favor and disgrace are existential. — Valentinus

Do you mean that they threaten the basis of our lives? The foundation we stand on? Or something else?

Verse 14

Mitchell Translation

Look, and it can't be seen.
Listen, and it can't be heard.
Reach, and it can't be grasped.

Above, it isn't bright.
Below, it isn't dark.
Seamless, unnamable,
it returns to the realm of nothing.
Form that includes all forms,
image without an image,
subtle, beyond all conception.

Approach it and there is no beginning;
follow it and there is no end.
You can't know it, but you can be it,
at ease in your own life.
Just realize where you come from:
this is the essence of wisdom.

Chen Translation

What is looked at but not (pu) seen,
Is named the extremely dim (yi).
What is listened to but not heard,
Is named the extremely faint (hsi).
What is grabbed but not caught,
Is named the extremely small (wei).
These three cannot be comprehended,
Thus they blend into one.
As to the one, its coming up is not light,
Its going down is not darkness.
Unceasing, unnameable,
Again it reverts to nothing.
Therefore it is called the formless form,
The image (hsiang) of nothing.
Therefore it is said to be illusive and evasive (hu-huang).
Come toward it one does not see its head,
Follow behind it one does not see its rear.
Holding on to the Tao of old (ku chih tao),
So as to steer in the world of now (chin chih yu).
To be able to know the beginning of old,
It is to know the thread of Tao.

Chen Commentary

General Comment

This chapter is on fundamental ontology. It captures the dynamism of Tao at the transitional point between being and non-being. What we have here is the via negativa, the language of the mystics. The character u, the not, appears nine times in the chapter. Walter Stace writes: “What mystics say is that a genuine mystical experience is nonsensuous. It is formless, shapeless, colorless, odorless, soundless”.

Detailed Comment

1. As the extremely small, Tao is invisible, inaudible, and intangible. It is also the extremely small and extremely great (ch. 41.3). Either way it is beyond our sensual experience. The existence of Tao cannot be verified. Here we move from the phenomenal world of the many to the hidden Tao as one.

2. Our translation of the first line follows the Ma-wang Tui texts. The beginnings of both versions A and B contain two additional characters, i the (as to the one), not found in other editions. This addition makes for better continuity between (1) and (2). In these lines Tao, as the one further recedes and reveals itself to be nothing or chaos (hu-huang). On the non-being aspect of Tao the Chuang Tzu (ch. 22) muses: Bright Dazzlement asked Nonexistence, “Sir, do you exist or do you not exist?” Unable to obtain any answer, Bright Dazzlement stared intently at the other’s face and form—all was vacuity and blankness. He stared all day but could see nothing, listened but could hear no sound, stretched out his hand but grasped nothing. “Perfect!” exclaimed Bright Dazzlement. “Who can reach such perfection? I can the existence of nonexistence, but not of the nonexistence of nonexistence. Yet this man has reached the stage of the nonexistence of nonexistence. How could I ever reach such perfection!” (Watson: 244.)

3. The “Tao of old” (ku chih tao) in line 3 pairs with “the world of now” (chin chih yu) in line 4. From his philological study Kao Heng determined that yü (being) in the Tao Te Ching has the same meaning as yü (space). Whatever has being occupies space. Thus, chin chih yu, the realm of being at the present moment, is “the world (yu) of now.” If “the world of now” as being means space, “the Tao of old” as non-being (wu) is time. The priority of non-being over being (ch. 40) means the priority of time over space, of dynamism over form. This “Tao of old,” which is the formless form, the image of nothing, giving rise to beings (yu) that have form and occupy space (yü), is none other than the flux of time. This “Tao of old” that informs “the world of now” is what Jean Gebser calls the “Ever-Present

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

Ok - seeing through it makes sense. I just get a sense that we’re intellectually accepting these translations because they have a satisfying quantitative or logical structure to them, regardless of whether or not they’re qualitatively accurate. I think we need to be more thorough than that.

Fear is not an illusion, anymore than money or countries are illusions. They are concepts in our social reality, a product of human agreement - this is something that Barrett also covers early in her book. Fear is identified by neural firing patterns as a mental event, in a categorisation method (proposed by Darwin) known as population thinking. Fear as an event has been demonstrated as irreducible to a particular location or set of neurons in the brain, leading to an understanding of degeneracy: a many-to-one relational structure between neurons and the firing patterns that identify as mental events. This many-to-one relational structure is a key understanding between what we perceive as objectively, actually and conceptually real. It makes perfect sense to me as a dimensional relation - objective reality as 3D, actual reality as 4D and conceptual reality as 5D. And I find uncanny parallels between this dimensional or many-to-one structure of reality, and the one described in the TTC - when we ‘see through’ the quantitative consolidation of 10,000 things: concepts, events, objects, shapes, lines and binaries.

