Tao follows Nature

Quoting Lao Tzu (Laozi)

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

Being Tao, Greatness itself flows
It flows far away.
Having gone far, Greatness itself returns.

EDIT: The audiovisual material for this comment is the following.

@Wayfarer you are formally and officially invited to state your opinion on such matters. As everyone is.

EDIT: @Moliere this might interest you, given our most recent philosophical conversation elsewhere on this Forum.

Quoting Lao Tzu (Laozi)

Something mysteriously formed,
Born before heaven and Earth.
In the silence and the void,
Standing alone and unchanging,
Ever present and in motion.
Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.
I do not know its name
Call it Tao.
For lack of a better word, I call it great.

So if nature is the manifest world the Dao preceded it according to this verse. We cannot follow that which is
[i]Born before heaven and Earth.
In the silence and the void,
Standing alone and unchanging,[/i]
But it is also
Ever present and in motion. which is also Dao but sounds like a description of nature. So, there seems to be some equivocation going on.

Quoting Janus

So if nature is the manifest world

Is it? Perhaps it is the real world instead. Perhaps Nature is Reality Itself. Tao (Greatness) is simply a manifestation of Nature.

Quoting Janus

according to this verse.

The preceding verse has nothing to do with Nature, nor with what is natural. It is speaking about Tao (Greatness). That is the name that Lao Tzu (Laozi) gives it, because he does not know its name. Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things. We call it great, only for the lack of a better word, as Laozi (Lao Tzu) says.

Quoting Janus

We cannot follow that which is

No, we cannot. That is the reason why the last line of 25 says: The Tao follows what is natural. It does not say that Greatness follows Greatness, or that the Tao follows itself. There are translations that make this mistake, but Jane English did not make this mistake in her translation, which is the one that we are using in this Thread. Feel free to explain why we should include other translations.

Quoting Janus

So, there seems to be some equivocation going on

Please explain the equivocation going on, to the best of your ability.

Quoting Lao Tzu (Laozi)

Something mysteriously formed,
Born before heaven and Earth.
In the silence and the void,
Standing alone and unchanging,
Ever present and in motion.
Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.
I do not know its name
Call it Tao.
For lack of a better word, I call it great.

I'm always reticent when it comes to this text as it is deeply intertwined with Chinese culture and language and my knowledge of them is cursory. But I can see parallels in other Axial Age texts and concepts. The idea I'd like to call out is an expression 'the uncarved block' which is found in Taoist texts. It refers to the unconditioned, the unmade, which is also the subject of the above. There is no parallel in the English lexicon or culture. It is associated with ancient asceticism and shamanic or yogic practices of trance states, what Indian culture would call samadhi. But these are non-conceptual states, hence 'for the lack of a better word' and 'I do not know its name'. Other like sayings are 'the nameless if the mother of the ten thousand things'. Some parallels can be drawn with Plotinus' One, but with great intepretive care.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Therefore, One should not follow what is Great (Tao), one should instead follow Nature (what is not Tao).

But this should never be confused with modern naturalism, which has been conscientiously defined to exclude such nefarious and amorphous ideas.

Quoting Wayfarer

But this should never be confused with modern naturalism, which has been conscientiously defined to exclude such nefarious and amorphous ideas.

I agree, 100%.

Quoting Wayfarer

I'm always reticent when it comes to this text as it is deeply intertwined with Chinese culture and language and my knowledge of them is cursory. But I can see parallels in other Axial Age texts and concepts. The idea I'd like to call out is an expression 'the uncarved block' which is found in Taoist texts. It refers to the unconditioned, the unmade, which is also the subject of the above. There is no parallel in the English lexicon or culture. It is associated with ancient asceticism and shamanic or yogic practices of trance states, what Indian culture would call samadhi. But these are non-conceptual states, hence 'for the lack of a better word' and 'I do not know its name'. Other like sayings are 'the nameless if the mother of the ten thousand things'. Some parallels can be drawn with Plotinus' One, but with great intepretive care.

I tend to associate this passage with what Hesiod says in his Theogony about Xaos (Chaos). I also relate it to the Primitive Customs of the Hummingbird of Guarani Mythology. Is this senseless to you?

Quoting Wayfarer

I can see parallels in other Axial Age texts and concepts. The idea I'd like to call out is an expression 'the uncarved block' which is found in Taoist texts. It refers to the unconditioned, the unmade, which is also the subject of the above. There is no parallel in the English lexicon or culture.

How would you explain this part, specifically, to an English audience?

Quoting Lao Tzu (Laozi)

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

The King is one of them. Who is to say that the King is not the Great Chinggis Khaan?

