Heaven and Earth

I’ve looked through several verses looking for instances of “heaven” and “earth.” In all but one verse, “earth” is always found with “heaven,” although “heaven” is often found by itself. The last instance of “heaven and earth” is in Verse 39. Verse 38 is considered the first Verse of the second section of the TTC. The second section deals with “Te,” sometimes translated as “virtue.” I don’t know if that is significant or not. I’ve also included text from “The Great One Gives Birth to the Water” which is a document often associated with the TTC.

I don't really have anything to say about these texts. I just wanted to put them down so I can soak in them for a while.

From “The Great One Gives Birth to the Water”

{The Great One} gave birth to Water. Water returned to assist (A) {The Great One}, [and] by means of this the Heavens were completed/manifested. The Heavens returned to assist {The Great One}, [and] by means of this the Earth was completed. The Heavens and Earth [returned to assist each other] [and] by means of this the Spirits and Luminaries were completed. The Spirits and Luminaries returned to assist each other, [and] by means of this Yin and Yang were completed. Yin and Yang returned to assist each other, [and] by means of this the Four Seasons were completed. The Four Seasons returned to assist each other (E), [and] by means of this Cold and Hot (F) were completed. Cold and Hot returned to assist each other, [and] by means of this Wet and Dry (G) were completed. Wet and Dry returned to assist each other, completing the Yearly Cycle (H) and that‘s all….

…[What is] below [is] soil, but [we] call it Earth. [What is] above [is] air, but [we] call it Heaven. [It] takes ‗Dao‘ [as] its designation (O). Please may I ask its name? [One who] takes the Dao to engage in affairs, necessarily trusts in its name, Therefore [his] affairs are complete and [his] body [lives] long. [When] the sage‘s engaging in affairs, [he] also necessarily trusts in its name, therefore [his] work/merit is accomplished and [his] body is not harmed/distressed. [Regarding] Heaven and Earth, [their] names and designations stand side by side, therefore [if we] go beyond these areas, [we] cannot think [of something] appropriate [to serve as a name] (Q).

From Verse 1 – Derek Lin

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things

From Verse 7 – Derek Lin

Heaven and earth are everlasting
The reason heaven and earth can last forever
Is that they do not exist for themselves

From Verse 23 – D.C. Lau

Hence a gusty wind cannot last all morning, and a sudden downpour cannot last all day.
Who is it that produces these? Heaven and earth.
If even heaven and earth cannot go on forever, much less can man.
That is why one follows the way.

From Verse 25 - Addis and Lombardo

Therefore Tao is great, And heaven, And earth, And humans. Four great things in the world. Aren't humans one of them?
Humans follow earth. Earth follows heaven. Heaven follows Tao. Tao follows its own nature.

From Verse 39 – Addis and Lombardo

Of old, these attained the One: Heaven attaining the One Became clear. Earth attaining the One Became stable. Spirits attaining the One Became sacred.
Valleys attaining the One Became bountiful. Myriad beings attaining the One Became fertile. Lords and kings attaining the One Purified the world.
If Heaven were not clear It might split. If Earth were not stable It might erupt. If spirits were not sacred They might fade.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) Article on Laozi (Lao Tzu):

The dominant interpretation in traditional China is that Dao represents the source of the original, undifferentiated, essential qi-energy, the “One,” which in turn produces the yin and yang cosmic forces. While the “lighter,” more rarefied yang energy-stuff rises to form heaven, the “heavier” yin solidifies to become earth. A further “blending” of the two generates a “harmonious” qi-energy that informs human beings…

…The Laozi makes use of the concept of ziran, literally what is “self (zi) so (ran),” to describe the workings of Dao. As an abstract concept, ziran gives no specific information, except to say that Dao is not derived from or “modeled” (fa) after anything (ch. 25). However, since “heaven and earth”—interpreted as nature in most modern studies—are said to be born of Dao and come to be in virtue of their de, the Laozi is in effect saying that the ways of nature reflect the function of Dao…