An intellectual relation to the TTC is not enough - we can’t just see through affect and from there expect to effortlessly render the Tao in our everyday reality. The process of understanding the Tao includes constructing a reductionist methodology that renders this understanding in how we think, speak, act and generally relate to the world - all of which is necessarily bound by affect. So we need to understand how affect binds us and those around us, and then seek the soft tendons and effortless actions that preserve the knife. I see this as increasing awareness, connection and collaboration.

Barrett gives an analogy of the brain’s interoceptive network as a scientist formulating and testing predictions. I’m adding it here because I think it relates to this idea of constructing our reductionist methodology, and why qualitative accuracy is important in translating the TTC:

...your brain works like a scientist. It’s always making a slew of predictions, just as a scientist makes competing hypotheses. Like a scientist, your brain uses knowledge (past experience) to estimate how confident you can be that each prediction is true. Your brain then tests its predictions by comparing them to incoming sensory input from the world, much as a scientist compares hypotheses against data in an experiment. If your brain is predicting well, then input from the world confirms your predictions. Usually, however, there is some prediction error, and your brain, like a scientist, has some options. It can be a responsible scientist and change its predictions to respond to the data. Your brain can also be a biased scientist and selectively choose data that fits the hypotheses, ignoring everything else. Your brain can also be an unscrupulous scientist and ignore the data altogether, maintaining that its predictions are reality. Or, in moments of learning or discovery, your brain can be a curious scientist and focus on input. And like the quintessential scientist, your brain can run armchair experiments to imagine the world: pure simulation without sensory input or prediction error.
The balance between prediction and prediction error determines how much of your experience is rooted in the outside world versus inside your head....in many cases, the outside world is irrelevant to your experience. In a sense, your brain is wired for delusion: through continual prediction, you experience a world of your own creation that is held in check by the sensory world. Once your predictions are correct enough, they not only create your perception and action but also explain the meaning of your sensations. This is your brain’s default mode. And marvellously, your brain does not just predict the future: it can imagine the future at will. As far as we know, no other animal can do that. — Barrett, ‘How Emotions Are Made’

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. — T Clark

This is a common intellectual, even Western, description of ‘mindfulness’. It’s a restructuring of our conceptual reality that consolidates the mind as isolated from the body.

The difference between this and genuine meditation is a sense of being: of the mind as inclusive of the body and its affect, rather than disconnected from it. It’s a much more difficult state to attain - almost impossible from an intellectual standpoint. Taoist meditation practices are designed to help us get out of our own way - to get our brain out of this ‘default mode’ that Barrett talks about, and focused on input as the start of an internal process. The idea is to become more aware of what happens to this input - what the ‘scientist’ does with the incoming data in relation to the hypotheses, so to speak. Meditation faces affect head-on, creating controlled conditions of distributed attention and effort in order to disentangle affect from the incoming data.

In this state, for me it isn’t so much that fear isn’t there, or that expectation dissolves, but that it just isn’t what we think it is. What ‘fear’ consists of still exists as variable qualitative experience - it’s just not a thing in itself.

Ok - seeing through it makes sense. I just get a sense that we’re intellectually accepting these translations because they have a satisfying quantitative or logical structure to them, regardless of whether or not they’re qualitatively accurate. I think we need to be more thorough than that. — Possibility

I see what we're doing, at least what I'm trying to do, differently than that. I'm an intellectual, verbal guy. So there's a natural tendency for me to work with words. That's ok with Lao Tzu, because he has set the TTC up as an obstacle course for over-intellectual people. I see every verse, every translation, every discussion, every commentary as a snapshot of the Tao made up of words. As a cross-section through it. Maybe like a cat scan. These snapshots are full of contradictions, inaccuracies, misunderstandings, language confusion. Once we've taken enough of these cross-sections, even though they are made up of words, we can get a non-verbal, impressionistic feel for what the experience of what the Tao might be like.

So, when I come up with another explanation, question, thought, contemplation, it's not that I believe that it's the answer. It's just another picture for the pile. I like some pictures better than others. And I can use all of your explanations, questions, thoughts, and contemplations as snapshots too. That's the value of doing this as a group. I'm not accepting any of the verses or any of the translations. I'm using them. I focus on the ones that speak to me, but I also take a look at those that don't. That's what I mean when I say we can't know or understand the Tao, but maybe we can experience it. This is fun.

