That's accepting, not understanding. — 180 Proof

I think most of the goofiness I've seen around the subject of quantum mechanics comes from failure to accept it, not failure to understand it. I'm not quite as smart as Feynman, but I can hold two seemingly contradictory ideas in my head at the same time without whining or exploding.

If you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don't understand quantum mechanics. — Richard Feynman

I don't understand the how of quantum mechanics, but I completely understand the why. It's just because.

I am wondering is what bothers you is the possible idea of hidden reality, or realities, beyond the manifest world? — Jack Cummins

Forgot this in my last post.

I don't believe there is anything hidden. It's all out there for us to experience. Alan Watts wrote that the only mysteries are things we have hidden from ourselves. Here's my favorite quote. I haven't used it here in the forum in almost a week. Franz Kafka:

There is no need for you to leave the house. Stay at your table and listen. Don’t even listen, just wait. Don’t even wait, be completely quiet and alone. The world will offer itself to you to be unmasked; it can’t do otherwise; in raptures it will writhe before you.

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

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

If I was defending him — FrancisRay

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

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

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

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

I am not sure why it bothers you that Fritjof Capra combines quantum physics, metaphysics and Taoism. — Jack Cummins

Taoism and physics are two different kinds of things. Apples and oranges. Electrons and summer squash. Galaxies and love. Taoism is metaphysics. It says nothing about the world, it only describes how we talk about the world. It's not right or wrong. It has no truth value. Physics is... physics. It describes the behavior of the universe and it's parts. It can be right or wrong.

Taoism and physics can be similar metaphorically, which is interesting. Unfortunately, it makes it tempting to mistake a figure of speech for reality.

I have so many books which I am reading at the same time. — Jack Cummins

I currently have three books in my kindle queue that I bought based on recommendations of people here on the forum in the past few weeks. That doesn't count all the others further down the list.

randomly summoned — Noble Dust

Yes. I am the sorcerer, you are the demon.

Actually, I just wanted to say hi.

Stephen J. Gould had a great influence on me — 180 Proof

A lot of my understanding of how science, epistemology, and truth work I got from Gould. I learned that bottom up science is what works - put in your efforts getting specifics, then you can generalize. Details, variation within populations, avoiding misleading data and statistics. Respect for solid, competent science even if the results are not consistent with our current understanding. Chocolate bars that weigh nothing and cost $0.85.

I also learned a lot about good writing.

Also - he was on the Simpsons.

It was a rhetorical question. — Banno

But if I answer it, it isn't rhetorical anymore. Isn't that right?

I don't ignore biology, I just don't deflate the role of culture and socialization in Human cognition & behavior on that account as, for instance, as sociobiologists or evolutionary psychologists have a tendancy to do. — 180 Proof

I am a big fan of Stephen J. Gould, who was a strong critic of sociobiology, so I agree with you. Perhaps I was being overeager to push biological influences since so many people want to dismiss them to promote political positions these days.

But can you explain the horror of Guernica purely in terms of the equations of physics? — Banno

We seem to be missing each other. I specifically said that you can not derive the laws of biology, cognitive science, or psychology from physics. I guess we should leave it at that.

a thriller window-dressing as science fiction. — 180 Proof

One of the main characters is a police officer trying to solve the murders, so yes, there is some of that. But it is real science fiction. What I really liked was how the philosophy was right out in the open on the page in a really convincing way. Very Cartesian.

But I can see from your list that you like depressing science fiction. Never liked PKD. Don't let @Noble Dust hear that. I haven't read anything by Egan or Banks. I'll take a look. Like Stross, but even he can be pretty bleak. I've been trying to decide whether to spend the money to get the newest "Laundry Files" book or wait for it to come to the library in kindle format. Never got into the "Merchant Prince" stuff. I saw two movie versions of "Solaris" and may have read the book back in my youth. As I said, depressing.

Physicalism is the view that every puzzle can be explained in the terms used by physicist. — Banno

And I said that this isn't true, but I guess it depends on your definition of "explain." Cells, viruses, organs, tissues, organisms can not behave in any way that is inconsistent with physical laws. On the other hand, physics principles can not be used to predict how living organisms will be created, evolve, or behave. Although I don't have evidence, my intuition tells me that it is not possible, even in principle. If I'm right, your definition of what physicalism means is wrong. The correct definitions are in my previous post.

