"Tao follows what is natural". Therefore, if you wish to follow the Tao itself, do not follow the Tao itself, follow instead what the Tao itself follows: you should follow what is natural, not the Tao itself. — Arcane Sandwich

"Tao" is usually translated into English as The Way or Path or Map. And the admonition to "follow the path of nature" could be expressed in a modern colloquialism : "get with the program". Which could mean "follow the rules", or "don't buck the system". So a word to the wise is "don't fight nature".

Instead of imagining Nature as the arbitrary laws of an oriental autocrat or despot, a more modern model of Natural Evolution might be as a computer Program, which is calculating a solution to a problem assigned by the Programmer. In that metaphor, homo sapiens or rattus norvegicus are not the chosen ones of a benevolent deity, but an intermediate stage in the process toward an ultimate answer*1.

So philosophical wisdom would be to learn the Rules of the Program : what modern Science calls the "Laws of Nature", or what traditional Philosophy calls "Cosmic Principles". And those laws can be expressed most parsimoniously in terms of Mathematical Logic. But for non-mathematicians that Logic is usually described as verbal expressions of Dos & Don'ts ; Shalt / Shalt Not ; True / False ; plus operators And/Or/Not. These are the "guiding principles" that philosophers and religious founders expound to their followers, as-if established by Mother Nature or by God.

But Laotse says "don't follow the Tao itself" --- as if a human dictator/superhuman god --- but follow the Rules --- as words to the wise. Physical rules are firmly established by science, but Meta-Physical (moral/ethical) rules are endlessly debatable. Except that the Golden Rule*2 is generally accepted as valid. :nerd:


*1. In The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams, the answer to the "Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything" is 42. The answer was calculated by a fictional supercomputer named Deep Thought over a period of 7.5 million years.
___Google AI overview

*2. Taoism. Golden Rule :"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain and your neighbor's loss as your own loss."

I studied comparative religion, and one of the major authors in that field is Mircea Eliade — Wayfarer

Not relevant, I just happen to know he has a book called Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy. Which I have not read.

Carry on.

"Tao" is usually translated into English as The Way or Path or Map. And the admonition to "follow the path of nature" could be expressed in a modern colloquialism : "get with the program". Which could mean "follow the rules", or "don't buck the system". So a word to the wise is "don't fight nature". — Gnomon

Yes. Indeed.

Instead of imagining Nature as the arbitrary laws of an oriental autocrat or despot, a more modern model of Natural Evolution might be as a computer Program, which is calculating a solution to a problem assigned by the Programmer. In that metaphor, homo sapiens or rattus norvegicus are not the chosen ones of a benevolent deity, but an intermediate stage in the process toward an ultimate answer*1. — Gnomon

Hmmm...

So philosophical wisdom would be to learn the Rules of the Program : what modern Science calls the "Laws of Nature", or what traditional Philosophy calls "Cosmic Principles". And those laws can be expressed most parsimoniously in terms of Mathematical Logic. But for non-mathematicians that Logic is usually described as verbal expressions of Dos & Don'ts ; Shalt / Shalt Not ; True / False ; plus operators And/Or/Not. These are the "guiding principles" that philosophers and religious founders expound to their followers, as-if established by Mother Nature or by God. — Gnomon

Yes. But this is a problem in our contemporary societies across the planet that we inhabit. And you will have to excuse me, if you are as kind as you say, when I say the following: if we wish to continue inhabiting this planet, something must be done about the problems that our contemporaries societies face. Our planet is being destroyed by an army of imbeciles. There is no plan to their actions, they have no strategy nor tactics. The are simply destroying the planet with the waste products of modernity, in a literal sense: our oceans are filled with plastic, "corporations ravage the Amazon like a Plague of Locusts", as the band Earth Crisis says in their song "Ecocide". Millions of innocent creatures die every day just so that mankind can keep progressing into increasingly obscene levels of commodity.

