Words are imperfect tools for communication. True understanding comes from grasping the underlying concepts, not just the words used to describe them. Flexibility in interpreting language can lead to deeper comprehension. In essence, i am advocating for a more holistic approach to communication and understanding, one that prioritizes meaning over specific terminology. — punos

What is there to understanding a concept beyond understanding the words used to describe it? It seems to me that, in Taoism, conceptualizing something is the same as naming it, i.e. putting it into words.

There is only one ultimate reality, not a multiplicity of ultimate realities. — punos

I often say that there's only one world, so all the different philosophies and religions are describing the same thing in different words. I guess that means I agree with you. But to greatly oversimplify, there is only one kind of thing - an apple - yet a multiplicity of ways to describe it. That doesn't mean there is something missing from our understanding of apples. Each culture and tradition describes their experience of ultimate reality, but ultimate reality doesn't exist beyond those descriptions.

We have a difference in the significance of "God" with a capital 'G' and "god" with a lowercase 'g'. For me, the capital 'G' indicates the primordial source. The word "God" is not a name but a title, and the same applies to "god". Gods have names, just as the President of the United States has a name. "President" is not a name itself. God is not a name, but Jehovah is, and God is his title. — punos

Name or title, it's a proper noun and is capitalized. You say "For me, the capital 'G' indicates the primordial source," but that's just how you see it, not necessarily how others do.

As I understand it, Taoism does avoid a human-centered morality.
— T Clark

I don't think that:

...just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out.
— Chuang Tzu

is a non-human centered morality, or, for that matter a morality at all. — Fooloso4

I agree, it's not a morality at all, so it certainly avoids a human-centered morality. I'm not trying to be cute. I'm being literal.

Ziporyn's translation from The Essential Writings, chapter, 8 is slightly different. Instead of "the' inborn nature is has "your" inborn nature. It is "your own" virtuosity. According to the glossary:

The original sense of term [virtuosity, De] is an efficacious power, in the nonmoral sense, "by virtue of" ... — Fooloso4

I'm not sure what that difference means in the context of our discussion. For what it's worth, the full translation, which I have read, was published after the essential writings.

I don't think we can avoid a human-centered morality, even if we avoid putting what is good for humans at the center. It is human beings who judge questions of morality. — Fooloso4

As I understand it, Taoism does avoid a human-centered morality. This is from Ziporyn's translation of the Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi).

What I call good is not humankindness and responsible conduct, but just being good at what is done by your own intrinsic virtuosities. Goodness, as I understand it, certainly does not mean humankindness and responsible conduct! It is just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out. What I call sharp hearing is not hearkening to others, but rather hearkening to oneself, nothing more. — Chuang Tzu

Well, what would you say is the difference between a God and a god? — punos

Whether or not you capitalize "god" depends on whether you consider it a name or a description.

You see, even though we agree, you may not think so because words or names for you are static, while for me they are fluid. That is our difference. Whatever word you or i use makes no difference. I mean, even the Tao suggests that we see beyond the names of things down to their essence. — punos

I don't understand.

Each culture or religion contains a piece of the ultimate puzzle to some degree, and the art is in recognizing which pieces go together and how. — punos

I don't see that there is an ultimate puzzle. Each understanding of ultimate reality stands on it's own. It can be interesting and enlightening to compare different religions and philosophies, but that doesn't mean something is missing.

It's a fascinating quandary isn't it? Why aren't moral or immoral the same as right or wrong?

Perhaps they don’t have to mean the same thing. It might feel like linguistic sophistry to separate them, but I see it this way: right and wrong are judgments about what action you should take, while moral and immoral are judgments about the nature of the action itself. — ZisKnow

I don't see it as a quandary. I'll make my previous statement more definitive - If something is the right thing to do, it is not immoral. Of course, as you note, that all depends on your definition of "right." For me, that comes down to a personal judgment. That's the essence of this for me - if I am applying a standard to myself, it's not a question of morality. Morality is how you judge my actions looking from the outside.