The HU:Cherished the wisdom of thinkers
Declared deliverance and the Gereg
The bearer of the eternal Tengri
The king of the blue world
The Great Chinggis Khaan

Knees be knelt and heads be bowed
Engaged the world with the wisdom of Tengri
Declared the empire with law and order
The scourge of the eternal Tengri

Knees be knelt and heads be bowed, if the Great (Tao) Chinggis Khaan is the King.

Reply to Arcane Sandwich No that's definitely in the ball park! 'Axial age', as I say. That's a very useful idea in this context. It's associated with Karl Jaspers but has also been written on by Karen Armstrong. It's about the fact that around 6th-3rd centuries B.C.E. a number of prophets and sages were active, including Pythagoras, Lao Tsu, the Buddha, and others, who set the wheels in motion for what were to become the great cultural formations of India, China and the West.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

How would you explain this part, specifically, to an English audience?

I studied comparative religion, and one of the major authors in that field is Mircea Eliade, a Romanian-American active at the University of Chicago mid-century. It takes some reading. The problem with modern Western culture is that so many of those ideas are stereotyped under the heading of religion, when they're very different from how that term is usually interpreted.

Quoting Wayfarer

I studied comparative religion, and one of the major authors in that field is Mircea Eliade, a Romanian-American active at the University of Chicago mid-century.

Yes, I'm familiar with his work, I had to study it at the Uni, it was part of the curricula. I don't agree with Eliade's views. I'm more sympathetic to Joseph Campbell's The Power of Myth here. But Campbell could be wrong and Eliade could be right, for all I know. This area isn't exactly my specialty either.

Quoting Wayfarer

The problem with modern Western culture is that so many of those ideas are stereotyped under the heading of religion,

Yes, that is indeed the main problem here.

Quoting Wayfarer

when they're very different from how that term is usually interpreted.

Exactly.

@Wayfarer what do you think of this Reply to this?

Reply to Arcane Sandwich Chinese dynastic polemics, I would say. Again I have very little fluency in these texts, better to find a Chinese speaker!

Quoting Wayfarer

better to find a Chinese speaker!

They don't like me. They translated one of my papers on Meillassoux and Badiou, and they laughed at what I said. And what's even worse is that they said all of that in Chinese. I had to translate it myself, with the help of Google Translate.

EDIT: And they don't like me, even though I know more about heavy metal than they do. For example, the best heavy metal band from China is Tang Dynasty. And the Chinese people that read my philosophical papers don't even know that Tang Dynasty is a heavy metal band from China.

Quoting Lao Tzu (Laozi)

Something mysteriously formed,
Born before heaven and Earth.
In the silence and the void,
Standing alone and unchanging,
Ever present and in motion.
Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.
I do not know its name
Call it Tao.
For lack of a better word, I call it great.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

I tend to associate this passage with what Hesiod says in his Theogony about Xaos (Chaos). I also relate it to the Primitive Customs of the Hummingbird of Guarani Mythology. Is this senseless to you?

Quoting Wayfarer

No that's definitely in the ball park! 'Axial age', as I say. That's a very useful idea in this context. It's associated with Karl Jaspers but has also been written on by Karen Armstrong. It's about the fact that around 6th-3rd centuries B.C.E. a number of prophets and sages were active, including Pythagoras, Lao Tsu, the Buddha, and others, who set the wheels in motion for what were to become the great cultural formations of India, China and the West.

Quoting Hesiod (Theogony)

Hail, children of Zeus!
Grant lovely song
and celebrate the holy race of the deathless gods who are forever,
those that were born of Earth and starry Heaven and gloomy Night
and them that briny Sea did rear.

Tell how at the first gods and earth came to be,
and rivers,
and the boundless sea with its raging swell,
and the gleaming stars,
and the wide heaven above,
and the gods who were born of them, givers of good things,
and how they divided their wealth,
and how they shared their honors amongst them,
and also how at the first they took many-folded Olympus.

These things declare to me from the beginning, you Muses who dwell in the house of Olympus,
and tell me which of them first came to be.

In truth at first Chaos came to be,

but next wide-bosomed Earth,
the ever-sure foundation of all
the deathless ones who hold the peaks of snowy Olympus,
and dim Tartarus in the depth of the wide-pathed Earth,

and Eros (Love),
fairest among the deathless gods,
who unnerves the limbs and overcomes the mind
and wise counsels of all gods and all men within them.

From Chaos came forth Erebus and black Night;
but of Night were born
Aether
and Day

Quoting Lao Tzu (Laozi)

Something mysteriously formed,
Born before heaven and Earth.
In the silence and the void,
Standing alone and unchanging,
Ever present and in motion.
Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.
I do not know its name
Call it Tao.
For lack of a better word, I call it great.