At least such is my sentiment on those matters.

But Laotse says "don't follow the Tao itself" --- as if a human dictator/superhuman god --- but follow the Rules --- as words to the wise. Physical rules are firmly established by science, but Meta-Physical (moral/ethical) rules are endlessly debatable. Except that the Golden Rule*2 is generally accepted as valid. :nerd: — Gnomon

Perhaps.

EDIT:

The Jane English version is objectively superior to Stephen Mitchell's version. I am aware that I said something controversial in the previous sentence. — Arcane Sandwich

No, it's not "objectively superior," although many people hate Mitchell's translation and Mitchell himself. It's a matter of preference, i.e. subjective not objective. There is nothing objective about the Tao Te Ching or in it. I think Mitchell has insights that you won't find in other translations. I am very fond of his version, but I acknowledge you need to read others in order to get a more complete picture of what Lao Tzu was trying to show us.

As others have noted in this thread, speaking authoritatively about the Tao Te Ching and Taoism is misleading and I think it shows a lack of understanding.

you need to read others in order to get a more complete picture of what Lao Tzu was trying to show us. — T Clark

I tend to get obsessed with one specific part of a text, and I focus on that. But that's a flaw that I have. It's a character flaw.

As others have noted in this thread, speaking authoritatively about the Tao Te Ching and Taoism is misleading — T Clark

It is.

it shows a lack of understanding. — T Clark

It does.

The Jane English version is objectively superior to Stephen Mitchell's version. I am aware that I said something controversial in the previous sentence. — Arcane Sandwich

I agree but it is subjective as well as objective. My first book was that of Mitchell's. It appealed to me, aesthetically. However, I grew to dislike it. And this was after taking an objective look.
What is being said. How it is said. It takes distance to do this. And more than one read.

Sorry, this is going a bit offtrack, away from Twenty-five. I took exception to his translation of Thirteen:

13
Success is as dangerous as failure.
Hope is as hollow as fear.

What does it mean that success is a dangerous as failure?
Whether you go up the ladder or down it,
you position is shaky.
When you stand with your two feet on the ground,
you will always keep your balance.

What does it mean that hope is as hollow as fear?
Hope and fear are both phantoms
that arise from thinking of the self.
When we don't see the self as self,
what do we have to fear?

See the world as your self.
Have faith in the way things are.
Love the world as your self;
then you can care for all things. — Terebess - Mitchell trans. of Tao Te Ching

I've just read the translation by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English (left unchanged in the update).

Thirteen

Accept disgrace willingly.
Accept misfortune as the human condition.

What do you mean by "Accept disgrace willingly"?
Accept being unimportant.
Do not be concerned with loss or gain.
This is called "accepting disgrace willingly."

What do you mean by "Accept misfortune as the human condition"?
Misfortune comes from having a body.
Without a body, how could there be misfortune?

Surrender yourself humbly; then you can be trusted to care for all things.
Love the world as your own self; then you can truly care for all things.
— Terebess - Translated by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English

Controversial, or otherwise, I think the TTC can be read both subjectively and objectively. For the feel, the sense. The wisdom, the sense. The whole and the parts. From whatever life perspective.

The Jane English version is "more ancient", more "ancestral" in its expressions. — Arcane Sandwich

I don't know that I would describe it as 'ancestral'. For me, it says more in a way that is comprehensible.
It is more present, personal, open and flexible. Questions and answers. "What do you mean by...?" Compared to "What does it mean that...?"
I think there is a better flow in and between the sentences. But that's just my opinion.
That 'works' for me, in my process of understanding.

I appreciate that other translators/readers don't think the same. And that is fair enough. And necessary.
I haven't analysed or experienced the TTC as much as some. Just taking it bit by bit. So far, so good.

I think this shows respect for both the Tao and the 10,000 things, which represent the multiplicity of distinctions in our everyday world. Humanity is one of the 10,000 things. — T Clark

I agree. It is also one of the 4 great things.