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. — T Clark

Do you really think I haven’t grasped this aspect of the Tao? These ideas I’m referring to are not ‘lofty’ in the sense that they’re unaware of a relation extending throughout all of existence. This is the point I’m trying to make about the Chinese language - when they refer to ‘water’, they’re referring to the idea of a fluid quality, not specifically to H2O or to a river as such. Other characters would refer to the liquid consistency of water, to its diluting, soaking or pouring qualities - and also be translated as ‘water’. I think in philosophy, particularly in understanding the Tao, it’s important to make this distinction between the consolidated thing and the qualitative idea. I don’t think it makes the idea ‘lofty’ - the transcendent quality of ideas such as ‘fluid’ doesn’t raise it above or distinct from ‘water’. The metaphorical sense is inherent in the choice of character.

We keep trying to get a sense of what Lao Tzu would be saying in English. But the idea that Lao Tzu is even a real person is a point of contention. Laozi means ‘old master’, and a similar ambiguity surrounds his living existence as does Jesus and Socrates.

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

No.
And neither would I find it confusing if someone wrote with different voices e.g. chatty v academic; informal v formal. It is not an either/or. Why would you cage yourself in to a way of being or seeing ?
This is diverting - amusing - but also creating another diversion - a straying from the path.

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

The statement in question: 'There is only one world. All philosophers are describing the same world.'
You also said elsewhere, I think to @Possibility: 'I think we come back to a big difference between your way of seeing the TTC and mine'.
How can you describe the same thing when you are seeing different things ?
If we can't even see and describe a book with all its different translations the same way, how could we describe the whole world the same way ?

To back track a little:
The fact is you took a one-liner from a fairly substantial post and ran with it, instead of considering or commenting on the main part which would have been more interesting. Perhaps even illuminating.
Also, I haven't looked at the Chapters you missed out. I think Ch 5- 10 ?
It makes me wonder why and what we might have missed. It can't be because they are not your favourites. We spent a lot of time on Ch11 which you said you never liked.

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? — T Clark

No. I said that you need the body and mind.
Saige cuts in: You need to see that it is not an illusion, otherwise you cannot see anything but the illusion of an illusion.

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

Saige again: Yes, your word, and one that would need more textual support if you are to claim it is appropriate.
Saige also points out that in your quote from Addis and Lombardo they say:
'the self embodies distress'.

Nice one, Saige :sparkle:
It reinforces my point that the body is still required.

Hope that we can now move on from this...

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

I don't know if this makes any sense but there seems to be something about paradoxes that I feel maybe important.

Remember how Laozi begins the Tao Te Ching:

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name. — T Clark

This verse, in a way, sets the tone for what the Tao is all about and what's that precisely? Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but take a look at the verse which I said is the only one I remember (quoted above). The last two lines, "up is down" and "sideways is straight ahead" manage to encapsulate the crux or the heart of Taoism as a philosophy dealing exclusively and whole-heartedly in paradoxes.

Now, what about paradoxes makes them so damn important to Taoism? My hunch is, paradoxes vis-à-vis Taoism, are purposed for one specific task - to do an exposè on language itself but the question is what exactly about language is being revealed through paradoxes? To the extent that I'm aware, paradoxes shed light on one very important aspect of language; I don't know the linguistic term for it and if anyone has any information on it I'd be grateful if it's shared with me. Anyway, the "...one very important aspect of language" I'm talking about is...from where I stand...it's Olympic gymnast level flexibility which I suppose translates to arbitrariness.

What do I mean?

Take the paradoxical statement, "up is down" which appears above. Note that "up" and "down" mean entirely different, in fact opposite, states of an object and given these definitions. "up is down" is a bona fide paradox, a frank contradiction. However, suppose I were to assert, I can because of the arbitrariness of language I mentioned earlier, that the word "up" means down. If I did say that then "up is down" is no longer a paradox and is actually quite dull and uninteresting for all Laozi is saying is the tautology, "down is down". The paradox, however, has been resolved, and there is no residual contradiction to worry about.

