We interact in the world of the 10,000 things. — T Clark
I'm ok with this, but I don't see the relevance to our discussion. Are you talking about wu wei and how it grows out of the Tao? — T Clark
Does this use words, even ones you only speak to yourself? For me, understanding means words. — T Clark
As I've said, I don't think seeing the TTC through the eyes of Barrett or other scientists is useful, at least not for my purposes. I also think equating chi with affect is is like equating the mind with the brain, which I reject. I'll think more about that. — T Clark
Are you implying that it's wrong or somehow not true to Lao Tzu's intentions? First, I doubt that. Second - it doesn't really matter. I've found a spiritual vision that matches my intellectual, perceptual, experiential, and emotional understanding of how things work. — T Clark
I'm not sure about this. I don't think you can follow the path without experiencing the Tao. Is that enough? Maybe? I think whatever value understanding the Tao has may be in helping to experience it. I'm out on a limb here. Over my head. — T Clark
I certainly don't think I'm following the path in any rigorous or disciplined way. — T Clark
I must apologise. I should have warned you not to rush out and buy Fundamental Wisdom. — FrancisRay
You may find it interesting but his argument is very difficult and tedious. All we need to know is that his argument has never been invalidated and it proves that all positive metaphysical theories are logically indefensible. If we know this then we need not read the argument. And we already know that philosophers generally endorse his result since it what makes metaphysics difficult. Kant, Bradley and Russell all reach the same result explicitly in their work, but all good philosophers arrive here since it is just a matter of logic. . . — FrancisRay
The best commentary I know of is 'The Sun of Wisdom': Teachings on Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way by Tsultrim Gymaptso. I would avoid any that are written by non-Buddhist academics. . — FrancisRay
These words seem paradoxical. They are not actually so, however, and Lao Tsu does not suggest they are.
The claim that the Tao is unspeakable is also explained by Nagarjuna. — FrancisRay
Hence, the nature of the Universe can be discovered and experienced, but not fully translated into words as in the case of all feelings and emotions. One must feel loss to understand it, but words are inadequate. There is nothing mysterious in Daoism, just feelings and emotions to be discovered. — MondoR
I have never felt any strong connection between Tai Chi and the Tao Te Ching. I'd be interested in hearing how you see it. — T Clark
This is interesting to me. You use words such as ‘intuitively’ and ‘osmosis’, as if the knowledge just kind of turns up in your head. I’ve been aware recently that most people tend to perceive the world as particles, but I’ve always perceived it as waves — Possibility
I can be crippled by indecision, while he’s happy to follow a well-worn path of effective decision-making. — Possibility
Yes, but we don’t necessarily interact as one of the 10,000 things. We can also interact as an indistinguishable aspect of the indeterminate whole. This is how I understand an experience of wu-wei: no resistance or effort, no consolidation of self, just harmonious movement with the world... — Possibility
I'm ok with this, but I don't see the relevance to our discussion. Are you talking about wu wei and how it grows out of the Tao?
— T Clark
That’s a strange way to describe it. I don’t see wu-wei as ‘growing out of the Tao’, but as completion of Tao - it’s the chi that is missing from the evidence of our actions. It’s what Lao Tzu draws our attention to, because it exists in the gap between the Tao and the 10,000 things. — Possibility
Is my way of knowing the particle way? You say your son "can’t always trace the source of his information or critically examine his rational process once his mind is made up." I can, but I normally don't because I don't need to. — T Clark
As I've mentioned before, I am not at all clear what takes place "in the gap between the Tao 10,000 things" or how wu wei works. — T Clark
There is no gap. It starts as One, then by La onto itself, it becomes a standing wave (yin/yang). Then with movement (qi), there is a spiraling wave which creates everything. — MondoR
Lao Tzu is a bit ambiguous about that. He says different things in different verses. Yin and yang are only mentioned once in the Tao Te Ching, in Verse 42. He doesn't mention qi or chi at all. — T Clark
I think ninety percent of the time, it doesn't matter what decision we make, as long as we make one and are willing to take responsibility for it. There just aren't that many issues that matter all that much. When I was working I had to deal with more and more significant ones. Even then, in most cases it was more important to keep things moving than it was to make the exactly right decision. — T Clark
I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm suggesting that the metaphysics of the TTC is a correct model of Reality, just as Lao Tsu suggests. It is not 'privileged', just correct. In mysticism it is the standard model, . .
