Libravox, a wonderful free audio book site, has the Tao Te Ching in English. I don't know if it has it in Chinese. — T Clark

I had forgotten about Librivox - yes, it helped me when I was learning Italian :cool:
https://librivox.org/

The translation I found was that of Legge. I don't care for it much.
Also noted there is a German translation.
Couldn't find a Chinese version. However, there are lists of tons of Chinese stories, books within which the TTC might be hidden...

I'm trying to decide whether I agree with this or not... Ok. I'll agree with a stipulation. I still think "relate" is the wrong word, but I'm not sure what the right word is. — T Clark

Well, if you find a better word, be sure and let me know. For me, ‘relate’ is the basis of existence, the purest description of the seemingly infinite ways and levels in which anyone or anything could be aware of, connected to or collaborating.

I’m not suggesting that ‘sincerity’ as a word cannot fit - only that the way we understand the concept of sincerity consolidates the relational quality so that it stands in isolation, as one of the ‘10,000 things’. There is some ‘unpacking’ that needs to occur to allow its quality to flow freely. For me, there is a noticeable energy flow difference between sincerity in or of the Tao (which is not the Tao), and faithfulness as qualitative relation to the Tao.
— Possibility

I think this is responsive to what you've written. I hope so. The Tao gave birth to the 10,000 things. That is the relation between them. I guess the only one. I have not resolved for myself how we get from the Tao to the 10,000 things. What I always told myself was that it was people naming things that did it, without putting any more thought into it than that. I still think that makes sense, but I'm pretty sure it's not what Lao Tzu had in mind. That's as close as I have come to recognizing a relationship between the Tao and the world. I think the idea of "te," which comes up later in the TTC, has something to do with it. — T Clark

I agree that the most obvious difference between the Tao and the 10,000 things is the naming. What this naming does, though, is divide any relation to the Tao through a process of awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation or collaboration/exclusion in what would otherwise be a completely free flow of energy. An experience of that is not this. It’s not just how we make sense of existence, but how existence (or the flow of potential energy itself, chi) has gradually made sense of itself: from the differentiation of matter from anti-matter or the up/down spin of quantum particles, to the broad diversity of life, the universe and human ideas.

So, although we may have a sense that this diversity is one, our energy is spent developing relationships with each of the 10,000 things, and then between each of them, in order to try and unify them. It’s beyond the capacity of a single human mind - this is a realisation I was struggling with long before I picked up the TTC. I see the TTC as an attempt to understand what unifies the 10,000 things in the Tao without necessarily having to identify and understand each of them individually - without knowing everything. Lao Tzu uses the logical system of the traditional Chinese language, which builds ideas out of qualities in the human experience, to build a logical framework idea which enables a qualitative human experience of the Tao that transcends the 10,000 things. It’s genius, really.

The difficulty is that self-identity is one of these 10,000 things - and we’re rather attached to this concept (among others) in our modern, Western experience. So there’s a disconnect between the quantitative conceptual structure of modern thought (ie. English idea concepts) and the qualitative experiential structure of the TTC (Chinese idea characters), which we refer to as ‘metaphor’. Meditation helps to explore a clear mind as consisting of qualitative experience, which eventually allows us to explore ideas as qualitative experience, instead of as conceptual structure. But I think that understanding how the logical framework described in the TTC might be translated into a framework between conceptual and empirical reality can also be useful, especially if we’re working in English.

I do think that te (literally translated as ‘virtue, goodness, morality, ethics, kindness, favour, character’) refers to this constructed framework idea.

I guess the question becomes: why are we exploring an interpretation of this piece of music? Is it to forge our own personal performance of it, our own interpretation among the many, or is it to help others connect with the truth of the composition, with what the score was reaching towards? — Possibility

@Amity quoted this from one of your posts and it made me think of a passage that deals with musical interpretation but which I think can also be seen as a way of seeing the Tao. The following passage, I apologize for its length, is from "October Light" a novel by John Gardner. I also apologize to the ghost of Mr. Gardner because I've separated the passage into paragraphs while he had it as one long one. I think I understand why he did it that way, but I wanted to make it easier to read. I love it.

Then it had come to him as a startling revelation-though he couldn't explain even to his horn teacher Andre Speyer why it was that he found the discovery startling-that the music meant nothing at all but what it was: panting, puffing, comically hurrying French horns. That had been, ever since- until tonight- what he saw when he closed his eyes and listened: horns, sometimes horn players, but mainly horn sounds, the very nature of horn sounds, puffing, hurrying, getting in each other's way yet in wonderful agreement finally, as if by accident. Sometimes, listening, he would smile, and his father would say quizzically, "What's with you?" It was the same when he listened to the other movements: What he saw was French horns, that is, the music. The moods changed, things happened, but only to French horns, French horn sounds.

There was a four-note theme in the second movement that sounded like "..Oh When the Saints," a theme that shifted from key to key, sung with great confidence by a solo horn, answered by a kind of scornful gibberish from the second, third, and fourth, as if the first horn's opinion was ridiculous and they knew what they knew. Or the slow movement: As if they'd finally stopped and thought it out, the horns played together, a three-note broken chord several times repeated, and then the first horn taking off as if at the suggestion of the broken chord and flying like a gull-except not like a gull, nothing like that, flying like only a solo French horn. Now the flying solo became the others' suggestion and the chord began to undulate, and all four horns together were saying something, almost words, first a mournful sound like Maybe and then later a desperate oh yes I think so, except to give it words was to change it utterly: it was exactly what it was, as clear as day-or a moonlit lake where strange creatures lurk- and nothing could describe it but itself. It wasn't sad,. the slow movement; only troubled, hesitant, exactly as he often felt himself. Then came- and he would sometimes laugh aloud- the final, fast movement.

