His written translation, explanation and notes from:
https://terebess.hu/english/tao/DerekLin.html#Kap17 — Amity

Thanks to this page and the translation of sir Derek Lin I going to compare my thoughts about TTC with his comments. Also they are already in English so it will be so helpful to improve the perfect vocabulary when is required.
What I want to do from now is read a verse of TTC, interprete it in my mind and then compare it with Derek Lin's interpretation. I think it could be a good idea because sometimes I feel so lost from the real nature about TTC.

One of the beautiful things is how we are sharing different links and information. You are providing to me more information than my university back in the day :rofl:

Actually Kierk argued the opposite here in this short read: https://www.brainpickings.org/2017/04/18/kierkegaard-concept-of-anxiety-time/

This one was so interesting to read. Time and all of the interpretations are one of the things I like the most inside philosophy.

I guess somehow yes because Russia wants keep all their power in countries which are close the Russian frontier. This exactly happens with Georgia back in 2008... nowadays who cares about the citizens about Georgia? Russia won.

Thanks so much for quick listening and responding. Your English is excellent if you can understand that so well — Amity

Thank you for the feedback. This motivates me to keep going sharing thoughts about TTC in English with you. :100: :up:

True and my fault was forgetting Irak but I guess this example is different because Baaz party (Sadam Hussein leader) was clearly killing another ethnic in Kuwait for no reason. Also, we even can speak about different worlds.
While Ukraine is clearly a West/European country which is crying for being part of the club, Irak is in the Middle East, Islamic and completely hates all related to the West. There were more followers of Sadam Hussain than we actually guess.
Also the hidden parts of this context is different too because is clearly that USA went there just for oil. They hadn’t nuclear power neither bombs. Doesn’t matter how wacky was Sadam. But Ukraine acts as a democratic country that Russia does not want let them go. We cannot solve all the worldwide problems. I guess Irak will never want being as us.

I wish I can change the situation but not I can’t do it neither is in my hands.

I just saw it and these are my thoughts:

First of all, I think I discovered a new way of interpretation. He literally understands TTC as a cascade. from the first verse to the last one. I guess this would help me to interpret all the verses. I will keep it in mind more closely.
In the other hand, I have to improve my vocabulary. As I thought I was not making the proper translation. So, the next time I guess it will be important just seeing this dude again or search through internet the exact verse instead of translating it by myself...
About the verse:

It is interesting how he used the following pattern: emptiness<->function. As he perfectly explained, this is the basic figure of the verse. Container because only when it is empty is functional. A wheel because needs to be fitted. Then, a room, because when is empty is more accessible than a full one.
So, despite the fact emptiness could be a negative word, his interpretation is that we need both. He literally said the following:

Substance (having) is positive. Emptiness (not having) is negative. But you need both as a equilibrium/balance.

Also, probably is off topic but he remembered that a wheel is related as birth/rebirth inside Buddhism.

Amity!

Thanks for keep sharing this information with me. So much appreciated. I going to give a look

Inevitably if Nato attacks Russia, China will side with Russia.

Each of the three principals has got a huge nuclear weapons arsenal. — god must be atheist

Not only China but North Korea. This conflict is pretty similar with all of those islands of Japan where China silently approaching to them. Russia helps and respects it because clearly there is a common treaty.
To be honest, I feel bad about Ukraine because they do not receive the supplies or protection they deserve. Everybody is feel scared about what Russia could do if we don't respect their "frontiers"
Keep in mind how Putin treats their political rivals. This dude is scary. I'm sorry for Ukraine but I don't know if NATO is ready to do something.

From https://principlesoflearning.wordpress.com/dissertation/chapter-4-results/themes-identified/repetition/ — Amity

Thanks for sharing it. I will check it out :100:

Childless myself, the only reason to procreate is there is no reason, just urges and her prerogative. — 180 Proof

:100: :up:

Some straight men and women were also not fit partners. — Bitter Crank

I am heterosexual and yes I am not a fit partner for anyone. This is why sometimes I doubt about the true nature of sex. I mean, it could be that little percentage of people that somehow do not get laid for a lot of reasons. When this happens, someone like me is being told that "I should go to a therapist because it is not normal at all not having affection or motivation for anyone"
Excuse me, why this has to be bad? Why don't we consider it as normal too? This situation of not fitting partner, as you explained, can happen too.