What does this reveal about language? What about how arbitrary words and the meanings assigned to them are? I could without fear of contradicting myself say that "fire" means water and that "black" means white. Nothing holds me back from doing this and thereby hangs a tale. Taoist paradoxes can be resolved by redefining words like I did with the word "up" in the preceding paragraph.

So what?

The question that pops into my mind is, what exactly do we mean a Laozi paradox has been resolved? The answer is as simple as is profound (at least to me): semantic rather than word congruence. What do I mean? The way I dealt with the paradox of "up is down" above is by redefining "up" as down but make note of the fact that though the meaning has been made to agree (both "up" and "down" mean down), the words are still distinct.

What's intriguing about this rather devious technique of resolving Laozi paradoxes is that it forces us to think about semantics/meanings and what is semantics/meanings but reality itself, that which words are aimed at capturing. In a way then, Laozi paradoxes are designed to make us confront, come face to face with, reality directly by arranging rendezvous with semantics/meanings, get past the confusion of words, language.

I’ve looked through several verses looking for instances of “heaven” and “earth.” — T Clark

Why would you approach the TTC like this ?
It's a bit like searching a Bible Concordance for 'Heaven'.

The second section deals with “Te,” sometimes translated as “virtue.” I don’t know if that is significant or not. — T Clark

Why would it not be significant in its own right ?
Are you trying to make connections before we even get there ?
I don't find this helpful. It is another case of chopping up the text and the discussion...

It reminds me of the Kafka discussion: 'A cage went in search of a bird'.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10031/a-cage-went-in-search-of-a-bird-/p1

@TheMadFool got it spot on with:

The way I see it, all humans, perhaps all sentient beings for that matter, come with a constellation of limits to (their) understanding imposed by physical or mental factors (sorry I can't be more specific than that) and we, humans, try our very best to fit reality, the universe, within a construct so constrained. In short, we are the cage and reality is the bird we want encage i.e. grasp on our own terms. — TheMadFool

[ emphasis added]

It sounds like you are searching for bits of the TTC (birds) to tie in to your own constraints (cage).
Confusion seems to arise when it doesn't all fit together to suit your way of looking.
So, any disagreement with what is found in the texts you view as a problem with the text and not with your lack of understanding. At least that is how it seems to me. But I am just as likely to be wrong.

Indeed, I do note that:

I don't really have anything to say about these texts. I just wanted to put them down so I can soak in them for a while. — T Clark

And others might want to so soak too...so yes, helpful in one way...
Different cages, different birds. Chacun a son gout :cool:

The way we are discussing the TTC is quite disjointed...
Having said that, it has proven to be fascinating and illuminating.
Perhaps a meandering path is just right for us...

Thanks TC et al, for all the hard work, time and energy spent on this :sparkle:

What's intriguing about this rather devious technique of resolving Laozi paradoxes is that it forces us to think about semantics/meanings and what is semantics/meanings but reality itself, that which words are aimed at capturing. In a way then, Laozi paradoxes are designed to make us confront, come face to face with, reality directly by arranging rendezvous with semantics/meanings. — TheMadFool

I am glad you expanded on the only verse you remembered.
You have clearly given this a whole lot of thought - and I am only just beginning to appreciate...
This way of looking. Confronting reality like this...
Yes, it is intriguing and important. Thanks :smile:

If nothing in your inner is stiff
The things would be opened by themselves.
In movement, like water.
When is quite, like a mirror.
Answers like an echo.

Beautiful poem from Lao-Tzu to Tu-Fu. The path of virtue

Water and mirror are the key to enter in Taoism thought.

Anyway, the "...one very important aspect of language" I'm talking about is...from where I stand...it's Olympic gymnast level flexibility which I suppose translates to arbitrariness. — TheMadFool

I understand the 'flexibility' aspect but don't see how this translates to 'arbitrariness'.

Not sure how are you using the word 'arbitrariness'. See under Philosophy v Linguistics here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrariness

Re Philosophy

In semiotics, the general theory of signs, sign systems, and sign processes, Saussure introduced the notion of arbitrariness according to which there is no necessary connection between the material sign (or signifier), and the entity it refers to or denotes as its meaning (or signified) as a mental concept or real object.