I'm probably misunderstanding you, but If you believe it is not correct then I'll happily argue this point. — FrancisRay
The there basic elements of Taiji are Yin, Yang, and Qi. It is the moving wave that one experiences when practicing Taiji. To understand the Dao De Jing, one must experience it. Words are insufficient. 42 explains how the Universe began. — MondoR
I agree with you that the TTC is about the experience, not the words. You say there is not gap, but for me there is. I have a sense for the experience of the Tao and obviously I experience the 10,000 things, but it is the step between that I am searching for. How non-being becomes being. How the nameless becomes the named. — T Clark
When I understand someone’s grief, putting it into words, even to myself, is profoundly insufficient to that understanding. — Possibility
but that’s another discussion, so I’ll leave it there. — Possibility
I also don’t think you can follow the path without experiencing the Tao. I think the value in understanding the Tao is in aligning your logic, which does help to experience it, but also to follow it. — Possibility
In an holistic view of reality, an observer is necessarily one aspect of the whole, but is unable to view itself as one of these aspects. A triadic relational model of reality is the most efficient and accurate - if the observer is indeterminate and can alternate between embodying two of these aspects. Embodying one will give it a view of the other two, but it can neither view itself, nor differentiate between the other two. — Possibility
I don’t claim to be following the Tao rigorously, either. But I think I understand when I am and when I’m not, at least. — Possibility
If I experience that person without words or judgement and then act on that without forethought or intention, maybe put my arms around them, that is my understanding of what wu wei is. Acting from my true nature. Does that mean I'm experiencing the Tao at that moment? I'm working on that. — T Clark
No fair. You've brought in a whole new way of talking about things. I don't know what a "triadic relational model is." I guess I don't feel the need for another way to explain what's going on. For me, there are two ways of experiencing things - there is talking about, describing, kicking, thinking about, understanding, and naming the multiplicity of things and then there is the wordless, nameless experience of the Tao. Can you do them at the same time? Not sure. — T Clark
Where in the TTC does Lao Tzu suggest that his is the correct model of Reality? — T Clark
This is the philosophy you will have to refute if you want to show that Lao Tsu's description of reality is untrue. .
If you succeed you will be world-famous within an hour or two, since you'll have destroyed the Perennial philosophy. It isn't going to happen, but I think there's much value in trying to refute it. — FrancisRay
I find it interesting that you always refer to ‘experiencing’ things, even when you’re thinking, describing or understanding. — Possibility
Do you recognise that you construct most of your ‘experience’ of these interactions from a logical and qualitative structure of mind (developed from past experiences, language, cultural reality, knowledge, etc), and only minimally from your temporal, sensory being-in-the-world? — Possibility
That you’re unsure of the relation between your ‘two ways of experiencing things’ suggests to me that your model is insufficient, yet you seem unperturbed by the margin for error. — Possibility
I have no interest in refuting Lao Tzu's vision of reality. I've never said it was untrue and I've acknowledged how valuable it is for me. — T Clark
It is my fundamental understanding that metaphysical principles are not true or false, right or wrong.They are useful or not in a particular situation. It will take a significant change in my understanding of things to change that. That's why I'm interested in following up on your ideas.
I don't understand your view and feel it underestimates both Lao Tsu and metaphysics — FrancisRay
If I was defending him — FrancisRay
Please note I'm, trying to be useful, not trying to force an opinion on you. I try not to do opinions. — FrancisRay
I am not giving my opinions. I can demionstrate everything I state. — FrancisRay
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.