I think a lot of Lao Tzu's instructions are "Hey, Valentinus, over here, pay attention to this." — T Clark

I am always up for a good koan. The map and the territory are always difficult to line up. All these different interpretations of the verse suggests to me that I am not the only one looking at the map with some confusion.

I recommend that everyone retire immediately. — T Clark

As my Sifu, Ry Cooder, once sang: "Romance without finance is a nuisance, so honey, give me your dough."

I have had the good fortune to take my work seriously without it having it be the only thing that was important for me to take care of. In fact, I only dedicated myself to treating it as a career in my early forties. Some of that was a matter of wanting to work at a certain level and some of that was existential in needing the dough for me and mine. I got to spend several years as the stay at home dad. I spent years remodeling my place.

As a result, I am conditioned (or biased, perhaps) to read the Taoists as calling for disengaging from some values and motivations while also acknowledging the need for work to happen. The "letting things happen" side of Wu Wei certainly seems to involve a lot of people working with serious dedication. In Zhuangzi, there are many interchanges between trades-people and scholars that show the groups in tension regarding the "instructions" without suggesting the points of view possible by each side can be removed by the other. Amongst all the strongly voiced declarations, ambiguity has found a place to abide.

The map and the territory are always difficult to line up. All these different interpretations of the verse suggests to me that I am not the only one looking at the map with some confusion. — Valentinus

The territory that can be mapped is not the eternal territory.

How's that? All Taoist and wise and all.

As my Sifu, Ry Cooder, once sang: "Romance without finance is a nuisance, so honey, give me your dough." — Valentinus

Yes, well, that is the most common response to my retirement suggestion.

I have had the good fortune to take my work seriously without it having it be the only thing that was important for me to take care of. In fact, I only dedicated myself to treating it as a career in my early forties. Some of that was a matter of wanting to work at a certain level and some of that was existential in needing the dough for me and mine. I got to spend several years as the stay at home dad. I spent years remodeling my place. — Valentinus

Our lives have some parallels. I dropped out of college and worked for 15 years before I went back and got my engineering degree at 36. I spent most of that 15 years as a cabinetmaker. I also spent years expanding and remodeling my house. I even spent 3 months taking care of my daughter right after she was born. I've told people that running a household is a lot like construction management. You plan ahead, but you spend most of your time taking care of one problem after another.

As a result, I am conditioned (or biased, perhaps) to read the Taoists as calling for disengaging from some values and motivations while also acknowledging the need for work to happen. — Valentinus

This has always been really important to me - trying to figure out where the motivation for action comes from. How can you force action from the heart. Of course, you can't.

I agree that Mitchell leaves too much out, and I think that comes down to what I was saying about awareness in relation to translation/interpretation. When we consolidate the ideas presented by specific characters or lines in the Tao, we leave out aspects of the relational structure as a whole. Mitchell seems attached to certain concepts such as hope, success and fear, and he restructures the text to help consolidate these, missing the variability of a more complex (and less tangible) rendering of these ideas such as how we evaluate our suffering, humility and life.

When we translate from Chinese to English, we try to translate all the characters, and then try to work out how the pieces fit together in our existing conceptual structures of experience and language. If it doesn’t seem to fit, there’s a tendency or temptation to distort the quality of these ideas, like forcing pieces of a jigsaw together. But the Chinese language has a very specific structure to it - and the way the ideas relate to each other in this structure is supposed to challenge the way we understand the world. The verses of the TTC are supposed to lead us to an irreconcilable contradiction every time - that’s when I think we get close.

Success is as dangerous as failure.

Some other translations are more explicit about this. Chen writes “Honors elevate (shang),
Disgraces depress (hsia).” Addis and Lombardo translate “Favour debases us. Afraid when we get it, Afraid when we lose it.” So, success leads to fear and failure leads to fear. — T Clark

The way I see it, this line describes the idea of favouring humility (disgrace) as seemingly scary - implying this fear is illusory, as in your quote from verse 46. Rúo refers to an indirect way of being - to seem, like, as, if. I like the suggestion from other translations that the idea may be more startling than scary - I think it removes the tendency to avoid, and rather suggests that we may simply feel unprepared.

The verse later fleshes out this first idea, which I translate as:

We seem to fear seeking a lower position and being content with what we have - we’re afraid to fail.