Though the slow movement's question had never quite been answered, all the threat was still there, the fast movement started with absurd self-confidence, with some huffings and puffings, and then the first horn set off with delightful bravado, like a fat man on skates who hadn't skated in years (but not like a fat man on skates, like nothing but itself), Woo-woo-woo-woops! and the spectator horns laughed tiggledy-tiggledy­ tiggledy!, or that was vaguely the idea- every slightly wrong chord, every swoop, every hand-stop changed everything completely ... It was impossible to say what , precisely, he meant.

Didn't you talk of using peripheral vision ? — Amity

I've always had this vision of God, enlightenment, the Tao as being right next to my right ear, always just inches away. I could never see it directly. When I turned my head, it moved too. The only way to see it was through my peripheral vision. Peripheral vision is different from normal vision. It isn't focused. I pay a different kind of attention to things in my peripheral vision than I do with normal vision. I think that's a good metaphor for how we can experience the Tao.

Couldn't this also include - lifting eyes from textual analysis simply to appreciate the sound and rhythm. — Amity

I see the TTC as poetry, which I read differently than I do prose. It feels like I use a different part of my mind when I read or listen to poetry. Yes, it's more like music. Less focused. Impressionistic. As I think about it, that's similar to the kind of attention I pay when I'm seeing through my peripheral vision.

Does this apply to the text? Is our aim understanding or what ? — Amity

I've tried to make my position on this clear from the beginning - our aim is to experience the experience just as with the French horn music in the passage I quoted.

Is there a fear that if we don't understand one bit perfectly, then we stay there. Progress halted. — Amity

I think it can happen, but why fear this? Understanding the TTC is still not the Tao. It’s just a key to experiencing it. And at the end of the day, any perfect performance of the entire original score would pass by undistinguished by anyone unfamiliar with the score anyway. So if all you can manage is the right hand of the piano part, it’s still better than just bashing the keys randomly with your fists. If that one bit is where you stay, that’s fine. Progress isn’t everything. The music is still beautiful, and it allows anyone to join in with the same or another part as harmony. That’s the beauty of the framework (Te) in relation to the Tao - it is, as the title says, eternal.

...like a fat man on skates who hadn't skated in years (but not like a fat man on skates, like nothing but itself) — T Clark

I love this bit. Every time I’ve tried to describe the framework idea in the TTC, whether I use the analogy of a piece of music or a tesseract or a cascade, this kind of disclaimer is always in parentheses in the back of my mind: but not like that, like nothing but itself.

What a beautiful passage.

I love this bit. Every time I’ve tried to describe the framework idea in the TTC, whether I use the analogy of a piece of music or a tesseract or a cascade, this kind of disclaimer is always in parentheses in the back of my mind: but not like that, like nothing but itself.

What a beautiful passage. — Possibility

I read the book at least 35 years ago, but I've never forgotten that passage. Why can't I write like that?

Verse 18

Ellen Marie Chen

On the decline of the great Tao,
There are humanity (jen) and righteousness (i).
When intelligence (hui) and knowledge (chih) appear,
There is great artificiality (wei).
When the six relations are not in harmony,
There are filial piety (hsiao) and parental love (tz'u).
When a nation is in darkness (hun) and disorder (lüan),
There are loyal ministers.

Addiss and Lombardo

Great Tao rejected: Benevolence and righteousness appear.
Learning and knowledge professed: Great Hypocrites spring up.
Family relations forgotten: Filial piety and affection arise.
The nation disordered: Patriots come forth.

I used this verse in my discussion of Verse 17, so some issues with this verse have been discussed before. In particular, there was an extensive discussion how to characterize the relationships between the Tao and human values. I have called them “ladders” because I see the human values as inferior to the Tao. @Possibility has called them “cascades” because she sees the human values as part of the Tao. This is where you correct me, Possibility.

I see four ladders here. I guess I would characterize them as moral, intellectual, social, and political. The human values described include humanity, knowledge, filial piety, and loyalty. Here is a line by line discussion of Chen’s translation.

On the decline of the great Tao,
There are humanity (jen) and righteousness (i).

As I did for Verse 17, I reference Derek Lin’s translation of Verse 38.

Therefore, the Tao is lost, and then virtue
Virtue is lost, and then benevolence
Benevolence is lost, and then righteousness
Righteousness is lost, and then etiquette

This is a more detailed description of what I’ve called the moral ladder. The verse goes on to say.

Those who have etiquette
Are a thin shell of loyalty and sincerity

I think this is an indication that the elements of the ladder are hierarchical, i.e. top is better than bottom. Yes, I am aware of Lao Tzu’s thoughts on good vs. bad. From Chen Verse 2.

When all under heaven know beauty (mei) as beauty,
There is then ugliness (o);
When all know the good (shan) good,
There is then the not good (pu shan).

I’m comfortable living with that contradiction.

When intelligence (hui) and knowledge (chih) appear,
There is great artificiality (wei).

The TTC makes a strong case against knowledge and rational thought. This from Addiss and Lombardo Verse 48.

Pursue knowledge, gain daily. Pursue Tao, lose daily. Lose and again lose, Arrive at non-doing.

This is from Chen Verse 3.

Therefore, when the sage rules:
He empties the minds (hsin) of his people,
Fills their bellies,
Weakens their wills (chih),
And strengthens their bones.
Always he keeps his people in no-knowledge (wu-chih) and no-desire (wu-yü),

Letting go of knowledge is related to letting go of desire. Knowledge and desire are connected.