They are concepts in our social reality, a product of human agreement — Possibility

I.e. they are included in the 10,000 things.

Fear is identified by neural firing patterns as a mental event, in a categorisation method (proposed by Darwin) known as population thinking. Fear as an event has been demonstrated as irreducible to a particular location or set of neurons in the brain, leading to an understanding of degeneracy: a many-to-one relational structure between neurons and the firing patterns that identify as mental events. — Possibility

Fear, at least as I'm talking about it, and as I think Lao Tzu thought about it, is a mental experience. It's part of the mind. Let's not get into a discussion of mind/brain identity. For me, the mind and the brain are completely different things. The nervous system, the whole body, is a living organ made up of cells. Fear is an experience. We typically use different words to describe them. Now I'm trying to figure out how the things Barrett says fit into this picture. I think maybe the findings of cognitive science have added a new level or organization between mind and brain. Not sure, and I don't want to get deeply into that.

The process of understanding the Tao includes constructing a reductionist methodology that renders this understanding in how we think, speak, act and generally relate to the world - all of which is necessarily bound by affect. — Possibility

As you might intimate from what I wrote above, I don't agree with this. I don't think there is a reductionist methodology within 10 miles of the TTC.

This is a common intellectual, even Western, description of ‘mindfulness’. It’s a restructuring of our conceptual reality that consolidates the mind as isolated from the body. — Possibility

This is not true for me.

In this state, for me it isn’t so much that fear isn’t there, or that expectation dissolves, but that it just isn’t what we think it is. What ‘fear’ consists of still exists as variable qualitative experience - it’s just not a thing in itself. — Possibility

I don't see how this is different from what I described. Actually, I do. Once I become aware of fear and face it contemplatively, the physiological markers that we identify as fear go away. The "variable qualitative experience" of fear is gone.

Fear, at least as I'm talking about it, and as I think Lao Tzu thought about it, is a mental experience. It's part of the mind. Let's not get into a discussion of mind/brain identity. For me, the mind and the brain are completely different things. The nervous system, the whole body, is a living organ made up of cells. Fear is an experience. — T Clark

I see this reflected, too, in your personal preference for ‘self’ instead of ‘body’ in translations of this verse. It seems from what you’re saying here that you subscribe to some form of dualism or idealism, as incongruous as I find this to be with the TTC.

The way I see it, fear is an experience inseparable from ‘mind’ or ‘body’. You seem reluctant to explore this, preferring to see fear as all in the mind. Ideally or potentially, sure, it can be. But any event we manifest includes our relation to these qualitative aspects we consolidate as ‘fear’, whether we can see through the concept or not. When we’re aware of this or anticipate it, then we can deliberately see through it, dissolving ‘fear’ into an unpleasant, arousing feeling in relation to a prediction. I do think that Lao Tzu challenges us to anticipate both pleasant and unpleasant surprises, and in doing so see through both fear and hope.

But I also think Lao Tzu describes our relational structure as dissolving any quantitative distinction between mind and brain. More often than not we’re not paying that much attention introspectively. We should acknowledge, with humility, those times when, in failing to predict accurately, we find ourselves surprisingly affected by our expectations. Despite physiological preparation to fight or flee, we need not act on this, but often we’re left to explain an unconscious response after the fact. How readily do we acknowledge fear as an explanation then - especially if we believe that fear is just a mental experience?

Fear is not an illusion, anymore than money or countries are illusions. — Possibility

I agree.

@T Clark earlier: 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.

I see hope not as an illusion. It underlies the present and is an important motivator.
If you are writing words in a post, this involves hope.
You have a hope that your words might mean something to somebody.

The author of the TTC had a goal.
He hoped that he could achieve this by using words.
Words that could express his thoughts in poetic form.

He hoped that his words might mean something to somebody.
In the act of writing, he was thinking about the future.
He was also paying attention.

Hope is an important part of living. It is a driving force.

'Hope is the thing with feathers' - Emily Dickinson

“Hope” is the thing with feathers -
That perches in the soul -
And sings the tune without the words -
And never stops - at all -

And sweetest - in the Gale - is heard -
And sore must be the storm -
That could abash the little Bird
That kept so many warm -

I’ve heard it in the chillest land -
And on the strangest Sea -
Yet - never - in Extremity,
It asked a crumb - of me.