Contentment here is not about avoiding the challenges of life, but about not always needing to appear to be a success - about recognising that humility, embarrassment or failure is the first step to learning, and therefore has value in our lives. Whether we succeed or fail, this feeling of fear or unpreparedness doesn’t really go away, it only shifts.

The idea of favour in relation to humility or disgrace is a difficult one to grasp. Many translations prefer to keep them separate, and juxtapose them somewhere further down, but this seemingly contradictory relation is placed first because it IS the main topic - and that topic is scary, startling, something we feel unprepared for.

The second idea introduced in this verse is that of value or nobility in a life of great suffering, which also seems startling/scary. I think it’s important to note that the first idea talks about favouring, while the second talks about valuing something as expensive or noble. These relations don’t have the same quality.

Overall, I think this verse is about the courage to face what can seem a frightening perspective on life. Lao Tzu seems to makes a distinction in how we look at our potential: do we see our value in the life we live, full of suffering, or in the potential of this life’s interaction with the world - however brief, humiliating or painful it seems? The fact is that there is no possibility of a living existence without great suffering - and we can either focus on the suffering, or on the possibilities.

Hope and fear are both phantoms that arise from thinking of the self.

Chen writes “I have great misfortunes, Because I have a body.” That’s a really interesting difference. Some say “self,” some say “body.” When they say “self” they generally seem to be talking about social misfortunes. When they talk about the “body,” they talk about physical or medical misfortunes. That seems like a big difference. With the first, I get the feeling of the self as an unfortunate illusion. With the second I get the feeling of the body as something good that I can’t have if I’m not willing to face the negative consequences.

When we don't see the self as self, what do we have to fear?

Chen writes "If I don't have a body, What misfortunes do I have?" Addis and Lombardo say "No self, No distress." Ivanhoe translates "When I no longer have a body, what calamity could I possibly have? — T Clark

Shen refers to the main part of a structure, whether that is the body, life, morality and conduct, mind or self. It’s all of it, really - as far as our awareness of it goes. It doesn’t mean ‘the body’ as a separate entity from ‘the self’, but an integral part of a broader structure.

Wú refers to ‘I’ or ‘my’ - it’s easy to assume this means ‘the self’ as an entity, except it refers not to a thing, but to the position each of us takes in relation to the text, to the experience/idea, or to the Tao. How we might define ‘self’ isn’t relevant here - it’s more about the relation.

The later fleshing out of this second idea I would translate as:

In order to exist, I am one who suffers greatly, and in the capacity of this living existence up until my death, I exist - how is this unfortunate?

Why do we fear this idea of value or nobility in what we can only escape by ceasing to exist? Yes, existence necessitates suffering, but the alternative is not existing - it removes this main structure. So where @Amity mentions that “without a body I am dead”, I don’t think we can overlook this reality. My existence depends on substance, and as much as I can think of the self as immaterial, it’s actually inseparable from this substance: a living existence that suffers greatly and then dies. This is a startling reality for some of us to face, a frightening one for others. But it’s undeniable, all the same.

Therefore treasure the body as the world,
As if the body can be entrusted to the world.
Love the body as the world,
As if the body can be entrusted to the world. — T Clark

This is not quite how I understand this part. There are two different sets of characters here that he has translated to read ‘as if the body can be entrusted to the world’.

I see it more as:

So, to evaluate your life used for the world is to depend on the world; to love your life as used for the world is to be entrusted with the world.

There are two important distinctions here. The first is between ‘evaluate’ (treasure) and ‘love’ in relation to the life we have as part of the world. The second is between depending on (being entrusted to) and being entrusted with that world.

We are a temporary gift to the world. We can see that gift as one of expensive value and nobility, as if entrusted to the world. This perspective is dependent on the world to recognise that value and use our life carefully. The alternative is to see that gift as one of love, in which we are entrusted with the world. This perspective empowers us to collaborate with the world in a way that builds a lasting value and significance into our gift, so that it continues to give well beyond our death.

For me, the inequality between being shamed or being honored is connected to the fear of failing to accomplish a task or duty. Beyond the pain of embarrassment or the pleasure of recognition, what is most scary about the prospect of failure is the withdrawal of trust by others to do something. During 40 years of work in the building trade, the confidence of others grew as my skills became more capable and my familiarity with what was in front of me grew.

