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. — Possibility

My first thought when I read this was to check other translations to see how they dealt with this issue. Here are a few.

Mitchell

We work with being,
but non-being is what we use.

Addiss and Lombardo

Therefore, Having leads to profit, Not having leads to use.

Lin

Therefore, that which exists is used to create benefit
That which is empty is used to create functionality

Cleary

Therefore being is for benefit, nonbeing is for usefulness.

Boy - that's not much help.

The value of the pitcher is in our relation to its substance, — Possibility

This would make sense to me if it said that we handle, move, carry, own, have the pitcher through its substance. I just don't know what it means when we say "value." Can you give some examples of the value of the pitcher.

Actually - I like that. We possess the pitcher, but we use the emptiness. Or - We hold the pitcher, but we use the emptiness. I like that a lot.

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'. — Wayfarer

I've been reading through all the comments, bashing my head against a wall, and I thought of this. It's not the same as what you've written about, but it's related. I first noticed this when I was practicing Tai Chi, but once I started paying more attention, I saw it in other areas where I was becoming more aware, more competent.

Practicing a new movement in Tai Chi, my actions would be mechanical. I was just trying to follow my instructors actions without reflection. I remember the first time this happened - I was practicing a move I had learned mechanically trying to pay attention. Trying to relax my body. I felt a little tickle, just a little metaphorical tingle, of something. I wasn't sure I felt something real or not. I remember thinking it would be really easy to mess around with this and it would turn out it doesn't mean anything.

So, I started paying attention to that tingle. As I continued practicing and paying attention, the signal became stronger and I became more certain there was something real there. I modified, fiddled with my practice and my attention to see if I could enhance the feeling. Maybe at that point I would talk to my teacher and she would give me a little guidance. That might change my direction, or maybe it would expand my understanding. This process continued until I came to a place when I realized that what started out as a tingle had been there all the time. It was so obvious I didn't understand how I could miss it. All of this grew - learning to become aware once made it easier to learn new things. And now I am a Tai Chi master. Not.

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. — T Clark

Thanks. I am doing my best in reading this book for the first time. It is good to be in the company of those who have read it before, attended discussion groups and more besides in the way of practice.

'Limited' could describe all of our current understanding. It is relative.
I did feel that with all your experience you knew quite a bit more.
And I did feel awkward offering help by explaining something which I saw fairly intuitively.
Perhaps because I didn't appreciate any complexity and I wasn't looking for something profound.

Yes. Like you, I have been around not only this forum for a while. It doesn't take long for anyone to know the score re misunderstandings, real or deliberate.

I suggest, if you're hoping for a response from a particular person, you tag the post for that person. — T Clark

Yes, that is always an option in a particular case. Most times people respond to the flow of posts and quotes.
Despite participating here for a while, I am still not au fait with all the functions.
For example, the 'view original comment' arrow. And probably many more I haven't used.

Anyway, I think this post is another distraction from the main event. So I will let it go...
Carry on with the plan, Sam.

My plan is to pick out my favorite verses and discuss them. — T Clark

Carry on with the plan, Sam. — Amity

Will do.

Your comments regarding the logic of the characters reminds me of the fierce debates that surround the book Chinese Written Character as a Medium for Poetry regarding the "ideogrammic" nature of the writing.
The debates have been going on for a hundred years now and reflect many problems delineating differences in how languages convey meaning.
I am not qualified to offer an opinion on the matter but reading the book gave me an appreciation of how poetic expression provides different paths of association and order through different languages. For instance, the first word of the Iliad in Ancient Greek is Wrath; There is no way to express that sequence in English.

Actually - I like that. We possess the pitcher, but we use the emptiness. Or - We hold the pitcher, but we use the emptiness. I like that a lot. — T Clark

I like that too. It closely hews to the Lin version I was trying to articulate earlier but is more elegant.

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. — Amity

I read the works as centrally concerned with how to navigate the real world.
There are elements of the mysterious that are important not to exclude. The different translators express different opinions on this dimension. Talking about those matters seems to be the biggest divide in traditions.
So, with that in mind, The Enchiridion or Handbook of Epictetus matches a lot of the imperative quality of the speech even if what the problem is said to be starts from such different beginnings.