[quote="Guarani Creation Myth;https://multoghost.wordpress.com/2016/09/06/the-primitive-customs-of-the-hummingbird/"]The Primitive Customs of the Hummingbird
Our Father, the Absolute First
created himself from the primordial darkness.

He created the divine soles of his feet,
His small round throne.
He created them as he grew in the primordial darkness.

The reflection of his divine wisdom, his divine all-hearing
His divine palms holding his scepter and flowering branches
these Ñamandú created as he grew from the primordial darkness.

Flowers adorned his divine feathered headdress like drops of dew;
And amidst the flowers of his sacred feathered crown
Hummingbird, the primeval bird, gamboled and flew.

Even while our first Father created his own divine body,
He existed in the midst of the primordial winds.

Before he conceived his future earthly dwelling,
before he conceived his future heavens, his future earth —
Hummingbird refreshed his mouth.

It was Hummingbird who sustained Ñamandú with the fruits of paradise.

Our Father Ñamandú, the First,
before he created his future paradise
He did not see the darkness
although the sun did not yet exist.

The reflection of his own heart illuminated him;
His divine wisdom served as the sun.

Our true Father Ñamandú, the First,
dwelt amidst the primordial winds;
Where he stopped to rest
the Owl produced darkness:
for already the cradle of night existed.

Before the true Father Ñamandú, the First,
created his future paradise, before the creation of the first earth,
He existed in the midst of the primordial winds.

The primal winds in which Our Father existed return
with the arrival of the primal space-time
with the resurgence of the primitive season.
As the old season ends
with the flowering of the lapacho tree
the winds bring the new season.
The new winds come, the new space,
bringing the resurrection of space-time.

Quoting Guarani Creation Myth

The primal winds in which Our Father existed return
with the arrival of the primal space-time
with the resurgence of the primitive season.
As the old season ends
with the flowering of the lapacho tree
the winds bring the new season.
The new winds come, the new space,
bringing the resurrection of space-time.

Bob Marley:[Chorus]
I'm on the rock and then I check a stock
I have to run like a fugitive to save the life I live
I'm going to be Iron like a Lion in Zion
I'm going to be Iron like a Lion in Zion
Iron Lion Zion

[Verse]
I'm on the run but I have got no gun
See they want to be the star
So they fighting tribal war
And they saying Iron like a Lion in Zion
Iron like a Lion in Zion
Iron Lion Zion

[Chorus]
I'm on the rock, running and you running
I take a stock, running like a fugitive
I had to run like a fugitive just to save the life I live
I am going to be Iron like a Lion in Zion
I am going to be Iron like a Lion in Zion

[Outro]
Iron Lion Zion, Iron Lion Zion, Iron Lion Zion
Iron like a Lion in Zion, Iron like a lion in Zion
Iron Like a Lion in Zion

EDIT:

An anonymous Rasta:Haile Selassie did not die.
Because Haile Selassie is God.
And God cannot die.

EDIT 2:

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

I think that we, non-Rasta folks exchanging ideas on an internet Forum, can barely catch a glimpse (if at all) of what Haile Selassie meant to the Jamaican Rasta circa the early 1970's. It wasn't just politics. There was a strong political element there, sure. But Rastafari is a religion. And it involves the ritual consumption of tetrahydrocannabinol, which is a psychoactive drug. In other words, Rastas smoke weed for religious reasons, literally. Now imagine that during a ritual smoking of weed, in that context and in those circumstances, Rastas have a religious experience, as if it were a divine revelation, that Haile Selassie, Emperor of Ethiopia, is indeed the Second Incarnation of Christ, the Lion of Judah, who will unify all the peoples of Africa and all of the peoples of the African diaspora.

Who are we to say that their religious experience is somehow less religious than the religious experiences of Protestants or Catholics, for example?

EDIT 3:

Quoting Lao Tzu (Laozi)

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

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

The King is one of them. Who is to say that the King is not the Great Chinggis Khaan?

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Knees be knelt and heads be bowed, if the Great (Tao) Chinggis Khaan is the King.

Who is to say that the King is not instead Haile Selassie, Emperor of Ethiopia, the Second Incarnation of Christ, the Lion of Judah, who will unify all the peoples of Africa and all of the peoples of the African diaspora?

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Who is to say that the King is not instead Haile Selassie, Emperor of Ethiopia, the Second Incarnation of Christ, the Lion of Judah, who will unify all the peoples of Africa and all of the peoples of the African diaspora?

Perhaps the following people (to answer my own question):



EDIT: And here are the lyrics to that:

Haggard:Awaking the Centuries

In the books of what will be
Written by the demon lord?

Never lift your head up to the east
'cause darkness wakes the beast!