But that process only happened because I risked the loss of that confidence by trying something that was not mine yet. When the risk didn't work out, I became relatively isolated by those I gambled with.

In the realm of personal relationships, the loss of trust can end the party entirely. — Valentinus

I appreciate this personal account. I think it relates to the distinction in this verse between focusing on the fear or the possibilities in life and risk. I’d suggest that the risks you took, whether or not they appeared to work out for everyone involved, no doubt taught you something about your trade each time, building on your skills and capacity, and also taught you something about how the industry works. What you may have lost in the confidence of others was more about their fear than about your actual failure. It’s not easy to focus on the possibilities rather than the fear, either in failure or success.

Their perspective seemed to also be one of entrusting their life to your venture. I think the last part of this verse is very much about accepting responsibility for the risks we take in life, as part of enhancing our gift to the world, or else we allow others to set the value of our gift.

Mitchell seems attached to certain concepts such as hope, success and fear, and he restructures the text to help consolidate these, missing the variability of a more complex (and less tangible) rendering of these ideas such as how we evaluate our suffering, humility and life. — Possibility

Over the past year, I've spent time with a lot of different translations of the TTC. All and all, I think Mitchell's translation holds up well. He does tend to put a more western accent on some things. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

I've had disagreements with others about such words as "suffering" and "illusion," which are a big part of Buddhist teaching. I've taken the side that there are analogous concepts in Taoism, but the emphasis is different. I don't see suffering as a big theme in the TTC.

When we translate from Chinese to English, we try to translate all the characters, and then try to work out how the pieces fit together in our existing conceptual structures of experience and language. If it doesn’t seem to fit, there’s a tendency or temptation to distort the quality of these ideas, like forcing pieces of a jigsaw together. But the Chinese language has a very specific structure to it - and the way the ideas relate to each other in this structure is supposed to challenge the way we understand the world. — Possibility

Are you a Chinese speaker? You certainly seem to know a lot about the language. If you are, I have a few questions.

I like the suggestion from other translations that the idea may be more startling than scary - I think it removes the tendency to avoid, and rather suggests that we may simply feel unprepared. — Possibility

I'm still working on the difference between fear and surprise. As I said, I have a preference for "fear" because it speaks to me directly. What surprise and fear have in common is expectation. I think Lao Tzu may be telling us not to expect anything, good or bad. I think the sense of reaching for honor or cringing from shame, what you call a tendency to avoid, are a big part of the story here.

Contentment here is not about avoiding the challenges of life, but about not always needing to appear to be a success - about recognising that humility, embarrassment or failure is the first step to learning, and therefore has value in our lives. Whether we succeed or fail, this feeling of fear or unpreparedness doesn’t really go away, it only shifts. — Possibility

I think Lao Tzu is making a much stronger statement than that. Fear and surprise are a result of expectations. No expectations, no fear, no surprise. It's not about overcoming fear, it's about seeing that there's nothing there.

Hope is the same thing as fear. Success is the same thing as failure.

The second idea introduced in this verse is that of value or nobility in a life of great suffering, which also seems startling/scary. — Possibility

I really don't see this.

Overall, I think this verse is about the courage to face what can seem a frightening perspective on life. — Possibility

I think he's trying to help us get to a place where courage is not needed. I don't think sages are brave.

Your post is long, so I'm going to take a break and respond to the rest in a later post.

Shen refers to the main part of a structure, whether that is the body, life, morality and conduct, mind or self. It’s all of it, really - as far as our awareness of it goes. — Possibility

"Self" and "body" are different, and I think that may be an important difference between the translations. I also think they have something in common - they refer to how we see ourselves, judge ourselves.

How we might define ‘self’ isn’t relevant here - it’s more about the relation.

The later fleshing out of this second idea I would translate as:

In order to exist, I am one who suffers greatly, and in the capacity of this living existence up until my death, I exist - how is this unfortunate? — Possibility

This, and some of your other interpretations, seem to me to be too lofty. To me, this verse, all the verses actually, describe things that are down-home, everyday, run of the mill, no big deal.

Therefore treasure the body as the world,
As if the body can be entrusted to the world.
Love the body as the world,
As if the body can be entrusted to the world.
— T Clark

This is not quite how I understand this part. There are two different sets of characters here that he has translated to read ‘as if the body can be entrusted to the world’. — Possibility

I wondered if this is a misprint and should be written "Love the body as the world; As if the world can be entrusted to the body." I checked in Chen's book and it's the same as listed on the webpage.

