I’ve never liked this verse. It doesn’t make sense to me. — T Clark

The original symbol for zero, 0, came from the hole in the middle seat of a dhow, where the mast was put for the sail. It was by virtue of that hole, where nothing is, that the mast can be put, which makes it possible for the dhow to sail. That is very similar to what the verse you quoted says. I kinda get it intuitively.

But just as in the case of dancers and sportsmen, this wasn't always the case.
It took him years of learning and continual practice.
That is, conscious action before he could move beyond skill. Doing then not-doing. — Amity

Yes - the model you're taught when you study adult learning is that learners progress through four stages - unconscious incompetence (I don't know what that is') conscious incompetence ('I don't know how to do that'), conscious competence ('I can do that if I really try') unconscious competence - mastery or 'second nature' i.e. something that can be perfomed effortlessly. (Like watching a great pianist - they make it look easy.) Wu-wei is a form of mastery or 'second nature'.

that comparison site you linked is interesting. I copied this from the opening stanza, Goddard translation:

By patience the animal spirits can be disciplined.
By self-control one can unify the character.
By close attention to the will, compelling gentleness, one can become like a little child.
By purifying the subconscious desires one may be without fault.
In ruling his country, if the wise magistrate loves his people, he can avoid compulsion.

Not unlike the description of the philosopher-kings of Plato - disinterested rulers, having subdued their animal spirits.

Saying the emptiness of a pot is similar to the emptiness of the Tao. The Tao is not nothing, it is no-thing. — T Clark

This squares with a paradox of nothing I discovered about 6 months ago.

Definition: Nothing is not anything.

Question: Is nothing "something" that we can define?

Answer: Since nothing can't be "something" and if nothing is "something" that can be defined, then nothing is "something". Ergo, nothing can't be defined.

The paradox: the existing definition of nothing is self-contradictory.

Conclusion: Nothing is...(unnameable) the eternal Tao.

My understanding of the TTC and yours are so different, I don't think they have much in common. Maybe when I read the book you referenced I'll understand. — T Clark

It was just another way to look at it. That’s all. There are so many different translations of the TTC into English because of the relational and structural differences between alphanumerical and pictorial languages.

In pictorial languages, like Chinese characters, each stroke and each character has a flow or pattern of qualities, while the language system itself has a rigid, logical structure. In alphanumeric languages, like English, each stroke, each character and even each language employing those characters assumes its own logical structure, and each language system allows for flow or qualities only within OR between each structure. They’re two very different ways of thinking about the world.

But I won’t explore this approach further - there doesn’t seem to be much interest in it here...

Thoughts: sadly this is one of the most common tools or practices used by governors. When the people is ignorant it is easier to convince them with fake news. If it were possible probably they would remove all pillars of philosophy and thinking. Sometimes it looks like the State and government are enemies of knowledge. This is why it is impossible to find happiness. — javi2541997

There are interpreters of the TTC who see it as an authoritarian, Machiavellian handbook for rulers. Most people disagree with that, and I think I agree with them. China in 400 BCE was a very different place than here. The government Lao Tzu describes is paternalistic and definitely not democratic. It seems fruitless to apply today's standards.

It was just another way to look at it. That’s all. There are so many different translations of the TTC into English because of the relational and structural differences between alphanumerical and pictorial languages. — Possibility

But I won’t explore this approach further - there doesn’t seem to be much interest in it here... — Possibility

I have no problem with you discussing it here. It's just that the terminology is so unfamiliar, I don't know how to use it. I do plan to read the book you referenced. It's the kind of thing I'm interested in anyway.

The original symbol for zero, 0, came from the hole in the middle seat of a dhow, where the mast was put for the sail. It was by virtue of that hole, where nothing is, that the mast can be put, which makes it possible for the dhow to sail. That is very similar to what the verse you quoted says. I kinda get it intuitively. — Wayfarer

I think I get it too. It's just that the definitions of being and non-being used in this context don't seem the same as other verses. The ones used in this verse seem like weak tea, as the saying goes, when compared with those in Verse 1, for example. This is from one of Chen's alternate translation of that verse.

Therefore, by the Everlasting (ch'ang) Non-Being (wu),
We desire (yü) to observe (kuan) its hidden mystery (miao);
By the Everlasting (ch'ang) Being (yu),
We desire (yü) to observe the manifestations (chiao).

For me, that is one of the most powerful statements in the TTC.

