This paragraph and the next three - I don't understand what you're trying to say. We've had this issue from the beginning. You use language I'm not familiar with and don't understand. I'm really trying. — T Clark

I, too, need to work on being clearer. I have gone back and tried to remove some of this language from a recent post. I will try the same with this explanation of affect - let me know if it helps:

I see affect as the process (conscious and unconscious) of restructuring HOW energy (chi) flows through me in terms of not just attention, but also effort. Energy (chi) flows through everything, but is always relative, subjective, localised. At the level of conscious experience, affect can highlight an aspect of reality, as you say. It can also avoid or overlook an aspect - by blocking chi or directing flow (attention and effort) away from it. But highlighting or avoiding an aspect by directing the flow of chi is only part of the process called ‘naming’. We also judge certain immeasurable qualities, ideas or forces that we highlight (or cannot avoid/ignore) as attractive/destructive ‘things’, and judge certain quantities, objects or concepts as valuable/terrible ‘things’ - all by re-directing the flow of chi. This is affect. It’s what we do with energy/information, how we distribute it internally and direct it back out into world.

I use the Tao as a replacement for objective reality in my understanding of the world. I think the two views of reality are mutually exclusive. The Tao is not objective. — T Clark

I don’t understand how you can replace objective reality with the Tao, as if the two were interchangeable, and also claim that they are mutually exclusive, and that the Tao is not objective. That’s seems a contradiction to me.

Are you making a distinction between the concept of hope and the idea or quality of hope? If so, I don't understand. When I say hope is bad, I just mean that it distracts us from the path. The TTC is ambiguous about value judgements. — T Clark

Then why say ‘hope is bad’ if that’s not what you mean? If the TTC is ambiguous about value judgements, especially if it seems deliberate, then shouldn’t we try to keep value judgements out of our interpretation?

The distinction I’m making is a structural one, between a concept and an idea. It’s about attributing value/significance/potential.

If we don't name "hope" as something separate in the world, it's not hope. It's something else. That's wrong, it's not something else, it's not a thing. — T Clark

Exactly.

I'm very comfortable with my path on the way to understanding of the TTC. I have no objections to our disagreements. Both you and Amity have stated that I'm irresponsible for expressing my understanding because I might mislead others. That's an invalid argument and that bothers me. — T Clark

Let me clarify my use of ‘irresponsible’: it was in particular reference to your unfounded claims that Lao Tzu thinks a certain way as distinct from - and in relation to - your own way of thinking, and your ‘who gives a shit’ approach to making such claims on a public forum, as it relates to the notion of wu-wei. It wasn’t a judgement against expressing your understanding, but an observation of how you perceive (or don’t perceive) its broader potential to reverberate in the world.

For me, the TTC is the antithesis of a logical framework. As I've said before, it's non-rational. Non-logical. Non-mathematical. I don't understand what you mean when you say it is. Can you give an example of the logical framework from the text. — T Clark

I thought I already did - here.

But I’m not explaining myself very well here. I believe that the TTC structures all of reality as consisting basically of logic, quality and energy, at any level of awareness. Because we obviously cannot view the TTC from outside of reality, I think we do so from one of these three points:

From a purely logical standpoint, the TTC describes the feeling of ideas, the subjective quality of experiencing the Tao. This, I would imagine, is close to how you see it. As an engineer, your perspective of the world is grounded in logic and rationality. You position yourself according to logic, and notice the world according to how much everything diverges from rationality. You’re less likely to see the logic of a structure when you naturally embody that structure.

From a perspective of pure aesthetics, the TTC describes the logic behind human experience, an instructional manual or moral code for thinking, speaking and acting in relation to the Tao. This, I would imagine, is how many literary translators have approached the TTC. As linguists, art historians and literature professionals, their perspective of the world is grounded in the quality of aesthetic ideas. Positioning themselves according to ‘the Beautiful and the Good’, they notice the world according to how everything diverges from this ideal.

From the perspective of an experiencing subject, the TTC describes the logic of qualitative relational structure, a strategic framework for relating to the Tao. This is close to how I have been approaching it. My perspective of the world is grounded in the natural flow of energy or chi. Positioning myself according to how I effect this flow of energy (as the only thing I could possibly be, the part of the world that is me) allows me to notice the world according to how I might relate to it, how I distribute this energy (attention and effort) as it flows though me.

I don’t really think there’s anything wrong with the other two approaches. And looking at it this way, I can see how my own approach seems more than a little bit ‘out there’. But this unusual perspective has given me the clearest intellectual understanding of wu - the stillness or emptiness at the centre of both ziran and wu-wei. From a logical perspective, such emptiness seems to amount to not-thinking (which obviously one can’t really think about or discuss), and from an aesthetic perspective it seems to amount to something like amorality (which perhaps explains all the drunken intellectuals of early Neo-Daoism!).

I guess the main criticism I might make about your approach is that it renders the TTC as indescribable as any other subjective quality of experience. It’s difficult to participate in a philosophical discussion of the TTC if we agree that it is entirely non-rational. It’s like philosophical discussions of qualia: largely pointless, consisting of everyone talking across purposes or expressing their ineffable uniqueness. It can be quite cathartic and creative for a while, but not much philosophy gets done, I’m afraid.

Hi Ying, and welcome to the discussion. I’m interested in reading more of your personal perspective on the TTC here.

I have been using the Yellow Bridge site throughout this discussion - I’ll admit I’m not a fan of the three translations offered, although I think they do give an interesting span of the types of translation attempts available. T Clark’s suggestion of the Terebess site gives a wide choice of translations, some of which also provide commentary and the Chinese text alongside.

I do find the pop-up translation of each Chinese character on Yellow Bridge to be invaluable, although I think that cross-referencing with Google Translate sometimes provides a clearer understanding of what can seem to be contradictory English words - the use of jué at the beginning of verses 19 and 20 is one that particularly confused me: I’d be interested in your perspective here.

I’ll admit that I’m not familiar with any of these other ancient Chinese texts (there have been a number of references in this discussion to the Zhuangzi and the I Ching), although I am intrigued by Neo-Daoism as a philosophy - so thank you for the SEP reference. I think the notion of ziran might be what @T Clark has been referring to as his ‘true nature’, so I’d also be interested in fleshing out this idea in relation to Neo-Daoism as he makes reference to it in later verses (as promised). I see this as tending more towards a natural logic than an essential self, but I could be misunderstanding it.

My concern was that this translation appears negative about hope. I think that when we send out that kind of message, it is possible that we are not thinking enough about the implications for hopeful readers who don't look beyond...and take that at face value.
— Amity

I want them to take what I say at face value. I believe, and I think Lao Tzu would agree, that hope distracts us from the path he is trying to show us. — T Clark

I do think that our affected relation to this concept of ‘hope’ does distract us from the path, but that doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with the idea or quality of hope in the world. The issue I think Lao Tzu has is with the naming of ‘hope’ as something separate in the world that we strive to obtain or possess for its own sake, like with ‘knowledge’. I think this structural difference between the affected concept/thing and the unaffected idea/quality is a common thread in this part of the TTC. Lao Tzu describes what we call ‘hope’ in verse 14 as ‘what we listen for but do not hear’: the truth that we recognise as such, but can make no practical use of as yet. We all hope for peace, for instance, but striving to attain ‘peace’ should not be our focus. This narrow path can force us to make compromises in other areas, such as sincerity or loyalty, and to ignore, isolate or exclude information, people and opportunities to connect, all for the sake of ‘peace’. If we follow the Way, recognising that peace is not a ‘thing’ that we achieve or obtain but a quality that we can bring to our relations with the world - regardless of fear or desire, pain, loss or lack, etc - then peace will always be an option, a choice that we make.