We are a temporary gift to the world. We can see that gift as one of expensive value and nobility, as if entrusted to the world. This perspective is dependent on the world to recognise that value and use our life carefully. The alternative is to see that gift as one of love, in which we are entrusted with the world. This perspective empowers us to collaborate with the world in a way that builds a lasting value and significance into our gift, so that it continues to give well beyond our death. — Possibility

I think this means something like "If you learn to deal with honors and misfortunes without hope or fear, you will be trustworthy" Chen thinks this verse is aimed at leaders, so it might be "a trustworthy ruler."

It has been really helpful to have you commenting on these verses. We often disagree, but that gives me an incentive to figure out what I really think Lao Tzu is saying. Thank you.

Over the past year, I've spent time with a lot of different translations of the TTC. All and all, I think Mitchell's translation holds up well. He does tend to put a more western accent on some things. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

It is what it is - I’m not about to judge anyone’s approach to the TTC as good or bad. But I do think that what he’s missing reduces what those who rely on his translation would be able to get out of the TTC. Having explored other translations, if you return to Mitchell’s as resonating most clearly with your own experience, I see no problems with that.
— T Clark

I've had disagreements with others about such words as "suffering" and "illusion," which are a big part of Buddhist teaching. I've taken the side that there are analogous concepts in Taoism, but the emphasis is different. I don't see suffering as a big theme in the TTC. — T Clark

Neither do I - but I think it’s an important aspect of this particular verse, is all.

Are you a Chinese speaker? You certainly seem to know a lot about the language. If you are, I have a few questions. — T Clark

No, I’m not. My background is PR communications, and I have a passion for written languages, hermeneutics and variations in linguistic structure. The structure of traditional Chinese pinyin appears to solve many of the issues I have encountered with articulating my own philosophical approach in English - in particular the Ontic Structural Realism aspect. It just makes intuitive sense to me. I think Fenollosa was onto something when he said there is much the West can learn from understanding how the Chinese structure their language and their ideas.

I'm still working on the difference between fear and surprise. As I said, I have a preference for "fear" because it speaks to me directly. What surprise and fear have in common is expectation. I think Lao Tzu may be telling us not to expect anything, good or bad. I think the sense of reaching for honor or cringing from shame, what you call a tendency to avoid, are a big part of the story here. — T Clark

I agree that this ‘good/bad’ sense of expectation is a key point here. I think the fact that jīng means both ‘to frighten’ and ‘to startle’ refers to a quality of relating to the unexpected that is neither positive nor negative. For me, this difference between fear and surprise relates back to affect, and Barrett’s theory that we predict our relation to the world in terms of valence (positive/negative) and arousal (high/low), and continually adjust our body’s energy distribution (in terms of attention and effort) accordingly. I’m not convinced that we’re able to not expect anything, but I think we can be aware of how affect influences our expectations, and remain sceptical of its positive/negative pull, at least.

I think Lao Tzu is making a much stronger statement than that. Fear and surprise are a result of expectations. No expectations, no fear, no surprise. It's not about overcoming fear, it's about seeing that there's nothing there.

Hope is the same thing as fear. Success is the same thing as failure. — T Clark

I think this is only in relation to the quality of expectation. To say that hope is the same thing as fear seems to me an oversimplification. Sure, if you ignore, isolate or exclude expectations either way, then there would seem to be no difference between success and failure. But in doing that you’re removing the ‘body’, the main part of a living existence. Have you ever tried to not have any expectations? Your brain is still generating predictions and distributing energies accordingly - you’re simply refusing to participate in the decision-making process.

So I don’t think it’s that there’s nothing there. Expectation is there - it’s happening. We can let affect (desire) call the shots and entirely ignore both our existing expectations and anything unexpected, or we can relate to the unexpected as neither good nor bad, but simply as unexpected, and find a way to learn from it, despite how we may be affected by it.

The second idea introduced in this verse is that of value or nobility in a life of great suffering, which also seems startling/scary.
— Possibility

I really don't see this. — T Clark

Yes, it seems most translations of this second line in the verse repeat the term ‘favour’ from the first line, but they’re actually two different characters, as are the notions of humility (disgrace) and suffering. Lao Tzu is always keen to repeat characters for effect, so when he uses different characters, I’d have to assume he’s referring to different ideas.