[i]Der Kerzen Schein
Er leuchtet fahl
Als das Sonnenlicht er stahl
Und nur das gro_e Himmelszelt
Bezeugt das Ende dieser Welt[/i]

So feed the spark
Welcome to the land of dark
Death in all the centuries is what I left behind

Take my hand
Forgotten in the promised land
Death in all the centuries is what I left behind

The knowledge, brought to the world
Is growing with a bitter taste
In a dream I saw things that will be
Centuries away

[i]Des Mondes Schein
Er leuchtet fahl
Das Herz der Finsternis er stahl
Nun glei_end Lichte ihn umgibt
Und doch des Menschen Hoffnung siegt...?[/i]

So feed the spark
Welcome to the land of dark
Death in all the centuries is what I left behind

Take my hand
Forgotten in the promised land
Death in all the centuries is what I left behind

The night when evil steps out of the dark
And the cross is rising again
And fires are keeping the light
Burn, my friend...

And the sign of humanity is burning tonight
I can't escape from this ritual silence
Humanity's burning tonight

When I open my eyes
I see soldiers in the fields
Dead bodies on the ground
There are children in-between
Explosions shock the land
And the evil shows its face
The one called Hister rises
This is the fall of grace...

Beast ferocious from hunger will swim across rivers
The greater part of the region will be against the Hister
The great one will cause it to be dragged in an iron cage
When the German child will observe nothing

In the books of what will be
Written by the demon lord?
Never lift your head up to the east
'cause darkness wakes the beast!

[i]Der Kerzen Schein
Er leuchtet fahl
Als das Sonnenlicht er stahl
Und nur das gro_e Himmelszelt
Bezeugt das Ende dieser Welt[/i]

So feed the spark
Welcome to the land of dark
Death in all the centuries is what I left behind

Take my hand
Forgotten in the promised land
Death in all the centuries is what I left behind

The knowledge, brought to the world
Is growing with a bitter taste
In a dream I saw things that will be
Centuries away

So feed the spark
Welcome to the land of dark
Death in all the centuries is what I left behind

Take my hand
Forgotten in the promised land
Death in all the centuries is what I left behind

And the sign of humanity is burning tonight
I can't escape from this ritual silence
Humanity's burning tonight

@T Clark please state your opinion on Chapter 25 of the Tao Te Ching of the Jane English version.

Quoting Lao Tzu (Laozi)

Something mysteriously formed,
Born before heaven and Earth.
In the silence and the void,
Standing alone and unchanging,
Ever present and in motion.
Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.
I do not know its name
Call it Tao.
For lack of a better word, I call it great.

I think this is a pretty straightforward summary of the Taoist cosmology.

Quoting Lao Tzu (Laozi)

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

This is something I've thought about a lot - the idea of returning. This is how I think of it now - The Tao gives rise to the 10,000 things, which then returns to the Tao. That means that this process is taking place continuously and continually. The Tao didn't give rise to the multiplicity of the world once, it does it over and over. It's always doing it. I haven't heard that interpretation elsewhere, so I don't know if others would agree with it.

Quoting Lao Tzu (Laozi)

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

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

I'm always confused by "Heaven" and "Earth." Sometimes they mean sky and ground; sometimes the home of spirit and of humanity; sometimes yin and yang; sometimes light and dark. I see this as one depiction of the hierarchy of steps between the Tao and the king or humankind. It is presented in different steps in some other verses. As with many other elements in Taoist philosophy, it doesn't make sense to try to attach a specific definition to it. I see it as an impressionistic painting of how the world works. Just sort of soak in it.

As for "Tao follows what is natural," I'm not sure exactly what Lao Tzu is trying to tell us. I don't see as much significance in it as you do. I haven't sat down and really focused on the different verses in a long time. I probably should.

Reply to Arcane Sandwich
I forgot - the translation you provided is by Gia-Fu Feng. If I remember correctly, Jane English provided the photographs in the book they wrote together. If I weren't so lazy I would go check on that.

Quoting T Clark

I'm always confused by "Heaven" and "Earth." Sometimes they mean sky and ground; sometimes the home of spirit and of humanity; sometimes yin and yang; sometimes light and dark. I see this as one depiction of the hierarchy of steps between the Tao and the king or humankind. It is presented in different steps in some other verses. As with many other elements in Taoist philosophy, it doesn't make sense to try to attach a specific definition to it. I see it as an impressionistic painting of how the world works. Just sort of soak in it.

As for "Tao follows what is natural," I'm not sure exactly what Lao Tzu is trying to tell us. I don't see as much significance in it as you do. I haven't sat down and really focused on the different verses in a long time. I probably should.

Understood.

Quoting T Clark

I forgot - the translation you provided is by Gia-Fu Feng. If I remember correctly, Jane English provided the photographs in the book they wrote together. If I weren't so lazy I would go check on that.