I said I don't have any "strong, rational evidence." The TTC is not about rational anything. You keep coming back to my use of my "own personal judgement." I don't get it. Of course it's my personal judgement. Every thing I know, feel, or believe is based on my personal judgement. If you are implying that your understanding is based on more than that... well, that claim seems pretty arrogant to me. — T Clark

What I’m claiming is that there exists an underlying logical framework to the TTC that is... well, eternal. It contains none of my personal judgement or yours, not even Lao Tzu’s experience of the world. It is a pure mathematical structure to reality, that we each populate with values from our own relative experience. It is ‘the way’ we can experience objective reality, regardless of where or how we start. Everything else is either variability (quality) or relativity (affect).

I've always had a problem with your use of "affect." You mean something different when you say it than I do. It seems like maybe you use it to mean something similar to attention. Attention could be said to be the result me putting my personal energy into an aspect of the world. Highlighting it. Making it separate from the rest of the world. I guess that could be similar to naming in a sense. I have no idea what I'm talking about. — T Clark

It’s more like an overall distribution of the energy/entropy of a local system in terms of attention AND effort. I think that all physical existence could be perceived as consisting of affect, but it’s highly relative, with a wave-like potentiality at a quantum level. At the level of conscious experience, affect does highlight (or overlook/avoid) an aspect of reality, yes. But that’s only part of the naming process. We determine its attractive/destructive qualities as an idea, and then quantify it as a positive/negative/immeasurable thing.

I think the issue that Lao Tzu has with this naming process is that it’s backwards. It constructs the world from how an aspect of the world affects us, immediately distorting our perspective of reality. What doesn’t appear to suit our needs we reject, what seems to benefit us we idolise and pursue as if it’s something separate from the rest of the world, yet exists exactly as we perceive it - like the Confucian attitude towards filial piety, or the Christian attitude towards ‘spiritual gifts’ such as knowledge, righteousness, courage, etc.

What I think Lao Tzu shows in this group of verses is that each of these ‘named things’ refer to aspects of reality that interrelate in an eternally logical structure, regardless of how any of it affects us. If we always start from an understanding of this rational framework, then everything falls into place for us, and we can interact without resistance - effortlessly, like the butcher with his knife.

But to get to this logical framework, we need to parse our experience into affect (relativity), quality (variability) and logic. This is what Lao Tzu attempts with the TTC. He describes a broad variety of human experience, asking us to pay attention to where the affected structure of our own thoughts, words and behaviour conflict with a natural logic that ‘bubbles to the surface’.

I don't understand why you are so worried about my understanding. I'm not after "an accurate understanding of the TTC," I want to hear and feel what Lao Tzu is saying. Those are two different things. Although you claim otherwise, you are saying there's something wrong with that. — T Clark

You seem to think I’m worried or bothered by our disagreements. I’m not, but I’m also not one to simply ‘agree to disagree’. I think that’s a missed opportunity. Disagreement highlights an area of the discussion where chi is blocked or resisted. My intention is to free the flow, not to attack your particular approach. I honestly don’t think of it as your understanding, so I’m sorry if it feels as if I’m implying that you are wrong by association.

Of course it is. Everything is engineering. I'm a hammer and the world is full of nails. — T Clark

My point was that this thinking is not consistent with wu-wei. But I get the feeling that you think the TTC explains only how the world outside of engineering works, as if it’s for everything that’s beyond rationality, but doesn’t change how you understand the physical world...

Physicists say that the stuff of the world consists of particles of matter and fields. If one wants to hold on to a naturalistic world view, one must assign consciousness either to matter or to a field. Only the latter seems plausible. — spirit-salamander

Some physicists (eg. Rovelli) say that the stuff of the world consists of interrelated events, whether we perceive them as consolidating (matter) or interacting (fields). If we consider consciousness to consist of interacting events as a field, what might those events be?

Lisa Feldman Barrett describes an ongoing event constructed by our interoceptive network (brain and central nervous system) from internal and external sensory data - which she refers to as interoception of affect. This is a four-dimensional construct of current valence and arousal in the organism. She also describes an ongoing prediction of affect, constructed as this interoceptive event feeds back into our conceptual system. The interaction of these two events generates a field of difference (information) in affect, as a four-dimensional distribution map or wavefunction of energy/information consisting of attention/valence and effort/arousal across the organism, effecting movement in the body and adjustment to the conceptual system as required for allostasis.

For me, Lao Tzu is saying - look, over there. See that? Pay attention to that. See this here? Pay attention. — T Clark

I do agree with T Clark’s sentiment here. I think the TTC draws our attention to the relations in our experience, and invites us to look closer at what is going on. I also think it helps to get our ego/fear/desires/affect out of the way first, though. One could argue that this is similar to the call of scientific endeavour. Those who pursue intelligence for its own sake tell us to discard, reject or ignore affect/emotion as irrelevant; those who reject the pursuit of intelligence tell us that we cannot possibly understand, so just feel; the TTC recognises both intelligence and affect as part of who we are as human beings. We can allow for how we feel, even move it aside, but not ignore it - affect forms our potential to think, speak and collaborate. Without it, we cannot be aware that we exist. And intellect is a part of our way to the Tao, but not our goal. Without it, we cannot be aware of the Tao to follow, let alone construct a suitable path...

Some might say, "Get over yourself !"... — Amity

I like to say ‘get out of my own way’...

I've tried to be clear about when I think something is true and when I think Lao Tzu thinks its true. Generally, I think I've been pretty successful in keeping the two separate both in my writing and in my own mind. In this case, I think wu wei is better than benevolence and etiquette and I think Lao Tzu does to. I might be wrong, but how could I possibly be "irresponsible?" — T Clark

Like this:

I don't think I have any strong, rational evidence for this, but I don't feel as if I need any. Call it a conceit on my part if you want. I don't think it detracts from my understanding. I like it. It makes me feel like Lao Tzu is joking around with us. That Lao Tzu, what a character. — T Clark

I guess I just wanted you to acknowledge that you have no evidence for saying that Lao Tzu thinks the same way you do here. It’s all based on your own personal judgement, affect, desire...

I happen to think it does detract from your understanding, but what do I know? You’re not after an accurate understanding of the TTC, only one that you can live with. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that - just try not to get too defensive at how a different perspective might makes yours appear.

There is an important concept in engineering - consequences of failure. If I'm going to make an important decision that will cost lots of money and may put people at risk, I have to be very careful about my justification for the action I'm going to take. On the other hand, if nothing bad will happen if I'm wrong, then who gives a shit. I don't have to be careful. I can take more risks. My interpretations of the TTC definitely come under the who gives a shit standard. — T Clark

This is not engineering - you’re talking about a direct causal relation between action and consequence. Wu-wei is about the indirect relations - such as the risk your decision has for the environment, the local economy, etc. These effects can’t be traced back to your decision in a linear causal relation, but are nevertheless influenced by it. Where do you think your ‘who gives a shit’ standard sits on the ‘ladder’ of virtue?

It sounds like you're saying I should withhold my opinion because you think I'm wrong. Not just wrong, but, somehow, irresponsibly wrong. Don't make me bring out my Ralph Waldo Emerson quotes again. — T Clark

That’s not what I’m saying at all. It doesn’t matter whether I think you’re wrong or not. It’s not my place to say anything more than I disagree with you. What matters is that you take responsibility for whatever inaccuracies you might be putting out there - that you claim them as your own, not attribute them to the TTC or to Lao Tzu. What makes the TTC so enduring is that any inaccuracies from Lao Tzu’s understanding of his place in the world have had no impact whatsoever on the underlying logical structure.