The Jane English version:
Therefore, “Tao is great;
Heaven is great;
Earth is great;
The human being is also great.”
These are the four great powers of the universe,
And the human being is one of them. — Amity

Sorry, this is going a bit offtrack, away from Twenty-five. I took exception to his translation of Thirteen:

Success is as dangerous as failure.
Hope is as hollow as fear. — Amity

This is one of the first verses that grabbed me in Mitchell's translation - really opened my eyes. I like it better than any other version. Whether or not it is "authentic," I think it get's right to the heart of what Lao Tzu was trying to say in a way that's more concrete than other versions.

Here is my perspective, and my attempt at explaining it in commentary form:

"Something mysteriously formed,
Born before heaven and Earth."

This is their attempt to describe primordial time. It is not "something", and it is not "formed", nor is it "born"; yet it is eternally eminent and therefore considered "mysterious", since it cannot have a beginning or an end.

"In the silence and the void,
Standing alone and unchanging,
Ever present and in motion."

The "silence and the void" refers to an informationless state, which is a pure description of primordial time absent of space. "Standing alone and unchanging" refers to the zero spatial dimensional state and zero entropy. In this state, time has no arrow, while simultaneously possessing the potential for infinite spacial dimensionality out of which the arrow of time emerges.

"Ever present and in motion" refers to the nature of primordial time. The basic function of time can essentially be termed "self-remembering".

One way to help conceptualize this idea is to imagine a single stationary pixel displaying on a screen or monitor. To maintain this pixel on the screen, the monitor must constantly reinstate the pixel at every time step. This gives the illusion that the pixel is the same one moment to the next. This constant reinstantiation of the pixel on the screen can be said to be unchanging, present, and in motion. The motion is not spatial but temporal; it supplies temporal continuity and persistence to all that exists.

It can also be thought of as a copy and paste function. It copies its state and pastes it back in the same place over and over again in order to keep the pixel in place and existing on the screen. If the copy or the paste part is not performed then information is lost and would thus break the logic of the universe (The Tao).

"Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things."

Yes, it is.

"I do not know its name;
Call it Tao.
For lack of a better word, I call it great."

This refers to their acknowledgment of how difficult it is to describe this concept of what i call primordial time especially to another person. The traditional notion of time as a measurement of change interferes with our understanding of the pure primordial concept of time, which is not a measurement but rather the cause of what is measured instead. It represents the active aspect of time, not the passive one that only recognizes its effects.

Calling it great is akin to calling it good, in the same way God in the Bible says, "and it was good". It is good because without this fundamental feature of the universe, we would not even have a universe. They called it the "Tao" because they were able to recognize that what was most fundamental was not a material substance but a process, a way of doing, and this implies a rule, a program, an algorithm that makes all things possible. This algorithm is time itself (primordial time). Time is the logic of existence: a supremely simple logic that is singular yet simultaneously infinite in potential.

"Being great, it flows;
It flows far away.
Having gone far, it returns."

This describes a wave that begins at the origin, travels an arbitrary distance from that origin, and then returns. It illustrates how (Tao) time flows. This also describes the creation of spatial dimensions, which originate at the zero-dimensional temporal point and extend into the first dimension, then the second, then the third, and finally back.

"Therefore, Tao is great;
Heaven is great;
Earth is great;
The king is also great."
These are the four great powers of the universe,
And the king is one of them."

This describes emergence, the method by which nature creates further complexity and novelty. From primordial time ("Tao"), "heaven" emerges as the first or primary emergence and represents the realm of fundamental particles, atoms, and even molecules (pre-biology). Heaven is good because it serves as the ground from which higher forms can emerge to increase complexity and novelty. From "heaven," "Earth" emerges, symbolizing the emergence of biology and ecosystems. From this emerges the "King", which symbolizes culture and social structures.

