random. There is no thought of avoiding recognition or credit, only of acting without consideration of them. Wu wei is something very simple. You're just doing things without trying to do them. — T Clark

I’m only saying that it is seen as spontaneous and natural. I agree that it’s not random to the one acting, but I think it can be viewed as random action by observers unaware of intention (or unwilling to attribute it). It’s more that actions are happening without anyone perceived as intending to do those actions specifically. I think that wu wei is about awareness of, connection to and collaboration with qualitative potentiality in the world beyond intentional acts, as a way of relating to the Tao.

I'm more intrigued by T Clark and Wayfarer discussing that which can't be discussed. — Tom Storm

Take a look at the blog post I found. I don't necessarily agree with all the particulars but it makes a crucial distinction between 'existence' and 'reality' (which came out of @T Clark's ruminations on whether the Tao exists).

The '10,000 things' is an allegorical way of referring to what I describe as 'the phenomenal domain'. 'Phenomena' are 'what appears', so in a sense, 'the phenomenal domain' is also 'the sensory domain'. That is summarily described as 'the 10,000 things' where '10,000' simply signifies 'a very large number'.

In Greek philosophy, the distinction was made between phenomena and the realm of forms, or between the One and the Many, or, ultimately, between reality and appearance, where 'phenomena' were 'appearance'. Greek philosophy is not the same as Taoism but again there's a parallel or analogy: 'the nameless' as distinct from the 'phenomenal' corresponds to the 'reality and appearance' distinction. Although in Taoism, there is the non-dual understanding of 'not the same, but also not different', which is the meaning of the line in V1 - 'These two emerge together but differ in name'. (I think this is a pointing out of the limits of logic; Taoist thought is very different to Aristotelian in this respect. Non-dualist philosophies generally reject the idea of an absolute distinction between appearance and reality so tend to subvert the rigid categorisation that you find in Aristotelian logic.)

The crucial point is, Tao is a non-conceptual wisdom. This means that 'the sage', by 'conforming to the Tao' realises his/her identity with it, 'becomes the way' or is a 'true man of the way', and so on. (Again there are parallels with Stoicism, where 'the sage' is 'one who is in conformity with the Logos'¹.)

Modern people, meanwhile, tend to measure everything against 'the phenomenal domain' and our conceptual maps of it. Of course this is fantastically powerful with respect to navigating that domain - but the 'nameless' is, by definition, not on our maps, so to speak. That's why Taoism and other Eastern disciplines are much more than simply verbal - they're pointing to a different way-of-being (which is why it is not amenable to 'discursive reason' i.e. discussion). Hence the practices of Tai Chi, meditation, and general spiritual culture (sadhana) which aims at a reconfiguration of cognition (called 'metanoia', in Greek philosophy).

I'm hoping this kind of compliments @Possibility's post above, albeit my background is more from comparative religion rather than psychology per se, but in my view it's right on the mark.

--------

1. See paragraph three in this entry.

Non-dualist philosophies generally reject the idea of an absolute distinction between appearance and reality so tend to subvert the rigid categorisation that you find in Aristotelian logic.) — Wayfarer

Thank you. Yes, I think this is a key point for me.

Modern people, meanwhile, tend to measure everything against 'the phenomenal domain' and our conceptual maps of it. Of course this is fantastically powerful with respect to navigating that domain - but the 'nameless' is, by definition, not on our maps, so to speak. That's why Taoism and other Eastern disciplines are much more than simply verbal - they're pointing to a different way-of-being (which is why it is not amenable to 'discursive reason' i.e. discussion). Hence the practices of Tai Chi, meditation, and general spiritual culture (sadhana) which aims at a reconfiguration of cognition (called 'metanoia', in Greek philosophy). — Wayfarer

I'm not sure I can even find a way to process this, it seems so... ineffable... I can only put it like this: I understand what it's not, but I don't understand what it is not, is...

Non-dualism is one thing... effortless action or not doing is something I need to apprehend in place to understand. I am not asking for a diagram or for someone to step it out, I guess I'm wanting to experience it.

In the case of Lincoln, I think of him as a strategic and super crafty political operator, so I am not sure Wu Wei fits my model of him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

I'm not sure I can even find a way to process this, it seems so... ineffable... I can only put it like this: I understand what it's not, but I don't understand what it is not, is...