The paradox: the existing definition of nothing is self-contradictory. — TheMadFool

I often think about this question - Can you get something from nothing. Answer - Sure, QM tells us that particles arise in the quantum vacuum continually. Response - Well, the vacuum state isn't really nothing.

I often think about this question - Can you get something from nothing. Answer - Sure, QM tells us that particles arise in the quantum vacuum continually. Response - Well, the vacuum state isn't really nothing. — T Clark

I'm quitting the discussion until I can think of something substantive but I'll leave you with a joke:

What's greater than god, more evil than the devil, the poor have it and the rich want it?

Answer: nothing!

To help me understand this, I replace 'being' with 'substance'. — Amity

I'm ok with that here, but just to be clear, I don't think the 10,000 things have to be substantial, i.e. material. I think love is one of the 10,000 things.

Our body as a container consisting of mere flesh and bones ( substance ) doesn't cut it.
To work, to be all we can be, we need our brain with mind, or spirit (non-substance).
To perceive, to think, to connect to others. To maintain the bodily functions together with the mind.
Some might be able to do this naturally, others need guidance. We are complex. — Amity

I'm ok with this too, but I don't see what it has to do with Verse 11.

I hope to be given feedback to this and my earlier post re the wei wu wei story. — Amity

I think you've seen that I'm pretty good at responding to others' posts. Generally, I try always to respond to posts that are addressed to me. I can't say I'm perfect, but I try. I respond to other posts if I think I have something worthwhile to contribute.

I have read the verse from the Chuang Tzu you quoted. I think it is a good example of wu wei.

I'm quitting the discussion until I can think of something substantive — TheMadFool

My plan is to continue with this thread whether or not people respond. I'm having a good time and it's really helping me clarify my understanding. We'll see how long I can keep it going. We're just getting started. The responses you've made so far are worthwhile. Drop in and sound off any time.

Thirty spokes share one hub to make a wheel.
Through its non-being (wu),
There is (yu) the use (yung) of the carriage.
Mold clay into a vessel (ch'i).
Through its non-being (wu),
There is (yu) the use (yung) of the vessel.
Cut out doors and windows to make a house.
Through its non-being (wu),
There is (yu) the use (yung) of the house.
Therefore in the being (yu-chih) of a thing,
There lies the benefit (li).
In the non-being (wu-chih) of a thing,
There lies its use (yun). — T Clark

I’ve never liked this verse. It doesn’t make sense to me. It seems like it’s changing the meaning of being and non-being. In the wheel, pot, or house, the non-being is created by being. In other uses we’ve seen, non-being creates being. Is this just a metaphor? A pun on “emptiness”. Saying the emptiness of a pot is similar to the emptiness of the Tao. The Tao is not nothing, it is no-thing. — T Clark

Wu refers to the idea of lack - its meaning hasn’t changed, only the level of relation to these ideas. Here, rather than a figurative or active lack of being, it is a tangible lack in relation to certain objects and their potential substance. Wu is a vital aspect of the Tao - what we ignore, isolate or exclude in our relation to the world, what is missing or removed, is an integral part of how we relate to the world on all levels of awareness. In Western thinking, we conceal this aspect at each level and focus only on the tangible substance, as if this lack doesn’t matter. But lack exists as a necessary aspect of even the most concrete or fully-formed reality.

I think Lao Tzu is making a distinction here between substantial value (benefit) and immaterial potentiality. Value is the capacity or ability that exists in what is; potentiality is the capacity or ability that exists in what is not - but can be, was before, or might have been. It is this relational structure to the world, between substance and its lack, that all action, dynamic, movement, change, creation and destruction derives from.

What does a hammer basically need to enable it to function or realise its purpose ?
'A hammer is a tool consisting of a weighted "head" fixed to a long handle that is swung to deliver an impact to a small area of an object.'
So, pretty much, simple substance. — Amity

Not really - a hammer can’t swing itself. It’s a vital piece of what makes the hammer a hammer that is missing from its existence. This aspect of its definition - ‘that is swung to deliver an impact’ - refers to wu: the lack that pertains to the hammer’s potentiality.

Wu refers to the idea of lack - its meaning hasn’t changed, only the level of relation to these ideas. Here, rather than a figurative or active lack of being, it is a tangible lack in relation to certain objects and their potential substance. Wu is a vital aspect of the Tao - what we ignore, isolate or exclude in our relation to the world, what is missing or removed, is an integral part of how we relate to the world on all levels of awareness. In Western thinking, we conceal this aspect at each level and focus only on the tangible substance, as if this lack doesn’t matter. But lack exists as a necessary aspect of even the most concrete or fully-formed reality. — Possibility

I agree with what you're saying, but the type of non-being you describe seems different to me than the non-being described elsewhere in the TTC. In those cases, such as Chen's alternative translation of Verse 1 which I showed in a previous post to Wayfarer, non-being is a property of the Tao. That non-being is the source of everything. The seem like entirely different things. Entirely different not-things.