Thank you very much then, it seems that I have made a mistake in attributing authorship to Jane English.

Quoting T Clark

This is something I've thought about a lot - the idea of returning. This is how I think of it now - The Tao gives rise to the 10,000 things, which then returns to the Tao. That means that this process is taking place continuously and continually. The Tao didn't give rise to the multiplicity of the world once, it does it over and over. It's always doing it. I haven't heard that interpretation elsewhere, so I don't know if others would agree with it.

I agree.

The Permanent Quantum 'Vacuum' Tao rearranges into the temporaries which may persist somewhat until they unarrange and perish, the Tao ever remaining as itself, before, during, and after, as the temporaries are not new substance but directly the Tao quantum fields.


[i]And fear not lest Existence closing your
Account, and mine, should know the like no more;
The Eternal Saki from that Bowl has pour’d
Millions of Bubbles like us, and will pour.[/i]

We are as beings of the everlasting light dream,
As products time and time again by its means—
Of the eternal return, as baubles blown and burst,
Though frames of time that quench life’s thirst.

Some time it needed to learn Everything for,
And now well knows how these bubbles to pour,
Of existence, in some like universe,
As those that wrote your poem and mine, every verse.

Yet worry you that this Cosmos is the last,
That the likes of us will become the past,
Space wondering whither whence we went
After the last of us her life has spent?

The Eternal Saki has formed trillions of baubles
Like ours, for e’er—the comings and passings
Of which it ever emits to immerse
In the universal bubbles blown and burst.

So fear not that a debit close your
Account and mine, knowing the like no more;
The Eternal Source from its pot has pour’d
Zillions of bubbles like ours, and will pour.

What though the sky with its blue canopy
Doth close us in so that we can not see,  
In the eterne Cupbearer’s wine methinks
There float a myriad bubbles like to me.

So, as thus thou lives on yester’s credit line,
In nowhere’s midst, now in this life of thine,
As of its bowl our cup of brew is mixed
Into the state of being that’s called ‘mine’.

Behind the Veil, being that which e’er thrives,
The Eternal ‘IS’ has ever been alive,
For that which hath no onset cannot die,
Nor a point from which to have any guide.
(But of what it is constrained to do.)

Quoting PoeticUniverse

The Permanent Quantum 'Vacuum' Tao rearranges into the temporaries which may persist somewhat until they unarrange and perish, the Tao ever remaining as itself, before, during, and after, as the temporaries are not new substance but directly the Tao quantum fields.

I'm not sure if you are referring to the Tao as literally the quantum vacuum or as a metaphor. I think taking it literally is mixing up metaphysics and physics.

What is the source of the poem you included. Is it your own? What can you tell us about it?

Reply to PoeticUniverse Please explain the following song from the POV of your Theory about the Universe:

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

So if nature is the manifest world
— Janus

Is it? Perhaps it is the real world instead. Perhaps Nature is Reality Itself. Tao (Greatness) is simply a manifestation of Nature.

How do you understand the difference between the manifest world and "reality itself". Are you invoking the phenomenon/ noumenon distinction? If so it sounds like you would be equating nature with the noumenal. But then how would you draw a distinction between the Dao as described in the verse below

Quoting Lao Tzu (Laozi)

Something mysteriously formed,
Born before heaven and Earth.
In the silence and the void,
Standing alone and unchanging,
Ever present and in motion.
Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.
I do not know its name
Call it Tao.
For lack of a better word, I call it great.

the noumenal and Nature?

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

The preceding verse has nothing to do with Nature, nor with what is natural. It is speaking about Tao (Greatness). That is the name that Lao Tzu (Laozi) gives it, because he does not know its name. Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things. We call it great, only for the lack of a better word, as Laozi (Lao Tzu) says.

Quoting Janus

So if nature is the manifest world ( which seems to be the only option left) the Dao preceded it according to the verse in question.

Perhps you have another option in mind: you say nature is not the manifest world, and you also say that the verse (which sounds like an allusion to the noumenal) has nothing to do with Nature but is about the Dao but youo haven't spelled out just what you think Nature is. So then in your understanding what is Nature according to Lao Tzu?

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

The Tao follows what is natural. It does not say that Greatness follows Greatness, or that the Tao follows itself. There are translations that make this mistake, but Jane English did not make this mistake in her translation

If you don't understand the language the text was written in, how do you know that the translator avoids a mistake?

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Please explain the equivocation going on, to the best of your ability.

See the above and provide unequivocal distinctions between the Dao, the manifest world, "Reality itself" and Nature as I have requested.

Quoting Janus

Please explain the equivocation going on, to the best of your ability. — Arcane Sandwich


See the above and provide unequivocal distinctions as I have requested.

Hmmm...