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. — Amity

Well, I must've read a cheap knockoff version of the Tao Te Ching then. Sorry. But for what it's worth a few verses that prove my point that the Tao Te Ching is about paradoxes:

The most straight seems curved. — Tao Te Ching

The easy seems hard — Tao Te Ching

the path forward seems like retreat — Tao Te Ching

Yes, I'm using words to express my views on the Tao Te Ching but that can't be helped. How do you want me to communicate my understanding of the Tao without using a system of communication (language)?

That said, the following verse seems apposite,

Those who speak don't know and those who know don't speak — Tao Te Ching

That "those who speak don't know and those who know don't speak" is an explicit statement on the nature of the Tao as something beyond language and in order to give eager enthusiasts of Taoism a feel for that Laozi resorts to paradoxes because,

1. To understand paradoxes, we have get down to the level of semantics - what the words mean - and semantics is, if you really look at it, reality itself, the many ways it presents itself to us. Words are there only as labels for aspects of reality, be it an object, state, or phenomenon. Thus, paradoxes serve the important function of forcing us to think about reality itself.

2. A method to resolve paradoxes is to play with words as I demonstrated in my previous post. Take the verse, "the most straight is curved" which is a paradox given straight and curved are opposites i.e. one can't be the other as the verse claims. However, if I were to say "straight"' means curved, then the contradiction's resolved.

Note how I tackled the problem: I didn't do anything to the words themselves but I tinkered around with the semantics which I already informed you is reality as it is. This technique of resolving contradictions is a cheap trick, yes, but only if resolving paradoxical contradictions were the aim; the paradoxes in the Tao Te Ching are not meant to be resolved at all. Au contraire, they're meant to put pressure on the mind to look past the words and go into semantics which, as I explained earlier, is reality itself, beyond words.

Those who speak don't know and those who know don't speak — Laozi

The Tao that can be named is not the Eternal Tao — Tao Te Ching

It seems from what you’re saying here that you subscribe to some form of dualism or idealism, — Possibility

No, I'm not talking about dualism. I'm talking about different levels of organization. Biology is not chemistry. Psychology is not anatomy. When I talk about "mind," I talk about fear, thought, sight, experience. When I talk about "body," I talk about neurons, brain, stomach, blood. Mind is not self. Mind can be our experience of our bodies.

You seem reluctant to explore this, preferring to see fear as all in the mind. — Possibility

It's not fair (stomps feet). I tell you I don't see things the way you do and you say I'm "reluctant to explore."

But I also think Lao Tzu describes our relational structure as dissolving any quantitative distinction between mind and brain. More often than not we’re not paying that much attention introspectively. We should acknowledge, with humility, those times when, in failing to predict accurately, we find ourselves surprisingly affected by our expectations. Despite physiological preparation to fight or flee, we need not act on this, but often we’re left to explain an unconscious response after the fact. How readily do we acknowledge fear as an explanation then - especially if we believe that fear is just a mental experience? — Possibility

I don't think Lao Tzu ever thought in those terms, even beyond differences in language. I don't see how the process you describe is reflected anywhere in the TTC. That's not saying the description you're giving is wrong, it's just not what the TTC is talking to me about. I understand you see things differently.

And in your defense - since the beginning of our discussions, I've tried to pay attention to how fear and other emotions play out as experience to see if Barrett's way of seeing things is useful. I've always been aware that fear expresses itself differently at different times. I'm trying to watch that better.

I see hope not as an illusion. It underlies the present and is an important motivator.
If you are writing words in a post, this involves hope.
You have a hope that your words might mean something to somebody.

The author of the TTC had a goal.
He hoped that he could achieve this by using words.
Words that could express his thoughts in poetic form.

He hoped that his words might mean something to somebody.
In the act of writing, he was thinking about the future.
He was also paying attention.

Hope is an important part of living. It is a driving force. — Amity

I don't agree with this and I don't think Lao Tzu would either. Don't you like how I can authoritatively put words into Lao Tzu's mouth.

That "those who speak don't know and those who know don't speak" is an explicit statement on the nature of the Tao as something beyond language and in order to give eager enthusiasts of Taoism a feel for that Laozi resorts to paradoxes because, — TheMadFool

I agree.

1. To understand paradoxes, we have get down to the level of semantics - what the words mean - and semantics is, if you really look at it, reality itself, the many ways it presents itself to us. Words are there only as labels for aspects of reality, be it an object, state, or phenomenon. Thus, paradoxes serve the important function of forcing us to think about reality itself. — TheMadFool

I'm ok with this, as long as, when you say "reality" you mean "the 10,000 things" and not "the Tao."