I think Lao Tzu is making a distinction here between substantial value (benefit) and immaterial potentiality. Value is the capacity or ability that exists in what is; - is the capacity or ability that exists in what is not - but can be, was before, or might have been. It is this relational structure to the world, between substance and its lack, that all action, dynamic, movement, change, creation and destruction derives from. — Possibility

I don't understand the distinction you're making. Let's break this down. What is the use of a pitcher? I can use it to hold water because of it's enclosed emptiness, its non-being. Ok. Then what is the value of the pitcher? The benefit? How does it make my life better?

• It will increase my water storage capacity.
• If I put it on a shelf, my house will be more attractive.
• If I give it as a gift I can earn gratitude and appreciation
• If I sell it, I will have more money.

So, is it a have my cake and eat it thing?

Then what is the value of the pitcher? The benefit? How does it make my life better? — T Clark

I read Possibility's remark to mean the benefit is the direct utility of the result; The pitcher holds water. The wu permits it to be filled and emptied.

I read Possibility's remark to mean the benefit is the direct utility of the result; The pitcher holds water. The wu permits it to be filled and emptied. — Valentinus

Therefore in the being (yu-chih) of a thing,
There lies the benefit (li).
In the non-being (wu-chih) of a thing,
There lies its use (yun). — T Clark

Verse 11 makes the distinction between benefit and use. The benefit comes from being. The use comes from non-being. I don't understand it. That's what I'm trying to figure out.

The pitcher must exist for it to be a benefit to one. The utility that makes it beneficial is possible through the non-being. The wheel makes carriages exist and move. The non-being involved in the wheel is what makes the being of the carriage possible.

The pitcher must exist for it to be a benefit to one. The utility that makes it beneficial is possible through the non-being. The wheel makes carriages exist and move. The non-being involved in the wheel is what makes the being of the carriage possible. — Valentinus

I don't like that interpretation much, but I don't hate it. You may be on to something. I'll think about it some more.

Thanks.

Yes... learners progress through four stages - unconscious incompetence (I don't know what that is') conscious incompetence ('I don't know how to do that'), conscious competence ('I can do that if I really try') unconscious competence - mastery or 'second nature' i.e. something that can be performed effortlessly. (Like watching a great pianist - they make it look easy.) Wu-wei is a form of mastery or 'second nature'. — Wayfarer

Thanks for this. The comments I wrote after linking to the Cook Ding story took me some effort and time to compose. I should have made it clear that although it might be seen as a repetition of what I had posted before re dancers, it was more than that.

It included the idea of 'resistance'. Where there is no resistance, action is effortless. Where we meet resistance, or obstacles on the path, then action is deliberate. A different process is required before we can attain our objective. I mentioned keen observation, careful assessment and slow movement.
I think the quality of care is important.

As a learner at the 'conscious incompetence' stage, I need to understand the fundamentals before progress can be made. I appreciate any feedback, even - perhaps especially - if I get it wrong.
You learn by your mistakes. This thread has been helpful in so many ways.

I'm ok with that here, but just to be clear, I don't think the 10,000 things have to be substantial, i.e. material. I think love is one of the 10,000 things. — T Clark

Yes. I think I was wrong to use the word 'substance' as a replacement for 'being'. The term 'substance' can be misleading. It was just how I tried to get my head around it...
I agree that the things we encounter don't necessarily have to be physical. Again, the term 'being' can be misleading too.

I don't see what it has to do with Verse 11. — T Clark

OK. The part you took out was from my lengthier post in response to your:

I’ve never liked this verse. It doesn’t make sense to me. It seems like it’s changing the meaning of being and non-being. In the wheel, pot, or house, the non-being is created by being. In other uses we’ve seen, non-being creates being. Is this just a metaphor? A pun on “emptiness”. Saying the emptiness of a pot is similar to the emptiness of the Tao. The Tao is not nothing, it is no-thing.

I don’t get the being = benefit, non-being = use thing. Again – I would have thought that we use a hammer, one of the 10,000 things, part of being. How do we use the Tao? — T Clark

As a beginner, I should have realised that in dealing with my own limited understanding, I should steer clear of attempts to help.