It is now way too late for Zero Population Growth. If we do not shrink our population, nature will eventually find a method for reducing our excess population. Nature has done this before with other species and it will do it to us if necessary (or maybe we will do it to ourselves). I guarantee that we will not like it. — Bitter Crank

Yes! Agreed. I going to sound pretty totalitarian but I like the chinese idea of 1 kid policy. There are a lot of people in Earth that nature is getting upset with us. Back in the day, for better or worse, we had a lot of wars so we compensate it. But now, living in the most long run Era of peace, it is clear how overpopulated the Earth is.
To be honest, it is true that I don't know which is the feeling of having kids and being a dad so I could sound ignorant. Nevertheless, my statement still be that we should be toughest about promiscuous sexuality

Mostly though, children are the result of sex, and people like sex--as nature intended. — Bitter Crank

Interesting quote. So, in this context, we can argue that sex is a trap created by nature just to promote human species.

Verse XI

One wheel is composed by thirty sensible radios, but spins thanks to the central emptiness of a not sensible cube.
The crockery are made of sensible clay, but their hole is not sensible for the one who is serving.
The no sensible holes that are the doors and the windows of a house, are the essential
As we see in these examples.
The efficient, the result, comes from the no sensible

Thoughts: I guess TTC wants to show us here the difference between tangible and not tangible things. It is interesting how he explains that no sensible aspects are the ones which put emphasis in the sensible.
Probably, TTC is referring here as the spirit or soul of the things that exist around us as a mechanism of how they actually work.
Despite we need a practical part, he focuses in the importance of the roots or beginning from those things. Thus, no sensible parts.

The worst scenario is that people have children to validate themselves. — Andrew4Handel

Sometimes they even kids just to save a broken marriage... what happens at the end of the day? A kid raised in an unbalance family where nobody cares actually about him and probably he will end up with a lot of traumas in their adulthood

When the great Tao is abandoned,
Benevolence and righteousness arise.
When wisdom and knowledge appear,
Great pretense arises.
When family ties are disturbed,
Devoted children arise.
When people are unsettled,
Loyal ministers arise.

This is from 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
Those who have etiquette
Are a thin shell of loyalty and sincerity
And the beginning of chaos — T Clark

I liked these two verses compared. It is so interesting what you are sharing in your debate. I am reading it from the shadows :wink:

"If all (perception and understanding of) reality is subjective then the burden of proof is not on the claimant but on the disagreer" — New2K2

Now I understand you and yes! It is a good point. Agreed :100:

I don’t understand your question :sweat:

They are literally experts in disguise. I guess this is the only way to survive is something as complex as politics because is a world similar to a jungle where only win the strongest, thus, the most expert in disguise.
To be honest we shall not applaud neither re-elect... it is disgusting when they promise something but end up doing literally the opposite. Also, in the modern era, politicians tend to be violent and divide people just with the art of disguise
I would not have the ability of dream making so much conflicts as politicians.

Why do we care about the false beliefs leading to racism, misogyny, prejudice in general, pseudoscience et al and not about the rest of peoples panoply of false beliefs that motivate them? — Andrew4Handel

For us could be false beliefs but for others can be a reason of living. Sadly, humans tend to separate each other between ethics or races for centuries. As you said, this is completely wrong but somehow has motivated a lot of people because they used to like the feeling of being different and superior because my skin and money say so. Governments and social media are guilty in this context more than ever. They are spreading a lot of hate
I guess having false beliefs as you said, for example, the moon is made of cheese make us being imaginary people and I think is good. Sometimes believing in something that could be false is not dangerous since the moment we do not hurt each other.
Remember the white supremacy is totally a false belief but caused a World War and millions of deaths...

Does it matter the reasons people give for their actions? I think it does because I believe in truth and authenticity. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, it is. We should do it always.

Would you take it? — darthbarracuda

No. Because soon or later everything ends. This is not supposed to be a negative feeling but a motivational one. We are limited creatures who works against time. I guess this is why it is so worthy. When we already accepted we were born to die I guess we are ready to focus in beautiful things. I will never change this criteria for being immortal I think that even being immortal is quite selfish. Imagine how painful could be live permanently while your family and friends are there dying near you... I wish I never experienced this situation.

.

It seems to me that life is much more enjoyable and less burdensome when one is not afraid of when it may end. — darthbarracuda

Agreed. Good quote :100: :cheer:

Then you're probably definitely in Bill Gates territory. Unless you're taking the Russian one? — frank

Spain is developing one vaccine but sadly it is slower than the rest because our authorities don’t invest that much as other countries...

Thanks for participating in my thread! :100:

There is not only Astra Zeneca, there are more vaccines...

Does this mean what Einstein was talking about was really not space and time independent of perception? Absolutely. — Constance

Agreed :100:

Bill Gates helped fund the development of the vaccines. I guess that's where the theory comes from. — frank

We are not from the same country. My vaccines come from the European Union and it is paid by our taxes not by Bill Gates.