When the six relations are not in harmony,
There are filial piety (hsiao) and parental love (tz'u).

I went looking for the “six relations.” Traditionally China has complex conventions of family structure. Wikipedia identifies eight relations in the immediate family – father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, son, and daughter. I’m not sure if this is what the text is referring too or not.

When a nation is in darkness (hun) and disorder (lüan),
There are loyal ministers.

As they say, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. “Loyalty” is one of those funny words. In the TTC, sometimes it’s good and sometimes it’s bad. In this case it’s bad because it represents conventional virtue.

 

I have called them “ladders” because I see the human values as inferior to the Tao. Possibility has called them “cascades” because she sees the human values as part of the Tao. This is where you correct me, Possibility. — T Clark

Well, considering the Tao is all-inclusive, I don’t see how they can not be part of the Tao. What is described here are human values when they exclude awareness of the Tao.

On the decline of the great Tao,
There are humanity (jen) and righteousness (i).

As I did for Verse 17, I reference Derek Lin’s translation of Verse 38.

Therefore, the Tao is lost, and then virtue
Virtue is lost, and then benevolence
Benevolence is lost, and then righteousness
Righteousness is lost, and then etiquette

This is a more detailed description of what I’ve called the moral ladder. The verse goes on to say.

Those who have etiquette
Are a thin shell of loyalty and sincerity

I think this is an indication that the elements of the ladder are hierarchical, i.e. top is better than bottom. — T Clark

When we lose sight of Tao, all we have is Te: the framework for morality and virtue, or instructions for a benevolent life. When we have no understanding of Te (having already lost sight of Tao), all we have is benevolence as the pinnacle of achievement, the exemplar. When we cannot grasp what benevolence is (having long since given up on the aim of virtue, let alone Tao), the pinnacle is considered to be righteousness. And when we don’t understand what righteousness is, we figure that etiquette, or formal politeness, is the thing to strive for. It’s not a moral ladder, but a reduction in awareness of our capacity.

‘A thin shell of loyalty and sincerity’ is not really a judgement of inferiority - that’s affect talking. Someone who strives for etiquette simply doesn’t understand how to be benevolently sincere if they can’t be polite about it. They’re not working from a framework of morality and virtue, so any moral judgement is unfair.

I’ve already explained my understanding of the good-bad relation in verse 2. If someone sees etiquette as the highest good, then when there is no formal/polite way to be sincere they are not sincere, and for them, there’s nothing bad about that. You would need to help them understand a more complex framework of morality and virtue before they can see sincerity as a quality of goodness that transcends etiquette.

When intelligence (hui) and knowledge (chih) appear,
There is great artificiality (wei).

The TTC makes a strong case against knowledge and rational thought. This from Addiss and Lombardo Verse 48.

Pursue knowledge, gain daily. Pursue Tao, lose daily. Lose and again lose, Arrive at non-doing.

This is from Chen Verse 3.

Therefore, when the sage rules:
He empties the minds (hsin) of his people,
Fills their bellies,
Weakens their wills (chih),
And strengthens their bones.
Always he keeps his people in no-knowledge (wu-chih) and no-desire (wu-yü),

Letting go of knowledge is related to letting go of desire. Knowledge and desire are connected. — T Clark

This appearance of being against knowledge relates back to intentionality and wu-wei.

This is where relying on English translations can lead us astray. We translate a character into ‘knowledge’ and assume that it refers to the entire concept of knowledge, rather than one qualitative aspect or idea of what knowledge is or means in human experience.

Verse 3 is not about keeping the people quiet, but about enabling them to exist and interact free of war and discord, in a state of peace. Zhì can be translated simply as ‘will’, but it refers more accurately to ambition: the mark or record that we desire to make upon the world as individuals. And zhī can be translated simply as ‘to know’, but it more accurately refers to the illusion of power that knowledge brings: to notify, inform or be in charge of. So wu-zhī and wu-yü refer to a letting go of being ruled by knowledge and affect: acting simply because we CAN or because we WANT to.

Back to verse 18, I want to make a distinction here between two character pairs in Chinese that both translate as ‘wisdom’, but refer to different qualities. The one used here, zhī-hui, separately translated as intelligence and knowledge, refers to externally perceived wisdom as a mark of respect, a recognition of power. The other is zhī-dao, which seems to refer to internal wisdom as more of a capacity, or knowing-the-way. Wisdom isn’t just about knowing information or appearing intelligent, it’s about knowing when to act and when not to, regardless of how it makes us look in terms of intelligence or capability. Which then relates to your quote from verse 48: serving the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake (or ours) is different from pursuing an understanding of the Way.

In my view, the TTC is not against knowledge and rational thought - it’s against revering knowledge for its own sake or as an illusion of power, and against acting on knowledge simply because we can or want to.

Great falseness, in my mind, refers to the assumption that an action is right because it is proven effective; or that we should do something because we can. Might does not make right.

I agree that the most obvious difference between the Tao and the 10,000 things is the naming....So, although we may have a sense that this diversity is one, our energy is spent developing relationships with each of the 10,000 things, and then between each of them, in order to try and unify them. — Possibility

Well, that's one problem. This is from Derek Lin's translation of Verse 1.

Thus, constantly free of desire
One observes its wonders
Constantly filled with desire
One observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders

This says that the Tao and the 10,000 things are a unity. Others don't say it as explicitly. I'm not sure there is a difference between them.