The rejection of a manual requires its own manual.

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

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. — Amity

The basic structure of English is subject-prominent, and conceals evidence of an overall subjective position. The phrase “I think/feel/believe that...” is excluded from most statements that we make. In philosophical discussions, most of us charitably add this phrase to the beginning of statements (unless we’re discussing logic), but this adds a dimensional layer of complexity that doesn’t parse easily.

As an example, in English when we say “the cone is round”, we don’t mean that these ideas of ‘cone’ and ‘round’ are equal - we’re referring to a fixed perspective in relation to the cone. We’re saying that the cone appears round in shape from a certain perspective, but this is not clear just by looking at the words or understanding the sentence structure. We need to roughly understand the author’s relation to the ideas in the statement, in order to understand the meaning of the statement. That’s easy enough when we’re steeped in the conceptual system, but it may prove difficult for, say, a computer to interpret.

The Chinese characters for ‘cone’ specifically describe a round, tapered form anyway, so a direct translation of this statement as such would be tautological. But if they did make this statement, they would specify that round is describing a shape in relation to the cone, and in doing so, the variability of perspective is implied. The literal translation would be ‘round tapered form (cone) is round in shape’. So once we relate to these ideas, the Chinese text relies on far less contextual information to understand how they fit together to form one complex idea. I don’t need to understand the author’s relation to these ideas in order to understand the meaning. Form refers to a 3D structure, and shape refers to a 2D structure, so there’s a clear logical relationship here between the cone and its roundness that was not obvious in the English statement.

...

Incidentally, I’ve noticed there are at least nine ways to describe a connection of ‘being’ in Chinese. Wei means ‘to act as’ or in the capacity of, implying an indirect relation of ‘being’ between the structures of action and intention/potential. I think wu wei refers to the idea in which this kind of indirect relation would be obscured or undetermined, or appear to be missing.

The value of the pitcher is in our relation to its substance,
— Possibility

This would make sense to me if it said that we handle, move, carry, own, have the pitcher through its substance. I just don't know what it means when we say "value." Can you give some examples of the value of the pitcher.

Actually - I like that. We possess the pitcher, but we use the emptiness. Or - We hold the pitcher, but we use the emptiness. I like that a lot. — T Clark

Yes. Your second example - “If I put it on a shelf, my house will be more attractive” - is to behold value in the substance of the pitcher, and derive benefit from that (for the house). The other three derive usefulness from the potential that exists in the pitcher’s lack or removal of substance. If the pitcher is no longer in my possession, for its removal I will have money, gratitude or appreciation.

I like that too. — Valentinus

I like it more the more I think about it. I think that's because it has that ironic twist, that forced switch in perspective, that my favorite verses in the TTC have.

You mentioned Lin's translation. This is part of his commentary on Verse 12:

Therefore, we can see how we create solid objects to provide us with benefits and convenience, but it is actually the emptiness formed by, or embedded in such objects that really provide them with functionality and usefulness.

It's "actually" and "really" that makes the point for me.

“If I put it on a shelf, my house will be more attractive” - is to behold value in the substance of the pitcher, and derive benefit from that (for the house). — Possibility

I'm seeing it differently than that. I own the pitcher, but I use the emptiness. I hold the pitcher by it's clay handle, but the hollowness is what actually allows the pitcher to function.

Your comments regarding the logic of the characters reminds me of the fierce debates that surround the book Chinese Written Character as a Medium for Poetry regarding the "ideogrammic" nature of the writing.
The debates have been going on for a hundred years now and reflect many problems delineating differences in how languages convey meaning.
I am not qualified to offer an opinion on the matter but reading the book gave me an appreciation of how poetic expression provides different paths of association and order through different languages. For instance, the first word of the Iliad in Ancient Greek is Wrath; There is no way to express that sequence in English. — Valentinus

This essay is very helpful - thank you. Here is a PDF version (unfortunately without the Chinese characters).

