We interact in the world of the 10,000 things. — T Clark

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...

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.

Does this use words, even ones you only speak to yourself? For me, understanding means words. — T Clark

I thought as much. No, for me, understanding can be beyond words. When I understand someone’s grief, putting it into words, even to myself, is profoundly insufficient to that understanding.

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

I will say that I understand affect as more of a localised, ongoing and internal perception of chi. But I wouldn’t say that I equate them. The reason I keep using them alongside each other is because I can see how they would both apply in the situation, but they do so on different dimensional levels of awareness. I’m sorry if this is confusing - it’s how my mind works. Incidentally, I also perceive the brain to some extent as a localised, ongoing and external observation of mind - but that’s another discussion, so I’ll leave it there.

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

No, you’re implying that I’m intending to judge your view, but I’m in no position to determine with any certainty what is wrong or true. My perspective is that I think you’re missing an aspect of what Lao Tzu was trying to show. But there isn’t much point, as you say. As long as it works for you, no one will convince you otherwise.

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 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.

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. But if it can embody one and then embody the other, and differentiate between the two perspectives, then the observer can differentiate between all three, and gain an accurate perspective of the reality in which it is an indeterminate aspect. This has to be the simplest model for truth.

I certainly don't think I'm following the path in any rigorous or disciplined way. — T Clark

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. This seems like I’m claiming more, but it isn’t. This is just because the TTC deliberately has no chi. So, while I have a pretty good idea of what he’s saying, it means that any failure to follow the Tao is mine alone. I can’t blame it on a misunderstanding, a lack of knowledge or experience. Something else is attracting my attention and effort, and I allow it. It still takes lots of practise to direct the flow of energy through your body.

I must apologise. I should have warned you not to rush out and buy Fundamental Wisdom. 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. . .

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. .

His argument proceeds by listing metaphysical questions and showing that all their positive answers are absurd. The answer is never this, that, both or neither. He points us towards a fifth possibility, which is the idea that these questions are badly-formed and derived from misunderstandings. It is a logical proof of emptiness. . .

The connection with Lao Tsu is immediate. The statement 'True words seem paradoxical' is entirely explained by Nagarjuna. if we cannot endorse a positive theory then we must never make a positive statement about reality. To do this requires speaking in riddles. For instance, Heraclitus famously states 'We exits and exist-not'. As atomic statements both halves of this statement would be untrue and absurd. Together. they allow to describe reality with rigour. 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. If all positive theories are false then reality must be beyond conceptual fabrication and subject-predicate language.. Kant's 'thing-in-itself' has the same elusive properties.and this is not a coincidence. Nor is it a coincidence that the Buddha advises us to abandon all extreme theories. When we do this we endorse the teachings of Lao Tsu. .

The absurdity all positive theories leads western thinkers to the idea that metaphysics is impossible. It should lead them to a neutral metaphysical position but they don't often study this or even know of it since it is mysticism. Academic philosophers generally hold the view that Lao Tsu didn't know what he was talking about. I suppose they believe that one day they will prove this. It's a forlorn hope. .

So, I'm with you completely on the value of Lao Tsu. He explains metaphysics in fewer words than most people need just to define it.

. .

. . .

.


. . . .

I have been practicing Taiji for 35 years, and it was at about 15 years that I first "experienced" the nature of universal "flow", i.e. action (movement) without willful intention. Subsequently, I was able to teach students how to "experience it", in less time, but not in a willful manner, but by just allowing it to happen. Still, it takes many years of "practice" (habituation). Further, I began to apply this experience to all arts, including music, dancing, drawing, and singing.

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.

I must apologise. I should have warned you not to rush out and buy Fundamental Wisdom. — FrancisRay

Don't worry, I found a free download.

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

I'm interested in this question for two reasons - 1) I have spent a lot of time thinking and writing here about metaphysics. I've especially liked R.G. Collingwood. I have a well-developed idea of what metaphysics is and how it works. I'm interested in having that understanding challenged or expanded. 2) I strongly reject the idea that the Tao Te Ching and similar theories stand in any privileged position for understanding reality.

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

Now I'll put this on my reading list. Still, if you can tell me where in "Fundamental Wisdom" the metaphysical argument you were discussing is, I'd like to take a look.

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

I have no trouble with the lines that are considered absurd or paradoxical. I think I understand where they come from, although I'm interested in having that understanding tested. One of the things that struck me about the Tao Te Ching when I first came across it was the idea of the unspeakableness of the Tao. That made sense to me immediately.