What this naming does, though, is divide any relation to the Tao through a process of awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation or collaboration/exclusion in what would otherwise be a completely free flow of energy. An experience of that is not this. It’s not just how we make sense of existence, but how existence (or the flow of potential energy itself, chi) has gradually made sense of itself: from the differentiation of matter from anti-matter or the up/down spin of quantum particles, to the broad diversity of life, the universe and human ideas. — Possibility

I really don't get what you're trying to say.

I see the TTC as an attempt to understand what unifies the 10,000 things in the Tao without necessarily having to identify and understand each of them individually — Possibility

Forget Taoism for a moment, in a conventional way of looking at things, don't we understand reality without having to identify every little piece of it?

The difficulty is that self-identity is one of these 10,000 things - and we’re rather attached to this concept (among others) in our modern, Western experience. So there’s a disconnect between the quantitative conceptual structure of modern thought (ie. English idea concepts) and the qualitative experiential structure of the TTC (Chinese idea characters), which we refer to as ‘metaphor’. — Possibility

We've discussed this before, although we had some disagreement, the TTC recognizes self-identify, self. I don't see any conflict.

Meditation helps to explore a clear mind as consisting of qualitative experience, which eventually allows us to explore ideas as qualitative experience, instead of as conceptual structure. — Possibility

I like to think that experiencing the Tao is possible without formal meditative practice. That may well be because I am really lazy.

But I think that understanding how the logical framework described in the TTC might be translated into a framework between conceptual and empirical reality can also be useful, especially if we’re working in English.

I do think that te (literally translated as ‘virtue, goodness, morality, ethics, kindness, favour, character’) refers to this constructed framework idea. — Possibility

Sorry. I'm lost again.

I am way behind on my responses to you. I'll catch up.

Well, that's one problem. This is from Derek Lin's translation of Verse 1.

Thus, constantly free of desire
One observes its wonders
Constantly filled with desire
One observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders

This says that the Tao and the 10,000 things are a unity. Others don't say it as explicitly. I'm not sure there is a difference between them. — T Clark

No, I don’t believe it does. It says that the Tao is the unity, the mystery, the door to all wonders. The difference between observing its wonders or its manifestations is whether we relate to the Tao as a relational structure of qualitative experience, free of desire or identity, or as one of 10,000 quantifiable things.

What this naming does, though, is divide any relation to the Tao through a process of awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation or collaboration/exclusion in what would otherwise be a completely free flow of energy. An experience of that is not this. It’s not just how we make sense of existence, but how existence (or the flow of potential energy itself, chi) has gradually made sense of itself: from the differentiation of matter from anti-matter or the up/down spin of quantum particles, to the broad diversity of life, the universe and human ideas.
— Possibility

I really don't get what you're trying to say. — T Clark

The 10,000 things is not just what we do as humans - consolidation, or quantifying by setting arbitrary energy limits on qualitative relations, is basically how the universe has formed.

Forget Taoism for a moment, in a conventional way of looking at things, don't we understand reality without having to identify every little piece of it? — T Clark

Do you think that we really understand reality?

We've discussed this before, although we had some disagreement, the TTC recognizes self-identify, self. I don't see any conflict. — T Clark

So long as this ‘self’ is recognised as consisting of qualitative human experience (ie. not just as an intellectual capacity) inclusive of the pain, humiliating lack and inevitable loss that comes from actually living and dying. FWIW, I don’t think it’s a conflict, it’s a glossing over of unknown relational structure - a clumsy relation disguised by metaphorical language.

I like to think that experiencing the Tao is possible without formal meditative practice. That may well be because I am really lazy. — T Clark

I think it’s possible, too - but I think it’s a much more challenging process that still involves controlled experiences of pain, humiliation and loss. The idea is to experience the limits of our human capacity: to push past the influence of affect and explore in detail where thought and feeling meets the will, or where conception meets interoception head-on. Without an experiential understanding of this, we’re just playing with metaphorical language, or going on someone else’s best guess, and we have to admit that we simply don’t know.

When the six relations are not in harmony,
There are filial piety (hsiao) and parental love (tz'u).

I went looking for the “six relations.” Traditionally China has complex conventions of family structure. Wikipedia identifies eight relations in the immediate family – father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, son, and daughter. I’m not sure if this is what the text is referring too or not. — T Clark

I struggled with this one initially, too. When I googled it, I found references to six close relatives, namely: father, mother, older brothers, younger brothers, wife, and male children. I would imagine your Wikipedia version has been edited to avoid a charge of sexism, but the two characters liu-qin together refer collectively to ‘one's kin’.

I would say that this IS what the text is referring to. Even if your immediate family are in conflict, then you are still required to uphold filial pity - seen not as a choice in Chinese culture but an obligation between parent and child, the most basic and important tenet of society, at one point punishable by beheading.

When a nation is in darkness (hun) and disorder (lüan),
There are loyal ministers.

As they say, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. “Loyalty” is one of those funny words. In the TTC, sometimes it’s good and sometimes it’s bad. In this case it’s bad because it represents conventional virtue. — T Clark

Again, it’s not ‘bad’ except in relation to awareness of a more complex framework of virtue and morality. Very few characters in the TTC are definitively good or bad, because they express the quality of an idea, not the value of a concept. The TTC constructs an entire framework from the bare basics of social structure to the virtue of the sage, and passes no judgement by assuming where you, the reader, might be.

Confucius refers to both filial piety and loyal ministers as the same basic foundation of society. When the nation or society is in entire disarray, these basic virtues must still exist. They’re non-negotiable. This truth can be as much a source of hope as despair, depending on the current state or society you’re living in.