Non-dualism is one thing... effortless action or not doing is something I need to apprehend in place to understand. I am not asking for a diagram or for someone to step it out, I guess I'm wanting to experience it.

In the case of Lincoln, I think of him as a strategic and super crafty political operator, so I am not sure Wu Wei fits my model of him. — Tom Storm

It IS ineffable - the first verse in the TTC does away with any illusion that the Tao is otherwise. The challenge is to be content with understanding without needing to make true statements about it, as justification or proof to others that you do understand.

FWIW, I agree that, from a certain perspective of his motivations, Lincoln is not an example of how to act without acting - quite the opposite. He is, however, still an example of the ambiguity or difficulty in providing such an example, as well as the problem that occurs when we do act without acting: activists, politicians and celebrities, all well versed in the art of being seen to be acting, assume credit for the progress achieved by wu wei. I think a significant aspect of ascribing to the practise of wu wei is to be okay with that.

I think @T Clark’s approach to wu wei is a little different to mine - he seems to be looking at it from a position of self-reflection, either during or after the act. When we act, it’s not always consciously intended, but we’re still responsible for those actions and their consequences, intended or not - sometimes more so than when we act in accordance with logical process or rational thought. While I think I follow where he’s coming form, my problem with this approach is that this type of action that bypasses thinking is, in my view, determined by affect, so I’m not convinced this reflects Lao Tzu’s understanding of wu wei.

Effortless action or not-doing is similar but not identical to wu wei, and I think T Clark and I agree more readily here. Not-doing I think corresponds to the phrase ‘let it be’. It’s about trusting the dynamic of existence, instead of trying to wrest control over everything that happens.

The way I see it, a masterful leader realises potential by structuring or facilitating collaborative achievement (wu wei), and also recognises his own limitations while trusting in the capacity of others to act (not-doing); rather than micro-managing his staff or issuing top-down directives for every action, and assuming all the credit.

If the population is hungry is due to the Prince devours excessive sums.
If the population is reluctant is due to the Prince acts too.
If the population exposes themselves to the death is due to they love too much the life.
The one who doesn’t make anything to live, is more savant than the one who is concerned to live.

Verse 75.

Not-doing I think corresponds to the phrase ‘let it be’. It’s about trusting the dynamic of existence, instead of trying to wrest control over everything that happens. — Possibility

It's beginning to sound like that Kenny Rogers song, The Gambler

You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away

This is too deliberate but you may know what I'm saying...

When we act, it’s not always consciously intended, but we’re still responsible for those actions and their consequences, intended or not - sometimes more so than when we act in accordance with logical process or rational thought — Possibility

What do you mean here - 'more so' in what sense?

activists, politicians and celebrities, all well versed in the art of being seen to be acting, assume credit for the progress achieved by wu wei. I think a significant aspect of ascribing to the practise of wu wei is to be okay with that. — Possibility

Do you mean that things change and you can assume credit for that change by being present (assuming the change is in the service the cause)? Riding the energies of Que Sera, Sera. I've gone from Kenny Rogers to Doris Day... sorry.

It's beginning to sound like that Kenny Rogers song, The Gambler

You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away

This is too deliberate but you may know what I'm saying... — Tom Storm

:lol: something like that!

What do you mean here - 'more so' in what sense? — Tom Storm

@T Clark talks in particular about feeling ‘more me’ when he writes freely without conscious deliberation. There is a sense that he is more in touch with his notion of ‘self’ in these moments. From this perspective, it seems that we can detach the ‘self’ from logical processing more easily than from sub-conscious action. It does depend on how one perceives the ‘self’, though.