However, if I were to say "straight"' means curved, then the contradiction's resolved. — TheMadFool

I think it's more than that. It looks like your quote comes from Verse 45, so we'll get back to it. We could skip directly to that verse, but some don't like my habit of jumping around.

I'm ok with this, as long as, when you say "reality" you mean "the 10,000 things" and not "the Tao." — T Clark

To be frank, the interpretation of Taoism as presented in my last few posts is definitely not the final word on the subject. It's just one of possibly hundreds and thousands of ways of understanding the cryptic Laozi. It made sense to me for I don't see a purpose in being more obscure than is necessary, a principle Laozi must have some familiarity with. That being the case the paradoxes in Taoism must be absolutely necessary. Therefore, if we're to apprehend Laozi's message, assuming he even had one, the obvious place to start is the nature of paradoxes and how they relates to language and such. I offered my own personal perspective in that context, that's all. If you have doubts as to whether this is the correct way to understand Taoism, I have no real reason to counter that.

That out of the way, what do you think "the 10,000 things" means? For my money, the exact figure of 10,000 is not as important as what it suggests viz. multiplicity, plurarlity, or what Laozi is really worried about viz. division that then becomes the cause of strife, chaos, and, of course the main antagonist, suffering.

Laozi wants us to see past differences, the very foundation of all division, "the 10,000 things", and try and grasp what I can only refer to as the unity which is the Tao. In order to do that Laozi resorts to paradoxes, contradictions, because these are the extremes of division; we could make the case that grey is black or that grey is white but to say black is white, as the Tao Te Ching's many paradoxes eventually reduce to, is to defy all reason.

We need to pay close attention to "...to defy all reason..." the words that appear at the end of the last sentence in the paragraph above because Laozi isn't proposing that we should now give up on logic and reason, embrace irrationality. Quite the "opposite", he wants us to realize that, to continue with my example of black and white, though black isn't white, they're opposites, they share a certain characteristic viz. they're extremes and in that sense, black and white are same - they are both at the very ends of a spectrum that extends gradually from one to the other. Isn't that what yin-yang is about? The eternal dance of opposites, the masculine dominating, the feminine yielding, and our job, according to Laozi, is not, as I thought earlier, to be some kind of harmonizing force, heroically bringing balance to the world but simply to yield willingly and to the best of our ability to the yin and the yang as both converge on us as both do on each and every one of us.

I think it's more than that. It looks like your quote comes from Verse 45, so we'll get back to it. We could skip directly to that verse, but some don't like my habit of jumping around. — T Clark

:up:

If you have doubts as to whether this is the correct way to understand Taoism, I have no real reason to counter that. — TheMadFool

You must have noticed that each of the people in this discussion have different ideas about what the Tao Te Ching means. We all speak with different words. You say "paradox." @Possibility says "affect." I say "experience." These are the ideas we use to open up what TTC means. I think that the words we use have special meaning to us that provides a key. I've noticed in your other posts that paradoxes mean a lot to you, so the key for you is to look at the paradoxes. You seem to have gained a lot of confidence since this thread started.

That out of the way, what do you think "the 10,000 things" means? For my money, the exact figure of 10,000 is not as important as what it suggests viz. multiplicity, plurarlity, or what Laozi is really worried about viz. division that then becomes the cause of strife, chaos, and, of course the main antagonist, suffering. — TheMadFool

Some translations say "10,000 things." Some say the "multiplicity of beings." I have a personal affection for 10,000 things. You're right, it's not really 10,000, it's the ancient Chinese version of a bajillion.

Laozi wants us to see past differences, the very foundation of all division, "the 10,000 things", and try and grasp what I can only refer to as the unity which is the Tao. — TheMadFool

Lao Tzu doesn't find fault with the 10,000 things. He acknowledges that they are a manifestation of the Tao. The fact that they are different, but are also aspects of the same thing he calls the "mystery."

We need to pay close attention to "...to defy all reason..." the words that appear at the end of the last sentence in the paragraph above because Laozi isn't proposing that we should now give up on logic and reason, embrace irrationality. — TheMadFool

The things Lao Tzu writes about are not rational or irrational. They're non-rational. I'm not sure what his thoughts on logic would be.

The eternal dance of opposites, the masculine dominating, the feminine yielding, and our job, according to Laozi, is not, as I thought earlier, to be some kind of harmonizing force, heroically bringing balance to the world but simply to yield willingly and to the best of our ability to the yin and the yang as both converge on us as both do on each and every one of us. — TheMadFool

I'm not sure what Lao Tzu thought our job is, if he thought about that at all.