Chapter 18 of the TTC - Derek Lin
For a quick paraphrase (6:42)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxmmEpWyONg

For detailed evaluation of the hidden structure. Discussion with students (32:43)
First, looking for repeating characters in same position in this short 8 line verse.
Then each line explained, along with a bit of history re Ancient Chinese poetry..
Part 1 - ( Benevolence)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaooF42YUWk

Part 2 - ( Natural Goodness) - 1:07:59
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAC5KEZY3_k

Overall Concept:
Life patterns
Balance
Unconventional thinking

And recap of the primary concepts:
Benevolence
Righteousness
Wisdom
Harmony

With implications and ideas related to modern life. The Situation and the Response.
Life patterns repeated throughout history, the present and futuristic visions.
Bad v good guys in film.
Balance and counter balance in humanity trying to establish equilibrium or peace.
At different connecting levels.

Tea breaks required.

Well, considering the Tao is all-inclusive, I don’t see how they can not be part of the Tao. — Possibility

Yes, I used misleading language. Action, wu wei, including what we might call moral behavior, can come directly from the Tao. I'm not sure exactly how that works yet. As I said, it may have to do with te. That process is superior to conventional morality.

When we lose sight of Tao, all we have is Te: the framework for morality and virtue, or instructions for a benevolent life. When we have no understanding of Te (having already lost sight of Tao), all we have is benevolence as the pinnacle of achievement, the exemplar. When we cannot grasp what benevolence is (having long since given up on the aim of virtue, let alone Tao), the pinnacle is considered to be righteousness. And when we don’t understand what righteousness is, we figure that etiquette, or formal politeness, is the thing to strive for. It’s not a moral ladder, but a reduction in awareness of our capacity. — Possibility

That's not how I see Te, although I'm still working on it. My best understanding is that Te is the working of Tao through us in the world. So, it's not a step down to Te or, if it is, it's inevitable. It's how we are connected to the Tao. I recognize that the language about this is ambiguous. I agree with everything else in this paragraph.

‘A thin shell of loyalty and sincerity’ is not really a judgement of inferiority - that’s affect talking. Someone who strives for etiquette simply doesn’t understand how to be benevolently sincere if they can’t be polite about it. They’re not working from a framework of morality and virtue, so any moral judgement is unfair.

I’ve already explained my understanding of the good-bad relation in verse 2. If someone sees etiquette as the highest good, then when there is no formal/polite way to be sincere they are not sincere, and for them, there’s nothing bad about that... — Possibility

Sure, calling anything on the ladder inferior is unfair. I've had this argument before. Lao Tzu doesn't make judgements. But... I'm not Lao Tzu so I'm allowed to. "A thin shell of loyalty and sincerity" is not as good as wu wei. Etiquette can, and often does, hide hypocrisy and deceit.

This appearance of being against knowledge relates back to intentionality and wu-wei. — Possibility

As I wrote previously, knowledge seems to be connected to desire. I guess striving for knowledge is like striving for success, acclaim, or power. I think you can see in this thread, and really throughout the forum, that intellect, rationality, is a barrier to the message of the TTC.

And zhī can be translated simply as ‘to know’, but it more accurately refers to the illusion of power that knowledge brings: to notify, inform or be in charge of. — Possibility

I can't speak to the specific translation points you're making, but this understanding makes sense to me.

Wisdom isn’t just about knowing information or appearing intelligent, it’s about knowing when to act and when not to, regardless of how it makes us look in terms of intelligence or capability. Which then relates to your quote from verse 48: serving the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake (or ours) is different from pursuing an understanding of the Way.

In my view, the TTC is not against knowledge and rational thought - it’s against revering knowledge for its own sake or as an illusion of power, and against acting on knowledge simply because we can or want to. — Possibility

So, you're making a distinction between knowledge and knowledge acquired for "ulterior" motives, i.e. acclaim or power. Is that right? I have no problem with that, but I think there's more to it. Knowledge, rational understanding, distracts us from the Tao. It leads us in the wrong direction.

No, I don’t believe it does. It says that the Tao is the unity, the mystery, the door to all wonders. The difference between observing its wonders or its manifestations is whether we relate to the Tao as a relational structure of qualitative experience, free of desire or identity, or as one of 10,000 quantifiable things. — Possibility

We'll leave this for now. I'm not sure where I stand.

The 10,000 things is not just what we do as humans - consolidation, or quantifying by setting arbitrary energy limits on qualitative relations, is basically how the universe has formed. — Possibility

As I've said elsewhere, to me, it is humanity that creates the 10,000 things by naming them. I've had discussions about this before with people who disagree. They think the naming happens differently, although how has always been an open question. This is an area where I am not certain.

Do you think that we really understand reality? — Possibility

Sure. Not completely, but in a way that helps us live our lives. In a sense, living our lives is how we understand reality.

So long as this ‘self’ is recognised as consisting of qualitative human experience (ie. not just as an intellectual capacity) inclusive of the pain, humiliating lack and inevitable loss that comes from actually living and dying. FWIW, I don’t think it’s a conflict, it’s a glossing over of unknown relational structure - a clumsy relation disguised by metaphorical language. — Possibility

I'm ok with this meaning for self, except that, "a clumsy relation disguised by metaphorical language" is a pretty good definition of all human understanding.

Great falseness, in my mind, refers to the assumption that an action is right because it is proven effective; or that we should do something because we can. Might does not make right. — Possibility

For me, "great falseness" means insincerity, hypocrisy, deceit.