I think you've seen that I'm pretty good at responding to others' posts. — T Clark

Yes.

I respond to other posts if I think I have something worthwhile to contribute. — T Clark

I have read the verse from the Chuang Tzu you quoted. I think it is a good example of wu wei. — T Clark

I not only quoted the story, I made additional comments see my post to @Wayfarer.
Thanks for your contribution :smile:

What does a hammer basically need to enable it to function or realise its purpose ?
'A hammer is a tool consisting of a weighted "head" fixed to a long handle that is swung to deliver an impact to a small area of an object.'
So, pretty much, simple substance.
— Amity

Not really - a hammer can’t swing itself. It’s a vital piece of what makes the hammer a hammer that is missing from its existence. This aspect of its definition - ‘that is swung to deliver an impact’ - refers to wu: the lack that pertains to the hammer’s potentiality. — Possibility

Yes. I had thought of the agency required to swing the hammer. Also, the space in which it moves and the energy used. I added the word' basically' in recognition of the fact that more was required.
However, I couldn't see how this was the missing 'wu'. I am grateful for your clear explanation.
It makes sense now. 'The lack that pertains to the hammer's potentiality'.
So, that's another step along the way in understanding. Way to go :cool:

But I won’t explore this approach further - there doesn’t seem to be much interest in it here... — Possibility

There is interest, indeed fascination, on my part. The comparison site you linked to was a great find.
I should have given feedback at the time, sorry, but I needed to understand the fundamentals first.

I used it to click on the Chinese characters and compare the three translations and that of Ivanhoe, Chapter ( Verse) 16.

What struck me was the use of the word 'evil' in the 3.
In Ivanhoe, it is 'wantonly produce misfortune'.
I eventually found the relevant Chinese characters which matched up.
They don't seem to talk of 'evil' as such but of 'terrible, fearful..'

I was reminded of Searle's Chinese Room argument. The characters on their own, as per the website anyway, present as a simple code. There is no meaning. They have to mean more than the 'click tip' suggests otherwise how could translators even begin to interpret.

It is not clear to me how helpful it is to click on the symbols to reach an understanding. Even someone whose first language is Chinese won't understand the text simply by knowing the language. Just as a native German speaker will not understand Hegel.

Anyway, as someone who loves languages and is intrigued by the various translations and interpretations, I have been following your explorations and approach with interest.
Sorry, I didn't give that feedback before. I am simply overwhelmed by all of this.

Looking forward to more discussion.

I think Lao Tzu is making a distinction here between substantial value (benefit) and immaterial potentiality. Value is the capacity or ability that exists in what is; potentiality is the capacity or ability that exists in what is not - but can be, was before, or might have been. It is this relational structure to the world, between substance and its lack, that all action, dynamic, movement, change, creation and destruction derives from. — Possibility

This articulate and clear explanation makes complete sense to me.
I might just have to print it out for later reference :cool:

I agree with what you're saying, but the type of non-being you describe seems different to me than the non-being described elsewhere in the TTC. In those cases, such as Chen's alternative translation of Verse 1 which I showed in a previous post to Wayfarer, non-being is a property of the Tao. That non-being is the source of everything. The seem like entirely different things. Entirely different not-things. — T Clark

It isn’t ‘non-being’ that Lao Tzu is referring to, though: it’s lack. What is translated as ‘non-being’ relates to this idea of lack, and so does this lack of substance described in verse 11. It is the relation between this idea of lack and the idea of existence that is the source of everything - that is the Tao.

I don't understand the distinction you're making. Let's break this down. What is the use of a pitcher? I can use it to hold water because of it's enclosed emptiness, its non-being. Ok. Then what is the value of the pitcher? The benefit? How does it make my life better?

It will increase my water storage capacity.
If I put it on a shelf, my house will be more attractive.
If I give it as a gift I can earn gratitude and appreciation
If I sell it, I will have more money.

So, is it a have my cake and eat it thing? — T Clark

You’re referring to different aspects of the pitcher’s potentiality, but all of these except the second one are uses: they can only be realised by action that has not yet happened, but more importantly cannot be realised in the substance of the pitcher itself - only in its lack.

The value of the pitcher is in our relation to its substance, the use of the pitcher is in our relation to its lack. Interestingly, if you put it on a shelf, would any value it has be attributed to your house, or to the pitcher?

The Tao is...

e pluribus unum

/eɪ ˌplʊərɪbʊs ˈjuːnʊm/

noun

out of many, one (the motto of the US).

