For me, the TTC is another brick in that wall, but it's also a guidebook. It's about acting from our true natures. For me, Lao Tzu is saying - look, over there. See that? Pay attention to that. See this here? Pay attention. — T Clark
For me, Lao Tzu is saying - look, over there. See that? Pay attention to that. See this here? Pay attention. — T Clark
Some might say, "Get over yourself !"... — Amity
I do agree with T Clark’s sentiment here. I think the TTC draws our attention to the relations in our experience, and invites us to look closer at what is going on. I also think it helps to get our ego/fear/desires/affect out of the way first, though. — Possibility
For me, the TTC was like a pair of gloves I found. I put them on and they fit, so I've worn them ever since. My intellectual, spiritual, emotional, and social path for more than 50 years has been toward more self-awareness. For me, the TTC is another brick in that wall, but it's also a guidebook. It's about acting from our true natures. For me, Lao Tzu is saying - look, over there. See that? Pay attention to that. See this here? Pay attention. — T Clark
The lyrics attracted controversy. The Inner London Education Authority described the song as "scandalous", and according to Renshaw, prime minister Margaret Thatcher "hated it".[11] Renshaw said: "There was a political knee-jerk reaction to a song that had nothing to do with the education system. It was [Waters'] reflections on his life and how his schooling was part of that."[11] — wiki
Well, I talk to myself too - and it's 'Get over yourself !' :smile:I like to say ‘get out of my own way’... — Possibility
Yes. I think that is right :sparkle:We can allow for how we feel, even move it aside, but not ignore it - affect forms our potential to think, speak and collaborate. Without it, we cannot be aware that we exist. And intellect is a part of our way to the Tao, but not our goal. Without it, we cannot be aware of the Tao to follow, let alone construct a suitable path... — Possibility
I guess I just wanted you to acknowledge that you have no evidence for saying that Lao Tzu thinks the same way you do here. It’s all based on your own personal judgement, affect, desire... — Possibility
I happen to think it does detract from your understanding, but what do I know? You’re not after an accurate understanding of the TTC, only one that you can live with. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that - just try not to get too defensive at how a different perspective might makes yours appear. — Possibility
This is not engineering — Possibility
What matters is that you take responsibility for whatever inaccuracies you might be putting out there - that you claim them as your own, not attribute them to the TTC or to Lao Tzu. — Possibility
I think this is where I disagreed with you most due to my concern that I couldn't see how any responsible person would believe that hope is not a good thing. Discussed 20 days ago, p11.
I think that you were influenced by the Stephen Mitchell translation of Ch13.
The second line 'Hope is as hollow as fear'.
Expanded to 'Hope and fear are both phantoms' — Amity
the Derek Lin translation and explanation — Amity
Our biggest problem is the ego that reacts to words of praise or criticism; there is a tendency to desire positive opinions and avoid criticism perceived as negative. — Amity
I see nothing there about hope not being a good thing.
It is this kind of translation that Possibility warns against. — Amity
Not sure about 'acting from our true natures' - what is your true nature ? — Amity
I too see the TTC as a guidebook - but how we are guided depends on the translation. We can be led astray... — Amity
The greatest misfortune is the self. How is it our biggest problem is the ego ? Think about all the troubles we get into when the ego is out of control. The issue here is to dial down the sense of self-importance.