Think of it as a Universal Mind (an ocean) with Individual Minds (waves in the ocean). Of course, A Hologram with everything existing everywhere is another equivalent way of imaging it. — MondoR

It is my understanding that, in a hologram, each piece contains the whole. That certainly isn't true of the ocean.

Anyway, when I look at a rock, it may be "looking" back at me. I try to imagine all it has seen and will see and what it has shown to All. — James Riley

So, a billion years ago, a volcano erupted and spread lava over a large area. The lava cooled and became igneous rock. The cooled lava had been covered by 1,000 feet of sedimentary and igneous rock. The pressure of all that rock changed the physical and chemical makeup of the rock. The rock was uplifted into mountains, eroded, mixed with other eroded material, and deposited into the sea as a sedimentary rock. Again, it was covered and metamorphosed. The overlying rock was eroded by a river until the deposited rock was exposed. Then the rock was removed by humans from a quarry and crushed into 2 inch pieces for road building.

So, when did the rock become conscious? What would it remember? Was it conscious all the time, first as magma, then as lava, then as igneous rock, then as individual particles, then as sedimentary rock, then as broken stone? Of what use is there in calling the rock conscious? You certainly have changed the meaning of the word entirely.

I get the impression that if you accept the idea that there are a lot of worlds other than this one, a lot of quantum mechanics' problems go away (the Many Worlds Interpretation). — RogueAI

There are a bunch of interpretations of quantum mechanics that are consistent with observed phenomena. It appears, although there is some disagreement, that none of them, including the multiverse, can be verified, even in principle. If that is true, then they are equivalent. If that's the case, it makes sense to pick the simplest description - the Copenhagen Interpretation. None of it means anything, just calculate.

I know that you seem to question the idea of a holographic perspective, but do you think that the idea of an implicate order makes sense at all? I do believe that neuroscience is important but it does seem to end up becoming completely reductive. — Jack Cummins

From what I read about the implicate order, it sounds very much like Taoism. The difference to me is that the Tao is metaphysics while Bohm claims the implicate order is physical reality. You've mentioned Fritjof Capra before. That's what bothers me about "The Tao of Physics." He mixes up the Tao, metaphysics, with quantum mechanics, physics. For me, the connection between them is purely metaphorical. Lao Tzu has no physics to teach us. Heisenberg was not a mystic.

You've probably seen Her and some of the other sci-fi. We can already make it so believable, so yeah. — j0e

Yeah, but that was Scarlett Johansen. What if it had been Gilbert Gottfried?

Have you read Tegmark's MU conjecture? I'm interested in your objections or, even better, a plausible refutation. — 180 Proof

I haven't read Tegmark, although I have read some summaries. From that quick look, it appears that there is no way, even in theory, to test his understanding. If that's true, then it's not physics, it's metaphysics. Just like the dozens of different interpretations of quantum mechanics. It's not true or false, it is useful or not.

Do you read science fiction? If so, I steer you toward a neat book by Jeremy Robinson - "NPC." NPC means Non-Player Character in a video game. That's a character who is created by the game to interact with actual players but who has no awareness. The book follows a scientist who is trying to show that reality is a simulation by killing people he considers NPCs. The philosophical issues are handled in a very satisfying manner. If you have Kindle Unlimited, you can read it for free.

Physicalism is the view that only the description of the world provided by physicists is true. — Banno

I don't think this is correct. Here are some definitions of "physicalism."

• The philosophical position that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties, and that the only existing substance is physical.
  
• The thesis that everything is physical, or as contemporary philosophers sometimes put it, that everything supervenes on the physical. The thesis is usually intended as a metaphysical thesis, parallel to the thesis attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Thales, that everything is water, or the idealism of the 18th Century philosopher Berkeley, that everything is mental.
  
• The metaphysical thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical...

I wouldn't call myself a physicalist, but I think it's consistent with my understanding of how things work. It doesn't say anything about at what organizational level - physics, chemistry, biology, cognitive science, psychology - a phenomenon should be understood.

I am not saying that consciousness is primary in this regard or that earth is special. I'm questioning if biology can be reduced chemistry and chemistry to physics — Gregory

The standard answer to this question from those who don't hold with reductionism is that the laws of biology must conform to all the laws of physics and chemistry, but cannot be derived from them.

Yes, that's what I was trying to suggest by "perhaps due to the traditional straitjackets of gender-socialization" followed by "built" and then "need" (the latter in quotes) as expectations not biological traits, etc. — 180 Proof

I think ignoring the role that biology plays is misleading, but I'm not sure what the causes are makes any difference with how we handle it.