No, I don’t believe it does. It says that the Tao is the unity, the mystery, the door to all wonders. The difference between observing its wonders or its manifestations is whether we relate to the Tao as a relational structure of qualitative experience, free of desire or identity, or as one of 10,000 quantifiable things. — Possibility

Yes, the Tao is the unity, but the Tao and the 10,000 things are the same. That's the mystery. As I wrote, this is a good example of the TTC's ambiguity.

The 10,000 things is not just what we do as humans - consolidation, or quantifying by setting arbitrary energy limits on qualitative relations, is basically how the universe has formed. — Possibility

I think maybe Lao Tzu would agree with you. I'm not sure. But that's not how I've always seen it. As I've written, I've always seen as creating the 10,000 things as something humans have done, are doing, by naming and using language. This is a work in progress for me.

I think it’s possible, too - but I think it’s a much more challenging process that still involves controlled experiences of pain, humiliation and loss. The idea is to experience the limits of our human capacity: to push past the influence of affect and explore in detail where thought and feeling meets the will, or where conception meets interoception head-on. Without an experiential understanding of this, we’re just playing with metaphorical language, or going on someone else’s best guess, and we have to admit that we simply don’t know. — Possibility

My strategy is to sit here in my lounge chair, drink iced coffee in the morning and beer in the afternoon, argue with people on the web, swim at the Y, and wait for enlightenment to find me. So far, so good.

And, as I've said, "playing with metaphorical language" is everything we do when we think. There is hope, I guess, that experiencing the Tao can help us go beyond that. The Tao that can be expressed in metaphorical language is not the eternal Tao.

Well, I think I'm all caught up through the beginning of Verse 18. I'll keep chugging away.

Yes, I used misleading language. Action, wu wei, including what we might call moral behavior, can come directly from the Tao. I'm not sure exactly how that works yet. As I said, it may have to do with te. That process is superior to conventional morality. — T Clark

The way I see it, te is the self-conscious process by which our relation to the Tao produces action/wu-wei/moral behaviour; meditation works to restructure the conscious process to enable the Tao to be more effective at an intuitive level; but sometimes we find actions or processes that just work for us personally, and sometimes it happens by chance, that everything just aligns and chi flows without obstruction. If we’re paying attention, if we’re looking for it, we can relate directly to the Tao in these moments - and it feels unequivocally free and natural, pure and honest. Zero resistance.

That's not how I see Te, although I'm still working on it. My best understanding is that Te is the working of Tao through us in the world. So, it's not a step down to Te or, if it is, it's inevitable. It's how we are connected to the Tao. I recognize that the language about this is ambiguous. I agree with everything else in this paragraph. — T Clark

That makes sense where you’re coming from. I don’t think of it as a step down - here, Lao Tzu describes it more as an empty framework, like interpreting the TTC as a moral code of behaviour, instead of as a relational structure for experiencing the Tao. I think the idea is that when we embody Te, we can directly experience the Tao.

Sure, calling anything on the ladder inferior is unfair. I've had this argument before. Lao Tzu doesn't make judgements. But... I'm not Lao Tzu so I'm allowed to. "A thin shell of loyalty and sincerity" is not as good as wu wei. Etiquette can, and often does, hide hypocrisy and deceit. — T Clark

This is why the ladder doesn’t work for me. I try not to give myself permission to articulate judgements, or to interpret the TTC for others in this way. I think it has the effect of blocking chi. I will agree that what you’re saying makes sense, but I think you’re putting judgements in Lao Tzu’s mouth by interpreting the TTC in this way. Wu-wei isn’t just not-doing, but also not-thinking and not-saying: recognising our own intentions and desire in relation to potential events, and acting only on those that will keep the chi flowing freely, despite what might work best for ourselves. It’s less direct, sure. But that’s the idea.

I would say that this IS what the text is referring to. Even if your immediate family are in conflict, then you are still required to uphold filial pity - seen not as a choice in Chinese culture but an obligation between parent and child, the most basic and important tenet of society, at one point punishable by beheading. — Possibility

I think it's the other way around - when the natural relationships among family members break down, then you get filial piety. Filial piety is seen as inferior to natural relations.

Confucius refers to both filial piety and loyal ministers as the same basic foundation of society. When the nation or society is in entire disarray, these basic virtues must still exist. — Possibility

Again, I think it's the other way around. When natural relationships are in disarray, inferior, conventional relations fill their place.

I read this differently than you and Possibility.
The need to exclaim virtues is neither an effort to replace the natural with conventional virtues nor a conflict within families made necessary by dire circumstances. The loss came from not being able to talk about it as a loss when it was happening. That idea had not been minted yet.

As I wrote previously, knowledge seems to be connected to desire. I guess striving for knowledge is like striving for success, acclaim, or power. I think you can see in this thread, and really throughout the forum, that intellect, rationality, is a barrier to the message of the TTC. — T Clark

It can be a barrier, sure. But I think rejecting entire concepts, such as intellect or rationality, is as much a mistake as rejecting knowledge. Rationality can be a barrier only when it excludes affect: when we argue that knowledge and desire are mutually exclusive, or that any action we take can be considered free from affect. But rationality can be a way of structuring information in order to observe affect. One could argue that the TTC is a structure of rationality in itself.

And zhī can be translated simply as ‘to know’, but it more accurately refers to the illusion of power that knowledge brings: to notify, inform or be in charge of.
— Possibility

I can't speak to the specific translation points you're making, but this understanding makes sense to me. — T Clark

The translation comes from cross-referencing the individual characters in Google Translate. When you type in ‘knowledge’ in English, the various Chinese characters offered give a sense of the different qualitative aspects of knowledge recognised in Chinese language, of which zhī is only one.