13-16: The greatest rulers are the ones who can transcend the ego. They feel concern for the greater good. The greatest individuals are ones who love something greater than themselves; the family, team and community. They are the ones who can truly take charge of their own destiny. — Amity
How does it make someone irresponsible not to value hope? I could see "wrong" or even "deluded," but why "irresponsible." — T Clark
I think this is where I disagreed with you most due to my concern that I couldn't see how any responsible person would believe that hope is not a good thing — Amity
OK. But I will repeat:I reread Lin's translation and comments. He doesn't put it in the same terms as Mitchell, but I don't see anything inconsistent. — T Clark
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/521793I see nothing there about hope not being a good thing. — Amity
It's ok if you and Possibility disagree with the way I understand what Lao Tzu is saying. I don't understand why it seems to bother you both so much. — T Clark
I recognize my true nature. I can feel it. Sometimes. Wu wei is acting from our true nature. Sometimes I can do that. I know what wu wei feels like. — T Clark
As above.No, I don't think we can be lead astray, not if we focus on the experience rather than the words. — T Clark
This explication makes sense to me. — T Clark
My concern was that this translation appears negative about hope. I think that when we send out that kind of message, it is possible that we are not thinking enough about the implications for hopeful readers who don't look beyond...and take that at face value. — Amity
It concerns me when some talk of the body, fear and hope as being illusions. It is important to recognise the reality. The whole interaction of body, mind and spirit. — Amity
OK. That could be the start of another debate but I'll leave it there. — Amity
I have no problem with you disagreeing with the way I see things, but, I'm having a hard time figuring out how to respond to this. Are you asking me to stop giving my understanding because you don't like it? The TTC is a radical rejection of convention. Maybe "dismissal" is a better word than "rejection." Don't be surprised if you find it in conflict with some of your beliefs. You don't have to agree with me and you don't have to agree with Lao Tzu. — T Clark
As we go forward, I will look for places in the text that are relevant to this issue. We can use those discussions to go deeper into this. — T Clark
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/522233I had never heard of 'unselfings' before this but have read Iris Murdoch.
I found this article by Jules Evans:
https://www.philosophyforlife.org/blog/iris-murdoch-on-techniques-of-unselfing
I think my time would be better spent on reading such.
A re-visit to Iris Murdoch and listening to her might be just what is right for me, right now.
Either way, I need to get out for a breather... — Amity
I said I don't have any "strong, rational evidence." The TTC is not about rational anything. You keep coming back to my use of my "own personal judgement." I don't get it. Of course it's my personal judgement. Every thing I know, feel, or believe is based on my personal judgement. If you are implying that your understanding is based on more than that... well, that claim seems pretty arrogant to me. — T Clark
I've always had a problem with your use of "affect." You mean something different when you say it than I do. It seems like maybe you use it to mean something similar to attention. Attention could be said to be the result me putting my personal energy into an aspect of the world. Highlighting it. Making it separate from the rest of the world. I guess that could be similar to naming in a sense. I have no idea what I'm talking about. — T Clark
I don't understand why you are so worried about my understanding. I'm not after "an accurate understanding of the TTC," I want to hear and feel what Lao Tzu is saying. Those are two different things. Although you claim otherwise, you are saying there's something wrong with that. — T Clark
Of course it is. Everything is engineering. I'm a hammer and the world is full of nails. — T Clark
My concern was that this translation appears negative about hope. I think that when we send out that kind of message, it is possible that we are not thinking enough about the implications for hopeful readers who don't look beyond...and take that at face value.
— Amity
I want them to take what I say at face value. I believe, and I think Lao Tzu would agree, that hope distracts us from the path he is trying to show us. — T Clark
What I’m claiming is that there exists an underlying logical framework to the TTC that is... well, eternal. It contains none of my personal judgement or yours, not even Lao Tzu’s experience of the world. It is a pure mathematical structure to reality, that we each populate with values from our own relative experience. — Possibility
It is ‘the way’ we can experience objective reality, regardless of where or how we start. — Possibility
It’s more like an overall distribution of the energy/entropy of a local system in terms of attention AND effort. I think that all physical existence could be perceived as consisting of affect, but it’s highly relative, with a wave-like potentiality at a quantum level. At the level of conscious experience, affect does highlight (or overlook/avoid) an aspect of reality, yes. But that’s only part of the naming process. We determine its attractive/destructive qualities as an idea, and then quantify it as a positive/negative/immeasurable thing. — Possibility