So, does the TTC have a structure? Am I mixing the TTC up with the Tao? First off, of course the TTC has a structure - 81 verses. First 37 are about Tao. 38 through 81 are about te. — T Clark

Yes, the TTC has 81 verses, but what they are about is an interpretation, not part of the original structure. The TTC is written using traditional, literary Chinese - this language has a clear and logical structure, including some very straightforward grammar rules, without exception:

1. What precedes modifies what follows.
2. Words do not change.
3. Chinese is topic-prominent - the topic of a sentence comes first, not the subject.
4. Aspect, not tense.
5. Chinese is logical.

In traditional literary Chinese, logic and simplicity is the key. Think a mathematics of ideas. Two characters won’t be used where one will suffice. If two different characters are used for one idea, they describe two different aspects of that idea. If a character set is repeated, those aspects of each structure are identical. If the character is different, even if they could be translate roughly the same, the aspect is different.

This much we know. Everything else is an interpretation of structure that brings our experiential (affected) relationship with the ideas themselves into focus.

The first verse modifies what follows: This book does not define the Tao. Any naming is indicative only. This is an attempt at a ToE that explains both the underlying structure and how we perceive it. The trick is to keep personal judgement/affect out of the intellectual framework, by striving to understand how everything we experience is unavoidably coloured by it, at every level of awareness. This correct framework, together with affect, brings us to the most accurate experience of the mystery that is the Tao.

I find that most translations do not take all of these basic structures and rules into account when they interpret verses. The English language has many exceptions to the rules, especially in poetry and literature. But literary Chinese sticks to the rules. So, when our interpretation seems confusing, I think it helps to fall back to this, and be prepared to challenge our personal and ideological relationship to the ideas that form each concept, trusting that this basic, logical structure is sound.

This is the ultimate wu-wei. Trying to find Lao Tzu’s intention in the text loses sight of the reason it’s structured this way: so that his affect (including his own ignorance) doesn’t obstruct the flow of chi in any way. In this way, the more we learn about the world, the more the TTC makes sense.

Another question. I think it's a different one - does the TTC provide an intellectual structure by which we can comprehend the Tao? I don't think it does. I don't think it can. There is no intellectual structure by which we can comprehend the Tao. Do I really believe that? Vehemently, fiercely, indisputably! Most of the time. — T Clark

Comprehend the Tao? No, I don’t think it can either. But if we comprehend the intellectual structure provided by the TTC, and in doing so embody that structure fully (in other words, restructure our own affected methodology of interacting with the world to align with the TTC), then I believe we can relate directly to the Tao, in our capacity as a human being. We can experience a oneness with the Tao, which is not the same as being the Tao, nor is it the same as understanding the Tao, as the first verse clarifies.

Is wu wei better than benevolence and etiquette? Of course not!!! We don't make that kind of judgement. (whispering - Of course it is!) — T Clark

Your interpretation is that wu-wei is better than benevolence and etiquette. That makes sense from your experience and understanding of the world, and from my personal experience I would agree with you. But it’s not a judgement made by the TTC, and so I think it’s irresponsible to claim that the TTC or Lao Tzu makes this judgement, because it doesn’t: we do. It’s like claiming that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. Just because people agree on an interpretation, does not make the interpretation true.

in every action we take - whether it’s interpreting the TTC on a public forum or in our private behaviour - we are still responsible for how it impacts on others.
— Possibility

Not sure that I understand. Are you saying I'm responsible for the impacts my interpretations of the TTC have on others? That doesn't make sense. — T Clark

You’re responsible for the choices you make to block or enable the flow of chi in the world. This is not about what others do with the information you provide, but about your capacity to inform/deny, connect/isolate, and collaborate/exclude. Wu-wei is about recognising your influence of chi at the level of potentiality: the changes you effect without action; the influence you have on the world that cannot be directly attributed to you in a linear causal relation. With great power comes great responsibility. Just because no-one can blame me for misinformation, does not absolve me of responsibility - not according to wu-wei. If that means the TTC appears to lack confidence or seems ambiguous, I’m okay with that - it’s consistent with the example of the old masters. I don’t think it IS ambiguous, I think he’s being more accurate, not less.

I used confusing language. I was saying there is a fundamental and unavoidable conflict between intellect and wu wei. — T Clark

I don’t agree with this. I think intellect that assumes a linear causal relation between potentiality and action is bound to conflict with wu-wei. But this is neither unavoidable nor fundamental. I think intellect that understands the dimensional or many-to-one relational structure between potentiality (or more specifically intentionality) and action has no conflict with wu-wei.

I keep coming back to this - Lao Tzu doesn't make judgements about good and bad or even good and ok. Except that he does. I don't think he's changing his mind, I think he's being ambiguous. That's how things are set up in the TTC. I have a feeling that it's found in the original documents and is not just an artifact of translation. I will be disappointed if I find out I'm wrong about that. — T Clark

I’d like to explore your evidence for this. I would argue that what looks like ‘changing his mind’ stems from the choice of concepts in the English translations, not from Lao Tzu being deliberately vague. I think if that were the case, he would not be so repetitive with characters. If you explore the literal, character-by-character translations, you will notice that most characters can be translated with both/either positive or negative affect/judgement inherent in the variety of English words. Where translators take this is often a matter of ulterior motive or assumption.

For instance, the next two verses begin with the character jué, which Google translates as ‘absolutely’, also translated as ‘mostly’, ‘extremely’, as well as ‘awfully’ - but TTC translators assume an imperative tone, so they translate this as the verb ‘to cut off’. While I’m inclined (as I’m sure you are) to go with a clearly overwhelming majority here, I’m nevertheless confused by the particular quality of this character/idea. It is definitely not used to mean stop, cease, reject or abandon (as most translators seem to interpret), except at the point of excess - like a bartender ‘cutting off’ an inebriated patron. I think this has subtle implications for how we interpret verses 19 and 20, particularly as they also pertain to the virtues of Confucius and the pursuit of ‘knowledge’, which I have argued here that Lao Tzu has not rejected as such, but rather argued against the utmost significance assigned to them.

I can't tell if we're disagreeing or not. I don't think I understand the difference between interpretation and the structure of the TTC. — T Clark

The structure of the TTC is the original structure, consisting of Chinese characters (each signifying the quality of an idea) arranged in a particular logical sequence. Interpretation is how we rearrange this structure, ie. in English.

Thinking and waiting in hope - bad. Stop trying to understand it and simply allow the Tao to work through the emptiness of a meditative mind - good. — T Clark

This judgment is your interpretation. The structure includes a number of options, including thinking and waiting in hope.

I think any use of language is an attempt to retain an intellectual illusion of control. Or maybe I don't think that. — T Clark

Not necessarily.

Rationality is what the TTC is, in itself, prior to any relation to it. Isolated, it is nothing. Only when we embody its structure can we relate to the Tao.
— Possibility

I don't see this. The TTC is not rational or irrational. It's non-rational. There is no structure. The structure that can be structured is not the eternal structure. Sorry. — T Clark

You seem to be arguing that every noun I use corresponds to a ‘thing’, and is therefore NOT the Tao. I think it’s important to point out that I’m not referring to the Tao here, but to the TTC, which (as I mentioned) claims to be the disembodied (eternal) Te, which is not the Tao. To argue that the TTC has no structure is ridiculous. It’s not ineffable, it’s a text.