For me, labelling an act as immoral means I have a responsibility to reflect on it—to examine my intent, the consequences, and what led me to act that way. It’s a tool for accountability and growth. I resist the idea that labelling an act as moral gives me a free pass. That’s why I approach actions from a deontological perspective: they must be judged consistently, or I risk simply doing whatever I want and rationalizing it afterward. — ZisKnow

As I see it, I am responsible for all my actions and their consequences, no matter whether they are labeled moral/immoral or right/wrong.

An action can still be immoral based on its nature, its consequences or violation of principles, regardless of intent. — ZisKnow

That doesn't make sense to me.

What this gives me is a consistency, whenever I do something wrong, and indeed whenever possible *before* I do something wrong, I stop and think "is this the best approach?, will I feel guilty?, should I expect punishment from the wider society? It's a way of allowing a degree of moral relativism within a framework of moral absolutism, without having to endlessly debate specific acts and building a myriad of scenarios. — ZisKnow

My way of thinking about this is different from yours, but that doesn't mean I object to your way of seeing things. On the other hand, I might reject your judgment that something I've done is immoral if it doesn't match my own understanding.

God and gods are not the same thing. — punos

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that the god of monotheistic religions is fundamentally different from the gods of multi-theistic ones? I don't see that. My, perhaps idiosyncratic, understanding is that, in Taoism, the Tao comes before God or the gods, whichever you like.

The first gods were the pure whole numbers which emanated from zero (the Source). The very first numbers to emanate were the twin 1s (-1, +1), represented by Janus, who is the namesake for January, the first month of the year. — punos

I didn't understand your mathematical interpretation of ultimate reality the last time we discussed it and I don't understand it now.

Ziporyn’s claim is that what monotheisms and the atheisms of the ‘three horsemen’ (Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris) have in common is belief in a single purpose behind existence. For theists that purpose is God and the laws of morality he intends, and for Dawkins et al it is the sole authority of reason. Ziporyn argues that Daoism believes in no ultimate purpose, intention, principle, morality. — Joshs

I like your quote from Ziporyn very much. It's a drum I beat every chance I get - metaphysics isn't true or false, it's useful or not. It's a tool. We can carry a bunch of different ones in our toolbox and bring them out as we need them.

One doesn’t have to subscribe to any religious belief to see the falsehood of this, whether you believe in God or not. As a matter of definition, God is not a thing or a phenomenon. In terms of philosophy of religion, the ‘uncreated’ is a term that may be used, and the uncreated is not one or any number of things. — Wayfarer

I've made a statement about my thinking on the metaphysics of god in Taoism. It's not false, the metaphysics I'm describing is just different from yours.

For a faithful follower of the Tao, such modern notions might be "needlessly confusing" and even profane. — Gnomon

I am not a faithful follower of the Tao any more than I am of R.G. Collingwood, Ralph Waldo Emerson, or Pee Wee Herman.

For as I have insisted already, though Dao has sometimes been depicted as some kind of vague or partial equivalent of the idea of God, it is better described as the most extreme possible antithesis of that idea.

I have Ziporyn's translation of the Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi) and I like it. I certainly don't put myself up against him as an expert, but I understand the place of god in Taoism differently. Taoism isn't atheistic in the sense we normally mean it. It doesn't deny god's existence, it just (mostly) doesn't address it. It's non-theistic not anti-theistic. This is Verse 4 of Gia-Fu Feng's translation of the Tao Te Ching.

The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used, but never filled.
Oh, unfathomable source of ten thousand things!
Blunt the sharpness,
Untangle the knot,
Soften the glare,
Merge with dust.
Oh, hidden deep but ever present!
I do not know from whence it comes.
It is the forefather of the gods. — Tao Te Ching - Verse 4

The Tao does not replace god, it comes before it. God is just one of the 10,000 things - the multiplicity of phenomena in our world brought into being by the Tao.

My guess is that this boils down to just another ethical system based upon humility, kindness, acceptance and such. If that's the case, let's stop being so vague and just enumerate the things I need to do in 10 simple commands. I've been following these taoist threads a bit, and I'd rather someone just speak in prose and not poems and lay it out. — Hanover

There are plenty of philosophies out there I don't value, understand, or care about enough to try to understand. But you don't see me spouting off about them like a snide smarty-pants. Oh... wait. I do spout off about them like a snide smarty pants... Carry on.