You seem to think I’m worried or bothered by our disagreements. I’m not, but I’m also not one to simply ‘agree to disagree’. I think that’s a missed opportunity. Disagreement highlights an area of the discussion where chi is blocked or resisted. My intention is to free the flow, not to attack your particular approach. I honestly don’t think of it as your understanding, so I’m sorry if it feels as if I’m implying that you are wrong by association. — Possibility
I guess I'll chime in. — Ying
I do think that our affected relation to this concept of ‘hope’ does distract us from the path, but that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with the idea or quality of hope in the world. — Possibility
The issue I think Lao Tzu has is with the naming of ‘hope’ as something separate in the world that we strive to obtain or possess for its own sake, like with ‘knowledge’. — Possibility
I think the notion of ziran might be what T Clark has been referring to as his ‘true nature’ — Possibility
For me, the TTC is the antithesis of a logical framework. As I've said before, it's non-rational. Non-logical. Non-mathematical. I don't understand what you mean when you say it is. Can you give an example of the logical framework from the text. — T Clark
I'm very comfortable with my path on the way to understanding of the TTC. I have no objections to our disagreements. Both you and Amity have stated that I'm irresponsible for expressing my understanding because I might mislead others. That's an invalid argument and that bothers me. — T Clark
Are you making a distinction between the concept of hope and the idea or quality of hope? If so, I don't understand. When I say hope is bad, I just mean that it distracts us from the path. The TTC is ambiguous about value judgements. — T Clark
If we don't name "hope" as something separate in the world, it's not hope. It's something else. That's wrong, it's not something else, it's not a thing. — T Clark
I use the Tao as a replacement for objective reality in my understanding of the world. I think the two views of reality are mutually exclusive. The Tao is not objective. — T Clark
This paragraph and the next three - I don't understand what you're trying to say. We've had this issue from the beginning. You use language I'm not familiar with and don't understand. I'm really trying. — T Clark
Let me clarify my use of ‘irresponsible’: it was in particular reference to your unfounded claims that Lao Tzu thinks a certain way as distinct from - and in relation to - your own way of thinking, and your ‘who gives a shit’ approach to making such claims on a public forum, as it relates to the notion of wu-wei. — Possibility
Then why say ‘hope is bad’ if that’s not what you mean? If the TTC is ambiguous about value judgements, especially if it seems deliberate, then shouldn’t we try to keep value judgements out of our interpretation? — Possibility
The distinction I’m making is a structural one, between a concept and an idea. It’s about attributing value/significance/potential. — Possibility
If we don't name "hope" as something separate in the world, it's not hope. It's something else. That's wrong, it's not something else, it's not a thing.
— T Clark
Exactly. — Possibility
I don’t understand how you can replace objective reality with the Tao, as if the two were interchangeable, and also claim that they are mutually exclusive, and that the Tao is not objective. That’s seems a contradiction to me. — Possibility
I see affect as the process (conscious and unconscious) of restructuring HOW energy (chi) flows through me in terms of not just attention, but also effort. Energy (chi) flows through everything, but is always relative, subjective, localised. At the level of conscious experience, affect can highlight an aspect of reality, as you say. It can also avoid or overlook an aspect - by blocking chi or directing flow (attention and effort) away from it. But highlighting or avoiding an aspect by directing the flow of chi is only part of the process called ‘naming’. We also judge certain immeasurable qualities, ideas or forces that we highlight (or cannot avoid/ignore) as attractive/destructive ‘things’, and judge certain quantities, objects or concepts as valuable/terrible ‘things’ - all by re-directing the flow of chi. This is affect. It’s what we do with energy/information, how we distribute it internally and direct it back out into world. — Possibility
As far as I'm concerned, there's no need to discuss this more. Which doesn't mean you can't if you want to. — T Clark
In my dictionary, "concept" and "idea" are synonyms. I don't understand the distinction. — T Clark
I think you and I have different understandings of the relation between the Tao and the 10,000 things. — T Clark
Both objective reality and the Tao are metaphysical entities, two different ways of seeing the nature of reality. One way of seeing things is not right while the other is wrong, they are more or less useful in a particular situation. I find the Tao a more useful idea in most situations. — T Clark
I'm still confused by "affect." Does that come from Barrett? I haven't gotten any further in her book yet. — T Clark
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.