But I’m not arguing that the TTC is rational as in opposed to irrational - it just refers to being within the human capacity for understanding and imagination, without appeal to affect or judgement. There’s no conflict here.

But it does tempt us to exclude affect and focus on the 10,000 things in isolation
— Possibility

But affect is one of the 10,000 things. — T Clark

My use of the term ‘affect’ here is not in reference to a ‘thing’, but to our influence in the flow or distribution of energy (chi). It is not one of the 10,000 things, but refers to elusive relation between the 10,000 things (or disembodied Te) and the eternal Tao. I realise that by naming it, I take a step towards consolidating something. But the affect that can be named is not identical to what I mean by ‘affect’, if that makes sense. Language doesn’t help us here. What I mean by ‘affect’ corresponds to the human faculty of judgement (a la Kant).

It can be a barrier, sure. But I think rejecting entire concepts, such as intellect or rationality, is as much a mistake as rejecting knowledge. Rationality can be a barrier only when it excludes affect: when we argue that knowledge and desire are mutually exclusive, or that any action we take can be considered free from affect. But rationality can be a way of structuring information in order to observe affect. One could argue that the TTC is a structure of rationality in itself.
— Possibility

Let's try this out - there is a fundamental and unavoidable conflict between intellect and wu wei. I don't know if I believe that or not. — T Clark

I’m not sure what you’re ‘trying out’ here.

The way I see it, te is the self-conscious process by which our relation to the Tao produces action/wu-wei/moral behaviour;
— Possibility

Is te self-conscious? I haven't figured that out for myself. I am certainly aware of an experience I interpret as wu wei arising from within me. I've described that before - I feel a well of wordless intention bubbling up within me from beneath the conscious surface. — T Clark

I think when we embody Te, we can do so through stillness (meditation), intuitively (your example of wu-wei) or self-consciously.

interpreting the TTC as a moral code of behaviour, instead of as a relational structure for experiencing the Tao.
— Possibility

If you are implying I interpret the TTC as a moral code, that's not true. It's one of the ambiguities of the TTC. The moral code that can be spoken is not the eternal moral code. Lao Tzu says "Hey, you guys, there is no good or bad, but you know, etiquette sucks." — T Clark

I’m not implying that you interpret it this way. I only mention it because I have noticed this interpretation in a number of translations. ‘Do this, don’t do that’ is not the structure of the TTC, despite how many translation are structured. I think Lao Tzu says ‘etiquette is not a something to strive for in itself, good or bad’.

I am not interpreting the TTC for others and we're all putting judgements in Lao Tzu's mouth. When you come down to it, we're discussing a book that starts out "This book is about something that can't be talked about," and then proceeds to talk about it for 81 verses. We're all allowed some leeway. — T Clark

We’re putting words into Lao Tzu’s mouth, sure. But to assume he’s passing judgement, declaring something as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, is a mistake. Daoism also recognises that everything is connected, and so in every action we take - whether it’s interpreting the TTC on a public forum or in our private behaviour - we are still responsible for how it impacts on others. The first line is not a contradiction: the book does not claim to be about the Tao, but an eternal framework through which we can relate to its mystery. It is ultimately about Te.

Filial piety IS the ‘natural’ or basic relationship.
— Possibility

It is my understanding that's what Confucius thinks, not Lao Tzu. I think rejecting that view is what this verse is about. — T Clark

Now look who’s behind...

I wanted to mention this comment quickly, because you also mentioned it in response to @Amity’s comment. I do agree that these verses can be seen as arguing against Confucius ideology, which espouses the virtues of benevolence, righteousness, knowledge, etiquette, obedience, loyalty and - highest of all - filial piety. But it’s more than this: Lao Tzu is commenting on the prevailing culture - what was commonly accepted as ‘truth’. My point was that it was not simply an alternative of possible points of view.

This interesting commentary from Charles Wu’s 2013 translation of verse 18 (thanks again for the Terebess website):

This is one of the shortest and most poignant chapters in Daodejing. Here Laozi is posing a direct challenge to his contemporary Confucius on the latter’s approach to social problems. Confucius promotes such ethical values as humankindness and righteousness, filial piety and parental love, loyalty and obedience as the proper remedies to social ills. But Laozi sees these much touted values as mere symptoms of the ills they are supposed to cure. He thinks the root of the problem lies not so much in not abiding by these artificial values as in the abandonment of the great Dao. If everyone embraced the Dao, there would be no need to promote those ethical doctrines. Laozi says in chapter 5, “Heaven and Earth are not humane,” and “The sage is not humane.” Those are his candid statements on the centerpiece of Confucian ethics, 仁 (rén), meaning “humankindness” or “humanity” or “benevolence.”

It is important to remember that most commentators of Daodejing lived in the age when Confucian ethics had been canonized as the orthodoxy such that they would almost take the precepts of humankindness, righteousness, filial piety, loyalty, and so on for granted. This collective consciousness leads people to be on the defensive every time they see Confucian values being questioned by Laozi. This mentality may lurk behind some of the commentaries and textual preferences even to this day. A case in point lies in a recent explanation of the absence of the sentence “When wisdom and intelligence are put forth, there is outrageous falsehood” in the Guodian bamboo script. As the earliest extant script of Daodejing, Guodian understandably carries a good deal of weight when editorial decisions have to be made. But, when Chen Guying adopts the Guodian version, he argues that keeping the expunged sentence as is in the received version and the Mawangdui silk script might associate “humankindness and righteousness” in the previous line with “outrageous falsehood,” thereby unjustly denigrating these indisputable ethical values. According to Chen, “humankindness and righteousness, filial piety and parental love, loyalty and obedience” are the best alternatives when society deviates from the pristine euphoric state and when social relations were in disarray (Chen 2009, 132). Chen’s argument is a good example of the still prevailing resistance to Laozi’s counter discourse. That said, Chen’s adoption of the Guodian version does have a point. Minus the sentence about “outrageous falsehood,” the Guodian chapter consists of three parallel structures, all following the pattern, “When Plan A fails, there is Plan B.” The sentence about “falsehood,” if restored, could be out of sync. We keep it because of its paradoxical content, which is in sync with the rest of the chapter. — Charles Q Wu, ‘This Spoke Laozi’

This makes sense to me. As far as I can tell, the TTC is as rich in concepts as it is in metaphors which try to explain them and how the practical aspects of the concepts play out. — Amity

I will continue to warn against consolidating concepts and settling for metaphorical language in the TTC. I think that we limit our ability to understand the TTC for what it is if we’re unable to observe how affect evaluates an idea prior to action. Concepts and metaphors tend to obscure this process, although I understand that we’re more comfortable discussing literature in this way. I’m not suggesting we abandon any talk of concepts or metaphors, only that we’re conscious of the obscurity that comes with it. So, when we talk about ‘knowledge’, for instance, we recognise that the TTC is not referring to the entire concept of knowledge, including our overall evaluation of it as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, but only one qualitative aspect of it, and any affect or judgement of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is our own or the interpreter’s.

I suggested written music as an analogy (not a metaphor) for the TTC. Written music is an arrangement of variable sound quality into a rational structure. There is no affect in a written piece of music. I compared this to music performance, in which one cannot clearly delineate between structure or quality (contributed to a performance by the score) and affect (contributed by either the musician in interpreting the score or the observer in interpreting the performance).