An excerpt:

Let us go further with our example. In English we call "to shine" a verb in the infinitive, because it gives the abstract meaning of the verb without conditions. If we want a corresponding adjective we take a different word, "bright." If we need a noun we say "luminosity," which is abstract, being derived from an adjective. To get a tolerably concrete noun, we have to leave behind the verb and adjective roots, and light upon a thing arbitrarily cut off from its power of action, say "the sun" or "the moon." Of course there is nothing in nature so cut off, and therefore this nounizing is itself an abstraction. Even if we did have a common word underlying at once the verb "shine," the adjective "bright" and the noun "sun," we should probably call it an "infinitive of the infinitive." According to our ideas, it should be something extremely abstract, too intangible for use.

The Chinese have one word, ming or mei. Its ideograph is the sign of the sun together with the sign of the moon. It serves as verb, noun, adjective. Thus you write literally, "the sun and moon of the cup" for "the cup’s brightness." Placed as a verb, you write "the cup sun-and-moons," actually "cup sun-and-moon," or in a weakened thought, "is like sun," i.e., shines. "Sun-and-moon cup" is naturally a bright cup. There is no possible confusion of the real meaning, though a stupid scholar may spend a week trying to decide what "part of speech" he should use in translating a very simple and direct thought from Chinese to English.

The fact is that almost every written Chinese word is properly just such an underlying word, and yet it is not abstract. It is not exclusive of parts of speech, but comprehensive; not something which is neither a noun, verb, or adjective, but something which is all of them at once and at all times. Usage may incline the full meaning now a little more to one side, now to another, according to the point of view, but through all cases the poet is free to deal with it richly and concretely, as does nature. — Ernest Fenollosa

I'm seeing it differently than that. I own the pitcher, but I use the emptiness. I hold the pitcher by it's clay handle, but the hollowness is what actually allows the pitcher to function. — T Clark

You don’t really own it, though. Your possession of it is an event in which you are relating to the pitcher’s substantial potentiality (its capacity to be held, seen, felt, etc), and your use of it is an event in which you are relating to the pitcher’s insubstantial potentiality (its capacity to be empty or filled, sold, given away, etc).

The rejection of a manual requires its own manual. — Valentinus

Perhaps, yes. So many 'How To...' Handbooks' about all kinds of subjects.

In my previous post, I was talking not about rejecting a manual or looking for another manual.
It was about the outcome of having read and practised your chosen manual so that it becomes natural.

You don't have to think about how to act; you have internalised the careful process of observation, assessment, evaluation so that it becomes second nature.
You no longer need to carry the physical book around with you.
Basically, applied wei wu wei.

However, as you say, there is still the chance that it no longer suits your purposes and so you might look for something else...
Perhaps a manual in how to choose a manual. Philosophy ?

Nothing is set in stone.
I think it is important not to be rigid with fixed beliefs.
I think that reading the TTC and similar can help increase flexibility and and awareness of our own limited perspectives.

Thank you for this. I will have to read carefully. It requires more time and thought.
It really deserves its own thread. Perhaps in the Philosophy of Language ?

Again this is fascinating and worthy of further discussion.
I think others interested in e.g. the philosophy of language will miss this gem, hidden away here.
Thanks.

Grateful for the pdf link. Will read later.

Nothing is set in stone.
I think it is important not to be rigid with fixed beliefs.
I think that reading the TTC and similar can help increase flexibility and and awareness of our own limited perspectives. — Amity

I agree. I was trying to express that up-thread by saying that the agenda Lao Tzu strives to replace is not the same kind he is advocating for. That difference is where the Taoist challenges many views of Confucius.

You don’t really own it, though. Your possession of it is an event in which you are relating to the pitcher’s substantial potentiality (its capacity to be held, seen, felt, etc), and your use of it is an event in which you are relating to the pitcher’s insubstantial potentiality (its capacity to be empty or filled, sold, given away, etc). — Possibility

I don't know what "substantial potentiality" and "insubstantial potentiality" mean.

This essay is very helpful - thank you. Here is a PDF version (unfortunately without the Chinese characters). — Possibility

@Valentinus - I agree with @Possibility. This is an interesting paper. The language seemed very out of date. I looked up the author. He died in 1908, so it makes sense. It as edited by Ezra Pound.

I forwarded it to a friend of mine who is a linguist with an interest in Chinese language. I'll see what he thinks.

Thanks.