Re Linguistics

The principle of semiotic arbitrariness refers to the idea that social convention is what imbues meaning to a given semiosis (any activity, conduct, or process that involves signs, including the production of meaning) or sign.[5]

What about how arbitrary words and the meanings assigned to them are? — TheMadFool

Taoist paradoxes can be resolved by redefining words like I did with the word "up" in the preceding paragraph. — TheMadFool

How do you do this with regard to the TTC ?
I am bewitched, bothered and bewildered :worry:
Help ?

Beautiful poem from Lao-Tzu to Tu-Fu. The path of virtue
Water and mirror are the key to enter in Taoism thought. — javi2541997

Yes. Can you provide a link to it, please ?
Can you explain how water and mirror are the keys - are they the only way in ?

The Tao is not about words, it's about what Kant calls "ding an sich" understood in the broadest sense possible. The "ding an sich" is precisely what words through "meaning" is supposed to capture. With paradoxes, the tension is not at the level of words which I explained in my previous post but at the level of "meaning" which is just another word for "ding an sich", raw reality itself. The paradoxes, therefore, by forcing us to go into "meaning", past the words themselves, are intended to provide a platform where our minds are pushed against the "ding an sich" - it's like someone holding you by the back of your neck and pressing your face against something. The artificial gap created by language between mind and reality is closed in that moment when you encounter a paradox. This view is counterintuitive and may even bear the hallmark of lunacy but...it can't be denied that when one is presented with paradoxes, one must eventually dive, headlong I suppose, into "meaning" for it's at that level where paradoxes exist. The benefit then is an appreciation of at the very least or an eureka moment regarding what true reality is.

In my view, courage is always needed.
— Possibility

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

How do we ‘discard’ fear? By ignoring it? By isolating or excluding it from our reality? How can we understand the Tao without including fear?

This is what we do with the English language: we bind qualitative experience into concepts, and then think we can ‘discard’ the things we don’t like.

An interesting character in Chinese is wei - the one in the line of verse 13 meaning ‘entrust to’ (as distinct from ‘entrust with’). It can also be translated as ‘appoint’, as well as ‘throw away’ or ‘discard’, even ‘actually’ or ‘really’. From an English language perspective we think: how can this one character possibly mean ALL of these things?

The quality of this character wei, as I see it, is a limit on perceived potential. When we appoint someone to a position or task, we limit our perception of their potential to their capacity to perform that task. When we are entrusted to the world, we limit our perceived potential of ourselves to the value that others attribute to us. And when we throw something away or discard it, we limit our perception of its potential to achieve anything at all.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing - it is what it is. In order to intentionally perform any action, we must temporarily limit our perceived potential to act in that situation. This is what affect is: instructions to the organism on how to distribute the limited energy it has available in that moment, based on an interaction between what we expect to happen and an interocepted state of the organism. But what this quality does suggest is that we don’t really discard anything - we just limit our perception of its potential. When we supposedly ‘discard’ fear we just ignore its capacity to affect us. This can be useful as a selective strategy in the short term, but this kind of ignorance can be harmful as an overall perspective.

Sure! I think it is more worthy just put the images (if you do not mind) because it is short the dialogue between Lao-Tzu and Tu-Fu... Sorry is in Spanish (casitilian by the way :joke: )
Also when I said water and mirror are key to understand Taoism is due to the relationship of life flow. It remembers me about Democritus when he explained philosophically the course of the water.
Mirror should be the representation of ourselves, then the water of how the life is going through it. Changing when the years are passing. Probably this is why Lao said Tao Te King is a book that is with us during the life journey...
Anyway, this is just my interpretation.

I put the poem as promised:

[img]http://




[img]http://



[img]http://

Taoist paradoxes can be resolved by redefining words like I did with the word "up" in the preceding paragraph.
— TheMadFool

How do you do this with regard to the TTC ? — Amity

The Tao is not about words, it's about what Kant calls "ding an sich" understood in the broadest sense possible. — TheMadFool

You haven't exactly answered my question.
Your original verse is from the film 'Circle of Iron', not as you know from the TTC.
I don't see how either the TTC or Zen koans are resolved by using language arbitrarily.