I guess I’m always open to the possibility, however remote, that none of the current translations are accurate. In hermeneutics, I’ve found that returning to the source language with fresh eyes can be enlightening.

Overall, I think this verse is about the courage to face what can seem a frightening perspective on life.
— Possibility

I think he's trying to help us get to a place where courage is not needed. I don't think sages are brave. — T Clark

In my view, courage is always needed. That’s because we’re human - and so we’ll never really be free from affect (desire/fear). I think that’s the difference between sages and ascetics, to be honest. Bravery is something else entirely, I think. “Courage doesn't always roar. Sometimes courage is the little voice at the end of the day that says I'll try again tomorrow.” (Mary Anne Radmacher)

I do like Ivanhoe's take on this verse, although I don't see the significance of apprehension/reverence. — T Clark

Unfortunately, I don't have Ivanhoe's book. I understand that there is an Introduction and an Appendix explaining the process of translation from Chinese. Perhaps a look there will help understanding.

Here is the response from Saige:
There is some overlap between the terms apprehension and fear, but to be apprehensive is to be on guard, to be aware of what may follow from being favored or no longer favored. Being cautious and being afraid are not the same. What the translations and commentaries do not consider is that favor brings jealousy and resentment. Note the line:

"To receive favor is to be in the position of a subordinate."

Those who wish to find favor from their superiors may attempt to disgrace you, lie about you, do whatever they can so that you are no longer seen in a favorable light. The sage avoids the spotlight, avoids being a target, avoids having what can be taken away.
---------

I have been listening to what @Possibility has been saying about translating from Chinese.
I agree it is important to return to the roots.

I searched for two things:
1. A Chinese equivalent of this place, TPF where there is a similar thread on the TTC.
No luck. There will be something out there, somewhere.
2. How Chinese philosophy is translated.
I found this:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-translate-interpret/

Section 1 The Classical Chinese Language: What, Where and Why does it convey what it conveys.

From 1.2 Syntax

Classical Chinese is an isolating language, meaning that each graph stands alone at all times, in isolation, without affixes of any kind, and unmarked for case, number, gender, or tense. The third-person pronoun ta can be he, him, her, she, it; they, them. And so can the graph qi, 其. qu, 去, retains exactly that form for go, going, gone, and went. What follows is that most Chinese characters can serve equally as both nouns and verbs, and modifiers too (adjectives and adverbs); apart from context no graph has a unique grammatical function. Word order is supposedly fixed, being Subject-Verb-Object, but so-called nouns regularly default to verbs (e.g., “running is a strenuous exercise”). Style also made the topic subject of the sentence difficult to ascertain, as when the head noun or object was omitted whenever context made it even slightly clear who or what it was. — SEP article by Henry Rosemount Jr.

From 1.3 On the Semantics of Chinese Characters

At times semantic concerns can reduce the number of interpretive possibilities of a sentence or section, but unfortunately at other times the semantic content of the characters can increase them. This is a major reason why the Daodejing, to take a famous example, is impenetrable to a few, enigmatic to many more, and highly allusive for everyone, and has been the subject of well over 150 translations of it in English alone, as noted earlier. — As above

The article then goes on to discuss the opening line of Chapter 1 of TTC, including the syntax and semantics - followed by 6 translations:

道 可 道 非 常 道
Dao ke dao fei chang dao.

道
(in first, third, and sixth positions here) means “path”, “way”, “the way”, “to follow”, “to go down a path”. It also means “to speak”, “doctrines”.
可
functions like English modal “can”.
非
a sign of negation; usually in the sense of “not the same as”.
常
“unvarying”, “constant”, “enduring”, “unchanging”.
Literally, then, we have something like “dao can dao not the same as unchanging dao”. — As above

This is what stood out for me:
Most Chinese characters can serve equally as both nouns and verbs, and modifiers too (adjectives and adverbs); apart from context no graph has a unique grammatical function.

Often when someone references a source, I go look it up on the web. I tried that but didn't find anything, so I wondered if this was someone you could give me a link to. — T Clark

:smile:
You know very well the source.
If you want to cite Saige, then:
[ Saige, 2021, c/o Amity, https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10427/my-favorite-verses-in-the-tao-te-ching ]
Saige does not wish to be linked to anyone else but me, myself, I.