What about the notion that the vaccine is a tool for extracting money from the population? How suspicious are you? — frank

The vaccine comes from our taxes so I am not suspicious at all. I guess vaccines are important because it prevents us from dying of COVID... I would even reinforce the laws just to provide the right of vaccination to everyone

In my view, construing colour as subjective in nature is a product of the "subjectivism industry" that characterises most of philosophy, religion, politics, the humanities, literature, culture.

Interesting quote. I will check out more deeply this topic because it appears to be pretty cool.
We all are agree that somehow colours are built from a hard subjectivism or as you explained "subjectivism industry" point of view. Nevertheless, you also explained that:

Yet art exists, and could not exist unless it were assumed that perception were objective in character, and similar to subsequent observers. Art is impossible to explain if reality is subjectively constructed.

I guess it is not about impossibilities but how further our imagination can go when our eyes perceive the reality itself. This is why colours are an interesting topic inside philosophy not only physics. I respect of course, the spectrum of light we talked previously because is literally science explaining the development of colours when light is surpassing it, thus, the pure objective view.
Also, I defend that once we already understand how our reality works, I guess it is the turn of subjectivism because we humans tend to be so abstract too.
For example, imagine the rainbow, objectively we can say that is a curved band of different colours that appears in the sky when the sun shines through rain (Rainbow meaning )
But at the same time, we can philosophy about primary and secondary attributes too. So I guess in this point, colour depends on both: Pure objective and subjectivism.


[img]http://







It is interesting how violet goes directly in our eyes cones. John Locke was somehow right:smile:

Where am I? Who am I? How came I here? What is this thing called the world? What does this world mean? — Constance

At least you made the effort of making those questions. There are people than don't even care about what's going on around us and I think is even scary to be honest...
Trying to answer this philosophical questions in my own personal view I would say: I live in Spain but furthermore in a planet called "Earth" that is a big galaxy where thanks to randomness we the humans developed.
I don't know who I am but I know sometimes I dont like myself.
We came here because is our path and we have to do it. It is impossible just staying in home and do not do it nothig.
What the world means is upon us. First, as you perfectly said, time is one of the most tough enemies of humans, something that the Earth doesn't have. So we can start saying humans always put a lot of meaningful stuff.

As @Mww said, I don't have a good background about this topic neither... But somehow I see so interesting this premises/logic.

The general form of transcendental arguments is that X occurs only if Y; X occurs; hence, Y. The case Grayling has in mind seems to be that doubt can occur only within a system of believe; but doubts occur; hence there must be a system of belief in which to doubt. — Banno

It is a good example of how we can have beliefs on something though. It remembers me about syllogisms of Aristotle.
It remembers me about DARII, if the minor premise is affirmative (doubt occurs) then the major premise must be universal (hence there must be a system of belief in which to doubt)


It is so interesting. Thanks for sharing it I going to read it closer and focus more in the main OP

I might include the Tao Te Ching on my list too. — T Clark

I can't explain it but I already expected you would probably leave behind TTC too :up:

news' providers resulted in people being more ignorant than say 10 or 20 years ago? — Tim3003

I think yes because sadly our governments no longer invest in culture and knowledge development. We live in a junk culture and food era... nobody cares about thoughts, feelings, happiness, etc...
sometimes I think they want ignorant people just to reinforce their power

is, how does one apprehend the past? — Constance

Then, you perfectly said:

this is the existential crisis. — Constance

Time is one of the toughest challenges of human behaviour. We were born to die. Simple. Nevertheless, we the humans, are ready to fill this time making our lifespan worthy to live. I guess thinking so much about the past is not relatable because this is something we already live so we no longer need to remember this period. Also, past tend to be very dramatic and pessimistic because most of the times we don’t usually have good memories at all.
What the future holds is upon us. My opinion is trying to find something connected to happiness. This always been the main goal of humanity. We have to reinforce it.
We are lucky of speaking/debating about it because there are some people in this world that was born just with wars and violence so they do not have the right of think about future. I guess talking about time is like a privilege fortunately we can speak about.

some people on this forum will find the subject interesting; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_memory . — Don Wade

Thanks for sharing this article. It is so interesting. I will check out more about it. In my humble opinion, I guess when we talk about working memory is about the progress of our knowledge. Sometimes memoirist information is underrated but I defend it could be another example of increase the information we learned previously...
I am in a run where I have to study 350 law topics for just one hour so this is why this topic is important to me that I will read more about it.