This verse is a watershed of different views. Are the things being named as awkwardly related to each other as the problem of talking about them? Or is there an order that is consistent to itself as how things come about that we only understand poorly through deficient means?

The answer or problems toward answering that question tempers the element of Mysticism that has been represented in so many different ways, here, and in the academic commentary.

Put another way, the strong language about how one set of conditions leads to another points to one kind of observation. The ground where we make comparisons points to something else.

As you might intimate from what I wrote above, I don't agree with this. I don't think there is a reductionist methodology within 10 miles of the TTC. — T Clark

Except you do think that Lao Tzu wrote the TTC for a specific communicative purpose, and I think you’d agree that the text uses a particular language, and employs a particular style and structure in itself. That a reductionist methodology, right there - a way of rendering an understanding of the Tao in a relational structure of strokes on a page. Like the choices an artist makes to render a 4D experience of light and movement in 2D.

This is where the TTC in its Chinese character format shines. Each character signifies a relational quality rather than a concept, retaining this same quality regardless of where or how it’s positioned in the text or in our experience. There’s an honesty to this that makes the language ideal for piecing together what we experience qualitatively, but don’t yet understand. Lao Tzu painted the human experience with relational qualities that flowed in patterns he was aware of, connected to and collaborating with - regardless of whether or not he understood them as such. These included some that modern readers now understand much better than Lao Tzu ever did, as well as some that the reader ignores, isolates and excludes. The flexibility of this format makes the theory of ‘the Laozi’ as a culturally compiled text of wisdom, rather than a single person’s understanding, plausible. Where the TTC makes sense to us, the language seems to hum and resonate within us. And where it doesn’t, there are experiences to which we’ve yet to relate, and koans to meditate on.

When it’s translated into English, though, these relational qualities cease to flow, and we struggle to distinguish between possible gaps in our own awareness and that of the translation. The structure of the English language insists that biology is not chemistry and psychology is not anatomy - that each ‘level of organisation’ must be spoken about in a different way, using different words. But the qualities of experience don’t change between these levels - only our relation to them changes. Many relational, qualitative structures of chemistry are echoed in biology, and there are patterns of qualitative flow that can be found at every level of organisation. Expectation or prediction, for instance, looks like DNA at a biological level.

Each attempted translation of the TTC proposes an alternative reductionist methodology, a set of hypotheses to be tested by relating to experience, life and objective reality. We’re not testing what is written, therefore, but our own relation to it.

You seem reluctant to explore this, preferring to see fear as all in the mind.
— Possibility

It's not fair (stomps feet). I tell you I don't see things the way you do and you say I'm "reluctant to explore." — T Clark

I don’t expect you to see things the way I do - only to explore its potential from your own perspective, to ask yourself why you don’t see fear in the body as well as the mind, how your perspective might change if you did, and if that’s such a bad thing...

What is looked at but not (pu) seen,
Is named the extremely dim (yi).
What is listened to but not heard,
Is named the extremely faint (hsi).
What is grabbed but not caught,
Is named the extremely small (wei).
These three cannot be comprehended,
Thus they blend into one.
As to the one, its coming up is not light,
Its going down is not darkness.
Unceasing, unnameable,
Again it reverts to nothing.
Therefore it is called the formless form,
The image (hsiang) of nothing.
Therefore it is said to be illusive and evasive (hu-huang).
Come toward it one does not see its head,
Follow behind it one does not see its rear.
Holding on to the Tao of old (ku chih tao),
So as to steer in the world of now (chin chih yu).
To be able to know the beginning of old,
It is to know the thread of Tao. — T Clark

I don’t have much to argue over with this translation at all, nor with Chen’s detailed comments. I can see why you use this version - its descriptions of the Tao itself seem quite clear to me. It reminds me of qualitative descriptions in quantum field theory.

My own understanding of the Tao is this: there exists, quite unnecessarily, a structure of qualitative relation which in totality cancels itself out, in plurality ignores, isolates, and excludes, and in unity increases awareness, connection and collaboration.

My take on the Tao Te Ching. I offer a Hobson's choice of course but that's just me and nothing to do with what Laozi really wanted to share regarding reality and our place in it.

I suppose my approach to the Tao Te Ching is heavily influenced by my fascination with detective fictions like Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot - I look at everything, at least try to, as a mystery that needs a solving. I tried to piece together the puzzle that the Tao Te Ching is into a coherent story and what came out of that is what I put on the table. Perhaps it wasn't as convincing as I had initially thought.

This is where I sign off...

Good luck!