I like that too. It closely hews to the Lin version I was trying to articulate earlier but is more elegant. — Valentinus

I've been thinking about this more. I'm comfortable with what we've worked out for the meaning of the lines, but I'm still working on the other issue I had with the verse - The use of "being" and "non-being" seems to mean something different in this verse than it does in other verses, as I noted in particular, Verse 1.

Verse 12

Ellen Marie Chen translation

The five colors blind a person's eyes;
The five musical notes deafen a person's ears;
The five flavors ruin a person's taste buds.
Horse-racing, hunting and chasing,
Drive a person's mind (hsin) to madness.
Hard-to-get goods,
Hinder a person's actions.
Therefore the sage is for the belly, not for the eyes.
Therefore he leaves this and chooses that.

Heshang Gong commentary

Greed and lust for beautiful appearances cause injury to the vital essence and loss of brilliance.

If one longs to hear the five notes, harmonious energy breath leaves the heart and they cannot hear the sound of the soundless.

They excite and destroy it. People who have a weakness for the five flavours end up destroying their mouths. This is to say that they lose Dao.

People’s spiritual vitality loves tranquility and stillness. Quickly breathing in and out in haste causes the spiritual vitality to scatter and die. A person then becomes insane.

Interfere, here, means to injure. “Goods which are difficult to obtain” refers to gold, silver, precious stones, and jade. The heart-mind which is greedy, and thinks about what it desires does not know how to be content when it has enough. This causes one’s journey to suffer and their character to be insulted.

By guarding the five intrinsic natures, abandoning the six emotions, and uniting the energy-breath of the will, spiritual intelligence is cultivated.

The eyes should not look frantically. Regarding frantically leaks out vital essence.

They leave frantic looking, and take the cultivation of pure nature (xing) by way of the stomach.

This seems like a pretty straight-forward verse. Sensual pleasures (sounds, tastes, and sights), greed, and excitement damage our perception organs and mind. I think this means they distract us from our perception of the Tao, which requires quiet contemplation. I guess they are the result of or a reflection of desire.

I had another thought. The five musical notes seem to refer to the Chinese pentatonic scale. The ancient Chinese also had a system of five colors that represent directions, planets, or elements. They also classify flavors into five categories which generally match those we use. Maybe the use of these words references division of the natural world into rigid conventional categories. "The five colors blind a person's eyes" might mean that thinking in terms of those categories keeps us from seeing the world directly. I haven’t seen this interpretation anywhere else.

I think that reading the TTC and similar can help increase flexibility and and awareness of our own limited perspectives. — Amity

The message of TTC is realization of the duality; the intellectual being a tool that can assist us if we accept its impermanent nature, but always pointing towards the non-intellectual where The Truth resides.

I agree — Valentinus

Well, that was a welcome surprise, thank you.

I was trying to express that up-thread by saying that the agenda Lao Tzu strives to replace is not the same kind he is advocating for. That difference is where the Taoist challenges many views of Confucius. — Valentinus

I have missed parts of this thread, so thanks for spelling that out. Most helpful.

The message of TTC is realization of the duality; the intellectual being a tool that can assist us if we accept its impermanent nature, but always pointing towards the non-intellectual where The Truth resides. — synthesis

Thanks synthesis.
I am sure that all this analytical 'doing' will be the 'undoing' of me.
I have decided to take it easy and go with the flow, wherever it leads...

What else can one do?

The use of "being" and "non-being" seems to mean something different in this verse than it does in other verses, as I noted in particular, Verse 1. — T Clark

The meanings do seem to change in different verses. Maybe it has to do with us having to pursue different paths to approach what is the same. I like D.C Lau's version of this in Verse 1 as way to separate the experiences.

"The nameless was the beginning of heaven and earth;
The named was the mother of the myriad creatures.
Hence always rid yourself of desires to observe its secrets;
But always allow yourself to have desires in order to observe its manifestations.
These two are the same.
But diverge in name as they issue forth."

Perhaps the differences of meaning are related to which kind of observation is required.

Perhaps the differences of meaning are related to which kind of observation is required. — Valentinus

I'm not sure, but I do like that translation. None of the other translations use the word "allow" in reference to desire. That makes a big difference.

It does make a big difference. I do think there are separate experiences being considered here.
I will mull in the idea while considering the other translations.

I just wanted to be the 300th comment. It's kind of a Taoist thing.