Welcome to the forum. An interesting and well written original post (OP). Being skeptical of moral codes, I often don't comment on moral threads, but I had some thoughts.

Actions alone can be judged as moral or immoral, morality is tied to what we do, not necessarily what we think or feel.

Thoughts, on their own, are rarely if ever, actions, what we imagine or consider isn’t inherently moral or immoral without action to give it weight. — ZisKnow

Yes. I think this is important. You are only responsible for what you do, not for what you think, imagine, or fantasize. But it's best to keep odd or offensive thoughts to yourself if you want people to accept you. Also, excessive thinking and fantasizing can take over your life. I know that from experience. But that's not morality, just practicality and sound mental health.

Immoral actions are not always invalid choices, sometimes, circumstances leave us with only immoral options, and we must navigate these moments as best we can. — ZisKnow

I don't understand, if something is the right thing to do, how it can be immoral?

Intent and circumstance matter after an immoral action, they help determine whether internal punishment (e.g., guilt or shame) or societal punishment (e.g., consequences or judgments from others) is warranted. — ZisKnow

I don't think an action can be considered immoral if it is not done with intent. In those cases it's just a bad idea or negligent. You're still responsible for your actions, but that's not the same as immoral.

Being in a position where telling the truth likely leads to someone's death

Looking solely at the action, telling the truth is moral, we need not concern ourselves further
Lying, is immoral, but does not need punishment, you believe that the outcome may result in someone's death, so your intent is to avoid harm. — ZisKnow

Yes, this is one of those Kantian categorical imperatives, and a controversial one. How could telling the truth be moral if it causes unnecessary harm.

Because you knew that the book was saying inaccurate things, if not outright wrong things. You didn't need sophisticated, articulate words to explain why you had that impression: you just had it (the impression, that is). — Arcane Sandwich

It wasn't even that the book says inaccurate or wrong things. It says wrongheaded things. Things that don't fit in to my intuitive understanding of how the world works.

How can one judge the content of a book without reading it? — Arcane Sandwich

I did read the whole book, fuming all the while.

Maybe we can shift our view of The Point (the context). I spell it with a hyphen --- meta-physics --- to indicate that I use the term to mean "non-physical" or "mental vs physical". — Gnomon

I want to talk about metaphysics and you want to talk about meta-physics, a term which I don't find interesting or useful and which you've made needlessly confusing by naming it what you did. I don't see that we have anything to talk about.

Regarding the Tao of Physics — Gnomon

As I noted, it is a book I disliked even before I had the words to explain why I didn't.

I just want to state for the record that I have no problem with AI generated content in this specific Thread, — Arcane Sandwich

@Gnomen and I disagree on a lot, but one thing I really like about his posts is that he references and documents specific sources to support his arguments. The use of AI generated text undermines the credibility of sources and usually provides low quality and even incorrect information. Besides that, there are forum rules against it.

For me, Philosophy is Meta-Physics (study of Mind) as opposed to Physics (study of Matter)*...

...Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). — Gnomon

Your understanding of the meaning of "metaphysics" is completely different from mine. It's pointless for us to have a discussion about it.

Google A.I. overview — Gnomon

We're not supposed to use AI generated content.

I found that our discussion has piqued my interest in the apparent divide between physics and metaphysics, and i will be looking deeper into it in my studies. I might address this issue again in the future if i find any worthwhile insights to share. Thank you very much for your time and patience, T. Clark. — punos

I think the text that helped me put my thoughts about metaphysics in some sort of order was "An Essay on Metaphysics," by R.G. Collingwood. Here's a link with a download.

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.187414/mode/2up

I'm right in the middle of another book recommended by @Wayfarer - "The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science" by E.A . Burtt. I am really enjoying it. Burtt gives much more concrete examples of the metaphysical basis of the early science guys, e.g. Copernicus, Kepler, Newton.

Disagree with what? Apparently Lao Tse's Tao is very important to you. But not as "empirical science" or "philosophical poetry". Not even "Metaphysics". — Gnomon

I guess I was unclear. As I see it, the Tao Te Ching is metaphysics. I wasn't sure whether your "philosophical poetry" is another way of saying metaphysics. If it isn't, then I disagree with what you wrote.