Quoting Janus

If you don't understand the language the text was written in, how do you know that the translator avoids a mistake?

Ok, I will cite another English version of chapter 25, because it is the best that I can do, under these circumstances, which I cannot transcend unless I learn Mandarin (at the very least).

Quoting Translated by Stephen Mitchell, 1988

25
There was something formless and perfect
before the universe was born.
It is serene. Empty.
Solitary. Unchanging.
Infinite. Eternally present.
It is the mother of the universe.
For lack of a better name,
I call it the Tao.

It flows through all things,
inside and outside, and returns
to the origin of all things.

The Tao is great.
The universe is great.
Earth is great.
Man is great.
These are the four great powers.

Man follows the earth.
Earth follows the universe.
The universe follows the Tao.
The Tao follows only itself.

Quoting Janus

So then in your understanding what is Nature according to Lao Tzu?

That is what the Ancient Roman philosophers called the Quaestio here.

Quoting Janus

How do you understand the difference between the manifest world and "reality itself". Are you invoking the phenomenon/ noumenon distinction? If so it sounds like you are equating nature with the noumenal. But then how would you draw a distinction between

Something mysteriously formed,
Born before heaven and Earth.
In the silence and the void,
Standing alone and unchanging,
Ever present and in motion.
Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.
I do not know its name
Call it Tao.
For lack of a better word, I call it great. — Lao Tzu (Laozi)


and the noumenal?

I'll let Lao Tzu himself answer you question, in the very first line of the Tao Te Ching:

Quoting Translated by Stephen Mitchell, 1988

1
The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.

Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding.

EDIT: And here is another translation of that:

Quoting Translated by Gia-Fu Feng (??? Feng Jia-fu, 1919–1985) and Jane English (1942–) Vintage Books, 1989

One

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.
The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.

@Wayfarer, @T Clark, what does the following phrase mean: "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao."

It's the exact same words in the two translations that I've quoted in the preceding comment. What does it mean?

Quoting Translated by Stephen Mitchell, 1988

Man follows the earth.
Earth follows the universe.
The universe follows the Tao.
The Tao follows only itself.

So, Man follows the Earth, which follows the Universe, which follows the Tao. No mention of Nature there.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

That is what the Ancient Roman philosophers called the Quaestio here.

If you cannot say what you think Nature is, then how can say it is different than the Tao?

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

and the noumenal?
— Janus

I'll let Lao Tzu himself answer you question, in the very first line of the Tao Te Ching:

So, you do equate the Dao with the noumenal?

I still have no clue what you think "Nature" refers to, and much less how it could be different than the Dao.

Reply to Arcane Sandwich My interpretation is that it is pointing to the inadequacy of spoken language to convey the depth of meaning that is inherent in 'the Way'. Arguments about it, 'it means this', 'no it doesn't, it means that', and so forth, have already missed the mark. The true way or eternal Tao is not a verbal expression or description or anything that can be said. Like I said every time you asked me: there is something you find in Eastern philosophies, 'the Unconditioned'. It's not God, or not like a 'sky-father' figure. But then as soon as we ask 'well what is it then?' then we've missed the mark again.

Quoting Janus

So, Man follows the Earth, which follows the Universe, which follows the Tao. No mention of Nature there.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

In some other translations, the last line says "Tao follows itself". That, is an entirely different interpretation.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Man follows what is Great
Earth follows what is Great
Heaven follows what is Great
What is Great follows what is natural.

Quoting Janus

If you cannot say what you think Nature is, then how can say it is different than the Tao?

Hmmm...

Nature = "what is natural". From the following:

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

"What is natural" = Nature.

1) Tao = great.
2) If Tao = Nature, then:
3) Nature = great.

However,

4) "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao."
5) So, if Tao = Nature, then:
6) The Nature that can be told is not the eternal Nature.

Quoting Janus

So, you do equate the Dao with the noumenal?

Hmmm...

Quoting Janus

I still have no clue what you think "Nature" refers to, and much less how it could be different than the Dao.

Nature = what is natural.
Tao follows what is natural.
Tao follows only itself.
The Nature (Tao) that can be told is not the eternal Nature (Tao).

Quoting Wayfarer

?Arcane Sandwich
My interpretation is that it is pointing to the inadequacy of spoken language to convey the depth of meaning that is inherent in 'the Way'.

Tao = The Way

Quoting Wayfarer

Arguments about it, 'it means this', 'no it doesn't, it means that', and so forth, have already missed the mark.

Yes, they have.

Quoting Wayfarer

The true way or eternal Tao is not a verbal expression or description or anything that can be said.

Yes, I agree.

Quoting Wayfarer

Like I said every time you asked me: there is something you find in Eastern philosophies, 'the Unconditioned'. It's not God, or not like a 'sky-father' figure. But then as soon as we ask 'well what is it then?' then we've missed the mark again.