We bring our own experiences to any text as we read and try to relate to it. To see if if has any value to us in the way we lead our lives. If it makes sense. I think that this can work both ways.
For us, as we build on a view which has worked for us and others along the way.
Against us, if we try to fit text in to what we think is right, or our own perspective. Even if we do get beyond our own cages and pick up book which at first glance doesn't hold much appeal.
How would you persuade someone to read the TTC ?
How would you describe how conflicts might 'dissolve in the structure of the TTC' ? — Amity

The TTC is one of those books that reflects the saying: ‘when the student is ready, the teacher will appear’. It was pretty poetry to me for a long time - a collection of metaphors, which ‘spoke’ to me of a flow to existence that I wasn’t in a position to understand...yet. Later reading of it seemed to me a profound, intuitive truth - I could see that it made sense but not how, and sensed that embracing the truth could eliminate resistance, conflict and barriers in the way I related to the world...somehow.

It wasn’t until I began to notice the difference between quantitative and qualitative structures, and how they relate to the way we understand, articulate and interact with reality, that I eventually recognised the unique appeal of the TTC. Attempts by Whitehead, Russell, Pierce, etc to make the English language more logical struggled because we’ve already constructed most of our language concepts socially, culturally and politically according to affect, long before we were even aware of logic. Words have meaning inclusive of their value and potential based on qualitative aspects of our past experiences. So we can’t simply remove ‘emotion’ from a concept, or ignore the way we subjectively attribute value and significance to concepts. When we do that, we discard information.

Quantum theory, and its conflict with General Relativity’s quantification of gravity, highlighted for me the neglect of qualitative structural significance in modern science. Gravity is as much a qualitative structure as a quantitative one, with an aspect of valence (attention or attraction) and an aspect of arousal (effort or energy). So, too, any accurate interpretation of quantum mechanics is incomplete without accounting for time as a 4D quality and human intention, as attention and effort (ie. affect).

Kant’s aesthetics explored qualitative feeling in relation to objects, concepts and ideas, with the aim of determining an underlying rational structure. It is only at the level of the ‘aesthetic idea’ that he could transcend human judgement (affect) and explore the interaction between rational structure and quality. And it is here that I find the TTC, using a rational language structure and traditional Chinese characters that each encapsulate an aesthetic idea, finds an unexpected ally.

The TTC’s parsing of reality into affect, qualitative and quantitative structure seems to me a useful heuristic device in this context.

I think it's the other way around - when the natural relationships among family members break down, then you get filial piety. Filial piety is seen as inferior to natural relations. — T Clark

I get that, but I don’t think what I’m saying is the other way around. I don’t think I’ve explained myself very well here. You don’t ‘get filial piety’, it doesn’t ‘fill the place’ as if it wasn’t there before. It was always there - the base level of any human relation. And I don’t think he’s referring to ‘natural relationships among family members’ breaking down. Filial piety IS the ‘natural’ or basic relationship, according to Chinese culture. Every other relationship is part of a social, moral, political or ideological construct or convention.

To be honest, I think we may have a different understanding of ‘natural’ and ‘conventional’, which probably contributes to the confusion...

I read this differently than you and Possibility.
The need to exclaim virtues is neither an effort to replace the natural with conventional virtues nor a conflict within families made necessary by dire circumstances. The loss came from not being able to talk about it as a loss when it was happening. That idea had not been minted yet. — Valentinus

Well, this definitely shows that I didn’t explain myself very well, because I agree with you here. I don’t think it’s a matter of replacing virtues at all. It has to do with awareness. We take our most complex relationship structures for granted. So, without a framework for virtue, only the example of the old masters, when these relations broke down, all they could do was cling to what remained. They had no way to build it back up again.

Yes, the Tao is the unity, but the Tao and the 10,000 things are the same. That's the mystery. As I wrote, this is a good example of the TTC's ambiguity. — T Clark

I maintain that any ambiguity is in our interpretation, not in the structure, of the TTC. The mystery, in my mind, is the difference. Because they are NOT the same, and yet we have no way of distinguishing between them, because we cannot BE the unity, nor describe it, we can only qualitatively experience or relate to it as an embodiment of Te.

I think maybe Lao Tzu would agree with you. I'm not sure. But that's not how I've always seen it. As I've written, I've always seen as creating the 10,000 things as something humans have done, are doing, by naming and using language. This is a work in progress for me. — T Clark

I get where you’re coming from. My understanding of this doesn’t come from the TTC, but from the rest of my philosophical journey - trying to make sense of a ToE. I found that the conflicts I had been having - mainly to do with language and a qualitative-quantitative aspect dichotomy - seemed to dissolve in the structure of the TTC.

My strategy is to sit here in my lounge chair, drink iced coffee in the morning and beer in the afternoon, argue with people on the web, swim at the Y, and wait for enlightenment to find me. So far, so good.

And, as I've said, "playing with metaphorical language" is everything we do when we think. There is hope, I guess, that experiencing the Tao can help us go beyond that. The Tao that can be expressed in metaphorical language is not the eternal Tao. — T Clark

This reminds me again of verse 14:

What attracts our desire to learn, but doesn’t offer a clear set of instructions, we call hope. Potentiality is like this. So is peace, knowledge, success, morality, and the path of a quantum particle. — Possibility

I guess the way I see it, at some point thinking and waiting in hope just isn’t enough. We’re capable of more than that. We can look beyond the metaphorical language and piece together the rational structure on which our qualitative experience hangs. Either that, or stop trying to understand it and simply allow the Tao to work through the emptiness of a meditative mind. For me, playing with the metaphorical language is an attempt to retain an intellectual illusion of control. The TTC lays out how you can go beyond that, regardless of your level of awareness or intellect: embody the structure of Te.

As I wrote previously, knowledge seems to be connected to desire. I guess striving for knowledge is like striving for success, acclaim, or power. I think you can see in this thread, and really throughout the forum, that intellect, rationality, is a barrier to the message of the TTC. — T Clark

It can be a barrier, sure. But I think rejecting entire concepts, such as intellect or rationality, is as much a mistake as rejecting knowledge. Rationality can be a barrier only when it excludes affect: when we argue that knowledge and desire are mutually exclusive, or that any action we take can be considered free from affect. But rationality can be a way of structuring information in order to observe affect. One could argue that the TTC is a structure of rationality in itself.

And zhī can be translated simply as ‘to know’, but it more accurately refers to the illusion of power that knowledge brings: to notify, inform or be in charge of.
— Possibility

I can't speak to the specific translation points you're making, but this understanding makes sense to me. — T Clark

The translation comes from cross-referencing the individual characters in Google Translate. When you type in ‘knowledge’ in English, the various Chinese characters offered give a sense of the different qualitative aspects of knowledge recognised in Chinese language, of which zhī is only one.

So, you're making a distinction between knowledge and knowledge acquired for "ulterior" motives, i.e. acclaim or power. Is that right? I have no problem with that, but I think there's more to it. Knowledge, rational understanding, distracts us from the Tao. It leads us in the wrong direction. — T Clark

Not just for ulterior motives, but also for its own sake. Rationality is what the TTC is, in itself, prior to any relation to it. Isolated, it is nothing. Only when we embody its structure can we relate to the Tao. But it does tempt us to exclude affect and focus on the 10,000 things in isolation - which I agree can be construed as the wrong direction.