At the time when the Tao Te Ching was written, the highest level of emergence known was human culture. A time will come when there will be five great powers of the universe. I believe this next level of emergence from culture is tied to the development of AI (ultimately ASI).

"Man follows Earth.
Earth follows heaven.
Heaven follows the Tao.
Tao follows what is natural."

This is merely a reiteration of the hierarchy of emergence but in reverse, back to the origin (Tao).

Yes. But this is a problem in our contemporary societies across the planet that we inhabit. — Arcane Sandwich

I'm not sure what "this" referred to, but I'm guessing that you think we humans are not following the Tao, hence are lost in the labyrinth. Yet one law of Nature is that the big fish eat the little fish, and another is that omnivores eat everything below them in the food chain. Moreover, a law of Culture is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Does human culture exploit loopholes in the laws of Nature, and explore "ways" that were not in Nature's map? Are we gradually learning by trial & error how to draw our own map of, not The Way, but a workable way into a sustainable future? Isn't that the purpose of Philosophy?

Some disillusioned philosophers propose Anti-Natalism --- or maybe collective seppuku --- as a solution to the plague of human culture infesting and ruining the balance of Nature. I wouldn't go that far, but in the Evolutionary Program metaphor, intermediate solutions are eliminated when they fail to make progress toward the ultimate solution --- whatever that might be. So, while it may be small consolation, human culture is just a blip in the eons of natural evolution to date. Perhaps given time, the "featherless bipeds" might eventually amount to something worth keeping.

Maybe our civilized Culture, and empirical Science, and groping Philosophy are just way-stations on the program of evolution, from Big Bang input to ultimate program output. Another law of Nature is those who persist, continue to exist. The Apocalypse is Not Yet. Hang in there, Sandy! :smile:

PS___ The Gia-Fu Feng / Jane English translation is the one I have. It's sufficient for my non-academic needs.

PPS___ One feature of modern scientific civilization, unlike ancient China's pre-scientific culture --- gunpowder made pretty designs in the sky --- is that it doesn't accept things that are "beyond our control". The Atomic Bomb is one example of that over-reach, which we have survived for almost a century. We learned to control Fire only a few hundred generations ago. So it seems that humans are still bumbling toddlers in the universe of expanding horizons, exploring all possibilities.

PPPS___The Tao is lovely philosophical Poetry, but it doesn't spell-out specifically what The Way is, the laws of Nature. So we use Science to learn the temporary limits of our toddling explorations.

I'm curious. How does it 'work' for you? From what perspective or belief? How meaningful is it in your everyday experience? The actual practice of Taoism or reading/interpreting the TTC? — Amity

A few thoughts—

It works for me as poetry, evoking a sense of connectedness with both nature and the affairs of humans. It is also a kind of metaphysics, allusive, not determinate. It is about unknowing more than it it is about knowing—metaphysics is not and can never be a science, but it is an inspiring activity as it is so closely allied with the arts.

The Dao has long been associated in my mind with the Dharma, and most particularly as the Dharma is evoked by the great Zen teachers—Dogen, Hui Hai, Han Shan, and my favorite modern Zen text: Zen MInd, Beginners Mind by Suzuki.

I also associate it with the teachings of the Stoics, the Epicureans and Spinoza—I mean I think it is coming from the same place of radical acceptance of those things which are beyond our control. The Dao, like Spinoza's "deus siva natura' has no concern for humans, and to live well we must bow to the greater power.

This is one of the first verses that grabbed me in Mitchell's translation - really opened my eyes. — T Clark

I remember you saying it was your favourite part.
I remember looking at other translations and Mitchell's was only one with a focus on the word or concept of 'Hope'.

It has stuck with me, so that says something.

Perhaps, it is related to individual experiences, readings and understanding of 'hope' in real life and literature. Not to mention the philosophical concept.

The importance of the arts and being positive or creative when everything seems to be going to hell and back. The need for hope in seemingly hopeless situations, as in the devastations of war. To rise above the darkness.