I think masculinity and femininity are not toxic. The same behaviour in animals is called survival. We hold ourselves to standards that are unrealistic. — TaySan

This makes sense.

A real man is someone who is a father, an Olympic champion, a stepfather, a husband, a multi-millionaire, someone who raises billionaire daughters and step-daughters, an international celebrity, and someone who will be the next Republican governor of California. He is all that and America's sweetheart. — Hanover

I remember the 1976 Olympics and Bruce Jenner's performance. That has always represented the best of what athletics can be to me. I always looked up to him. The sadness I feel watching Kaitlin Jenner now has nothing to do with her transition. It's the comparison of the dedication, discipline, and skill it took to win the medal to the sideshow freak she has turned herself into.

New Yorker Cartoon caption (below sketch of 2 guys chatting)

Last summer I tried using prostitutes and found it surprisingly affordable. — Bitter Crank

Ah, yes. New Yorker cartoons. It's like Playboy. I buy it for the articles.

My own intuition is just to get on with it and be. — Tom Storm

That's exactly right, except you left out "suck it up."

masculinity exists as a set of behavioral attributes grounded in biology. — Joshs

To me, this is clearly at least partly true.

This is a really good post. Well thought out, well expressed, and well.... right. Mostly.

"Suck it up" is important. It's a big part of what it means to me to be a man. It's also at the heart of a lot of pain in my life and I think of many men. Most men. Maybe all men. What happens when you build your life and yourself around doing your duty and then fail, suck it up, fail, suck it up, and fail again. The flip side of suck it up is the terror of disappointing people.

I think this has a lot to say about how many people, men, support Donald Trump. As a liberal, I find that understandable and moving. Even admirable.

Anyway - good post.

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

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

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

Do you recognise that you construct most of your ‘experience’ of these interactions from a logical and qualitative structure of mind (developed from past experiences, language, cultural reality, knowledge, etc), and only minimally from your temporal, sensory being-in-the-world? — Possibility

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

That you’re unsure of the relation between your ‘two ways of experiencing things’ suggests to me that your model is insufficient, yet you seem unperturbed by the margin for error. — Possibility

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

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

This is the philosophy you will have to refute if you want to show that Lao Tsu's description of reality is untrue. .

If you succeed you will be world-famous within an hour or two, since you'll have destroyed the Perennial philosophy. It isn't going to happen, but I think there's much value in trying to refute it. — FrancisRay

I have no interest in refuting Lao Tzu's vision of reality. I've never said it was untrue and I've acknowledged how valuable it is for me. It is my fundamental understanding that metaphysical principles are not true or false, right or wrong. They are useful or not in a particular situation. It will take a significant change in my understanding of things to change that. That's why I'm interested in following up on your ideas. I've bought "Sum of Wisdom." We'll see where it goes from there.

One thing I see more and more as I get older is that everything has happened before. The biggest storm, the worst president, the end of western civilization, the greatest basketball team, the worst recession, drinking is bad for you, drinking is good for you, Japan's economy will destroy ours, China's economy will destroy ours, Russia is our friend, Russia is our enemy, and of course my favorite - our troops will be home in six months.

Is that wisdom? Not really. If you live long enough and have an average memory, you see things over and over again.

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

You and I think about this differently.

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

If I experience that person without words or judgement and then act on that without forethought or intention, maybe put my arms around them, that is my understanding of what wu wei is. Acting from my true nature. Does that mean I'm experiencing the Tao at that moment? I'm working on that.

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

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

I also don’t think you can follow the path without experiencing the Tao. I think the value in understanding the Tao is in aligning your logic, which does help to experience it, but also to follow it. — Possibility

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

In an holistic view of reality, an observer is necessarily one aspect of the whole, but is unable to view itself as one of these aspects. A triadic relational model of reality is the most efficient and accurate - if the observer is indeterminate and can alternate between embodying two of these aspects. Embodying one will give it a view of the other two, but it can neither view itself, nor differentiate between the other two. — Possibility

No fair. You've brought in a whole new way of talking about things. I don't know what a "triadic relational model is." I guess I don't feel the need for another way to explain what's going on. For me, there are two ways of experiencing things - there is talking about, describing, kicking, thinking about, understanding, and naming the multiplicity of things and then there is the wordless, nameless experience of the Tao. Can you do them at the same time? Not sure.