So, you're making a distinction between knowledge and knowledge acquired for "ulterior" motives, i.e. acclaim or power. Is that right? I have no problem with that, but I think there's more to it. Knowledge, rational understanding, distracts us from the Tao. It leads us in the wrong direction. — T Clark

Not just for ulterior motives, but also for its own sake. Rationality is what the TTC is, in itself, prior to any relation to it. Isolated, it is nothing. Only when we embody its structure can we relate to the Tao. But it does tempt us to exclude affect and focus on the 10,000 things in isolation - which I agree can be construed as the wrong direction.

Yes, the Tao is the unity, but the Tao and the 10,000 things are the same. That's the mystery. As I wrote, this is a good example of the TTC's ambiguity. — T Clark

I maintain that any ambiguity is in our interpretation, not in the structure, of the TTC. The mystery, in my mind, is the difference. Because they are NOT the same, and yet we have no way of distinguishing between them, because we cannot BE the unity, nor describe it, we can only qualitatively experience or relate to it as an embodiment of Te.

I think maybe Lao Tzu would agree with you. I'm not sure. But that's not how I've always seen it. As I've written, I've always seen as creating the 10,000 things as something humans have done, are doing, by naming and using language. This is a work in progress for me. — T Clark

I get where you’re coming from. My understanding of this doesn’t come from the TTC, but from the rest of my philosophical journey - trying to make sense of a ToE. I found that the conflicts I had been having - mainly to do with language and a qualitative-quantitative aspect dichotomy - seemed to dissolve in the structure of the TTC.

My strategy is to sit here in my lounge chair, drink iced coffee in the morning and beer in the afternoon, argue with people on the web, swim at the Y, and wait for enlightenment to find me. So far, so good.

And, as I've said, "playing with metaphorical language" is everything we do when we think. There is hope, I guess, that experiencing the Tao can help us go beyond that. The Tao that can be expressed in metaphorical language is not the eternal Tao. — T Clark

This reminds me again of verse 14:

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. — Possibility

I guess the way I see it, at some point thinking and waiting in hope just isn’t enough. We’re capable of more than that. We can look beyond the metaphorical language and piece together the rational structure on which our qualitative experience hangs. Either that, or stop trying to understand it and simply allow the Tao to work through the emptiness of a meditative mind. For me, playing with the metaphorical language is an attempt to retain an intellectual illusion of control. The TTC lays out how you can go beyond that, regardless of your level of awareness or intellect: embody the structure of Te.

I think it's the other way around - when the natural relationships among family members break down, then you get filial piety. Filial piety is seen as inferior to natural relations. — T Clark

I get that, but I don’t think what I’m saying is the other way around. I don’t think I’ve explained myself very well here. You don’t ‘get filial piety’, it doesn’t ‘fill the place’ as if it wasn’t there before. It was always there - the base level of any human relation. And I don’t think he’s referring to ‘natural relationships among family members’ breaking down. Filial piety IS the ‘natural’ or basic relationship, according to Chinese culture. Every other relationship is part of a social, moral, political or ideological construct or convention.

To be honest, I think we may have a different understanding of ‘natural’ and ‘conventional’, which probably contributes to the confusion...

I read this differently than you and Possibility.
The need to exclaim virtues is neither an effort to replace the natural with conventional virtues nor a conflict within families made necessary by dire circumstances. The loss came from not being able to talk about it as a loss when it was happening. That idea had not been minted yet. — Valentinus

Well, this definitely shows that I didn’t explain myself very well, because I agree with you here. I don’t think it’s a matter of replacing virtues at all. It has to do with awareness. We take our most complex relationship structures for granted. So, without a framework for virtue, only the example of the old masters, when these relations broke down, all they could do was cling to what remained. They had no way to build it back up again.

I think rejecting entire concepts, such as intellect or rationality, is as much a mistake as rejecting knowledge. Rationality can be a barrier only when it excludes affect: when we argue that knowledge and desire are mutually exclusive, or that any action we take can be considered free from affect. But rationality can be a way of structuring information in order to observe affect. One could argue that the TTC is a structure of rationality in itself. — Possibility

[my emphasis]

This makes sense to me. As far as I can tell, the TTC is as rich in concepts as it is in metaphors which try to explain them and how the practical aspects of the concepts play out.

My understanding of this doesn’t come from the TTC, but from the rest of my philosophical journey - trying to make sense of a ToE. I found that the conflicts I had been having - mainly to do with language and a qualitative-quantitative aspect dichotomy - seemed to dissolve in the structure of the TTC. — Possibility

Yes. We bring our own experiences to any text as we read and try to relate to it. To see if if has any value to us in the way we lead our lives. If it makes sense. I think that this can work both ways.
For us, as we build on a view which has worked for us and others along the way.
Against us, if we try to fit text in to what we think is right, or our own perspective. Even if we do get beyond our own cages and pick up book which at first glance doesn't hold much appeal.
How would you persuade someone to read the TTC ?
How would you describe how conflicts might 'dissolve in the structure of the TTC' ?