I know there are different kinds of hope. So, a wide spectrum to consider.
I reject Mitchell's reductive and dogmatic translation/ interpretation.

Whether or not it is "authentic," I think it get's right to the heart of what Lao Tzu was trying to say in a way that's more concrete than other versions. — T Clark

I am not sure what lies at the heart of Lao Tzu's text.
From the little I've read, the core message seems to be to live in harmony with the Tao. A guide to the art of living.To live in goodness and integrity.

All that is fine. However, this doesn't mean that hope is hollow.
Hope has content. We might hope that we come to understand the Tao.
How much would it matter if we didn't. It depends.
What matters is that humans have agency.
To believe or not.
To act or not.
To be or not.

Following one way, is not the only way.
How does one's belief show in actions and behaviour related to self and others?

We don't all act in accordance with the Word of Man as God or Universal Power.
Or any ancient text laying down prescriptive, unchanging rules or practice.

All of this is open to question. Why we are here. To listen and respond with care.
To hope that we help more than harm. In all spheres of life and beyond.

I think I can relate the TTC to Stoicism.
The Serenity Prayer, but without God.

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
and Wisdom to know the difference.

A few words that caution us about the use of words.

Chapter Sixteen:

Attain extreme tenuousness

Chapter 32:

When unhewn wood is carved up, then there are names.
Now that there are names, know enough to stop!

Ivanhoe translation

Zhuangzi poses the problem this way:

If we’re already one, can I say it? But since I’ve just said we’re one, can I not say it? The unity and my saying it make two. The two and their unity make three.

This is a good, thoughtful, well-written post.

It is not "something", — punos

The fact that the Tao is not a thing was a revelation to me.

The "silence and the void" refers to an informationless state, which is a pure description of primordial time absent of space. "Standing alone and unchanging" refers to the zero spatial dimensional state and zero entropy. In this state, time has no arrow, while simultaneously possessing the potential for infinite spacial dimensionality out of which the arrow of time emerges. — punos

I'm ok with this if you are being metaphorical, but, in my understanding, Taoist principals are metaphysical, not factual. It doesn't make sense to attribute physical properties to the Tao.

One way to help conceptualize this idea is to imagine a single stationary pixel displaying on a screen or monitor. To maintain this pixel on the screen, the monitor must constantly reinstate the pixel at every time step. This gives the illusion that the pixel is the same one moment to the next. This constant reinstantiation of the pixel on the screen can be said to be unchanging, present, and in motion. The motion is not spatial but temporal; it supplies temporal continuity and persistence to all that exists. — punos

I like this way of putting it. As I discussed earlier in this thread, I understand the cosmology described in the Tao Te Ching as the constant creation of the world of phenomena followed by a return to the source.

They called it the "Tao" because they were able to recognize that what was most fundamental was not a material substance but a process, a way of doing, and this implies a rule, a program, an algorithm that makes all things possible. This algorithm is time itself (primordial time). Time is the logic of existence: a supremely simple logic that is singular yet simultaneously infinite in potential. — punos

I'm ok with this, but maybe I see it differently than you do. I see what you call a rule or an algorithm as a representation of the process of naming that brings the world into existance. Is that what you're talking about?

This describes emergence, the method by which nature creates further complexity and novelty. From primordial time ("Tao"), "heaven" emerges as the first or primary emergence and represents the realm of fundamental particles, atoms, and even molecules (pre-biology). Heaven is good because it serves as the ground from which higher forms can emerge to increase complexity and novelty. From "heaven," "Earth" emerges, symbolizing the emergence of biology and ecosystems. From this emerges the "King", which symbolizes culture and social structures. — punos

Again, I think you are taking an idea I see as poetic and internal and making it literal and concrete.