Do you mean that things change and you can assume credit for that change by being present (assuming the change is in the service the cause)? Riding the energies of Que Sera, Sera. I've gone from Kenny Rogers to Doris Day... sorry. — Tom Storm

No - although I’m intrigued by this interpretation. Someone well-versed in being seen to act may carefully orchestrate an association between visible action and visible outcome, like the straw that broke the camel’s back. Or a high profile may attract over-inflated attention for an individual meagre effort within the larger momentum of a cause. Wu wei is to put in effort without fanfare, often while others are celebrated as activists and catalysts for change, or an event is seen as a natural or inevitable progression, unrelated to our efforts, or we’re criticised for not doing enough. If we’re not okay with this lack of recognition, wu wei doesn’t happen. If we are okay with it, wu wei is invisible. Therein lies the difficulty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found this extremely interesting and intriguingly phrased. Thank you.

activists, politicians and celebrities, all well versed in the art of being seen to be acting, assume credit for the progress achieved by wu wei. I think a significant aspect of ascribing to the practise of wu wei is to be okay with that.
— Possibility

Do you mean that things change and you can assume credit for that change by being present (assuming the change is in the service the cause)? Riding the energies of Que Sera, Sera. I've gone from Kenny Rogers to Doris Day... sorry. — Tom Storm

This thread is such a joy to read, even though I find it difficult to follow some of the terms and interpretations. There is a wonderful, knowledgeable and questioning interaction.
And never, ever apologise for Doris Day...I think she is wei wei underestimated :smile:

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

What the heck is wu wei really? Last I checked it means something along the lines of "doing without doing" but nec caput nec pedes as far as I'm concerned. — TheMadFool

Where did you check ?
Have you read the wiki article on it. All will become clear. Hah !
At least it isn't in Latin :scream:

What the heck is wu wei really? — TheMadFool

Wu wei is one of the most important aspects of Taoism. It has been extensively discussed in previous posts in this thread. You should go back and check.

I'm hoping this kind of compliments Possibility's post above, albeit my background is more from comparative religion rather than psychology per se, but in my view it's right on the mark. — Wayfarer

This is a really helpful post.

Non-dualism is one thing... effortless action or not doing is something I need to apprehend in place to understand. I am not asking for a diagram or for someone to step it out, I guess I'm wanting to experience it. — Tom Storm

What helps me is to focus on the experience of being motivated, acting. In an earlier post I described how it feels to me - like a spring bubbling up from underground, the part of me that is hidden from myself. I can see from this discussion this way of seeing things is not helpful to a lot of people, but I think that really is the point of Taoism. It's the wordless experience that's at the heart of everything.

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

First, as I've noted, I have not spent much time with Buddhism. I think the dichotomy between the illusion and reality in Buddhism is analogous to that between the 10,000 things and the Tao. No need to get into a long discussion about this. I don't have much ammunition to defend this position.

I'm not as certain about this as I'd like to be but "...awareness of internal experience..." is a part of Western philosophy as well — TheMadFool

Agreed. I discussed this earlier - many people say that Kant's noumenon is analogous to the Tao. I've also read that Schopenhauer read texts from China and was influenced by them. From what I've seen, these references to internal experience are an afterthought, a sidebar, to the real story. In Taoism, they are at the heart.

This was probably because logic as it existed back then during the times of the Buddha and Lao Tzu could comfortably handle the ideas of Buddhism and Taoism — TheMadFool

It is my understanding that study of logic was extensive under Confucianism and other earlier philosophies. I don't know how it compares to western logic.

In addition, Western philosophy has science as an important collaborator as the latter has constructed a library of empirical knowledge which can't be ignored or, more accurately, must be given due consideration when philosophizing about anything, the mind/the self included. — TheMadFool

This isn't a direct response to what you've written, but I find that the Taoist view of reality is really helpful in my understanding of science. I think the scientific, western view of reality is misleading scientifically. That's a long story.

Effortless action or not-doing is similar but not identical to wu wei, and I think T Clark and I agree more readily here. Not-doing I think corresponds to the phrase ‘let it be’. It’s about trusting the dynamic of existence, instead of trying to wrest control over everything that happens. — Possibility

As we've discussed before, I think this is a misleading interpretation of wu wei. To me, it doesn't have much to do with avoiding fame and fortune, only with not taking those factors into account when you act. This is from Chen's translation of Verse 63 - "The Master never reaches for the great; thus she achieves greatness."

When we act, it’s not always consciously intended, but we’re still responsible for those actions and their consequences, intended or not - sometimes more so than when we act in accordance with logical process or rational thought. — Possibility

Your perspective on the TTC, in particular the differences between mine and yours, has been really interesting and helpful.