Yes, I used misleading language. Action, wu wei, including what we might call moral behavior, can come directly from the Tao. I'm not sure exactly how that works yet. As I said, it may have to do with te. That process is superior to conventional morality. — T Clark

The way I see it, te is the self-conscious process by which our relation to the Tao produces action/wu-wei/moral behaviour; meditation works to restructure the conscious process to enable the Tao to be more effective at an intuitive level; but sometimes we find actions or processes that just work for us personally, and sometimes it happens by chance, that everything just aligns and chi flows without obstruction. If we’re paying attention, if we’re looking for it, we can relate directly to the Tao in these moments - and it feels unequivocally free and natural, pure and honest. Zero resistance.

That's not how I see Te, although I'm still working on it. My best understanding is that Te is the working of Tao through us in the world. So, it's not a step down to Te or, if it is, it's inevitable. It's how we are connected to the Tao. I recognize that the language about this is ambiguous. I agree with everything else in this paragraph. — T Clark

That makes sense where you’re coming from. I don’t think of it as a step down - here, Lao Tzu describes it more as an empty framework, like interpreting the TTC as a moral code of behaviour, instead of as a relational structure for experiencing the Tao. I think the idea is that when we embody Te, we can directly experience the Tao.

Sure, calling anything on the ladder inferior is unfair. I've had this argument before. Lao Tzu doesn't make judgements. But... I'm not Lao Tzu so I'm allowed to. "A thin shell of loyalty and sincerity" is not as good as wu wei. Etiquette can, and often does, hide hypocrisy and deceit. — T Clark

This is why the ladder doesn’t work for me. I try not to give myself permission to articulate judgements, or to interpret the TTC for others in this way. I think it has the effect of blocking chi. I will agree that what you’re saying makes sense, but I think you’re putting judgements in Lao Tzu’s mouth by interpreting the TTC in this way. Wu-wei isn’t just not-doing, but also not-thinking and not-saying: recognising our own intentions and desire in relation to potential events, and acting only on those that will keep the chi flowing freely, despite what might work best for ourselves. It’s less direct, sure. But that’s the idea.

When the six relations are not in harmony,
There are filial piety (hsiao) and parental love (tz'u).

I went looking for the “six relations.” Traditionally China has complex conventions of family structure. Wikipedia identifies eight relations in the immediate family – father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, son, and daughter. I’m not sure if this is what the text is referring too or not. — T Clark

I struggled with this one initially, too. When I googled it, I found references to six close relatives, namely: father, mother, older brothers, younger brothers, wife, and male children. I would imagine your Wikipedia version has been edited to avoid a charge of sexism, but the two characters liu-qin together refer collectively to ‘one's kin’.

I would say that this IS what the text is referring to. Even if your immediate family are in conflict, then you are still required to uphold filial pity - seen not as a choice in Chinese culture but an obligation between parent and child, the most basic and important tenet of society, at one point punishable by beheading.

When a nation is in darkness (hun) and disorder (lüan),
There are loyal ministers.

As they say, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. “Loyalty” is one of those funny words. In the TTC, sometimes it’s good and sometimes it’s bad. In this case it’s bad because it represents conventional virtue. — T Clark

Again, it’s not ‘bad’ except in relation to awareness of a more complex framework of virtue and morality. Very few characters in the TTC are definitively good or bad, because they express the quality of an idea, not the value of a concept. The TTC constructs an entire framework from the bare basics of social structure to the virtue of the sage, and passes no judgement by assuming where you, the reader, might be.

Confucius refers to both filial piety and loyal ministers as the same basic foundation of society. When the nation or society is in entire disarray, these basic virtues must still exist. They’re non-negotiable. This truth can be as much a source of hope as despair, depending on the current state or society you’re living in.

Well, that's one problem. This is from Derek Lin's translation of Verse 1.

Thus, constantly free of desire
One observes its wonders
Constantly filled with desire
One observes its manifestations
These two emerge together but differ in name
The unity is said to be the mystery
Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders

This says that the Tao and the 10,000 things are a unity. Others don't say it as explicitly. I'm not sure there is a difference between them. — T Clark

No, I don’t believe it does. It says that the Tao is the unity, the mystery, the door to all wonders. The difference between observing its wonders or its manifestations is whether we relate to the Tao as a relational structure of qualitative experience, free of desire or identity, or as one of 10,000 quantifiable things.

What this naming does, though, is divide any relation to the Tao through a process of awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation or collaboration/exclusion in what would otherwise be a completely free flow of energy. An experience of that is not this. It’s not just how we make sense of existence, but how existence (or the flow of potential energy itself, chi) has gradually made sense of itself: from the differentiation of matter from anti-matter or the up/down spin of quantum particles, to the broad diversity of life, the universe and human ideas.
— Possibility

I really don't get what you're trying to say. — T Clark

The 10,000 things is not just what we do as humans - consolidation, or quantifying by setting arbitrary energy limits on qualitative relations, is basically how the universe has formed.

Forget Taoism for a moment, in a conventional way of looking at things, don't we understand reality without having to identify every little piece of it? — T Clark

Do you think that we really understand reality?

We've discussed this before, although we had some disagreement, the TTC recognizes self-identify, self. I don't see any conflict. — T Clark

So long as this ‘self’ is recognised as consisting of qualitative human experience (ie. not just as an intellectual capacity) inclusive of the pain, humiliating lack and inevitable loss that comes from actually living and dying. FWIW, I don’t think it’s a conflict, it’s a glossing over of unknown relational structure - a clumsy relation disguised by metaphorical language.

I like to think that experiencing the Tao is possible without formal meditative practice. That may well be because I am really lazy. — T Clark

I think it’s possible, too - but I think it’s a much more challenging process that still involves controlled experiences of pain, humiliation and loss. The idea is to experience the limits of our human capacity: to push past the influence of affect and explore in detail where thought and feeling meets the will, or where conception meets interoception head-on. Without an experiential understanding of this, we’re just playing with metaphorical language, or going on someone else’s best guess, and we have to admit that we simply don’t know.

When intelligence (hui) and knowledge (chih) appear,
There is great artificiality (wei).

The TTC makes a strong case against knowledge and rational thought. This from Addiss and Lombardo Verse 48.

Pursue knowledge, gain daily. Pursue Tao, lose daily. Lose and again lose, Arrive at non-doing.

This is from Chen Verse 3.

Therefore, when the sage rules:
He empties the minds (hsin) of his people,
Fills their bellies,
Weakens their wills (chih),
And strengthens their bones.
Always he keeps his people in no-knowledge (wu-chih) and no-desire (wu-yü),

Letting go of knowledge is related to letting go of desire. Knowledge and desire are connected. — T Clark

This appearance of being against knowledge relates back to intentionality and wu-wei.

This is where relying on English translations can lead us astray. We translate a character into ‘knowledge’ and assume that it refers to the entire concept of knowledge, rather than one qualitative aspect or idea of what knowledge is or means in human experience.

Verse 3 is not about keeping the people quiet, but about enabling them to exist and interact free of war and discord, in a state of peace. Zhì can be translated simply as ‘will’, but it refers more accurately to ambition: the mark or record that we desire to make upon the world as individuals. And zhī can be translated simply as ‘to know’, but it more accurately refers to the illusion of power that knowledge brings: to notify, inform or be in charge of. So wu-zhī and wu-yü refer to a letting go of being ruled by knowledge and affect: acting simply because we CAN or because we WANT to.