I don’t claim to be following the Tao rigorously, either. But I think I understand when I am and when I’m not, at least. — Possibility

I feel the same way.

The there basic elements of Taiji are Yin, Yang, and Qi. It is the moving wave that one experiences when practicing Taiji. To understand the Dao De Jing, one must experience it. Words are insufficient. 42 explains how the Universe began. — MondoR

I agree with you that the TTC is about the experience, not the words. You say there is not gap, but for me there is. I have a sense for the experience of the Tao and obviously I experience the 10,000 things, but it is the step between that I am searching for. How non-being becomes being. How the nameless becomes the named.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm suggesting that the metaphysics of the TTC is a correct model of Reality, just as Lao Tsu suggests. It is not 'privileged', just correct. In mysticism it is the standard model, . .

I'm probably misunderstanding you, but If you believe it is not correct then I'll happily argue this point. — FrancisRay

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

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

There is no gap. It starts as One, then by La onto itself, it becomes a standing wave (yin/yang). Then with movement (qi), there is a spiraling wave which creates everything. — MondoR

Lao Tzu is a bit ambiguous about that. He says different things in different verses. Yin and yang are only mentioned once in the Tao Te Ching, in Verse 42. He doesn't mention qi or chi at all.

Yes, but we don’t necessarily interact as one of the 10,000 things. We can also interact as an indistinguishable aspect of the indeterminate whole. This is how I understand an experience of wu-wei: no resistance or effort, no consolidation of self, just harmonious movement with the world... — Possibility

I agree with this.

I'm ok with this, but I don't see the relevance to our discussion. Are you talking about wu wei and how it grows out of the Tao?
— T Clark

That’s a strange way to describe it. I don’t see wu-wei as ‘growing out of the Tao’, but as completion of Tao - it’s the chi that is missing from the evidence of our actions. It’s what Lao Tzu draws our attention to, because it exists in the gap between the Tao and the 10,000 things. — Possibility

As I've mentioned before, I am not at all clear what takes place "in the gap between the Tao 10,000 things" or how wu wei works. Somehow, through experiencing the Tao, I am lead to act without acting. I use the term "grow out of" for lack of a better term.

This is interesting to me. You use words such as ‘intuitively’ and ‘osmosis’, as if the knowledge just kind of turns up in your head. I’ve been aware recently that most people tend to perceive the world as particles, but I’ve always perceived it as waves — Possibility

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

Is my way of knowing the particle way? You say your son "can’t always trace the source of his information or critically examine his rational process once his mind is made up." I can, but I normally don't because I don't need to.

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

I think ninety percent of the time, it doesn't matter what decision we make, as long as we make one and are willing to take responsibility for it. There just aren't that many issues that matter all that much. When I was working I had to deal with more and more significant ones. Even then, in most cases it was more important to keep things moving than it was to make the exactly right decision.

Hence, the nature of the Universe can be discovered and experienced, but not fully translated into words as in the case of all feelings and emotions. One must feel loss to understand it, but words are inadequate. There is nothing mysterious in Daoism, just feelings and emotions to be discovered. — MondoR

I was in a Tao Te Ching reading group and one of the members was a Tai Chi instructor. He had insights in to the TTC that were very helpful. It is my understanding that trying to follow the path without a meditative practice of some sort leaves something out. I've always thought that the Tao is to be experienced, not understood. His input helped me grasp that better. I studied Tai Chi for several years 20 years ago and I've started practicing again. Classroom work has been disrupted by the pandemic so I've been doing it mostly on my own. I have never felt any strong connection between Tai Chi and the Tao Te Ching. I'd be interested in hearing how you see it.

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

Don't worry, I found a free download.

You may find it interesting but his argument is very difficult and tedious. All we need to know is that his argument has never been invalidated and it proves that all positive metaphysical theories are logically indefensible. If we know this then we need not read the argument. And we already know that philosophers generally endorse his result since it what makes metaphysics difficult. Kant, Bradley and Russell all reach the same result explicitly in their work, but all good philosophers arrive here since it is just a matter of logic. . . — FrancisRay

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

The best commentary I know of is 'The Sun of Wisdom': Teachings on Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way by Tsultrim Gymaptso. I would avoid any that are written by non-Buddhist academics. . — FrancisRay

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

These words seem paradoxical. They are not actually so, however, and Lao Tsu does not suggest they are.