Fruit undergoes a chemical change, that then eliminates different wavelengths of light reflected from its surface - that signals to the organism that the fruit is ripe and ready to eat. Colour is not subjective - nor made possible by nomenclature. It exists in reality, as is then described in increasingly literal terms. — counterpunch

Yes I did understand your point about evolutionary argument but somehow I stuck in Violet perception...
we are agree that obviously colours exist in reality, thus, are objectively patterns. But this situation goes forward in terms of vocabulary and words. As you explained, when the fruit eliminates some wavelengths, it shows us the fruit is going to be ready to eat. But this is literally a good example of how we interpreted this natural objective pattern. You say we name it in literal terms but previously we had to be taught basic vocabulary to do so or at least interpret abstract things in object which are around us. Thus, the colours.
I guess this is why John Locke referred Violet as imaginary colour, but no for not existing in realty but literally the opposite. This is why he criticises the color wheel, when obviously the reflection which surpasses upon our cones it is an interpretation that could make us mistaken from the truest object of colour.
So, despite that could be so poetic speak about “wine dark sea” it shows how humans are subjective inside the objective. Some are poetic like Homero, others are more specific and scientific and wants to explain colours themselves, as the truly form. I guess both interpretation are cool and respectable.
This is why I still defend physiological is also important in terms of colour :up:

[img]http://

When René Descartes said: cogito ergo sum he referred that if I have awareness, then I exist, doesn’t matter at all if everything around us cheat me or is lying to me. Our world could be a fantasy or created by pure interpretation of ourselves. This is the true essence I guess. The fact of doubting about external points but not about your own awareness.

Looking at the colour wheel (top) it does seem that the violet is blocked by the red but emphasised by the blue. — counterpunch

Interesting perception :100:

Otherwise - how could we explain the overwhelming uniformity of perceptions that we can speak meaningfully of a blue sky? — counterpunch

I guess this happens because of how we, the humans, always been tried of put an order or criteria. If most (not all) see the sea as blue due to the wavelengths from the sky, we established it as law of common reasoning because most of us literally see it that way. We cannot lead the people say it is “green” “white” or whatever because could be a chaos. Past thinkers used colours not only in art but as a way of showing how realty thus, physics, should work in our perceptions.
For example: you thought Violet is somehow emphasised by the blue, because this is how your eye told you. For me, as John Locke said, Violet is completely different pattern form the basics red/blue and this is why is important the cones of our eyes and how they interpret the reality itself.
Previously, this example was also shared:

so that a Greek will find it as natural
to call the sea ‘wine-looking’ as we to call it blue, and
a Roman will find it as natural to call a swan ‘scarlet’ —or the word we conventionally translate scarlet
— as we to call it white. It has been suggested that this
is because the Greeks and Romans were colour-blind.
But no sort of colour-blindness known to physiology
would account for the facts. In both languages there
are the rudiments of what we should call a true colour-
nomenclature ; and in both languages it happens
that there are words for red and green, the colours
that colour-blind persons cannot distinguish — An Essay On Metaphysics

your RGB monitor has three colors that are varied in intensity (and thus this diagram is only an approximation). An example of this can be found in the wiki SRGB article. — InPitzotl

Hello InPitzotl!
Thank you for answering in my thread. I will check it out this articles later on :up:

So, yes, we're trichromatic, but no, there aren't three primary colors... unless you pull tricks like CIE-1931 color space does, and make your primaries abstract. — InPitzotl

Understandable. But I think in the past these colours were primary because somehow you could mixed them and then getting another variants. I guess this is why some artists or thinkers thought the Color Wheel was “primary”.
In this point, it is interesting how John Locke, despite it was centuries ago, tried to criticise the primary colours because of the reflection of the eye. This is why he wrote about Violet and how our cones in the eyes see it, etc...
So, the study of the colours not necessarily are provided by the spectrum of light but from a physiological point of view.

Either way, color per se isn't so much about photons per se as it is about how human eyes measure them, so I wouldn't try to put too much stock into the "colors" (human-color-label-things) that aren't wavelengths. — InPitzotl

Yes! Colours are human-label-things but... what happens with colourblindness people? We teach to them they are wrong because they do not see the basic patterns as we do. Thus, supposedly, the primary colours... so who is wrong here in terms of how our eyes reflect the colours we see?

But the fact remains morality is demonstrably not made of it. And that applies to human laws too, I think. — Bartricks

Sure this is the most difficult aspect about morality. How can we prove it? Well it depends in the social context of this specific period of life. We can apply it to human laws but not as criticise but developing greater laws. I want to defend here that we can do it better and not depending about nature or God

Yes... but it could goes further than just a moral code. We can see it as a good tool to improve the security inside the State or between the citizens. Doesn’t matter at all if we say we have to respect each other because it is moral if we do not reinforce it. As Thomas Hobbes said Homo homini lupus... we have to be careful of each other and thus, reinforce the rule of law.

But unless a law says no more than 'do what is right and do not do what is wrong — Bartricks

Not necessarily. Law could be also useful of prevention. I understand your point that without laws immoral stuff as killing each other will still be immoral. Agree. But law goes further than this... the process of court, evidences, witnesses, etc... it is not easy as just believe in nature