If one can't speak about the Tao or know about it, what is one speaking of? It seems like like trying to capture a mirage in one's hands. — Manuel
Does intuition has to play a role in this, as in, I have a particular kind of experience that reveals something to me about the world, but as soon I express it, it necessarily gets lost in the expression? — Manuel
Before you lecture me about certainty, I'll remind you that you told me it was irresponsible for me to express an opinion about the TTC that's different than yours. I'm telling you what I think Lao Tzu is saying. — T Clark
If one can't speak about the Tao or know about it, what is one speaking of? It seems like like trying to capture a mirage in one's hands.
— Manuel
This is my understanding. Other's disagree.
You're exactly right. The opening lines of the Tao Te Ching are:
The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
So, the book is words about something that can't be put into words. Lao Tzu recognized the irony. What I believe is that Lao Tzu's purpose is to help us experience something that comes before words, the Tao. The focus should be on the experience, not the meaning of the words. As I said, others on the thread disagree with me. — T Clark
Although it does surprise me that something so ambiguous and ostensibly benign should lead to acrimony as it has here. — Tom Storm
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
Without getting back into the whole idea/concept thing, I really disagree with that. Nothing resides within the Tao. — T Clark
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
discard knowledge (chih) — T Clark
It's not that gaining knowledge is not THE way, it's not A way. You can't follow the Tao by gaining knowledge. Gaining knowledge distracts from the path. — T Clark
The Tao is knowledge, but in it's truest form. When we gain knowledge, we become more knowledgeable, our knowledge (referring to it's one-ness) is like the Tao; and so the Author projects his knowledge (again, one-ness) upon his readers. Is his book to be worshipped? Can you forsee that the author may be less knowledgeable? I don't think his aim was to be egotistical. However, he expressed knowledge. Knowledge in it's pure form begs to be understood but doesn't point nor ponder. — ghostlycutter
discard knowledge (chih)
— T Clark
Shouldn't we stop reading the Tao Te Ching at this point? — TheMadFool
The opening lines of the Tao Te Ching are:
The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name — T Clark
The opening lines of the Tao Te Ching are:
The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
— T Clark
I realized that there are two ways of interpreting these lines and they are:
1. There's more to it than meets the eye: We observe the world and there's a way that it appears to us but, we've learnt and we suspect, appearances can be deceiving or, more to the point, there's more to reality than just what it presents to us...
2. What you see is it (but we refuse to accept it): Reality is exactly as it appears to us and that's all there is to it. — TheMadFool
The "abandon language" option is not on the menu because of all the language invested in talking about the quality that is difficult to describe. — Valentinus
This text is not a testimony of skepticism — Valentinus
Third option - This is my way of thinking about it. Others see it differently. — T Clark
The Tao is a metaphysical concept - a way of looking at things — T Clark
if you read my reply to Valentinus above, the Tao is exactly the opposite of what you say it is viz. it is not "...a way of looking at things". — TheMadFool
You're trying to make it more than it is or was intended to be. — T Clark
2. What you see is it (but we refuse to accept it): Reality is exactly as it appears to us and that's all there is to it. The problem is that's a hard pill to swallow for us who yearn for something much grander. Language is fully capable of describing all of reality but that fails to quench the thirst for greatness that's become somewhat of a trademark of humanity. If this is Laozi's message then the Tao Te Ching serves as a warning to posterity that we should steer clear of fantasizing which to "...yearn for something much grander..." is. That he did it in so many words, 9510 to be exact, suggests that this simple message - cease and desist fantasy - isn't going to go down well with people and he needed to use every available linguistic resource (words) to put the point across to the readers. In this case, The Tao That Is Eternal is nothing more than a warning sign whose correct transaltion should be, in my humble opinion, "DON'T GO THERE!" — TheMadFool
For my money, Laozi employing language in this fashion - to describe stuff that lies beyond the reach of language - is not entirely without merit. He was a clever man I suppose and all that he would have to do is probe the boundaries of language - stress language to the breaking point and what comes out at the other end is a, hopefully, better understanding of the limits of language and through that get a feel of, get some idea of, what Laozi means by "The Tao that can be named is not the Eternal Tao". — TheMadFool
I’m not saying it is an aspect of the Tao, but of experiencing the Tao. You can’t deny this quality without diminishing the experience. — Possibility
Language is not going to explain this, because you have to put yourself into it. This is what Lao Tzu understood. — Possibility
either everything is and the blob is the indeterminate whole in which we are indistinguishable, or nothing is part of it, and everything except the blob exists (10,000 things). — Possibility
I’m saying that whether we experience, relate to or follow the Tao, there is rationality, quality and energy somewhere in this, which cannot be bracketed out. Any description, expression or instruction that is not inclusive of all three is not the Tao. — Possibility
This was the energy (attention and effort) directed elsewhere or without result as each stroke is made: not-doing (wu-wei). — Possibility
No matter how much he included of himself in his writing, something would always be missing...