It works for me as poetry, evoking a sense of connectedness with both nature and the affairs of humans. It is also a kind of metaphysics, allusive, not determinate. It is about unknowing more than it it is about knowing—metaphysics is not and can never be a science, but it is an inspiring activity as it is so closely allied with the arts. — Janus

Yes. I see and appreciate that aspect. The arts are an important way for humans to connect. Our stories, paintings, songs...for, from and in all ages.

The Dao has long been associated in my mind with the Dharma, and most particularly as the Dharma is evoked by the great Zen teachers—Dogen, Hui Hai, Han Shan, and my favorite modern Zen text: Zen MInd, Beginners Mind by Suzuki. — Janus

I think they are closely linked. Meditation and going with the flow? Finding harmony.

I also associate it with the teachings of the Stoics, the Epicureans and Spinoza—I mean I think it is coming from the same place of radical acceptance of those things which are beyond our control. The Dao, like Spinoza's "deus siva natura' has no concern for humans, and to live well we must bow to the greater power. — Janus

Yes. Acceptance up to a point. There is a tipping point where action must be taken. I don't agree with the passivity associated with bowing to greater powers.

Not sure I would be brave enough to form part of a war resistance movement.
However, I think that active courage in holding fast to certain values derives from desperate situations and hope for a better future. Even basic survival.

Thanks for sharing. :sparkle:

The Tao is lovely philosophical Poetry, but it doesn't spell-out specifically what The Way is, the laws of Nature. So we use Science to learn the temporary limits of our toddling explorations. — Gnomon

As I understand it, we don't look to science for guidance, we look within ourselves.

Yes. Acceptance up to a point. There is a tipping point where action must be taken. I don't agree with the passivity associated with bowing to greater powers.

Not sure I would be brave enough to form part of a war resistance movement.
However, I think that active courage in holding fast to certain values derives from desperate situations and hope for a better future. Even basic survival. — Amity

Right, acceptance is appropriate of those things we cannot change. So, the idea of acceptance should not preclude, for example, political action, where it is both possible and desirable.

As I understand it, we don't look to science for guidance, we look within ourselves. — T Clark

Our understanding of ourselves is definitely influenced by science, though.

I am not sure what lies at the heart of Lao Tzu's text. — Amity

As I see it, it's a direct wordless experience, not a conceptual understanding.

All that is fine. However, this doesn't mean that hope is hollow. — Amity

When I experience hope and fear, I recognize their hollowness, meaninglessness. That doesn't mean I can escape their influence. Easier said than done.

A few words that caution us about the use of words. — Fooloso4

:smile:
Yes, well.
Perhaps you need to say more. Then again...

Thank you for sharing your experience and views. :sparkle:

As I understand it, we don't look to science for guidance, we look within ourselves. — T Clark

Yes. In Lao Tse's time, there was no formal discipline of empirical Science. So philosophers and sages relied upon Intuition (look inward), Contemplation (observe together), or Meditation (mindful attention) to construct models of how the world works. Such practices might produce superficial (poetic) insights into how the Tao works, but subjective knowledge only becomes common knowledge when shared as objective & technical information : i.e. Science. For example, we now have a theory of Evolution to supplement the poetic imagery about our place in the "chain of being", and a Big Bang theory to provide a technical understanding of the "Mother of all things", plus a theory of Thermodynamics to give us a more detailed understanding of "Wu Wei". :smile:

The "silence and the void" refers to an informationless state, which is a pure description of primordial time absent of space. "Standing alone and unchanging" refers to the zero spatial dimensional state and zero entropy. In this state, time has no arrow, while simultaneously possessing the potential for infinite spacial dimensionality out of which the arrow of time emerges. — punos


I'm ok with this if you are being metaphorical, but, in my understanding, Taoist principals are metaphysical, not factual. It doesn't make sense to attribute physical properties to the Tao. — T Clark

"The greatest thing by far is to be a master of metaphor; it is the one thing that cannot be learnt from others; and it is also a sign of genius, since a good metaphor implies an intuitive perception of the similarity in the dissimilar." - Aristotle

A metaphor is a containment device for holding and transmitting universal patterns across space and time for the purpose of recognizing the patterns in other apparently unrelated things. It is a meta-form of the underlying patterns in the universe. Almost every idea, concept, word, or term we have is ultimately derived from some metaphor. A metaphor may not be explicitly true, but the patterns that they express are implicitly true.