The claim that the Tao is unspeakable is also explained by Nagarjuna. — FrancisRay

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

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

In a metaphysical sense, to ‘understand’ is to align with a way of thinking about or conceptualising reality. It’s an internal restructuring of ideas, and can be achieved simply by trusting in an alternative model or expression of reality, such as the TTC. — Possibility

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

In a more academic sense, though, to ‘understand’ is to present knowledge in explaining or supporting the argument for a restructuring of reality. It is to provide ‘proof’ of this metaphysical understanding. But this academic sense of understanding is not required in following the Way, and it does distract us from the path. — Possibility

This sounds like what I call "rational thought" in the last paragraph of my previous post.

I have engaged in attempts at explanation here, mainly in my references to Kant, quantum physics and Barrett’s theories in relation to affect, among others. My aim in doing so was to show that, firstly, there IS an alternative construction of reality in the TTC - one that does not align easily with conventional Western logic. — Possibility

I have no problem with this. It's interesting to me how foundational themes found in eastern philosophies show up as relatively minor themes in western philosophy, e.g. Tao vs. noumena. Also, what Barrett writes interests me, although I don't think it has a lot to say to me about the TTC.

Secondly, I was trying to point out that this alternative construction of reality does contend with, and arguably help to dissolve, current dilemmas in Western thinking. So, even if we have no intention of following the Way, its structure of conceptual reality is not as ‘a-rational’ as it first seems. It is more that conventional (Western) logic is inaccurate, insufficient beyond classical physics, for an holistic understanding of reality (ToE). — Possibility

I agree with this strongly. As I've said, I see the Tao as a concept as a good replacement for the idea of objective reality. I think that has profound implications for our understanding of how the world works, e.g. in science. I won't go into this any more here.

I also recognise that understanding the Way is not following the Way. What is missing is chi, the energy of life, one’s distribution of attention and effort. I have suggested that we can discuss how chi (or affect) fits into this by drawing from experience, but that perhaps we need to separate subjective experience into quality and energy (and the TTC into quality and logic) before this starts to make sense. — Possibility

As I've said, I don't think seeing the TTC through the eyes of Barrett or other scientists is useful, at least not for my purposes. I also think equating chi with affect is is like equating the mind with the brain, which I reject. I'll think more about that.

In fact, I get the sense that your aim is to recognise an experience of the Tao as a guide in those situations when conventional logic is insufficient. This seems to be a common Western approach to Taoism and other Eastern philosophies. — Possibility

Are you implying that it's wrong or somehow not true to Lao Tzu's intentions? First, I doubt that. Second - it doesn't really matter. I've found a spiritual vision that matches my intellectual, perceptual, experiential, and emotional understanding of how things work.

I just thought we should be clear that experiencing the Way is not following the Way, any more than understanding it is. Giving the impression that one can follow the Way simply by experiencing it is what I’ve been taking particular issue with here, but I’ve not been very clear in this. — Possibility

I'm not sure about this. I don't think you can follow the path without experiencing the Tao. Is that enough? Maybe? I think whatever value understanding the Tao has may be in helping to experience it. I'm out on a limb here. Over my head.

I have no doubt that many of the scholars who painstakingly translated the TTC do experience the Tao subjectively, but whenever they expressed this as an understanding of the TTC, they’ve necessarily applied at least some conventional Western logic to their choice of words (inherent in the English language). When readers then experience this understanding, they’re aligning with this Western way of thinking, not with that of the TTC. — Possibility

Sure. I think that's inevitable. Then again, many of the translators are native Chinese speaking scholars. I am reluctant to second guess them. I'd guess my western way of seeing things is more of a barrier than the translations. My answer to that is that I sometimes have experiences that seem to match what Lao Tzu described. If that's not enough, it's at least enough for me.

But if you say that you’re following the Tao, then I may dispute your accuracy from time to time, to which you will say that you don’t understand and you aren’t trying to. — Possibility

I certainly don't think I'm following the path in any rigorous or disciplined way. I just come back to what I said - I sometimes experience things that seem to match what Lao Tzu described. That's it. That's all I'll claim. I don't think I've ever claimed more. If I did, I was wrong.

Personally, I think any restructuring of reality in understanding the Tao goes deeper than this, but I accept that mine may be a minority view, lacking in clear explanation and relatively untested. — Possibility

I think you may think I am claiming more than I actually am.