You say you resolved the paradox in the verse by arbitrarily naming 'up' 'down'. You use words.
Then you say that the TTC is not about words. Sure but we need to use words to try and understand the meaning of the TTC as written.

To help me understand, perhaps you could provide an example of the TTC where a paradox is resolved by redefining the language arbitrarily.

“The Great One Gives Birth to the Water” — T Clark

The repeated acts of giving birth and the new being "returning to assist" is like knitting or weaving a fabric that permits the multiplicity of the myriad things.

[Regarding] Heaven and Earth, [their] names and designations stand side by side, therefore [if we] go beyond these areas, [we] cannot think [of something] appropriate [to serve as a name] — T Clark

This suggests that the "boundary" of names can only be conceived by presuming a dimension beyond the boundary. Staying near the boundary seems to be the emphasis of Verse 5.

I think it is more worthy just put the images (if you do not mind) because it is short the dialogue between Lao-Tzu and Tu-Fu... Sorry is in Spanish (casitilian by the way :joke: ) — javi2541997

Thanks a lot for trying :brow:
And I can make some of it out...
'El Tao que se puede nombrar no es el verdardero Tao'

And the verse - you translated that yourself, I guess.
I am impressed by anybody who has English as a second or third language exchanging philosophical views here. Really :100:

It remembers me about Democritus when he explained philosophically the course of the water.
Mirror should be the representation of ourselves, then the water of how the life is going through it. Changing when the years are passing. Probably this is why Lao said Tao Te King is a book that is with us during the life journey... — javi2541997

Yes. I can see how it would remind you of...em...wasn't it Heraclitus who said that you can't step into the same river twice. Everything moves on and that nothing is at rest.

Changing when the years are passing. And returning to a book after years have passed, just like returning to a song, can bring new insights.
Sometime we don't necessarily want to look into a mirror to see the changes - grey hair and wrinkles. However, with age comes wisdom...apparently...

So, you have returned to the TTC many times ?

And the verse - you translated that yourself, I guess.
I am impressed by anybody who has English as a second or third language exchanging philosophical views here. Really :100:

English is my second language. Yes I translate by my own everything I write here. Sometimes is difficult because philosophy has a complex vocabulary. Thank you for your consideration :up:
For example, the basic phrase of Aristotle El todo es mayor que la suma de sus partes as an argument of pure logic it makes so hard translate it in English to me.
Using Oxford dictionary could be: a whole is greater than the sum of its parts

Using Oxford dictionary could be: a whole is greater than the sum of its parts — javi2541997

Indeed. I find Google Translate quicker but it doesn't always give you the true sense of the words or phrase. It can be quite amusing at times...
The parts don't add up to the whole :wink:

Sometimes is difficult because philosophy has a complex vocabulary. — javi2541997

Si :smile: Y que lo digas. Google tells me that is Spanish for 'you can say that again' - an idiomatic phrase. Does it translate well ?

Si :smile: Y que lo digas. Google tells me that is Spanish for 'you can say that again' - an idiomatic phrase. Does it translate well ?

I understand what you said. Also yes, Google translated it correctly. But I also found this translation: right on.
Translating idiomatics in one language to another is even more difficult than philosophy itself :sweat:

How can you describe the same thing when you are seeing different things ?
If we can't even see and describe a book with all its different translations the same way, how could we describe the whole world the same way ? — Amity

I don't think Lao Tzu would think that the Tao he experiences in ancient China is different than the one we experience here, 2,500 years later and 12,000 miles away. I think Immanuel Kant would think the world he described in the 1700s is the same world as Lao Tzu described and the one we live in today.