The characters on their own, as per the website anyway, present as a simple code. There is no meaning. They have to mean more than the 'click tip' suggests otherwise how could translators even begin to interpret.

It is not clear to me how helpful it is to click on the symbols to reach an understanding. Even someone whose first language is Chinese won't understand the text simply by knowing the language. Just as a native German speaker will not understand Hegel.

Anyway, as someone who loves languages and is intrigued by the various translations and interpretations, I have been following your explorations and approach with interest.
Sorry, I didn't give that feedback before. I am simply overwhelmed by all of this.

Looking forward to more discussion. — Amity

The meaning of the characters is in our relation to their context. The idea is to always be aware of our own fluid position in relation to the text, within an overall logical structure of the language. English, on the other hand, assumes that our position in relation to the language is fixed, even though we know that’s not true.

What struck me was the use of the word 'evil' in the 3.
In Ivanhoe, it is 'wantonly produce misfortune'.
I eventually found the relevant Chinese characters which matched up.
They don't seem to talk of 'evil' as such but of 'terrible, fearful..' — Amity

Chinese characters don’t seem to presume a particular affect, only a particular quality. There is no sense of whether it is pleasant/unpleasant, nor any sense of energy or arousal inherent in the meaning of the characters. They simply present the idea in a particular logical relation to other ideas, and the reader then brings their own subjective relation (including affect) to that structure.

It included the idea of 'resistance'. Where there is no resistance, action is effortless. Where we meet resistance, or obstacles on the path, then action is deliberate. — Amity

To my reading, being sensitive to resistance leads to perception of what one is working upon. Some element of that is moving with careful attention:

'However, whenever I come to a complicated place, I size up the difficulties, tell myself to watch out and be careful, keep my eyes on what I'm doing, work very slowly, and move the knife with the greatest subtlety, until — flop! the whole thing comes apart like a clod of earth crumbling to the ground."

This being able to perceive seems to be related to a number of places in Dao De Jing where the follower of the way is described as "hesitant." This language is used in verse 15, for instance.

Another element of the butcher story that pertains to the being nonbeing distinction discussed here is that joints are the empty or undetermined parts of an animal. The butchers work is effortless because he never tries to cut in any other place.

English, on the other hand, assumes that our position in relation to the language is fixed, even though we know that’s not true. — Possibility

I don't understand this. Where is the assumption that our position is fixed ?

Chinese characters don’t seem to presume a particular affect, only a particular quality...They simply present the idea in a particular logical relation to other ideas, and the reader then brings their own subjective relation (including affect) to that structure. — Possibility

Not sure if I understand this either. However, I do note their sparse code-like nature compared to the longer and extravagant English translations.
Where does the logical relationship lie in between the characters or ideas. In the space ?
I don't see the logical aspect here.

This being able to perceive seems to be related to a number of places in Dao De Jing where the follower of the way is described as "hesitant." This language is used in verse 15, for instance. — Valentinus

Thanks for pointing that out. I will look for that later...

Another element of the butcher story that pertains to the being nonbeing distinction discussed here is that joints are the empty or undetermined parts of an animal. The butchers work is effortless because he never tries to cut in any other place. — Valentinus

Yes. The space around the bones of the joint - the natural divisions as in the real world.

I go along with the natural makeup, strike in the big hollows, guide the knife through the big openings, and follow things as they are. So I never touch the smallest ligament or tendon, much less a main joint.

We can see how this might relate to our navigating the real world.
It isn't about some knowledge of a spiritual force, available only to the few.
We have to make our way through events as they arise.
There is no time to consult a manual, map or master.

The question is how do we prepare ourselves for any tough bits ?
We can't always.
However, if we have internalised, experienced or practised a set of basic principles or morals, a way of looking at the world, then we might arrive at the best possible solution.

and then I wipe off the knife and put it away.'

There is care not only in the process but in looking after the tools involved.
So, in any analysis of text, we need a sharp brain !
And that leads to the other aspects of holistic care...

As a beginner, I should have realised that in dealing with my own limited understanding, I should steer clear of attempts to help. — Amity

I think you are being a good participant in this discussion. "Limited understanding" certainly describes my situation now. You've been around the forum for a while. You should be used to people not understanding what you're trying to say or disagreeing with you.

I not only quoted the story, I made additional comments see my post to Wayfarer.
Thanks for your contribution — Amity

I suggest, if you're hoping for a response from a particular person, you tag the post for that person.

out of many, one (the motto of the US). — TheMadFool

Yes - the Tao is the melting pot.