What you've written above sounds to me like we wei is the same as going with your gut feeling. It's not that at all. And, yes, clearly, we are just as responsible for our actions as we are with our more familiar way of acting. Wu wei is not irrational, it's non-rational. Most of the day to day things we do we do without reflection. That doesn't mean those actions are somehow less reliable or that they don't take what we know about a situation into account.

the problem that occurs when we do act without acting: activists, politicians and celebrities, all well versed in the art of being seen to be acting, assume credit for the progress achieved by wu wei. — Possibility

Agreed.

It's beginning to sound like that Kenny Rogers song, The Gambler

You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away — Tom Storm

As they say, three chords and the Tao.

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

Just think of the Tao as the Force. Here is Obi Wan Kenobe teaching Luke to use wu wei the Force.

As we've discussed before, I think this is a misleading interpretation of wu wei. To me, it doesn't have much to do with avoiding fame and fortune, only with not taking those factors into account when you act. This is from Chen's translation of Verse 63 - "The Master never reaches for the great; thus she achieves greatness." — T Clark

I think you might be misinterpreting me here - I’m not saying to practise wu wei is to avoid fame and fortune - I’m saying in a modern, Western context ‘greatness’ suggests fame and fortune, but I think this aspect of greatness is more likely to elude those who practise wu wei particularly in a modern, Western setting.

You said yourself that Lao Tzu’s audience were scholars and bureaucrats - I’m not sure that fame and fortune were their idea of achieving ‘greatness’ - at least not in the sense we experience it now, as separate from achievement. I understand greatness here to be more associated with an internal sense of mastery and control, not an external appearance of autonomy and influence such as fame and fortune - especially in a feudal system, where the Master is commonly born into fame and fortune, and need not seek it out.

What you've written above sounds to me like we wei is the same as going with your gut feeling. It's not that at all. And, yes, clearly, we are just as responsible for our actions as we are with our more familiar way of acting. Wu wei is not irrational, it's non-rational. Most of the day to day things we do we do without reflection. That doesn't mean those actions are somehow less reliable or that they don't take what we know about a situation into account. — T Clark

Well, I don’t see it as gut feeling - that still implies conscious intention, and I think you’ve been clear about its absence here in your interpretation. I agree that non-rational is more accurate than irrational, and I also agree that action without reflection still takes what we know into account. I don’t think I suggested otherwise with what I wrote.

It is, however, action determined by affect - without reflection, there is no opportunity to explore the situation free from affect at any point. This runs counter to earlier verses in the TTC that suggest a clearer understanding of the Tao is achieved when we are free from desire (affect). Why would Lao Tzu encourage action that can never be determined free from desire?

"two" opposing forces, with the interaction being a process of mutual chaotic cancellation and thus arriving at an ordered equilibrium — TheMadFool

Why would it be 'a process of mutual chaotic cancellation' ?
I agree that a sense of balance might be the outcome of e.g. drawing away from the 'black' but the 'white' doesn't necessarily cancel the black out, or v.v.
It might simply be a merging. Shades of grey, if that doesn't sound too foggy...

Have you ever experienced a moment when you have felt 'at one' with the world. You felt at peace.
I have and wanted to capture that essence in a bottle so I could take it out and sniff later.
To regain a sense of balance. Most of the time, I swing about...if you know what I mean...

I think the same thing occurs when, as Mitchell writes, dancers or sportsmen enter the zone. There is no conscious thought, there is effortless movement. Non-action.
However, to reach that point takes action. Practice. With a view to being the best you can be.

I do see this as being similar to Stoicism, as I think @Wayfarer pointed out.
It's about leading, or trying to lead, a life of harmony. Where we control our emotions to an extent but don't deny them.

Marcus Aurelius comes to mind. He said something like you have power over your mind not external events. Also, your wellbeing is tied up with the quality of your thoughts.

So, there is action and non-action. Knowing when you can, or should act, and knowing when best to let it go... The Serenity Prayer outlines this.

I haven't yet contributed to any interpretation of the verses because I just don't know...
Others do. Or think they do. Or simply want to share their thoughts.
I love this.
Looking forward to reading and understanding more.