There is only one world. All philosophers are describing the same thing. — T Clark

Flat out wrong. Even within the West and East what is being described differs.

My body and my self are both things I call "me," but they are really different. It means something different to say "See your body as the world" rather than "See your self as the world." Except, in some way, apparently, it's not different. — T Clark

From Saige:
I think the distinction between body and self and which is the better translation leads to confusion if we import our notions of them. The first is that they are two different things, like body and soul. My body is not something other than me. My self is not something other than me.

Ivanhoe does not say "See your body as the world" or "See your self as the world." He says "revere" and "as if".

Not necessarily. I can also have no body when I have seen through the illusion that my body is my self. — T Clark

Even if you see through an illusion, you still need the body and mind to enable this.

Saige: Just as I suspected! Where does the text say this is an illusion? What does the text say about the self after the death of the body?

Possibility:

So where Amity mentions that “without a body I am dead”, I don’t think we can overlook this reality. My existence depends on substance, and as much as I can think of the self as immaterial, it’s actually inseparable from this substance: a living existence that suffers greatly and then dies. This is a startling reality for some of us to face, a frightening one for others. But it’s undeniable, all the same. — Possibility

The purpose of the words is transmitting ideas.
When the ideas are understood, the words are forgotten.
Where can I find a man who has forgotten their words?
I would like talk with him.

The guardian and the wiser. Lao-Tzu and Tu-Fu.

Lao-Tzu didn’t want to speak but Tu-Fu was asking many question to him.

The only verse I remember is:

And a horse has no udders,
And a cow can't whinny,
up is down,
And sideways is straight ahead

Ah, Kung Fu Grasshopper :sparkle:

“Tie two birds together, and even though they have four wings they cannot fly." – The Blind Man.

The guardian and the wiser. Lao-Tzu and Tu-Fu.

Lao-Tzu didn’t want to speak but Tu-Fu was asking many question to him. — javi2541997

I had never heard of Tu-Fu before this. I'm curious.
Would you like to say more about why you posted this ? Where and How do you know about the interaction between Lao-Tzu and Tu-Fu ? In relation to the discussion...?

“Tie two birds together, and even though they have four wings they cannot fly." – The Blind Man — Amity

Awesome! :up:

I had never heard of Tu-Fu before this. I'm curious.
Would you like to say more about why you posted this ? Where and How do you know about the interaction between Lao-Tzu and Tu-Fu ? In relation to the discussion...? — Amity

It depends a lot of the Tao-Te-Kimg version all of us have. Mine is from a Spanish version of 1983 that was also translated by R.P. Wiegner in 1913.
Before the book starts, there is a brief story about how supposedly Tao was written. I going to explain it to you:

Tu-Fu was a solider in the frontier of Kuang-Shi. When he saw Lao-Tzu approaching to him he made him stop close to the guardian and said: I will not give you pass in the frontier if you don’t give me part of your wisdom
Then, Lao-Tzu, wrote a book of 80 poems. Thus, the Tao Te King. He said to the guardian that this book is to be understood during the process of life. It flows like the water.

I don’t know if this is true or it is just was a metaphor of the purpose/nature of Tao itself.

Before the book starts, there is a brief story about how supposedly Tao was written. I going to explain it to you: — javi2541997

Hola y Gracias ! :cool:

“Laozi cultivated Dao and virtue,” as Sima Qian goes on to relate, and “his learning was devoted to self-effacement and not having fame. He lived in Zhou for a long time; witnessing the decline of Zhou, he departed.” When he reached the northwest border then separating China from the outside world, he met Yin Xi, the official in charge of the border crossing, who asked him to put his teachings into writing. The result was a book consisting of some five thousand Chinese characters, divided into two parts, which discusses “the meaning of Dao and virtue.” Thereafter, Laozi left; no one knew where he had gone. This completes the main part of Sima Qian’s account. — Laozi (SEP)

Hola y Gracias ! :cool: — Amity

De nada! Un gran saludo :cool:

Interesting this part of the story. I never known it until today. Thanks for sharing it.

But I do think that what he’s missing reduces what those who rely on his translation would be able to get out of the TTC. — T Clark

Agreed.