Here's a few books I have read that compare & contrast ancient & non-western worldviews with modern science --- specifically quantum physics. — Gnomon

I read "The Tao of Physics" about 40 years ago and hated it. It was an early recognition on my part of people's inability to separate metaphysics from science. Over time, that recognition expanded to include an interest in philosophy and Taoism in particular.

I also read "Fire in the Mind." I remember liking it, but I don't remember much about it.

2. it is your nature to be that reality (and, I reiterate, not to know it) [Tao]
3. but it's all of your make-believe, constructed and projected in an ironic and pathetic, frantic effort to know/dominate/master that reality [Tao] which has pushed you away from that reality; make-believe which, because they are functional, you have layered or superimposed upon your natural sensations, including your feelings, instincts and drives. But these are also what has caused your going astray/disorientated from the way of that reality, leading to all of your errors and sufferings. — ENOAH

This isn't how I see it. The 10,000 things are not something bad or damaged. You've made me think about the actual connection between the Tao and the way of life described in the Tao Te Ching. Why, if the Tao is as you say, should I act the way you say? What is that connection? I've never felt there is any inconsistency there, but I can't, or a least haven't, put it into words. I need to think about this.

1. it is challenging as hell to sense with our senses, and live in accordance with truth/reality/the Tao, especiallygiven how our make-believes have generated so much desire as a by-product, luring us in and owning us; but it is in our natures to be our natures, free from the fetters of our make-believes. — ENOAH

Again, I think "our make-believes" are part of our nature as much as the Tao. I guess in a sense, our make-believes are our nature. I'm not sure that's right. The 10,000 things are not inferior or damaged, they're just part of the cycle.

We can and should continue to function in human history as historical beings---taoism is not a call to live like advance apes, naked hunters and gatherers, or some sort of return to nature in that sense. One can be an investment banker, or the American President, following Tao(ism). Taoism is just a shove: wake up and realize that history (I.e. everything we conventionally accept as so called reality) is a myriad of human constructions and projections, not the Tao, but rather, things made up and believed. Go ahead and play all you like, but for Tao's sake, realize you are playing. — ENOAH

I like this a lot. As I said, it's all about self-awareness.

we are biologically doomed to be obstructed from the Tao (which would be saying the 10k things, all of what each one of us would agree are conventional things, are actually also built into our natures and therefore the Tao, thus there is nothing which is not the Tao and ↪punos was right to ask/suggest that all along), then taoism's wake-up call is a farce. — ENOAH

I'm not sure I follow. We're not doomed, we're limited. That's our nature.

I say this, noting that Taoism as an ism is ultimately a farce, as is Einstein, and all human constructions, but its wake-up call, only its shove, is not a farce. Like, Socrates is a farce, all but his wake-up call which isnt a farce. — ENOAH

"Farce" isn't the right word. I guess Buddhists would say "illusion," but I don't think Lao Tzu would see it that way. Again, the 10,000 things is not something inferior. It's the recognition of the difference that matters.

There. Now all done. As I said, you're really made me work and reexamine. Thank you for that.

I liked that (unsarcastically) but.. among other things which I've yet to consider, or process, my admittedly shallow review of the Lorenz you present, suggests to me, [ to which I will attach the corresponding association with the question of, which is Tao and which is the 10K things]: — ENOAH

I don't know if Lorenz's ideas have anything to say about the Tao. I put them in as a response to the following exchange.

Yah, everything conditioning those of us born into human history is not the Tao.
— ENOAH

I agree as long as you include our biological evolution in your definition of human history. — T Clark

↪T Clark I most assuredly don't. But am intrigued by your so noting. Please explain if you are so inclined. I won't be back to read it for several hours, feel free to take your time. — ENOAH

I was trying to make the point that human nature, which is how I interpreted "everything conditioning those of us born into human history" didn't just somehow start to exist. It is the product of a process that has gone for billions of years. I've included human evolution as one of the 10,000 things.