...They are the difference we are invited to embody between the Tao and what Lao Tzu has accomplished in the TTC. — Possibility
If what the translations or anyone else here is saying conflicts with the original text, then the text must be correct. — Possibility
If you look at the Zhuangzi in comparison, its narrative composition makes it impossible to bracket out affect without ignoring elements of the text. Names exist outside of the text for people and their occupations, assuming a complex social structure that implies hierarchies of value and judgement. People feel, think, speak and make mistakes. But the TTC is structured carefully so that no affect, no feeling, emotion or value judgement is necessarily implicit in the text (except where speech is indicated, and very specific verses such as 20, written in the first person). I do think this is deliberate. — Possibility
I can only experience the Tao in not-doing: stillness, meditative practice, unconscious randomness, etc. Everything else requires logic. I can observe and restructure my thoughts and feelings to align with the TTC only in this stillness. — Possibility
The logic underlying my words and actions remains pretty much how it suits me best, regardless of the TTC. — Possibility
I think, like Socrates, he would probably claim to know nothing. It isn’t about what he knows, but about how he structures a rendered expression of reality so that one need not ‘know’ anything to understand. — Possibility
I feel you are misunderstanding his metaphysics.
For instance, you say " Part of that understanding is that the description of reality in the TTC is not true or false. It’s a metaphysical description."
If a metaphysical description is not true or false then it is meaningless. Some care is needed with the notion of 'true'. Lao Tsu's description is rigorous and demonstrably true in dialectical logic, but it is not true in the sense that it truly describes what cannot be described. — FrancisRay
But in metaphysics, as in physics, we're not looking for the 'true' theory just the best. It is logical processs of inference to the best explanation. To know it a theory is true we would have to abandon metaphysics for Yoga and self-enquiry. — FrancisRay
It is only because Lao Tsu's metaphysical view is a 'true' model of Reality that true words seem paradoxical. — FrancisRay
His metaphysics is actually very simple. All positive theories would be false just as their failure in logic implies, such that the Ultimate lies beyond the categories of thought and speech. This is a neutral; metaphysical theory and in principle it explains everything. — FrancisRay
either everything is and the blob is the indeterminate whole in which we are indistinguishable, or nothing is part of it, and everything except the blob exists (10,000 things).
— Possibility
Or both. I'm serious. — T Clark
This was the energy (attention and effort) directed elsewhere or without result as each stroke is made: not-doing (wu-wei).
— Possibility
I'm not sure what you are referring to. — T Clark
No matter how much he included of himself in his writing, something would always be missing...
...They are the difference we are invited to embody between the Tao and what Lao Tzu has accomplished in the TTC.
— Possibility
I think this difference between you and me is the result of how we see the TTC differently. I think Lao Tzu is trying to show us the way to follow, not tell us about it. The words are incidental. He is painting a picture with words. I'm trying to see the picture, not understand the words. — T Clark
The logic underlying my words and actions remains pretty much how it suits me best, regardless of the TTC.