The structure of traditional Chinese pinyin appears to solve many of the issues I have encountered with articulating my own philosophical approach in English - in particular the Ontic Structural Realism aspect. — Possibility

I've never heard the term "ontic structural realism" before. I looked it up. Are you saying that the fact that Chinese words can act as any part of speech helps you break down artificial boundaries in our concepts? If not...

For me, this difference between fear and surprise relates back to affect, and Barrett’s theory that we predict our relation to the world in terms of valence (positive/negative) and arousal (high/low), and continually adjust our body’s energy distribution (in terms of attention and effort) accordingly. I’m not convinced that we’re able to not expect anything, but I think we can be aware of how affect influences our expectations, and remain sceptical of its positive/negative pull, at least. — Possibility

I'm reading Barrett's book and I like it a lot. Thanks for the reference. By "expect" in this context, are you talking about the mind's automatic filling in the blanks in incomplete perceptions that Barrett talks about? If so, I think that's a completely different phenomenon than we're talking about here. I think any intimation of "expectation" is a more common everyday use of the word, i.e. we are anticipating what will come next. We are living in the future rather than the present.

To say that hope is the same thing as fear seems to me an oversimplification. — Possibility

I think we come back to a big difference between your way of seeing the TTC and mine. I think it's about the experience of the Tao. Hope and fear feel the same. We process them the same.

Have you ever tried to not have any expectations? Your brain is still generating predictions and distributing energies accordingly - you’re simply refusing to participate in the decision-making process. — Possibility

I think you are using "expectation" in the sense that Barrett means it and not how Lao Tzu would and I do. So, yes I have tried and succeeded to not have expectations in the everyday sense of the word. It's hard to do unless I'm really paying attention.

We can let affect (desire) call the shots and entirely ignore both our existing expectations and anything unexpected, or we can relate to the unexpected as neither good nor bad, but simply as unexpected. — Possibility

Different translations seem to differ on whether fear or surprise is a bad thing or just a thing. I went back and looked at several different translations of Verse 13. I looked at this one by Thomas Cleary, which I hadn't looked at before. It really lays things out the way I've been thinking about it. He uses both "alarmed" and "startled."

Favor and disgrace seem alarming; high status greatly afflicts your person.
What are favor and disgrace? Favor is the lower: get it and you're surprised, lose it and you're startled. This means favor and disgrace are alarming.
Why does high status greatly afflict your person? The reason we have a lot of trouble is that we have selves. If we had no selves what troubles would we have?
Therefore those who embody nobility to act for the sake of the world seem to be able to draw the world to them, while those who embody love to act for the sake of the world seem to be worthy of the trust of the world.

Shen refers to the main part of a structure, whether that is the body, life, morality and conduct, mind or self. It’s all of it, really - as far as our awareness of it goes.
— Possibility

"Self" and "body" are different, and I think that may be an important difference between the translations. I also think they have something in common - they refer to how we see ourselves, judge ourselves. — T Clark

But shen doesn’t distinguish between self and body, anymore than jing distinguishes between fear and surprise. We can’t expect a 1:1 translation here. If you google translate ‘body’ to Chinese, you get shen ti, where both characters individually translate back to ‘body’. Ti refers to the quality of substance, while shen refers to the quality of a main part. A number of other characters also translate to ‘body’, each referring to different qualities such as health, form, machine, group, etc.

It’s the character of wú that lends the quality of introspection, leading to an interpretation of my existence as ‘self’, or my main part as ‘body’, when the three together refer to the main part of my existence - whatever I perceive or judge that to be.

In order to exist, I am one who suffers greatly, and in the capacity of this living existence up until my death, I exist - how is this unfortunate?
— Possibility

This, and some of your other interpretations, seem to me to be too lofty. To me, this verse, all the verses actually, describe things that are down-home, everyday, run of the mill, no big deal. — T Clark

Really? Considering that the main topic is the Tao? I do understand that these ‘lofty’ ideas may not be expected from an ancient text, but the versatility of the Chinese characters lend themselves to both lofty and run-of-the-mill interpretations, depending on your focus and awareness. The timeless applicability of the TTC comes from this structure of the language around the quality of ideas rather than consolidated concepts. A limited or comprehensive knowledge of the body is concealed in the English word ‘body’, but not in the Chinese character of shen. It refers only to a particular quality of our experience, which isn’t bound by time or knowledge.