Yes, we have. Indeed. Good to see that we're on the same page, you and I. So to speak, of course.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Yes, they have. (Missed the mark)

If everything that can be said misses the mark then there is no point discussing it. On the other hand how could you know if the mark has been missed if you don't know what it is?

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

The preceding verse has nothing to do with Nature, nor with what is natural. It is speaking about Tao (Greatness).

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Nature = what is natural.
Tao follows what is natural.
Tao follows only itself.
The Nature (Tao) that can be told is not the eternal Nature (Tao).

You contradict yourself or the text or both.

Quoting Janus

If everything that can be said misses the mark then there is no point discussing it.

Are you sure about that? It sounds to me that one can speak "around" it, one can allude to it, indirectly.

Quoting Janus

On the other hand how could you know if the mark has been missed if you don't know what it is?

Because it reveals itself to you, in a non-linguistic way.

Quoting Janus

The preceding verse has nothing to do with Nature, nor with what is natural. It is speaking about Tao (Greatness). — Arcane Sandwich


Nature = what is natural.
Tao follows what is natural.
Tao follows only itself.
The Nature (Tao) that can be told is not the eternal Nature (Tao). — Arcane Sandwich


You contradict yourself or the text or both.

Because I am attempting to combine two translations of the Tao Te Ching that contradict each other. See:

Quoting Lao Tzu (Laozi)

Tao follows what is natural.

Quoting Translated by Stephen Mitchell, 1988

The Tao follows only itself.

Why am I doing such a thing? Because you made that specific request when you said the following:

Quoting Janus

If you don't understand the language the text was written in, how do you know that the translator avoids a mistake?

I am trying to be as charitable as I can towards your intentions, @Janus. Are you trying to be as charitable as you can towards my intentions, yes or no?

EDIT: Even more explicitly:

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

If you don't understand the language the text was written in, how do you know that the translator avoids a mistake? — Janus


Ok, I will cite another English version of chapter 25, because it is the best that I can do, under these circumstances, which I cannot transcend unless I learn Mandarin (at the very least).

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Are you sure about that? It sounds to me that one can speak "around" it, one can allude to it, indirectly.

So, it's just poetry then? I have no argument with that.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Because it reveals itself to you, in a non-linguistic way.

It seems to me that something that can only be apprehended non-linguistically cannot be spoken about except poetically or allusively. Poetry is always a matter of interpretation with no detreminate meaning, so there cannot be any detreminable "missing of the mark".Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Because I am attempting to combine two translations of the Tao Te Ching that contradict each other. See:

Tao follows what is natural.
— Lao Tzu (Laozi)

The Tao follows only itself.
— Translated by Stephen Mitchell, 1988

Why am I doing such a thing? Because you made that specific request when you said the following:

If you don't understand the language the text was written in, how do you know that the translator avoids a mistake?

OK, so the translations contradict one another. How do you know which is correct, or considering what I said just above, how can there be a correct and incorrect at all?

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

I am trying to be as charitable as I can towards your intentions, Janus. Are you trying to be as charitable as you can towards my intentions, yes or no?

I am not concerned with your intentions. I don't know them, I know what you say, and I respond to that with my own questions and ideas and as much on its own terms (that is without distorting it) as I can. Isn't that what we do (or should be doing) here?

Quoting T Clark

I'm not sure if you are referring to the Tao as literally the quantum vacuum or as a metaphor. I think taking it literally is mixing up metaphysics and physics.

It's about what the Tao idea turns out to match in physics.

Quoting Janus

So, it's just poetry then? I have no argument with that.

Who says that it's just poetry? It can be science instead. Be cooperative, instead of intentionally trying to cause a disturbance in this Thread. I am the author of the OP and I am formally requesting you to be less disruptive. In other words, I'm giving you a "yellow card", a "warning", if you will.

Quoting Janus

It seems to me that something that can only be apprehended non-linguistically cannot be spoken about except poetically or allusively.

You are wrong, for it can be spoken about in a scientific manner.

Quoting Janus

Poetry is always a matter of interpretation with no detreminate meaning, so there cannot be any detreminable "missing of the mark".

Enough with your poetry-centrism. Things cannot be poetry all the way down.

Quoting Janus

OK, so the translations contradict one another. How do you know which is correct, or considering what I said just above, how can there be a correct and incorrect at all?

That is a very difficult question that you are asking, we all have the same question, and intellectuals have been debating this point for decades, not only in relation to the Tao Te Ching, but in relation to any written text in general.

Quoting Janus

I am not concerned with your intentions. I don't know them, I know what you say, and I respond to that with my own questions and ideas and as much on its own terms (that is without distorting it) as I can. Isn't that what we do (or should be doing) here?