Also, I haven't looked at the Chapters you missed out. I think Ch 5- 10 ?
It makes me wonder why and what we might have missed. It can't be because they are not your favourites. We spent a lot of time on Ch11 which you said you never liked. — Amity

As I wrote in the OP, I am covering the verses I am most interested in discussing. As I noted, you are welcome to bring up and discuss any verses I leave out. I will be happy to participate in those discussions.

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

Saige again: Yes, your word, and one that would need more textual support if you are to claim it is appropriate. — Amity

I'm comfortable that using the word "illusion" is appropriate.

Hope that we can now move on from this... — Amity

I think this is an issue that will come up again as we go along.

The last two lines, "up is down" and "sideways is straight ahead" manage to encapsulate the crux or the heart of Taoism as a philosophy dealing exclusively and whole-heartedly in paradoxes. — TheMadFool

I think we think of Taoism as paradoxical for the same reason we see Quantum Mechanics that way - because they both deal with phenomena we can't talk about with our normal language. In both cases we've gone beyond our everyday human reality.

Now, what about paradoxes makes them so damn important to Taoism? My hunch is, paradoxes vis-à-vis Taoism, are purposed for one specific task - to do an exposè on language itself but the question is what exactly about language is being revealed through paradoxes? — TheMadFool

I think paradoxes are important for two reasons - 1) the truth of the Tao is unspeakable. When we try to say things about it, they come out goofy. 2) Maybe on of the things Lao Tzu is trying to achieve is to make people think about things differently than they normally do. He makes them beat their heads against the wall a few times to make them open up their eyes.

In a way then, Laozi paradoxes are designed to make us confront, come face to face with, reality directly by arranging rendezvous with semantics/meanings, get past the confusion of words, language. — TheMadFool

I'm lost in the discussion about semantics and meaning. I think you're making this too complicated. Lao Tzu writes in paradoxes because there is no way to describe the things he's trying to tell us about.

Why would you approach the TTC like this ?
It's a bit like searching a Bible Concordance for 'Heaven'.
The second section deals with “Te,” sometimes translated as “virtue.” I don’t know if that is significant or not.
— T Clark
Why would it not be significant in its own right ?
Are you trying to make connections before we even get there ?
I don't find this helpful. It is another case of chopping up the text and the discussion... — Amity

I find this way of looking at things very useful. I've been in TTC groups where the other members did too. It's also fun. If you don't find it helpful, just skip it.

It sounds like you are searching for bits of the TTC (birds) to tie in to your own constraints (cage).
Confusion seems to arise when it doesn't all fit together to suit your way of looking.
So, any disagreement with what is found in the texts you view as a problem with the text and not with your lack of understanding. At least that is how it seems to me. But I am just as likely to be wrong. — Amity

Again, as I said, if you don't find my particular way of looking at things useful, you can skip it.

The way we are discussing the TTC is quite disjointed... — Amity

I've been happy with how well we have stayed on the path I envisioned when I started this thread. It doesn't feel disjointed to me at all.

The Tao is not about words, it's about what Kant calls "ding an sich" understood in the broadest sense possible. The "ding an sich" is precisely what words through "meaning" is supposed to capture. — TheMadFool

I haven't read much Kant. I remember when I first came across the idea of noumena, which is similar to ding an sich, I thought it seemed similar to the Tao. I looked on the web and actually found a paper that discussed the similarity. It's just another example of why I say that Kant, Lao Tzu, and all the rest of us are all describing the same world.

The artificial gap created by language between mind and reality is closed in that moment when you encounter a paradox. This view is counterintuitive and may even bear the hallmark of lunacy but...it can't be denied that when one is presented with paradoxes, one must eventually dive, headlong I suppose, into "meaning" for it's at that level where paradoxes exist. — TheMadFool

I wouldn't say it the way you have, but I don't think you're wrong.

How do we ‘discard’ fear? — Possibility

To oversimplify - I am afraid because I think I am my self, but that's just a story I tell. When I see through the illusion of my self, my story, there's nothing to be afraid about.

When we supposedly ‘discard’ fear we just ignore its capacity to affect us. This can be useful as a selective strategy in the short term, but this kind of ignorance can be harmful as an overall perspective. — Possibility

We don't discard fear, we see through it. See through the illusion.