I understand greatness here to be more associated with an internal sense of mastery and control, not an external appearance of autonomy and influence such as fame and fortune - — Possibility

I understand it this way too. As per Marcus Aurelius...mentioned above.
There's a comparison here:
https://medium.com/interfaith-now/universal-ideas-in-stoicism-taoism-pantheism-19609c55b38d

I think you might be misinterpreting me here - I’m not saying to practise wu wei is to avoid fame and fortune - I’m saying in a modern, Western context ‘greatness’ suggests fame and fortune, but I think this aspect of greatness is more likely to elude those who practise wu wei particularly in a modern, Western setting. — Possibility

Well, I don’t see it as gut feeling - that still implies conscious intention, and I think you’ve been clear about its absence here in your interpretation. I agree that non-rational is more accurate than irrational, and I also agree that action without reflection still takes what we know into account. I don’t think I suggested otherwise with what I wrote. — Possibility

I've enjoyed this back and forth. I feel like I have a pretty good understanding of where you are coming from. I'm going to try to practice non-action from now on when it comes to our differences in viewpoint.

This runs counter to earlier verses in the TTC that suggest a clearer understanding of the Tao is achieved when we are free from desire (affect). Why would Lao Tzu encourage action that can never be determined free from desire? — Possibility

There's a lot of stuff that seems contradictory in the TTC.

Have you ever experienced a moment when you have felt 'at one' with the world. You felt at peace.
I have and wanted to capture that essence in a bottle so I could take it out and sniff later.
To regain a sense of balance. Most of the time, I swing about...if you know what I mean... — Amity

This is a scene from Billy Elliot, a wonderful movie. It comes after his audition:

"What does it feel like...when you're dancing ?"

You can see their disappointment when he struggles and says "Dunno..'

So glad he found the words to relay that sense of 'What does it feel like...'

"I sort of disappear...I have this fire in my body...like a bird...like electricity.
Yeah, like electricity..."

Phenomenal.

There's a lot of stuff that seems contradictory in the TTC. — T Clark

Granted - it’s deliberately so. But I’ve found that when we adjust for affect, that contradiction achieves a dynamic balance, like yin and yang. I don’t see that in this case, hence my skepticism.

I agree that we can achieve a sense of oneness with the Tao through meditative practices that effectively ‘disconnect’ the mental processes from our actions - allowing us to get out of our own way. This usually requires submitting to a teacher and/or enforced process, which is where Western philosophers struggle with trust issues, and Taoism and Zen Buddhism can unfortunately be prone to corruption or misinterpretation.

I have a rather ambitious theory that this forced ‘disconnect’ is unnecessary - that we can strive to understand the mental processes in relation to our actions and vice versa, and develop a scientifically sound methodology that enables us to consciously align our conceptual and sensory realities, rendering oneness with the Tao an effortlessly intellect-driven process. For me, the key to that is affect.

Verse 10

I skipped Verses 5 through 9 and went straight to Verse 10. If you want to discuss any of the verses I skipped, please go ahead. I’m going to try to use both Mitchell’s and Chen’s verses in this discussion. I think Mitchell has oversimplified it by leaving out too much of the original language. Chen, on the other hand, can be pretty obscure. Chen’s text for this verse is italicized. Mitchell’s is bolded.

In bringing your spiritual (ying) and bodily (p'o) souls to embrace the One,
Can (neng) you never depart (li) from it?

Can you coax your mind from its wandering
and keep to the original oneness?

I don’t know what the “spiritual and bodily souls” are. This is the only place in either translation where “soul” is used. Does “embracing the One” mean experiencing the Tao? What part of us experiences the Tao? Self? Heart? Mind? Probably not mind.

In concentrating your breath to attain softness,
Can you be like an infant (ying erh)?

Can you let your body become
supple as a newborn child's?

I’m not sure what to say about this couplet. Maybe it’s another example of the undertone in the TTC of emptying, releasing, shrinking, weakening, etc. that I mentioned in my thoughts on Verse 3.

In cleansing your mirror (lan) of the dark (hsüan),
Can you make it spotless?

Can you cleanse your inner vision
until you see nothing but the light?