Back to verse 18, I want to make a distinction here between two character pairs in Chinese that both translate as ‘wisdom’, but refer to different qualities. The one used here, zhī-hui, separately translated as intelligence and knowledge, refers to externally perceived wisdom as a mark of respect, a recognition of power. The other is zhī-dao, which seems to refer to internal wisdom as more of a capacity, or knowing-the-way. Wisdom isn’t just about knowing information or appearing intelligent, it’s about knowing when to act and when not to, regardless of how it makes us look in terms of intelligence or capability. Which then relates to your quote from verse 48: serving the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake (or ours) is different from pursuing an understanding of the Way.

In my view, the TTC is not against knowledge and rational thought - it’s against revering knowledge for its own sake or as an illusion of power, and against acting on knowledge simply because we can or want to.

Great falseness, in my mind, refers to the assumption that an action is right because it is proven effective; or that we should do something because we can. Might does not make right.

I have called them “ladders” because I see the human values as inferior to the Tao. Possibility has called them “cascades” because she sees the human values as part of the Tao. This is where you correct me, Possibility. — T Clark

Well, considering the Tao is all-inclusive, I don’t see how they can not be part of the Tao. What is described here are human values when they exclude awareness of the Tao.

On the decline of the great Tao,
There are humanity (jen) and righteousness (i).

As I did for Verse 17, I reference Derek Lin’s translation of Verse 38.

Therefore, the Tao is lost, and then virtue
Virtue is lost, and then benevolence
Benevolence is lost, and then righteousness
Righteousness is lost, and then etiquette

This is a more detailed description of what I’ve called the moral ladder. The verse goes on to say.

Those who have etiquette
Are a thin shell of loyalty and sincerity

I think this is an indication that the elements of the ladder are hierarchical, i.e. top is better than bottom. — T Clark

When we lose sight of Tao, all we have is Te: the framework for morality and virtue, or instructions for a benevolent life. When we have no understanding of Te (having already lost sight of Tao), all we have is benevolence as the pinnacle of achievement, the exemplar. When we cannot grasp what benevolence is (having long since given up on the aim of virtue, let alone Tao), the pinnacle is considered to be righteousness. And when we don’t understand what righteousness is, we figure that etiquette, or formal politeness, is the thing to strive for. It’s not a moral ladder, but a reduction in awareness of our capacity.

‘A thin shell of loyalty and sincerity’ is not really a judgement of inferiority - that’s affect talking. Someone who strives for etiquette simply doesn’t understand how to be benevolently sincere if they can’t be polite about it. They’re not working from a framework of morality and virtue, so any moral judgement is unfair.

I’ve already explained my understanding of the good-bad relation in verse 2. If someone sees etiquette as the highest good, then when there is no formal/polite way to be sincere they are not sincere, and for them, there’s nothing bad about that. You would need to help them understand a more complex framework of morality and virtue before they can see sincerity as a quality of goodness that transcends etiquette.

Is there a fear that if we don't understand one bit perfectly, then we stay there. Progress halted. — Amity

I think it can happen, but why fear this? Understanding the TTC is still not the Tao. It’s just a key to experiencing it. And at the end of the day, any perfect performance of the entire original score would pass by undistinguished by anyone unfamiliar with the score anyway. So if all you can manage is the right hand of the piano part, it’s still better than just bashing the keys randomly with your fists. If that one bit is where you stay, that’s fine. Progress isn’t everything. The music is still beautiful, and it allows anyone to join in with the same or another part as harmony. That’s the beauty of the framework (Te) in relation to the Tao - it is, as the title says, eternal.

...like a fat man on skates who hadn't skated in years (but not like a fat man on skates, like nothing but itself) — T Clark

I love this bit. Every time I’ve tried to describe the framework idea in the TTC, whether I use the analogy of a piece of music or a tesseract or a cascade, this kind of disclaimer is always in parentheses in the back of my mind: but not like that, like nothing but itself.

What a beautiful passage.

I'm trying to decide whether I agree with this or not... Ok. I'll agree with a stipulation. I still think "relate" is the wrong word, but I'm not sure what the right word is. — T Clark

Well, if you find a better word, be sure and let me know. For me, ‘relate’ is the basis of existence, the purest description of the seemingly infinite ways and levels in which anyone or anything could be aware of, connected to or collaborating.

I’m not suggesting that ‘sincerity’ as a word cannot fit - only that the way we understand the concept of sincerity consolidates the relational quality so that it stands in isolation, as one of the ‘10,000 things’. There is some ‘unpacking’ that needs to occur to allow its quality to flow freely. For me, there is a noticeable energy flow difference between sincerity in or of the Tao (which is not the Tao), and faithfulness as qualitative relation to the Tao.
— Possibility

I think this is responsive to what you've written. I hope so. The Tao gave birth to the 10,000 things. That is the relation between them. I guess the only one. I have not resolved for myself how we get from the Tao to the 10,000 things. What I always told myself was that it was people naming things that did it, without putting any more thought into it than that. I still think that makes sense, but I'm pretty sure it's not what Lao Tzu had in mind. That's as close as I have come to recognizing a relationship between the Tao and the world. I think the idea of "te," which comes up later in the TTC, has something to do with it. — T Clark

I agree that the most obvious difference between the Tao and the 10,000 things is the naming. What this naming does, though, is divide any relation to the Tao through a process of awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation or collaboration/exclusion in what would otherwise be a completely free flow of energy. An experience of that is not this. It’s not just how we make sense of existence, but how existence (or the flow of potential energy itself, chi) has gradually made sense of itself: from the differentiation of matter from anti-matter or the up/down spin of quantum particles, to the broad diversity of life, the universe and human ideas.

So, although we may have a sense that this diversity is one, our energy is spent developing relationships with each of the 10,000 things, and then between each of them, in order to try and unify them. It’s beyond the capacity of a single human mind - this is a realisation I was struggling with long before I picked up the TTC. I see the TTC as an attempt to understand what unifies the 10,000 things in the Tao without necessarily having to identify and understand each of them individually - without knowing everything. Lao Tzu uses the logical system of the traditional Chinese language, which builds ideas out of qualities in the human experience, to build a logical framework idea which enables a qualitative human experience of the Tao that transcends the 10,000 things. It’s genius, really.

The difficulty is that self-identity is one of these 10,000 things - and we’re rather attached to this concept (among others) in our modern, Western experience. So there’s a disconnect between the quantitative conceptual structure of modern thought (ie. English idea concepts) and the qualitative experiential structure of the TTC (Chinese idea characters), which we refer to as ‘metaphor’. Meditation helps to explore a clear mind as consisting of qualitative experience, which eventually allows us to explore ideas as qualitative experience, instead of as conceptual structure. But I think that understanding how the logical framework described in the TTC might be translated into a framework between conceptual and empirical reality can also be useful, especially if we’re working in English.

I do think that te (literally translated as ‘virtue, goodness, morality, ethics, kindness, favour, character’) refers to this constructed framework idea.

Well, inside TTC we can use as many as metaphors we could imagine because it is a really free interpretation poem. — javi2541997

I find it’s like a written piece of music. The notes are presented in a formal structure, and each note, bar, melody and movement has a certain quality that is laid out for the musician in the text. But each musician interprets it in their own way, and is under no obligation to even follow the formal structure precisely.

For those of us who can’t read the original score, we have a wide variation of musician performances available to draw from. Some versions speak to us more than others, but it is in the variability between them all that we recognise none of these performances is equal to the original score.

If we attempt to follow the original score alongside these various performances, we can start to see where each musician has taken liberties with the score structure, to suit their personal performance style or instrument, or to convey a particular sentiment. It is their prerogative, after all.

I guess the question becomes: why are we exploring an interpretation of this piece of music? Is it to forge our own personal performance of it, our own interpretation among the many, or is it to help others connect with the truth of the composition, with what the score was reaching towards?