Well, I must've read a cheap knockoff version of the Tao Te Ching then. Sorry. But for what it's worth a few verses that prove my point that the Tao Te Ching is about paradoxes: — TheMadFool

There is no need to resort to cheap and cheeky tricks. Did you really think that I required proof of the existence of paradoxes in the TTC ? I know you didn't - you are a careful reader and writer.
I was going to ignore this response. However, you raise good points and perhaps I hang around to clarify things more for myself and any others. Thanks for a valuable contribution.

paradoxes serve the important function of forcing us to think about reality itself. — TheMadFool

Yes and more.
From: https://literarydevices.net/paradox/

Definition of Paradox
A paradox is a statement that appears at first to be contradictory, but upon reflection then makes sense. This literary device is commonly used to engage a reader to discover an underlying logic in a seemingly self-contradictory statement or phrase. As a result, paradox allows readers to understand concepts in a different and even non-traditional way...

As a literary device, paradox functions as a means of setting up a situation, idea, or concept that appears on the surface to be contradictory or impossible. However, with further thought, understanding, or reflection, the conflict is resolved due to the discovery of an underlying level of reason or logic. This is effective in that a paradox creates interest and a need for resolution on the part of the reader for understanding. This allows the reader to invest in a literary work as a means of deciphering the meaning of the paradox.

[ my emphases]

A method to resolve paradoxes is to play with words — TheMadFool

I tinkered around with the semantics which I already informed you is reality as it is. This technique of resolving contradictions is a cheap trick, yes, but only if resolving paradoxical contradictions were the aim; the paradoxes in the Tao Te Ching are not meant to be resolved at all. Au contraire, they're meant to put pressure on the mind to look past the words and go into semantics which, as I explained earlier, is reality itself, beyond words. — TheMadFool

[my emphasis]

Yes. Paradoxes aren't simply about language - changing the meaning of words. Some paradoxes can be resolved others cannot or are not meant to be.
Reading the TTC with all its paradoxes seems to turn it into a mere set of puzzles to be resolved. We need to read carefully before we can even begin to decipher the meaning. That much is obvious.
However, it is not just a set of puzzles to solve...
'The whole is greater than the sum of its parts', as someone once said.

Reading is an experience which each person has.
It is fascinating to see how each participant here reads and makes sense of the book.
As you say, 'the reality itself, beyond words'.
Further careful thought and reflection required.

This verse is a watershed of different views. Are the things being named as awkwardly related to each other as the problem of talking about them? Or is there an order that is consistent to itself as how things come about that we only understand poorly through deficient means?

The answer or problems toward answering that question tempers the element of Mysticism that has been represented in so many different ways, here, and in the academic commentary.

Put another way, the strong language about how one set of conditions leads to another points to one kind of observation. The ground where we make comparisons points to something else. — Valentinus

Yes - I think this verse is the beginning of a new tack. First of all, these are aspects of reality that elude us in some way. Perhaps we can look at them this way:

What draws our sensory attention, but cannot be seen in itself, we call destructive. Energy is like this. So is time, the weather, gravity, erosion, etc.

What attracts our desire to learn, but doesn’t offer a clear set of instructions, we call hope. Potentiality is like this. So is peace, knowledge, success, morality, and the path of a quantum particle.

And what attracts our effort to relate, but cannot be grasped, we call abstruse. Truth is like this. So is objectivity, meaning, the ‘God particle’, etc

For me, these three correspond to four, five and six-dimensional qualitative structures, but this is probably not what Lao Tzu saw. What he did see was that, unable to examine these aspects closely as such, we tend to confuse them all as one. This doesn’t help. The blended confusion fails to sparkle at best; at worst, we can’t just ignore it. We can’t stop it or name it, and it appears to be nothing at all - the uncaused cause, unmoved mover, etc.

Lao Tzu’s solution seems to be to examine our history of relation to the Tao, and the very next verse begins with a description of the old masters.

I think it's more than that. It looks like your quote comes from Verse 45, so we'll get back to it. We could skip directly to that verse, but some don't like my habit of jumping around.
— T Clark
:up: — TheMadFool

If I am one of the 'some', then you can and will do whatever you like. It's your thread.
Re: the thread. You disagreed with me re its disjointed nature. Again, only quoting part of my post. Did you not appreciate my thoughts about a meandering path ?

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... — 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. — T Clark

The way you envisioned as per OP:

In my next post, I will start with the first verse. After that, if people want to bring in their own favorites, that will be ok. I would like to work our way through it more or less in order. I will skip many verses just because I feel like it.