1. There is a reality [Tao],
2. Contrary to the (mis)assumptions of phenomenologists, et. al., a thing can and does sense that reality as real sensory beings with real senses [Tao]
3. There must be something (presumably unique to humans) which has 'obstructed' or 'distorted' or 'displaced' (loosely/broadly) our real sensation of the real world to bring us outside of alignment with Tao, and into the so-called world of the myriad or 10k things [which I am suggesting we 'attribute to' human history].

So far---super generally---we are on the same page, right? — ENOAH

Item 1 - I have always thought of the Tao as an analog to objective reality. They're not the same, but they fill the same metaphysical spot.
Item 2 - I've thought a lot about whether or not we, humans, can sense the Tao directly. I don't think so, but I'm not sure.
Item 3 - I'm not sure how much of what we're talking about only applies to humans. I'm also not sure if it's correct to say we're out of alignment with the Tao. This is a good question.

And/But Lorenz suggests that obstruction/distortion/displacement took place within the biological evolution of the human. I.E., The human cannot sense reality/tao for what it is, because its brain evolved in such a way that it obstructs it. Very interesting, if I do not misunderstand....but then, if Lorenz is scientifically correct, then why even Taoism? — ENOAH

As I said previously, Lorenz wasn't saying anything about Taoism. I don't think he sees human nature as an obstruction to anything. I don't either. It's just who we are. Maybe it makes more sense to call it a limitation. I also don't think anything in what he says anything about the validity of Taoism. One is science, the other is metaphysics. Perhaps me bringing Lorenz into the discussion has been more of a distraction than a help.

(Although efforts are exerted to find the contrary) Taoism concerns itself neither with cosmology nor with questions about the structure of reality which most of our sciences purport to address. It assumes the reality of the natural universe and allows for its mystery to remain unknowable by referencing it as the way (of things/things are) or the endless changes of things.

It is not even a moral code pointing to universal Truths, nor an insight into True Reason or the Logic of Nature/Reality, because it denies their accessiblity, and, I dare say, relevance. — ENOAH

I don't know how to answer this. I don't think Lao Tzu et. al. thought of the cosmology presented in the Tao Te Ching as an literal, physical, historical chain of events, but I'm not sure about that. As I see it, Taoism is about looking inward to ourselves, self-awareness, rather than outward to physical reality.

Rather, Taoism is a shoving, or a poking:
1. wake up, it says, there is a reality, [Tao] — ENOAH

Yes. I've always thought of it as Lao Tzu saying. "Hey, look over here. Pay attention."

I'm going to take a break now. I will definitely respond to the rest of your post. Please don't respond to this one till I've had a chance to do that.

You've asked a bunch of great questions. You're really making me work.

...it is obvious to me at least that, although we currently have no way of uniting these two descriptions of the universe, they are definitely connected. — punos

I, on the other hand, don't think they can be united. They are completely different things. To oversimplify, metaphysics is the traffic laws, science is driving your car.

Naming is something humans do. — Fooloso4

That's how I think about it, but I'm not sure that's how Lao Tzu meant it.

Does it say that we bring the myriad creatures into existence? — Fooloso4

It says that naming brings the 10,000 things into existence. As I just noted, I think of naming - conceptualizing, making distinctions - as something people do.

Not surprising. Would you care to elaborate?

My knowledge of Tao Te Ching is superficial, but I found it generally compatible with my philosophical understanding of how the world works . . . . as philosophical poetry, not empirical science. Declarative poetry on the art of living. TTC us the kind of writing that is open to different interpretations — Gnomon

I've spent this entire thread describing my understanding of the Tao Te Ching. I'd rather not do it again.

I too find the Tao Te Ching compatible with my philosophical understanding of how the world works and I recognize it is not empirical science. Unless by "philosophical poetry" you mean "metaphysics" I disagree with that.

I don't think of Taoism as a popular religion, as is was long ago in China. — Gnomon

Taoism is a popular religion in China today.

I agree as long as you include our biological evolution in your definition of human history. — T Clark

I most assuredly don't. But am intrigued by your so noting. Please explain if you are so inclined. — ENOAH

A few years ago I read a book by Konrad Lorenz - "Behind the Mirror." It has changed my understanding of human nature in fundamental ways.

Lorenz's claim is that much of human nature is inborn and that inborn nature is mediated by natural selection. This is a quote from the book. Sorry for the length.