For me, the Tao is a fact, and in fact, it is the only permanent fact. It is not the Tao that has physical properties; rather, physical things share in the fundamental property that is the Tao. From the perspective of the Tao, the physical world is like a dream. An emergence in the universe is a dream object that doesn't fundamentally exist.

For example, what is water? Water does not have fundamental existence. It can only exist if one oxygen atom bonds to two hydrogen atoms to form a water molecule. If these bonds are broken in all the water in all the universe, water would cease to be real (existing only in potential). However, if we take all the oxygen atoms and break it down into their quark, gluon, and electron components, then not even the potential for water exists. What is real is what is absolutely fundamental, while what is composite is dreamlike. It comes and goes, but the Tao (primordial time) is always there, everlasting and never-ending.

Either way, aren’t space and time normally considered metaphysical concepts? Information and causality are also metaphysical concepts. Energy can be seen liminally as both a metaphysical and a physical concept. The Tao has everything to do with these.

It's hard to describe what i mean, but i don't make much of a distinction between the physical and the metaphysical. For me, these are relative terms; what is metaphysical for one entity may be considered physical for another, and vice versa.

A metaphor is a containment device for holding and transmitting universal patterns across space and time for the purpose of recognizing the patterns in other apparently unrelated things. — punos

Ok, but when I say "But soft, what light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Juliet is the sun," I don't mean that Juliet is literally the sun. If you say the Tao shares some characteristics with the quantum vacuum I'll go along with you, but that doesn't mean the Tao is actually the quantum vacuum.

For me, the Tao is a fact, and in fact, it is the only permanent fact. — punos

You and I see things differently.

Either way, aren’t space and time normally considered metaphysical concepts? Information and causality are also metaphysical concepts. Energy can be seen liminally as both a metaphysical and a physical concept. — punos

I don't see space, time, and energy as metaphysical entities. They are observable, measurable, and quantifiable. I agree causality is metaphysical. I'm not sure about information.

For me, the Tao is a fact, and in fact, it is the only permanent fact. It is not the Tao that has physical properties; rather, physical things share in the fundamental property that is the Tao. From the perspective of the Tao, the physical world is like a dream. An emergence in the universe is a dream object that doesn't fundamentally exist. — punos

The above can be confirmed by Quantum Field Theory. The temporary physical 'things' share in the fundamental property that is the Simplest - the Permanent quantum field with its wave nature, of which the elementary particles are directly field quanta, not new substance, which go on to form all the higher temporaries, as the sort of dream.

What is real is what is absolutely fundamental, while what is composite is dreamlike. It comes and goes, but the Tao (primordial time) is always there, everlasting and never-ending. — punos

Our Destiny:

From time’s shores toward oblivion’s worlds,
The quantum ‘vacuum’ fields send forth their whirls,
Their sea parting into base discrete swirls,
Unto stars and life—ephemerals pearled.

When the universe ends—sparse photons left,
All splendor, life, and objects will have gone
The way that all temporaries must go,
To oblivion—oh, grand complexities!

Only the Eternal Basis remains
As potential for all possible books
In Everything’s Babel Repository
To author another universe’s story.

but that doesn't mean the Tao is actually the quantum vacuum. — T Clark

If the Tao is supposed to be the origin of all things, then how is the quantum vacuum not at least in some way the Tao? What is it about the quantum vacuum that tells you it is not the Tao? What feature of the Tao is missing in the quantum vacuum in your view?

