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. 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 you and I have different understandings of the relation between the Tao and the 10,000 things. — T Clark
It’s just a name, a placeholder for what cannot be named, and doesn’t change. So I don’t think that what you name it has much use at all, to be honest. It doesn’t change how we see it - not at the level that we can ‘see’ it as such, anyway. — Possibility
But I have to keep remembering that you’re experiencing, not relating to the Tao. So of course how you name it changes how you experience it, and it’s only ‘objective reality’ if it’s consistent with your logic, which the Tao is not. — Possibility
Nature is like a bellows, the more it moves, the more it yeilds. — ghostlycutter
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. 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
Are you saying that, although the idea of hope is one of the 10,000 things and distracts us from the Tao, hope still somehow resides within the Tao as a concept? — T Clark
The TTC is clear - the Tao does not have anything inside it. It is undivided and indivisible. It isn't made up of anything else. There's nothing inside it. It isn't a mixture. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say. — T Clark
The Tao cannot be named, but objective reality can. It's a thing. It's one of the 10,000 things. It's just a bag full of everything. Things in objective reality exist without being named. — T Clark
You can't relate to the Tao. Nothing can. The Tao has no logic. That's not how it works. — T Clark
I don't think all this arguing is getting us anywhere. — T Clark
The Tao has no logic. That's not how it works. — T Clark
Those who speak, dont know. Those who know, don't speak — Laozi
Seems like you're talking about what I call "naming," but you're examining how it works as a process while I don't. As I've said in previous posts, I'm still unclear on how things get from the Tao to the 10,000 things. I'll think on what you've said from that perspective. We can talk about this more as we go along. — T Clark
Nature is like a bellows, the more it moves, the more it yeilds. — ghostlycutter
I read the passage to say that the bellows are not exhausted in the way speech can be by continuing without end. — Valentinus
The functionality of emptiness is capacity, unrealised potential.
We are not so much in what we say, but in our capacity to speak. Likewise, the bellows utensil is not the air it blows, but its capacity to blow. — Possibility
The quote above, without failing to do justice to it, can be interpreted as a claim in epistemology. The statement, itself a handiwork of an Eastern philosopher, is one about a Western philosophical concern viz. epistemology. Further reading Pyrrho, Agrippa, and Munchhausen's trilemma, The Problem Of The Criterion will shed light on how the two are actually one viz. that West and East, though dissimilar in approach and style are in fact on the same page. This is one example I can think of that's amenable to this interpretation. — TheMadFool
Heaven and earth are are enduring. The reason why heaven and earth can be enduring is that they do not give themselves life. Hence they are able to be long-lived.
Therefore the sage puts his person last and it comes first,
Treats it as extraneous to himself and is preserved.
Is it not because he is without thought of self that he is able to accomplish his private ends? — Translated by D.C. Lau
The bellows has a cyclic motion - empty, fill, empty, fill - like the 10,000 things returning to the Tao. — T Clark
Hi Ying, and welcome to the discussion. I’m interested in reading more of your personal perspective on the TTC here. — Possibility
I have been using the Yellow Bridge site throughout this discussion - I’ll admit I’m not a fan of the three translations offered, although I think they do give an interesting span of the types of translation attempts available. T Clark’s suggestion of the Terebess site gives a wide choice of translations, some of which also provide commentary and the Chinese text alongside.
I do find the pop-up translation of each Chinese character on Yellow Bridge to be invaluable, although I think that cross-referencing with Google Translate sometimes provides a clearer understanding of what can seem to be contradictory English words - the use of jué at the beginning of verses 19 and 20 is one that particularly confused me: I’d be interested in your perspective here.
I’ll admit that I’m not familiar with any of these other ancient Chinese texts (there have been a number of references in this discussion to the Zhuangzi and the I Ching), although I am intrigued by Neo-Daoism as a philosophy - so thank you for the SEP reference. I think the notion of ziran might be what T Clark has been referring to as his ‘true nature’, so I’d also be interested in fleshing out this idea in relation to Neo-Daoism as he makes reference to it in later verses (as promised). I see this as tending more towards a natural logic than an essential self, but I could be misunderstanding it.
Thanks for the information. I've spent time with the Tao Te Ching and Zhuangzi, but not the other documents you listed. I'll take a look at them. I have looked at the I Ching, but not in depth. It is my understanding it is older than the Tao Te Ching and I couldn't really see how they fit together. Any insight? — T Clark
We're on Verse 18 right now and moving through verse by verse. We'll see how long we last. Please chime in whenever you'd like.