I think this means something like "If you learn to deal with honors and misfortunes without hope or fear, you will be trustworthy" Chen thinks this verse is aimed at leaders, so it might be "a trustworthy ruler." — T Clark

I’m not sure I would trust a leader who claims to have no hope or fear - someone like Trump comes to mind...but I do get the notion of relating to honour and misfortune as if our own hopes and fears were irrelevant. I think we are more willing to entrust our lives to someone who leads by serving, than someone who leads by nobility.

Oh, no - I'm falling way behind. I'll catch up.

I've never heard the term "ontic structural realism" before. I looked it up. Are you saying that the fact that Chinese words can act as any part of speech helps you break down artificial boundaries in our concepts? If not... — T Clark

Yes - not just this versatility, but the entire structure of the language.

Perhaps a look there will help understanding. — Amity

I'll take a look and see if anything interesting pops out.

I have been listening to what @Possibility has been saying about translating from Chinese. I agree it is important to return to the roots. — Amity

I don't focus on the Chinese language like @Possibility does. I don't have the tools. I put myself in the hands of the translators and figure, if I read several, I'll figure things out.

Most Chinese characters can serve equally as both nouns and verbs, and modifiers too (adjectives and adverbs); apart from context no graph has a unique grammatical function. — Amity

This thread has made me think I might need to spend more time with the Chinese language. At the same time, I think second guessing other translators with our limited understanding will just increase the cacophony of meanings.

I guess I’m always open to the possibility, however remote, that none of the current translations are accurate. In hermeneutics, I’ve found that returning to the source language with fresh eyes can be enlightening. — Possibility

As I've said, I don't have the wherewithal to do a linguistic analysis, although I think your input in that regard is interesting and relevant. I just try to read several verses and glean my understanding from the multiplicity of voices. That all gets filtered through my personal understanding and experience. After all that, I just don't get that Lao Tzu is writing about the nobility of suffering.

In my view, courage is always needed. — Possibility

Courage, whether it roars or whispers, is not needed if fear is discarded.

I'll take a look and see if anything interesting pops out. — T Clark

Thanks :smile:

... second guessing other translators with our limited understanding will just increase the cacophony of meanings. — T Clark

I am sticking with Ivanhoe for the most part.

I feel comfortable reading his clear, concise writing which retains the poetry and imagery and what I see as the sense of the Tao. He also has a good background in both philosophy (Western and Chinese) and language. 
But what do I know *shrugs*

From wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_J._Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe's influence on themes such as the virtues, ethical cultivation and human nature reflects the influence of Yearley's view that Confucianism may be understood as a form of virtue ethics. Ivanhoe has co-edited a number of anthologies of secondary essays on Chinese thought, and has published a large number of essays and articles in reference works on Confucianism, Mohism and Daoism.

The SEP article gave me a deeper appreciation of the many years of study undertaken by translators/interpreters.
Truly awesome.

Saige does not wish to be linked to anyone else but me, myself, I. — Amity

Are you saying that you are Saige? If so, the fact that you speak with two different voices is confusing.

Flat out wrong. Even within the West and East what is being described differs. — Amity

Flat out wrong = I don't understand what you're saying.

Not necessarily. I can also have no body when I have seen through the illusion that my body is my self.
— T Clark

Even if you see through an illusion, you still need the body and mind to enable this. — Amity

Are you saying I need the illusion to see through the illusion?

Where does the text say this is an illusion? — Amity

Addis and Lombardo say "The self embodies distress. No self, No distress." Illusion is my word.

The only verse I remember is:

And a horse has no udders,
And a cow can't whinny,
up is down,
And sideways is straight ahead — TheMadFool

Really? Considering that the main topic is the Tao? — Possibility

The Tao is the most down-home, everyday, run of the mill, no big deal of all. You'll find that several places where the Tao is referred to as low or behind. This is from Chen's Verse 8:

Water is good in benefiting (li) all beings,
Without contending (cheng) with any.
Situated in places shunned (o) by many others,
Thereby it is near (chi) Tao.

I’m not sure I would trust a leader who claims to have no hope or fear - someone like Trump comes to mind...but I do get the notion of relating to honour and misfortune as if our own hopes and fears were irrelevant. — Possibility

I see hope and fear as keeping us from seeing things as they really are. To feel fear or hope, we have to try to see into the future rather than acting spontaneously, wu wei.