This is the basis of our conviction that whatever our cognitive faculty communicates to us corresponds to something real. The 'spectacles' of our modes of thought and perception, such as causality, substance, quality, time and place, are functions of a neurosensory organization that has evolved in the service of survival. When we look through these 'spectacles', therefore, we do not see, as transcendental idealists assume, some unpredictable distortion of reality which does not correspond in the least with things as they really are, and therefore cannot be regarded as an image of the outer world. What we experience is indeed a real image of reality - albeit an extremely simple one, only just sufficing for our own practical purposes; we have developed 'organs' only for those aspects of reality of which, in the interest of survival, it was imperative for our species to take account, so that selection pressure produced this particular cognitive apparatus...what little our sense organs and nervous system have permitted us to learn has proved its value over endless years of experience, and we may trust it. as far as it goes. For we must assume that reality also has many other aspects which are not vital for us.... to know, and for which we have no 'organ', because we have not been compelled in the course of our evolution to develop means of adapting to them. — Konrad Lorenz - Behind the Mirror

I later came across a paper I like even more than the book. Shorter and get's to the point sooner. Here's a link.

Kant's Doctrine Of The A Priori In The Light Of Contemporary Biology Konrad Lorenz

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 — Gnomon

Your understanding of the Tao Te Ching is profoundly different from mine.

Yah, everything conditioning those of us born into human history is not the Tao. — ENOAH

I agree as long as you include our biological evolution in your definition of human history.

We name things. We carve them up. By dividing we multiply. We take what is one and regard it as many. This is the way of man. — Fooloso4

I have always thought of naming as described in the Tao Te Ching as something humans do. That's consistent with my understanding of human nature, psychology, and language. I don't think, although I'm not sure, that's the way Lao Tzu saw it.

This does not mean we bring the myriad creatures into existence any more than we bring the part of the ox into existence. — Fooloso4

I think the Tao Te Ching means what it says. That calls for a change in what you mean when you say "reality" and "existence." In my experience, no one can agree on that. I find Lao Tzu's way of seeing things compelling.

Those who want to relate the Tao to either physics or information or logos, might do well to look for those connections in the much older book, the I Ching. — unenlightened

I have thought I should spend some time with the I Ching. I haven't because 1) I am put off by its connection with divination 2) I've heard conflicting ideas about how and how much it is connected with Taoism 3)I'm lazy. Perhaps I should get off my ass and dig in.

Can anyone truly claim to know exactly what Lao Tzu meant? — punos

Of course not. I didn't say your understanding was wrong, only that it's very different from mine.

I would just like to ascertain the fundamental difference between our notions of the Tao. Perhaps if you state it more precisely i can make more appropriate clarifications. Personally, i have not detected a significant difference, but of course, i might be wrong about that. — punos

Metaphysics is at the heart of my understanding of philosophy, science, and human thought in general. If you look back through the threads I've started, you'll see it's the one subject I come back and back to. I see the Tao Te Ching as metaphysics, you don't. For me, that's a fundamental and profound difference.

I use physics terms to describe ideas that were expressed in a time without physics or even science — punos

Lao Tzu was pretty sophisticated. He understood the difference between science and metaphysics. 10,000 things = reality/science; Tao = metaphysics.

I understand that many people prefer to keep things traditional and compartmentalized, but i believe there is more to the Tao than what was written a thousand years ago. — punos

So, you're going to improve on the Tao Te Ching. I'm having a hard time figuring out how to respond.

The first sentence suggests that, as a mental or cognitive device, we can consider the Tao as the value zero, representing the silent void that is the Tao. The second sentence explains that what occurs in the quantum vacuum is similar to how a zero (the vacuum) can spontaneously transition from a true vacuum to a false one. The same procedure i used to derive the -1 and +1 values from zero is analogous to how the vacuum spontaneously produces particle-antiparticle pairs. It follows the same pattern. — punos

As I noted, I'm repeating my arguments. For me - Tao = metaphysics; quantum vacuum = science.