Great response, Josh. :up:

Well, it's an awkward question, but, what in fact is probability? I mean, we assume that if an event has probability of 99,9% of happening, it means that if we simulate the conditions, each 1000 times the event would occur next to 999 times. But that's not a fact, since nothing really prohibits the complement of the event, with probability of 0,1% of keep continuously occurring through time, while the first event, with almost 100% of probability never happens.
Anyone could argue that this is not likely, or if it happens, if you repeat the experiment, it would probably not happen again. But those two arguments just use again the definition of probability without explaining it.
I could add that saying "Means that something is more or less likely" just change the word probable for likely.
I know that in real life events like the first described are not usual, but mathematically it's not impossible and it's just a scenario to the main question: What, conceptually, is probability? What is something being likely to happen? — denis yamunaque

Here’s my take: Probability is a quantified occurrence of a possible event under limited conditions.

The difference between probability - a mathematical structure - and real life events is the distribution of potential energy into attention and effort, or affect.

The important point you make is ‘if we simulate the conditions’. So, if an event has a 99.9% probability of happening (under certain conditions), then theoretically we could manipulate these conditions locally in such a way that its complement will always occur, with surprising accuracy. The more precisely controlled and controllable the conditions under which this probability is calculated, the more play we have.

This one sounds so interesting but I don’t get it because I don’t understand what is a tessaract. — javi2541997

Sorry, spelling error: I meant tesseract.

There’s no need to get into the technical stuff. Basically, the tesseract (4D) is to a cube (3D) as the cube is to a square (2D), as the square is to a line (1D), and as the line is to a point.

For example, what are your thoughts on the recent debate regarding which metaphor is more useful or helpful - the ladder or the cascade ?
— Amity

To be honest, I choose the cascade method because for me it is more useful. Probably because I saw explained it in the video you shared with me so I literally see TTC as cascade since that day. Ladder could be more difficult because steps could mean one phrase or verse are above or higher to another but I do not see it as that way. Also, I remember the conversation of Lao-Tzu with Tu-Fu. Here is when Lao explained that TTC, as water, flows over us during our lives. I guess this is why cascade metaphor is more accurate. — javi2541997

My own use of ‘cascade’ was in reference to its secondary meaning: a process whereby something, typically information or knowledge, is successively passed on; a succession of devices or stages in a process, each of which triggers or initiates the next. The idea I didn’t want to lose in simplifying the metaphor to ‘ladder’ was that of the results of the previous stage also being part of each subsequent stage in the process, as much as the sense of flow that the word conveys.

I also wanted to get away from any sense of hierarchy, as I think this is more to do with the human condition of affect (desire) than with the Tao.

Personally, I understand the structure as more of a dimensional relation - like rendering a tessaract, but the metaphor is maybe not so pretty.

This reflects what I have been saying about Chinese characters contributing quality to the idea, rather than consolidated concepts. It’s not so much about appreciating the individual sounds as the way the sounds interrelate to form patterns, and the way patterns interrelate to form music. It’s about the way a character or sound changes in how we relate to it, according to what comes before or after it, even though its individual quality is always the same.

Timely, thank you. :blush:

In so far as Verse 17 concerns what a society does, it seems like it has to assume that different people have different roles. The farmer farms, the tradespeople provide goods, healers heal, warriors fight, and managers manage, etcetera. In addition, this society had a strong connection to their ancestors and respect for their elders. In calling for less need for structured intention, the intention of these people in their different roles is still underway. I take the point that "linear" ranking is being criticized as being unnecessary on many levels but it doesn't seem to me that it dissolves all structures. — Valentinus

I’m not suggesting it ‘dissolves all structures’ - only that it has no inherent hierarchical aspect: it is our affected relation which brings this in. So, in verse 17, those furthest removed from the example of the old masters will always be connected to them, as to their ancestors and elders, in an existing relational structure. ‘Respect’ refers to how affect alters that relation, relative to the observer. Lacking faith in the relational structure itself, all they see is the affected relation, and what starts as reverence soon disintegrates into fear, and then insult. When we can’t understand the structure by which these old masters are relating to the Tao, we can’t understand how much we have to learn.

This is similar to the uncertainty I expressed earlier concerning intentions in Verse 15. — Valentinus

I can see this, and I agree. It is the uncertainty or non-linear causal relation in the intentions of the old masters (and the structure of our relation to the Tao) that Lao Tzu seems to suggest as a contributing factor for this historical deterioration in respect for the Way. It’s not as simple as ‘do this to achieve that’, and ‘don’t do this or that will happen’. The structure is far more complex.

That's not an unfair assessment, although I'd go a bit further. It's not just one translation, I've looked at 12 or 15 and I look at four or five regularly. — T Clark

I do recognise the merits of this broader methodology - and I have learned a lot about the differences in each translation from your approach, so thank you. It does have a ‘cherry-picking’ feel to it sometimes, but then I’m reminded that your approach was always going to be personal, and that my criticisms come across as quite uncharitable in this context, so I do apologise.

It probably seems such a small quibble to imagine faithfulness as a relational quality, rather than as a concept such as sincerity.
— Possibility

The Tao that can be related to is not the eternal Tao. Sorry, but actually, it's true. The Tao does not relate to anything. That's the point. I'm sure "sincerity" is not the absolute best word, but it fits with my understanding of the TTC. I don't see how faithfulness fits at all. — T Clark

I think you misunderstand where I was going with this, but I have to say that I disagree with your first sentence here. The Tao does not need to relate to anything, sure - but WE do. The point of the TTC is that we CAN relate to the Tao, and in fact that is ALL we can do with it - we can’t fully understand it or define it or describe it. All we can do is build relational structures as scaffolding, enabling us to relate to the Tao, in a qualitative sense, with all that we are.

I’m not suggesting that ‘sincerity’ as a word cannot fit - only that the way we understand the concept of sincerity consolidates the relational quality so that it stands in isolation, as one of the ‘10,000 things’. There is some ‘unpacking’ that needs to occur to allow its quality to flow freely. For me, there is a noticeable energy flow difference between sincerity in or of the Tao (which is not the Tao), and faithfulness as qualitative relation to the Tao.

It's a metaphor. I don't claim it has a universal truth. I have a friend I've discussed this with. He would say that attributing any sense of one thing being better than another in the TTC is wrong. I get his point, but, when it comes to the Tao, language doesn't work that well. — T Clark

I recognise that it’s a metaphor, but that’s not really an excuse - what we refer to as ‘metaphor’ in an English translation of ancient Chinese is a recognition of the qualitative uncertainty and subjectivity in relational structure, which the English language (and even modern Chinese) attempts to conceal by consolidating concepts - this is why our language doesn’t work that well when it comes to the Tao. And I agree with your friend. I do think this structure described in the TTC corresponds to a universal truth in our capacity to relate to the Tao. It helps to keep in mind, at least, that hierarchy is a product of affect.

I hope I've never given the impression that I don't appreciate you being here. You've really helped me understand what I believe better than I did before. — T Clark

It’s not about appreciation. But I should just be satisfied with helping you better understand what you believe, because that’s how I would probably frame my own journey here. That’s it: no more of these self-pitying complaints from me.

Having and raising a child is a primitive option for effecting positive change in the world. We’re way past the point of needing to keep this up as humans.

Having said that, I don’t regret having and raising my own children, slow and inefficient though the effect may be. It was in part this parenting process that helped bring me to this conclusion.