— Possibility
Can you describe or give an example of how the logic underlying your words and actions works. I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I've tried to do the same for you when I describe the bubbling spring image I feel sometimes when I act. — T Clark
You may have doubts about all this but what I;m saying here is not in any way idiosyncratic.There is only one metaphysical theory for which true words seem paradoixcal, and it is a neutral one. . . — FrancisRay
I agree with this as the overarching idea. But in order to be or interact, we fall either side of this coin. — Possibility
I’m referring to the act of writing down the TTC. When we create something in the world, we cannot put all of ourselves and the world (ie. the blob) into it. With every interaction, we embody an aspect of the indeterminate whole that is necessarily missing from what we create. The energy (attention and effort) that keeps us alive cannot simultaneously be directed into what we create. — Possibility
Right - you’re aiming to experience the Way, not to understand it, and not to follow it. Here’s the thing: following the Way involves BOTH experiencing and understanding. The Way is neither in the experiencing nor in the understanding, but in the instructive difference between the two: effectively, it is the issue we have with each other’s methodology here. — Possibility
What I’ve described here refers specifically to experience, from a perspective of understanding. Here’s a question for you: do you experience logic? Not understand and not adhere to, but experience it - does it have a quality to it, or a feeling? If what you’re doing is simply experiencing the world, is there ever logic in that? Not just in reference to the TTC or the Tao, but in any experience... — Possibility
In a metaphysical sense, to ‘understand’ is to align with a way of thinking about or conceptualising reality. It’s an internal restructuring of ideas, and can be achieved simply by trusting in an alternative model or expression of reality, such as the TTC. — Possibility
In a more academic sense, though, to ‘understand’ is to present knowledge in explaining or supporting the argument for a restructuring of reality. It is to provide ‘proof’ of this metaphysical understanding. But this academic sense of understanding is not required in following the Way, and it does distract us from the path. — Possibility
I have engaged in attempts at explanation here, mainly in my references to Kant, quantum physics and Barrett’s theories in relation to affect, among others. My aim in doing so was to show that, firstly, there IS an alternative construction of reality in the TTC - one that does not align easily with conventional Western logic. — Possibility
Secondly, I was trying to point out that this alternative construction of reality does contend with, and arguably help to dissolve, current dilemmas in Western thinking. So, even if we have no intention of following the Way, its structure of conceptual reality is not as ‘a-rational’ as it first seems. It is more that conventional (Western) logic is inaccurate, insufficient beyond classical physics, for an holistic understanding of reality (ToE). — Possibility
I also recognise that understanding the Way is not following the Way. What is missing is chi, the energy of life, one’s distribution of attention and effort. I have suggested that we can discuss how chi (or affect) fits into this by drawing from experience, but that perhaps we need to separate subjective experience into quality and energy (and the TTC into quality and logic) before this starts to make sense. — Possibility
In fact, I get the sense that your aim is to recognise an experience of the Tao as a guide in those situations when conventional logic is insufficient. This seems to be a common Western approach to Taoism and other Eastern philosophies. — Possibility
I just thought we should be clear that experiencing the Way is not following the Way, any more than understanding it is. Giving the impression that one can follow the Way simply by experiencing it is what I’ve been taking particular issue with here, but I’ve not been very clear in this. — Possibility
I have no doubt that many of the scholars who painstakingly translated the TTC do experience the Tao subjectively, but whenever they expressed this as an understanding of the TTC, they’ve necessarily applied at least some conventional Western logic to their choice of words (inherent in the English language). When readers then experience this understanding, they’re aligning with this Western way of thinking, not with that of the TTC. — Possibility
But if you say that you’re following the Tao, then I may dispute your accuracy from time to time, to which you will say that you don’t understand and you aren’t trying to. — Possibility
Personally, I think any restructuring of reality in understanding the Tao goes deeper than this, but I accept that mine may be a minority view, lacking in clear explanation and relatively untested. — Possibility
I experience the working of my mind. Do I experience logic? Interesting question. I don't think I do. I guess most of what I know I know intuitively. I previously described an image I have of a cloud of knowledge that I think of when I think of the Tao. I've been thinking about that for a while - how we gain knowledge by osmosis. I'm far enough in the Barrett book to be interested in what she calls statistical learning as a candidate. Don't hold me to that. I've just gotten to that part. — 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.