Not sure what to say about his either. Not many of the other references to “light” in these versions of the TTC are really relevant. Here’s a stanza from Mitchell’s Verse 52:

"Seeing into darkness is clarity.
Knowing how to yield is strength.
Use your own light
and return to the source of light.
This is called practicing eternity."

“Source of light” seems to mean the Tao, but darkness is sometimes used to describe it too. Maybe it’s as simple as “seeing the light,” i.e. understanding. Maybe, as Mitchell quotes in Verse 52, it’s more about clarity than light. Seeing things as they really are.

In opening and closing heaven's gate (t'ien men),
Can you be the female (tz'u)?

Can you love people and lead them
without imposing your will?

These two translations are really different. I checked to make sure I didn’t get them mixed up. I’ll talk about the Chen version. It matches other translations better than Mitchell. The subject of female and male comes up often in the TTC and other sources. It’s not clear if female and male are supposed to be the same thing as yin and yang. Here is a discussion of that line from a well-known commentary written by Heshang Gong about 300 years after the TTC -

“Those who govern the body should be like a female (bird on
its nest eggs) – peaceful, still, soft, and gentle. Those who
govern the nation should adapt to changes and unite (with
the people), rather than sing songs (of conquest and try to
appear dominant like the male bird).”

In being enlightened (ming) and comprehending all,
Can you do it without knowledge?

Can you step back from you own mind
and thus understand all things?

This is a theme that comes up a few times in the TTC. This is from Chen, Verse 3:

"Always he keeps his people in no-knowledge and no-desire,
Such that he who knows dares not act.
Act by no-action (wu-wei),
Then, nothing is not in order."

Hey, wait a minute, I’ve been saying that no-action and wu wei are different!! Anyway, knowledge and desire go together.

In loving the people and governing the state,
Can you practice non-action?

Can you deal with the most vital matters
by letting events take their course?

Again with the non-action. We’ve already said a lot about this.

To give birth, to nurture,
To give birth yet not to claim possession (yu),
To act (wei) yet not to hold on to,
To grow (chang) yet not to lord over (tsai),
This is called the dark virtue (yüan te).

Giving birth and nourishing,
having without possessing,
acting with no expectations,
leading and not trying to control:
this is the supreme virtue.

To give birth and nurture – To create? To act? To lead? To support?
To give birth yet not claim possession – Not taking credit. Not grasping for acclaim.
To act yet not to hold on to – Act and then go on without looking back. No regrets. No pride.
To grow yet not to lord over – To grow as in to grow a plant? Don’t overwater?
This is called the dark virtue – “Dark” gets used a lot. Sometimes it’s good. Sometimes not. This is worth looking in to more. Here is a stanza from an alternate translation of Verse 1 by Chen:

"By the Everlasting (ch'ang) Being (yu),
We desire (yü) to observe the manifestations (chiao).
These two issue from the same origin,
Though named differently.
Both are called the dark (hsüan).
Dark and even darker,
The door to all hidden mysteries (miao)."

I have a rather ambitious theory that this forced ‘disconnect’ is unnecessary - that we can strive to understand the mental processes in relation to our actions and vice versa, and develop a scientifically sound methodology that enables us to consciously align our conceptual and sensory realities, rendering oneness with the Tao an effortlessly intellect-driven process. For me, the key to that is affect. — Possibility

As I've said, you and I see things differently. I'm satisfied of three things 1) I understand your viewpoint better than I did at the start. 2) Although we're think differently about this, we can still have useful discussions. You're really articulate about your views. 3) There's no need to, and it's unlikely we'd be able to, get to a point where we fully agree.

That's why Taoism and other Eastern disciplines are much more than simply verbal - they're pointing to a different way-of-being (which is why it is not amenable to 'discursive reason' i.e. discussion). Hence the practices of Tai Chi, meditation, and general spiritual culture (sadhana) which aims at a reconfiguration of cognition (called 'metanoia', in Greek philosophy). — Wayfarer

I recognize the emphasis on a way of being that is beyond "discursive reason" is central to what is happening in this book. But the work also provided the framework for empirical investigations and attempts to understand health and disease as processes. The logic of rejuvenation is anchored to a view of why anything is alive. What is experienced by an individual organism is the result of a condition happening to all organisms. It is exquisitely "materialistic" in many ways.