If the Tao has no logic then there is nothing to understand — ghostlycutter
I don't know if you've been following along at all. We've been having a discussion of knowledge and how it is handled in the TTC. Why don't you go back and read the posts on Verse 18. Here's the start:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/520217
Does your interest fall anywhere in that area? Also, how Taoism fits in with western philosophies has come up a few times in the thread. — T Clark
Well, you're in for a treat if you like daoism and haven't read the "Zhuangzi". It's a philosophical treatise which is actually funny at times. I highly recommend reading at least the "Inner Chapters"..
Anyway, here's a link to the "Zhuangzi":
https://ctext.org/daoism — Ying
Paying close attention to the textual associations, we see that wandering is associated with the word wu, ordinarily translated ‘nothing,’ or ‘without.’ Related associations include: wuyou (no ‘something’) and wuwei (no interference). Roger Ames and David Hall have commented extensively on these wu expressions.
Most importantly, they are not to be understood as simple negations, but have a much more complex function. The significance of all of these expressions must be traced back to the wu of Laozi: a type of negation that does not simply negate, but places us in a new kind of relation to ‘things’—a phenomenological waiting that allows them to manifest, one that acknowledges the space that is the possibility of their coming to presence, one that appreciates the emptiness that is the condition of the possibility of their capacity to function, to be useful (as the hollow inside a house makes it useful for living).
The behavior of one who wanders beyond becomes wuwei: sensitive and responsive without fixed preconceptions, without artifice, responding spontaneously in accordance with the unfolding of the inter-developing factors of the environment of which one is an inseparable part. — Steve Coutinho
A gem of a statement. What if it's a narrative-like composition? You know, like a story. A story has no logic per se, it's simply a report of events, emotions, actions of characters in that story. — TheMadFool
Google Translate? I've found that DeepL usually has beter translation results.
https://www.deepl.com/translator — Ying
A story does have logic to it, even a report of events does. Action occurs in a sequence, for starters. A narrative necessarily has characters, affect, shape, etc. We take for granted the logic of narrative, just like we take for granted the logic of language, and of physical reality, and bracket it all out of our experience. We assume agreement on these aspects of the story. That’s what logic IS. — Possibility
thank you theMadFool your posts are always interesting, beautiful interpretation. Yes, teaching via example.
I attempt here to write a short story-form lesson.
Welcome to what was.
What will be may not be.
Within a warm place comes warmth.
Ride, jump and be.
See where the flower manifests.
Time struggles to remember.
Something a little more complex...
Life tied mort, wallow in tame facts.
Catch, rip, lease, mellow stomach loch.
Marble fine leap stim, move leave. — ghostlycutter
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
If the Tao has no logic then there is nothing to understand; do as I do, or do not and read what I say, — ghostlycutter
What is thus to be taken from the TTC? Pleasurable texts, short spells of enlightenment. — ghostlycutter
Are you saying that, although the idea of hope is one of the 10,000 things and distracts us from the Tao, hope still somehow resides within the Tao as a concept?
— T Clark
No, I’m saying that the concept of ‘hope’ is one of the 10,000 things, and directing effort and attention towards it as an objective or virtue in itself distracts us from the path. But this quality of hoping - like listening without hearing, or directing attention without understanding how to direct effort - is an inseparable aspect of experiencing the Tao. — Possibility
The TTC is clear - the Tao does not have anything inside it. It is undivided and indivisible. It isn't made up of anything else. There's nothing inside it. It isn't a mixture. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say.
— T Clark
Maybe, because I agree with all of these statements. Let me know your thoughts on my reply above to Valentinus regarding verse 5. — Possibility
Have you ever tried to define ‘objective reality’? To say that it’s one of the 10,000 things is to say that we can name things that are not objective reality. Is that what you’re saying? If so, then we have a different understanding of ‘objective reality’. — Possibility
In this corner – the challenger, Tao.
[1] The ground of being
[2] The Tao that cannot be spoken
[3] Oneness is the Tao which is invisible and formless.
[4] Nature is Tao. Tao is everlasting.
[5] The absolute principle underlying the universe
[6] That in virtue of which all things happen or exist
[7] The intuitive knowing of life that cannot be grasped full-heartedly as just a concept
In this corner – the reigning champion, objective reality.