I'm glad you jointed our discussion. You've given me some new directions to look in.

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 was in a Tao Te Ching reading group and one of the members was a Tai Chi instructor. He had insights in to the TTC that were very helpful. It is my understanding that trying to follow the path without a meditative practice of some sort leaves something out. I've always thought that the Tao is to be experienced, not understood. His input helped me grasp that better. I studied Tai Chi for several years 20 years ago and I've started practicing again. Classroom work has been disrupted by the pandemic so I've been doing it mostly on my own. 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

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

Taiji is a practice that ultimately allows you to experience "effortless movement", which is an internal flow without willfulness. One is very relaxed and it "happens". It is the flow of the Universe (Dao).

But not to make too much of this. One can arrive at similar experiences by painting, dancing, or playing a musical instrument. The essence is relaxation. It just so happens I first felt it, because of my long Taiji practice. Most teachers will inhibit the discovery, because in their manner of teaching, they implicitly call upon the students to "willfully" do a movement. This is counterproductive. The movement had to be relaxed, natural, and emanating from the Spirit (the Heart). It is the same for all activities of arts and sports.

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

There is a vast amount of information in my head that I never learned in a formal way. We are constantly experiencing the world and trying to figure out what's going on. For me, that's where most of my understanding of the world comes from. Much of that understanding is non-verbal. Not because I can't put it into words, but because I've never had to.

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.

I can be crippled by indecision, while he’s happy to follow a well-worn path of effective decision-making. — Possibility

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.

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 agree with this.

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

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. Somehow, through experiencing the Tao, I am lead to act without acting. I use the term "grow out of" for lack of a better term.

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

I don’t think it’s as cut and dried as that. I imagine that most people have the capacity for both, but they lean towards one or the other. My husband is a mathematics teacher and has very obviously developed both to a high level. But he prefers the particle way, which means that he often needs to be prompted to switch. I can see the particle view, but I also need prompting to switch, and it requires more deliberate concentration on my part, like trying to write left-handed.

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 turning onto itself, it becomes a standing wave (yin/yang). Then with movement (qi), there is a spiraling wave which creates everything.

When you study Taiji, all movements arise from an internal spiral.

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.

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

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.

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

It’s something I’m working on. I work in marketing and PR, so it’s often the little things that matter most. But with COVID regularly turning circumstances on a dime, I also can’t afford to be delayed by indecision.

You say "I strongly reject the idea that the Tao Te Ching and similar theories stand in any privileged position for understanding reality."

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.

PS. The argument in Fundamental Wisdom is the body of the text. The original title was Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way, and the argument is in the verses. . . .

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

I do believe it is not correct, but I don't think now is the time to get into it. I'm not prepared. Let me do some reading and maybe we can come back to it. If anyone else would like to take this up with FrancisRay, I'm ok with that.

Where in the TTC does Lao Tzu suggest that his is the correct model of Reality?

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.

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

There is no non-being. It is Mind that begins to create. Think of drawiing without lifting the pencil. You begin to create shapes in a never ending spiral of waves.

When I understand someone’s grief, putting it into words, even to myself, is profoundly insufficient to that understanding. — 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.

but that’s another discussion, so I’ll leave it there. — Possibility

We can both try to keep that in mind as something we see differently. And yes, this is not the place to solve the whole mind/brain thing.

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

I want to disagree with you, since I don't think there is any logic in the TTC, but I know you and I experience logic differently.

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

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.

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

I feel the same way.

There is no non-being. It is Mind that begins to create. Think of drawiing without lifting the pencil. You begin to create shapes in a never ending spiral of waves. — MondoR

You and I think about this differently.

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

If their reaction is to tense up or pull away, then I would say not. It’s the process from experience to action that is potentially inaccurate. We can misunderstand what someone needs from us in their grief if we’re unaware of how our perspective might differ from theirs. I don’t consider wu-wei to be acting from my true nature, especially in interpersonal relations, but aligning with a reliable model of intersubjective truth. Sometimes we don’t have to act or speak - sitting beside them, giving them space, or talking about trivial things don’t directly address their grief and can seem to onlookers that we’re not doing anything to help. But it could be precisely what they need, and we may be the only one in a relational position to effect this. Wu-wei is the difference between appearing to ‘do something’ and an effective use of our relational capacity.

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

I find it interesting that you always refer to ‘experiencing’ things, even when you’re thinking, describing or understanding. Do you acknowledge that you interact with the world in ways that you’re unable to experience directly? 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? I think this refers back to Barrett’s theory.