Remember that for me, the Tao is primordial time itself only, meaning no actualized space like a spatial quantum vacuum. The vacuum with all its energy and virtual particles is a direct emergence from the Tao, which is primordial time. The primordial 0-dimensional point is not a spatial dimension, but a temporal one.

The ancient Taoists had no idea of the way we name things here in the future, so they gave it their own name: the Tao. They had no access to the knowledge we have today and were limited in that respect. Part of my project is to update the Taoist perspective with what is known about nature in our present time. It is great to understand the Taoists on their own terms, from their own time, but what good will it do to simply reiterate what they said today in the same way they said or meant it back then?

Another question: If something is not the Tao, then what is it, what could it be instead?

The above can be confirmed by Quantum Field Theory. The temporary physical 'things' share in the fundamental property that is the Simplest - the Permanent quantum field with its wave nature, of which the elementary particles are directly field quanta, not new substance, which go on to form all the higher temporaries, as the sort of dream. — PoeticUniverse

I'm in full agreement, and nice poem.. i like it. :smile:

I'm in full agreement, and nice poem.. i like it — punos

See my other such quantum references in other threads during the last week or so…

plus:

Quantum Fields as the Simplest Review:

What’s Fundamental has to be partless,
Permanent, and e’er remain as itself;
Thus, it can only form temporaries
Onward as rearrangements of itself.

The Simplest can’t be made; it has no parts;
Likewise, it can’t break; ne’er ‘Nothing’ starts;
Thus, Necessity, without alternative,
Makes the Big Bang and our transient hearts.

What’s Fundamental has to be partless,
Lest its parts be more-so and it be less;
It’s ever, ne’er still, else naught could happen;
The quantum ‘vacuum’ weaves the universe’s dress.

All the temporary complexities
From the Eterne will someday fade away,
Even the universe with its grandness
Will disperse its greatness into blandness.

In between, the Basis sets a story
That gets lived by the mutable within,
As life and all the stars, moons, and planets—
In a book from the Babel Library.

Consider quantum fields of waves atop
One another: waves are continuous,
And so qualify as Fundamental;
Quantized lumps are ‘particles’; they move.

Note that there is no other absolute:
Newton’s fixed space and time got Einstein’s boot;
Particle spigots making fields are mute;
Classic fields have no fundamental loot.

There’s a lightness to elemental being
Since any more would have to be of parts,
And thus go beyond the fundamental arts.
The vacuum puffs of energy are small.

Given E=mcc, any point
That has energy can be thought of
As having mass to create particles.
The uncertainty principle flashes virtuals.

Quantum field points that must spring up and down
Form the field’s waves by dragging on others.
These sums of harmonic oscillations
Force the fixed quanta energy levels.

So the wave estimate proves to be right;
An electron/photon goes through both slits
Because it is a spread out field quantum.
Quantum jumps cannot be wave fractionals.

They called it the "Tao" because they were able to recognize that what was most fundamental was not a material substance but a process, a way of doing, and this implies a rule, a program, an algorithm that makes all things possible. This algorithm is time itself (primordial time). Time is the logic of existence: a supremely simple logic that is singular yet simultaneously infinite in potential. — punos


I'm ok with this, but maybe I see it differently than you do. I see what you call a rule or an algorithm as a representation of the process of naming that brings the world into existance. Is that what you're talking about? — T Clark

I guess one can put it in those terms. The world that comes into existence by naming is the world in our own minds, the world of culture or in the world of the "King". When a baby is born and has opened its eyes for the first time it does not see things, it just sees a buzzing confusion, but as soon as the child learns to connect a word or a name to a thing, then it is able to bring that thing into its own world view, and by doing this the child enters or becomes a citizen of the human condition, the world of culture, the "King".

For me the term "name" symbolizes pattern. A thing is its pattern, and things with different patterns are assigned other patterns that we call names. It is a way of translating the physical world into the mental and cultural world. The universe does not have a name for water for example except for the intrinsic pattern of the water molecule. For the universe a thing's pattern is its name.