[1] The collection of things that we are sure exist independently of us
[2] How things really are
[3] The reality that exists independent of our minds
[4] That which is true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings
[5] The world as seen by God
[6] Things that we are sure exist — T Clark
To say that it’s one of the 10,000 things is to say that we can name things that are not objective reality. Is that what you’re saying? If so, then we have a different understanding of ‘objective reality’. — Possibility
You seem so certain of this, that what I say I’m doing just isn’t (logically) possible. That I can’t do this, or that you know what the Tao does or doesn’t have. Where does this certainty come from? — Possibility
It looks like I may have been using ‘logic’ where I mean ‘rationality’. This may not solve our disagreement, but I’m trying to be clearer... — Possibility
Smith left the room in a huff, his shadow flitting across the wall in the soft light of the setting sun. I looked outside the small window in the room and caught sight of some birds probably on their way to roost for the coming night. The sky was clear except for a few scattered clouds that were glowing red and orange. I picked up the cup and gulped down the remaining coffee. — TheMadFool
There is some ambiguity in these lines. Both knowledge and wisdom are bad? In Verse 18, Chen talked about “intelligence and knowledge.” It seems like the argument against wisdom, if there is one, is different than knowledge or intelligence. We’ve had a difference of opinion about what the TTC says about knowledge. — T Clark
I’ve said knowledge distracts us from the path that Lao Tzu is trying to show us. Flipping that, gaining knowledge is not the way to follow the Tao. I think you could also say that “knowledge” means “conventional knowledge.” The conventional way of categorizing and classifying things is misleading. I’ve also said that it seems to me that knowledge is connected to desire. — T Clark
Abandon wisdom, discard knowledge,
And people will benefit a hundredfold.
Abandon benevolence, discard duty,
And people will return to the family ties.
Abandon cleverness, discard profit,
And thieves and robbers will disappear.
These three, though, are superficial, and not enough.
Let this be what to rely on:
Behave simply and hold on to purity.
Lessen selfishness and restrain desires.
Abandon knowledge and your worries are over. — T Clark
As I claimed in my old discussion, I find the Tao a more useful concept than objective reality. I think it is fruitful to claim that objective reality doesn't exist, although I'll say again, both "Tao" and "objective reality" are metaphysical entities. We decide which to use, if we use them at all. The universe is also one of the 10,000 things. Can you name something that isn't part of the universe? A suitcase full of shirts is one of the 10,000 things. So are each of the shirts. — T Clark
You seem so certain of this, that what I say I’m doing just isn’t (logically) possible. That I can’t do this, or that you know what the Tao does or doesn’t have. Where does this certainty come from?
— Possibility
I'm not certain of what Lao Tzu means, but I am certain of how I experience the world. If I got to that place by following a path which is not the one he described, won't that be ironic. But I don't think that's what happened. You seem just as certain as I do. — T Clark
There is ambiguity here, for the same reason I have been arguing: all these scholars are bringing their own experience into their interpretation. — Possibility
I do agree that gaining knowledge is not THE way to follow the Tao. — Possibility
But I disagree that the TTC is saying ‘knowledge is bad’, and certainly not that ‘wisdom is bad’. I will continue to call out your use of a ‘good-bad’ dichotomy in your interpretation of the TTC, — Possibility
I believe this is your subjective experience of the text, and therefore not inherent in the TTC — Possibility
qualifying an interpretation of ‘knowledge’ as ‘conventional knowledge’ (based on what?), which equals ‘categorising and classifying’, etc sounds a lot like apologist methodology of ‘playing with metaphors’, so you’ll pardon me for my skepticism here. — Possibility
With hundreds of translations disagreeing with me, I’m aware that I’m in the minority here - but everything I understand tells me to trust the original text over the translations. — Possibility
It’s more about recognising that wisdom is not about maximising knowledge, humanity is not about maximising righteousness, and cleverness is not about maximising profit. — Possibility
‘The Tao’ and ‘objective reality’ are not concepts, they’re both placeholder names for what cannot be named, — Possibility
I understand them as the same notion described in an alternative discourse, so I think our current discussion will suffice. — Possibility
I do see a difference of certainty here in you telling me that I can’t relate to the Tao - that “that’s not how it works”. — Possibility
I don’t think anyone can be certain that they are even accurately describing how they experience the world, however certain they might feel about the experience itself, beyond language. — Possibility
As soon as you use concepts, you’re assuming that how I qualitatively constitute each concept is identical to yours, but there’s no certainty. — Possibility
This is the difficulty with discussing the TTC in terms of experience. — Possibility
You may not think that anyone can relate to the Tao, and from your perspective that would seem to be the case - but this doesn’t mean I can’t. It just means that you can’t see how it’s possible. But I can see how it’s possible. — Possibility
I have a question: how do you know when you ‘experience the Tao’? — Possibility
No to frustrate you, but the Tao has no rationality either. Forgive me for this, but I'm serious - the Tao that can be rationalized is not the eternal Tao. It can't be spoken. It can't be understood. It can't be analyzed. It can't be divided. It has no parts. Nothing is inside it. You can't think about it. It's not a concept or an idea. It's just a big blob, except the blob that can be spoken is not the eternal blob. — 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.