I think you and i agree more than we know. Sometimes words just get in the way as the old ones noted and wrote "The Tao that can be said is not the eternal Tao". :smile: — punos

No, I think you and I have diametrically opposed understandings of what Lao Tzu was trying to say. There are certainly places where we agree, but the places where we disagree are the truly fundamental ones.

You and I are just repeating our arguments without adding anything new. I suggest we leave it here. Also, I'm going to bed.

I'm just saying that some things can't be measured, and yet are true, because they must be in order to observe other higher-level phenomena that are dependent on unmeasurables. — punos

This is what I was talking about when I discussed dark matter.

What is measurable is always connected fundamentally to what is not measurable. — punos

I don't know what this means.

Whatever scientists did to hypothesize dark matter is, in my view, the same as what the old Taoist sages did to hypothesize the Tao. — punos

You and I understand this very differently.

Energy is the source of causality, which you characterized as metaphysical, but it doesn't matter. If it doesn't make sense to you then do not accept it, until it does. — punos

Admirably condescending.

Yes, but what is a thing really in relation to the Tao, such that things should come from it? Are things made of the Tao, or are they made of something else that did not originate in the Tao? I'm a monist, and thus i believe that whatever things are, they are made of one "thing" or, more precisely, one "non-thing". — punos

Sorry, I did it again. I push "post comment before I'd fully responded.

I've thought a lot about the process of the 10,000 things growing out of the Tao. I still don't have a definitive understanding. The Tao is not part of anything and nothing is part of the Tao. I'll take the easy way out. This is from Mitchell's translation of Verse 42.

The Tao gives birth to One.
One gives birth to Two.
Two gives birth to Three.
Three gives birth to all things. — Verse 42 of the Tao Te Ching

I've heard it said that the Two is Yin and Yang or Heaven and Earth and the Three is the Tao and Two together. I'm not sure what that means.

The Tao can, in part, be conceived as the mathematical value (or non-value/non-thing/nothing) of 0 (zero)... This is also the kind of thing that happens with the quantum, or false vacuum at the very foundation of our universe. — punos

I don't know what the first sentence means and in the second sentence are you mixing up metaphysics and physics again.

Because i take Taoist principles to heart i use those principles to understand my world better as well, and that includes my understanding of science and other fields. I can use these principles to help know how to act in the world, how to relate to myself in my thoughts and emotions, and to others, but i can not help recognizing these Taoist principles in other areas like physics, and particularly quantum physics. In fact it was what i've learned about science and physics that gave me what i consider insights into the Tao, and to further elaborate what the ancients were apprehending. — punos

I actually agree with much of this, although I suspect I mean something different by it than you do.

To name is to divine or distinguish one thing from an other. Zhuangzi's Cook Ting (Ding) divides the ox along its natural joints. To divide things in a way that is contrary to their natural divisions is to force things. The proper division of things requires knowing the natural patterns and organization of things. Knowing what belongs together, what is a part of some larger thing as well as what is separable toward some end or purpose. — Fooloso4

I wonder if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that process of carving the ox is analogous to the process of the Tao bringing the 10,000 things into existence. I've never thought of it that way before, but it's an interesting take. I'll think about it more.

Information has the quality of spirit in this regard, and in this sense can be considered both physical and metaphysical simultaneously. Energy has a similar quality as well. — punos

I don't know whether or not I agree with you about information. I'll think about it. I definitely don't agree with you about energy.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone about anything...If we really agreed on everything, then we wouldn't really have anything to talk about... don't you think? — punos

I left my response to this from my previous post.

I don't need people to agree with me about my views, but I need to test whether I really understand, even believe, what seems right to me. I also find that hearing other people's ideas and their responses to my statements helps me clarify, and sometimes even change, how I see things.

How does one measure a single 0-dimensional point inside a non-zero dimensional space? It cannot be measured because measurement requires a beginning and an end point. It cannot be done with a single point. How does one measure one instance of time? It cannot be done for the same reason; one needs two instances to measure the time interval between them. For anything to be measurable and quantifiable, it must have a beginning and end point of measurement. — punos

I don't understand how this is relevant. Scientists hypothesize physical dark matter based on requirements of theories of gravitation even though it's never been measured. I can know that a question will have a true or false answer even if I don't know what it is yet.