We can look beyond the metaphorical language and piece together the rational structure on which our qualitative experience hangs [....] For me, playing with the metaphorical language is an attempt to retain an intellectual illusion of control. The TTC lays out how you can go beyond that, regardless of your level of awareness or intellect: embody the structure of Te. — Possibility

In this discussion, we have not only had to try to understand the language of the TTC but also our own ways of explaining what the TTC means or its potential implications for guiding self, family, community, country, the world...
Metaphors are useful - up to a point. If they are used 'in an attempt to retain an intellectual illusion of control' and there is a mixing and matching then it can muddy the waters.
The TTC, as far as I recall, tries to tell us to be patient and allow the mud to settle to regain clarity
( I think V15 ).
So, yes, there is a laying out as to the 'How' - a guide. I think I have missed a lot along the away...

In the lengthy video of Ch18, Derek Lin - in the final 7 minutes or so, talking about the last line, refers to the ministers as also being 'ministers' of our self. The 3 main aspects to care for: physical, mental and spiritual. How we need to balance all three together holistically for wellbeing; to maintain some kind of order.
It gladdened my heart to hear it. It provided important positive feedback to something I said earlier re V17 and the levels. Nobody here seemed to consider this.
Perhaps lost in the muddy waters...

In a certain verse where levels or hierarchies are being described. Descending from some Good Ideal, degenerating to the Bad Non-Ideal. Or ascending...from a lower self to a higher one ? — Amity

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/519719
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/519731

Filial piety IS the ‘natural’ or basic relationship, according to Chinese culture. Every other relationship is part of a social, moral, political or ideological construct or convention. — Possibility

Yes, in Chinese culture it is of 'supreme importance' as Derek Lin discusses at length.
Out of all the virtues, this is the first and foremost.
He asks the students to consider why this might be so. Interesting responses and good feedback.

Ch18 Lines 5 and 6. From about 36 mins in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAC5KEZY3_k

I keep getting so far behind. Did you notice I responded to one of your posts twice?

The way I see it, te is the self-conscious process by which our relation to the Tao produces action/wu-wei/moral behaviour; — Possibility

Is te self-conscious? I haven't figured that out for myself. I am certainly aware of an experience I interpret as wu wei arising from within me. I've described that before - I feel a well of wordless intention bubbling up within me from beneath the conscious surface.

interpreting the TTC as a moral code of behaviour, instead of as a relational structure for experiencing the Tao. — Possibility

If you are implying I interpret the TTC as a moral code, that's not true. It's one of the ambiguities of the TTC. The moral code that can be spoken is not the eternal moral code. Lao Tzu says "Hey, you guys, there is no good or bad, but you know, etiquette sucks."

I think the idea is that when we embody Te, we can directly experience the Tao. — Possibility

As I've noted, I'm still working on this.

I try not to give myself permission to articulate judgements, or to interpret the TTC for others in this way...I think you’re putting judgements in Lao Tzu’s mouth by interpreting the TTC in this way. — Possibility

I am not interpreting the TTC for others and we're all putting judgements in Lao Tzu's mouth. When you come down to it, we're discussing a book that starts out "This book is about something that can't be talked about," and then proceeds to talk about it for 81 verses. We're all allowed some leeway.

The need to exclaim virtues is neither an effort to replace the natural with conventional virtues nor a conflict within families made necessary by dire circumstances. — Valentinus

This is not how I see it. There is a natural, sincere, spontaneous way of behaving in accordance with our inner natures, wu wei. When we lose that capacity because of fear, socialization, whatever; conventional behavior - benevolence, etiquette - replaces it. That's a bad thing.

The loss came from not being able to talk about it as a loss when it was happening. That idea had not been minted yet. — Valentinus

I don't understand.

It can be a barrier, sure. But I think rejecting entire concepts, such as intellect or rationality, is as much a mistake as rejecting knowledge. Rationality can be a barrier only when it excludes affect: when we argue that knowledge and desire are mutually exclusive, or that any action we take can be considered free from affect. But rationality can be a way of structuring information in order to observe affect. One could argue that the TTC is a structure of rationality in itself. — Possibility

Let's try this out - there is a fundamental and unavoidable conflict between intellect and wu wei. I don't know if I believe that or not.

Rationality is what the TTC is, in itself, prior to any relation to it. Isolated, it is nothing. Only when we embody its structure can we relate to the Tao. — Possibility

I don't see this. The TTC is not rational or irrational. It's non-rational. There is no structure. The structure that can be structured is not the eternal structure. Sorry.

But it does tempt us to exclude affect and focus on the 10,000 things in isolation — Possibility

But affect is one of the 10,000 things.

I maintain that any ambiguity is in our interpretation, not in the structure, of the TTC. The mystery, in my mind, is the difference. Because they are NOT the same, and yet we have no way of distinguishing between them, because we cannot BE the unity, nor describe it, we can only qualitatively experience or relate to it as an embodiment of Te. — Possibility

I can't tell if we're disagreeing or not. I don't think I understand the difference between interpretation and the structure of the TTC.

My understanding of this doesn’t come from the TTC, but from the rest of my philosophical journey - trying to make sense of a ToE. — Possibility

Is "ToE" theory of everything? For me, the TTC is a theory of everything. You know, the Tao and all. The everything that can be named is not the eternal everything. Please stop me.

I guess the way I see it, at some point thinking and waiting in hope just isn’t enough. We’re capable of more than that. We can look beyond the metaphorical language and piece together the rational structure on which our qualitative experience hangs. Either that, or stop trying to understand it and simply allow the Tao to work through the emptiness of a meditative mind. — Possibility

Thinking and waiting in hope - bad. Stop trying to understand it and simply allow the Tao to work through the emptiness of a meditative mind - good.

For me, playing with the metaphorical language is an attempt to retain an intellectual illusion of control. — Possibility

I think any use of language is an attempt to retain an intellectual illusion of control. Or maybe I don't think that.