The repeated acts of giving birth and the new being "returning to assist" is like knitting or weaving a fabric that permits the multiplicity of the myriad things. — Valentinus

I find "The Great One Gives Birth to the Water" perplexing. It seems by its style that it doesn't belong with the rest of the TTC, but in at least one copy found it is included on the same scrolls. It seems much more prosaic, scholarly, less poetic, than the TTC. I do like it because it has the longest "ladder." That's what I call the path downward from the Tao to the 10,000 things. Here's an example from Verse 42 by Mitchell:

The Tao gives birth to One.
One gives birth to Two.
Two gives birth to Three.
Three gives birth to all things.

So, what is the One, Two, and Three. Everyone seems to have a different idea. Is the Two Heaven and Earth? Yin and Yang? As I said, I like "The Great One" because it gives us some ideas about what the ladder might look like. Although, in reality, it probably makes things more confusing than they were before.

[Regarding] Heaven and Earth, [their] names and designations stand side by side, therefore [if we] go beyond these areas, [we] cannot think [of something] appropriate [to serve as a name]
— T Clark

This suggests that the "boundary" of names can only be conceived by presuming a dimension beyond the boundary. Staying near the boundary seems to be the emphasis of Verse 5. — Valentinus

There's a lot going on with "The Great One." I've only given you a part of it. I don't have a good grasp of how it's supposed to fit in with the TTC.

There's a lot going on with "The Great One." I've only given you a part of it. I don't have a good grasp of how it's supposed to fit in with the TTC. — T Clark

All creation stories seem to involve recognition of the "boundary" between the "named and unnamed." How they serve as a mirror can be very different. The sequential orders of birth in Verse 42 reminds me of Plato's Timaeus where the creation is presented as a sequence. While filling out the "tribes of mortal beings", the "Creator" says:

On the other hand, if they were created by me and received life at my hands, they would be on an equality with the gods. In order then that they may be mortal, and that this universe be truly universal, do ye, according to your natures, betake yourselves to the formation of animals, imitating the power which was shown by me in creating you.
The part of them worthy of the name immortal, which is called divine and is the guiding principle of those who are willing to follow justice and you--of that divine part I will myself now sow the seed, and having made a beginning, I will hand the work over to you. And do ye then interweave the mortal with the immortal and make and begat living creatures, and give them food and make them to grow, and receive them again in death. — Plato, Timaeus,41b, translated by Benjamin Jowett

I think there is common ground in framing the conditions on our side of the "heavenly gate" as interweaving the mortal with the immortal. I think the difference is that Lao Tzu is learning the lesson through navigating the world as it finds him rather than Plato framing it as a class taught by his ancestors.

it's like someone holding you by the back of your neck and pressing your face against something. The artificial gap created by language between mind and reality is closed in that moment when you encounter a paradox. — TheMadFool

I understand how the language is an "artifice" But judging the merits of what is said through it is paradoxical itself. It is not like we have another option that we have been blowing off because we are stubborn people.

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. — T Clark

Keep reading. These incomplete perceptions are not just static images - that’s just a demonstration that she can orchestrate using a book. I will say that I first read Barrett’s book following Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’, so the notion of the universe consisting of interrelated events rather than objects was the context for my understanding of Barrett’s theory. The entire physical structure of intentional action and consciousness necessitates anticipating what will come next - ‘living in the future rather than the present’.

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. — T Clark

I do think that hope and fear have a certain experiential quality in common, but I disagree that we always process these experiences the same, or that they feel the same every time. I think we can approach these concepts in such a way that they do appear to feel the same, but only by collapsing our perception of the experience to a single aspect.

So, while it makes sense to say that there is the same quality of expectation in experiences of both hope and fear, those experiences differ markedly in affect (one being pleasant and the other unpleasant), and so we process them differently, and they feel different. Once we acknowledge this, then we can begin to understand the quality of expectation beyond our affected distinction of hope and fear, and also understand affect in relation to our expectations.