A ‘triadic relational model’ just refers to the type of logical structure that underlies the TTC. It differs from conventional logic in that it doesn’t reduce to a binary truth value (true-false), but has a triadic base (3). I’m just throwing terms like this in here in the hope that you recognise them from philosophical discourses that might enable us to discuss alternative logical structures. This one comes from commentaries on the work of Charles Sanders Peirce. 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.

Where in the TTC does Lao Tzu suggest that his is the correct model of Reality? — T Clark

In order to see this you have to study his philosophy. Certain sayings require a specific model or descriptive theory. For instance, the statement 'true words seem paradoxical' are true only in a non-dual philosophy. This is the case for many of his statements. 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.

Wu wei is the state of being between motion. It just happens, such as when one falls asleep, or when one dies, prior to re-awakening. Wu wei just happens. You can't do it. When practicing Taiji, one may reach a state of complete relaxation, and then on its own, your arms begin to move. No willpower. You can't understand Wu Wei by trying to understand it. You just have to allow it to happen when it happens. Patience. It may take decades. It's very interesting, but not necessary.

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 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. 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've bought "Sum of Wisdom." We'll see where it goes from there.

If I experience that person without words or judgement and then act on that without forethought or intention; maybe putting my arms around them, sitting beside them, giving them space, or talking about trivial things; that is my understanding of what wu wei is. Acting from my true nature.

I find it interesting that you always refer to ‘experiencing’ things, even when you’re thinking, describing or understanding. — Possibility

It should be no more unexpected than when Lao Tzu refers to the Tao even when he's thinking, describing, or understanding.

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

In my understanding, a discussion of cognitive science is not directly relevant to the principles laid out in the TTC. You and I disagree on this.

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

The fact that I haven't figured it all out yet is not a sign that my "model is insufficient." It is a sign that I'm not a sage. Yet. And yes, I am unperturbed by the fact that I might be wrong. Derek Lin Verse 64:

A tree thick enough to embrace
Grows from the tiny sapling
A tower of nine levels
Starts from the dirt heap
A journey of a thousand miles
Begins beneath the feet

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

In respect of its metaphysics you stated "I do believe it is not correct." This raised all my hackles.:)

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, but I very much respect your open mind. It is a rare thing.

If I was defending him I'd point out that he rejects all positive and extreme metaphysical positions. This rejection is necessary for Philosophical Taoism, Middle Way Buddhism and more generally the Perennial philosophy. If you get this point then all the rest follows (eventually). .

Please note I'm, trying to be useful, not trying to force an opinion on you. I try not to do opinions.

.

I don't understand your view and feel it underestimates both Lao Tsu and metaphysics — FrancisRay

I think very highly of both Lao Tzu and metaphysics. You and I just have different ideas of what metaphysics is. Are you familiar with R.G. Collingwood ("Essay on Metaphysics")? His position was that metaphysics is the study of the "absolute presuppositions" that are the foundation of how we understand and talk about the world. He is explicit. Absolute presuppositions are not true or false. They have no truth value. It is meaningless to talk about the truth of a metaphysical statement. That's metaphysics to me.

If I was defending him — FrancisRay

I don't think he needs to be defended from me. He's been doing pretty well for 2,500 years.

Please note I'm, trying to be useful, not trying to force an opinion on you. I try not to do opinions. — FrancisRay

As I've noted, I'm really happy you showed up here.

You write "I try not to do opinions," while you propound your opinions, Just about everything I write here is opinion. I make no claim to truth.

I am not giving my opinions. I can demionstrate everything I state. However, I wouldn't expect you to believe this without more evidence.or even advise you to do so.

I don't know Coliongwood but it's clear from what you say the he doesn't understand metaphysics or claim to do so. I never understand how so many people who believe metaphysics is incomprehensible can also believe they have understood it.

For Lao Tsu's metaphysics all positive statements about Reality would be unrigorous, and false in this sense rather than false as opposed to true, and to this extent Collingwood would be correct. But he doesn't know why he is correct, so for him metaphysics is incomprehensible. Anyone who believes metaphysics is incomprehensible is clearly not as well-informed as Lao Tsu. He knows why all positive metaphysical statements are incorrect. .

I am not giving my opinions. I can demionstrate everything I state. — FrancisRay

We'll have to leave it there for now.

Darn it. I thought you'd call me out on that one.

Thanks for the chat. .