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
The value of the pitcher is in our relation to its substance, — Possibility
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 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
I suggest, if you're hoping for a response from a particular person, you tag the post for that person. — T Clark
My plan is to pick out my favorite verses and discuss them. — T Clark
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
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 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 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
I like that too. — Valentinus
“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
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
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
The rejection of a manual requires its own manual. — Valentinus
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
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
This essay is very helpful - thank you. Here is a PDF version (unfortunately without the Chinese characters). — Possibility
I like that too. It closely hews to the Lin version I was trying to articulate earlier but is more elegant. — Valentinus
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 think that reading the TTC and similar can help increase flexibility and and awareness of our own limited perspectives. — Amity
I agree — Valentinus
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
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
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
Perhaps the differences of meaning are related to which kind of observation is required. — Valentinus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.