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. — T Clark

What we’re calling ‘expectation’ here, Barrett refers to as prediction. When you do appear to succeed at not having expectations, are you aware of what it is you are paying attention to? And what you are ‘discarding’?

Different translations seem to differ on whether fear or surprise is a bad thing or just a thing. — T Clark

Yes - I think this difference corresponds to whether or not their interpretation is coloured by affect.

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. — T Clark

I struggle to relate to Cleary’s translation - I don’t think that ‘surprise’ or ‘alarm’ describe qualitatively how it feels to gain favour or to lose it AT ALL. The sentences are logically structured, and the character translations are all quantitatively accounted for - but it’s lacking accuracy in qualitative structure as it relates to experience. That this qualitative aspect seems such an insignificant thing to us is what concerns me.

I struggle to relate to Cleary’s translation - I don’t think that ‘surprise’ or ‘alarm’ describe qualitatively how it feels to gain favour or to lose it AT ALL. The sentences are logically structured, and the character translations are all quantitatively accounted for - but it’s lacking accuracy in qualitative structure as it relates to experience. That this qualitative aspect seems such an insignificant thing to us is what concerns me. — Possibility

I don't know how to see the matter through the text as it been given but favor and disgrace are existential.

All creation stories seem to involve recognition of the "boundary" between the "named and unnamed." How they serve as a mirror can be very different. — Valentinus

Yes. It's something I've thought about a lot recently. As I had always seen it, the process by which the Tao is differentiated into the 10,000 things was simple. We, humans, do it by naming things. Three steps - Tao; humans; 10,000 things. It's clear from reading the TTC more thoroughly that it's more complicated than that. From verse 42 it's Tao; One: Two: Three; 10,000. And then there's "The Great One." In that, it goes from Tao to 10,000 things through St. Louis with a stop in Boise. And, as you say, where along the path is the boundary? Where does it become the named world we live in.

I think there is common ground in framing the conditions on our side of the "heavenly gate" as interweaving the mortal with the immortal. I think the difference is that Lao Tzu is learning the lesson through navigating the world as it finds him rather than Plato framing it as a class taught by his ancestors. — Valentinus

I'm not sure if this is the same thing you meant - In the worlds of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Plato's Creator there's a design/builder to take care of figuring out how to put things together. Lao Tzu's world has to do all that for itself. That world has to grow up out of the Tao spontaneously. Wu Wei on a cosmic scale.

The entire physical structure of intentional action and consciousness necessitates anticipating what will come next - ‘living in the future rather than the present’. — Possibility

I'll keep reading.

So, while it makes sense to say that there is the same quality of expectation in experiences of both hope and fear, those experiences differ markedly in affect (one being pleasant and the other unpleasant), and so we process them differently, and they feel different. Once we acknowledge this, then we can begin to understand the quality of expectation beyond our affected distinction of hope and fear, and also understand affect in relation to our expectations. — Possibility

As Barrett points out, it can be hard to tell two emotions apart. It's also true that the same emotion may vary from instance to instance. I think what it comes down to is that both hope and fear deal with something happening in the future. You can't act spontaneously, wu wei, if you're not paying attention because you're thinking about the future.

What we’re calling ‘expectation’ here, Barrett refers to as prediction. — Possibility

We'll have to come back to this when I've read more.

When you do appear to succeed at not having expectations, are you aware of what it is you are paying attention to? And what you are ‘discarding’? — Possibility

I don't want to give the impression that it's something I can do on an extended basis. Do you meditate at all? I don't in any formal way, but if I pay attention, I can go to state of mind where I am aware of what is going on inside me with no words. When that happens, fear, expectation, dissolve. I haven't forgotten them and I'm not hiding them, they're just not there. This is a pretty common description of a meditative, now they're calling it "mindful," state.

I struggle to relate to Cleary’s translation — Possibility

Cleary isn't normally my favorite. I've found, though, that I'll often find a translation that really works for me from different authors, even those that aren't usually my favorites. That's why I have really enjoyed paying attention to a lot of different translations.