Keep in mind - I'm not going to be talking about what the TTC means. I will be talking about what it means to me. — T Clark

The thread grew from these roots and branched out a bit more.
I consider that to be a good thing.
However, sometimes off-shoots, like this, just get in the way...
They need to be cut back, reduced, so that the tree can grow to its full potential.

[ I had intended to focus only on the verses. However, I needed to get this out of the way.
There will be no more of it ]

In order to do that Laozi resorts to paradoxes, contradictions, because these are the extremes of division; we could make the case that grey is black or that grey is white but to say black is white, as the Tao Te Ching's many paradoxes eventually reduce to, is to defy all reason. — TheMadFool

I do agree that paradoxes are an important aspect of the TTC, but I think those you offer as examples demonstrate what are only apparent paradoxes - as illustrated by the word ‘seem’. As an analogy, black is grey and white is grey, which seems to imply that black is white. The challenge is to stop looking at the concepts, and instead examine how we relate to the qualities of experience expressed. From our discussion on verse 2:

Good and bad, black and white, beautiful and ugly - these are not naming things or concepts but boundaries to value structures that differentiate our relation to the Tao.

I’m saying that black and white, for instance, we have arbitrarily named as upper and lower limitations to the variable quality of greyness. Good and bad, beautiful and ugly, etc are also nothing but constructs of our own limited relations. I’m saying that the variability of greyness can be differentiated and named as particular ‘shades’ only in relation to black and white. The variability of our experience can be differentiated and named as particular things only in relation to these upper and lower limitations of value structure. This is how we make initial sense of our relation to the world. — Possibility

that's just me and nothing to do with what Laozi really wanted to share regarding reality and our place in it. — TheMadFool

'Just you' is a welcome part of the reality.

I suppose my approach to the Tao Te Ching is heavily influenced by my fascination with detective fictions like Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot - I look at everything, at least try to, as a mystery that needs a solving. — TheMadFool

I don't think you are alone there.
We all seem to have this need to seek and find a solution to the puzzle that is life. Life is the biggest mystery of all, don't you think ?

This is where I sign off...
Good luck! — TheMadFool

:sad:

Go if you must. But I wish you wouldn't.

That is exactly what I was going to do. Leave.
However, for me, this is not about convincing others of a particular approach or understanding.
It is simply sharing thoughts as we read. Not so simply.
I appreciate disagreements as much as agreements.
As long as there are reasons or a thoughtful follow-up, it helps progress the discussion better than a quick, dismissive response.

As you say: 'About what Laozi really wanted to share regarding reality and our place in it.'
Still a work in progress. We need you and all the sharp knives on the table :cool:

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts — Amity

Funny, I don't see the relevance but that's probably just me.

Further careful thought and reflection required. — Amity

How might I do that? Any ideas?

Did you really think that I required proof of the existence of paradoxes in the TTC ? — Amity

No. Why?

Thanks for a valuable contribution. — Amity

Anytime although I don't see myself as that.

Further careful thought and reflection required.
— Amity

How might I do that? Any ideas? — TheMadFool

I don't think you need help with that one.
I see you'll soon be celebrating TPF membership of 5yrs.
Congrats :party:

Yes - I think this verse is the beginning of a new tack. First of all, these are aspects of reality that elude us in some way. Perhaps we can look at them this way: — Possibility

Interesting way to look at them. Will have to read and reflect...

What he did see was that, unable to examine these aspects closely as such, we tend to confuse them all as one. This doesn’t help...
Lao Tzu’s solution seems to be to examine our history of relation to the Tao, and the very next verse begins with a description of the old masters. — Possibility

Excerpts from the Ivanhoe translation:

Looked for but not seen, its name is ''minute''.
Listened for but not heard, its name is ''rarified''.
Grabbed for but not gotten, its name is ''subtle''.
These three cannot be perfectly explained, and so are confused and regarded as one...

...Trailing off without end, it cannot be named.
It returns to its home, back before there were things. ( note 32)

...Hold fast to the Way of old, in order to control what is here today.
The ability to know the ancient beginnings, this is called the thread of the Way. — Ivanhoe

Notes:
32. Returning to an ideal past state is a common theme in the text.
For other examples see chapters 16, 25, 28, 30 and 52.

I don't think you need help with that one.
I see you'll soon be celebrating TPF membership of 5yrs.
Congrats — Amity

Three-quarters of that time was spent in an oppressive haze of confusion. Believe me, I need all the help I can get. Thanks though and felicitations to you too :party:

Three-quarters of that time was spent in an oppressive haze of confusion. — TheMadFool

:rofl:

:smile: I'm serious!