I don't know if that's what we do or should be doing here. Make a case for it, and I'll consider it. Until then, I will simply say that one should be charitable towards the English language, as much as humanly possible. The same goes for every other language. If you disagree, explain why.

Quoting T Clark

What is the source of the poem you included. Is it your own? What can you tell us about it?

The first stanza, in italics, is Edward FitzGerald's transmogrification of Omar Khayyam. The rest are my own, as extensions of the idea of The Eternal Saki.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Please explain the following song from the POV of your Theory about the Universe:

Anything can become of the temporaries formed by the Permanent.

Quoting PoeticUniverse

Please explain the following song from the POV of your Theory about the Universe: — Arcane Sandwich


Anything can become of the temporaries formed by the Permanent.

Here is the Tao that can be told, and it shows the eternal Tao (the Tao that cannot be told)



Quoting PoeticUniverse

What is the source of the poem you included. Is it your own? What can you tell us about it? — T Clark


The first stanza, in italics, is Edward FitzGerald's transmogrification of Omar Khayyam. The rest are my own, as extensions of the idea of The Eternal Saki.

What do you think of Timbuktu?

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

What do you think of Timbuktu?

Too hot and dry.

Quoting PoeticUniverse

What do you think of Timbuktu? — Arcane Sandwich


Too hot and dry.

But it has an impressive history.

Quoting Janus

If everything that can be said misses the mark then there is no point discussing it. On the other hand how could you know if the mark has been missed if you don't know what it is?

The Tao Te Ching is philosophy, metaphysics. What is says is not literally true - as you say, poetry. If it doesn't work for you, that's no surprise. It doesn't work for lots of people. It works for me. When I first read it it grabbed me and pulled me in. In my understanding, many eastern philosophies, including Taoism, are about what goes on inside of us, not external reality. Self-awareness. I will say this - I'm an engineer and a pragmatist and I find the metaphysics of Taoism completely consistent with my understanding of science and reality.

Quoting Janus

It seems to me that something that can only be apprehended non-linguistically cannot be spoken about except poetically or allusively. Poetry is always a matter of interpretation with no detreminate meaning, so there cannot be any detreminable "missing of the mark".

Yes. This is right.

Quoting Janus

OK, so the translations contradict one another. How do you know which is correct, or considering what I said just above, how can there be a correct and incorrect at all?

It's true - the Tao Te Ching is not consistent within itself and there are more inconsistencies because it is thought to have been written by different authors over a long period of time - like the Bible. There are many different English translations which sometimes, often, contradict each other. Here's a link to dozens so you can get an idea of the multiplicity.

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/_index.html

I've read four or five of them and parts of many more. All of this together paints an impressionistic picture of what Lao Tzu is trying to show us. The inconsistencies are, as they say, a feature, not a bug, starting with the first verse - The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.

Quoting Janus

Are you invoking the phenomenon/ noumenon distinction?

It's a similar concept - different in detail and context.

Quoting Janus

If you don't understand the language the text was written in, how do you know that the translator avoids a mistake?

You don't know German, Latin, or ancient Greek (I assume) but you can still understand Kant, Thomas Aquinas, and Aristotle.

Quoting PoeticUniverse

The first stanza, in italics, is Edward FitzGerald's transmogrification of Omar Khayyam. The rest are my own, as extensions of the idea of The Eternal Saki.

Thanks.

Quoting T Clark

Thanks.

[i]When You and I behind the Veil are past,
Oh, but the long, long while the World shall last,
Which of our Coming and Departure heeds
As much as Ocean of a pebble-cast.[/i]

The raindrop falls and returns to the sea;
Dust floats to earth and merges with the lea;
Lives come and go in time—what’s denoted?
Nows spark and fly; they’ve no eternity.

The drop wept for his severance from the sea,
But the sea smiled, for ‘I am all,’ said he,  
‘The Truth is all, nothing exists beside,
That one point circling apes plurality.’

Reply to Arcane Sandwich
Thank you for starting this thread.
For me, I think it is time to read and reflect again.

I note that there is a new edition. Downloadable with photographs and script.
https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html

The Tao Te Ching
by Lao Tzu
Source: The Complete Tao Te Ching
Translated by Gia-Fu Feng (??? Feng Jia-fu, 1919–1985) and Jane English (1942–) Vintage Books, 1989
First Vintage Books edition, 1972
2011 Edition - with over 100 photos

Twenty-five

Something mysteriously formed,
Born before heaven and earth.
In the silence and the void,
Standing alone and unchanging,
Ever present and in motion.
Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.
I do not know its name.
Call it Tao.
For lack of a better word, I call it great.

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

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

The human being follows the earth.
Earth follows heaven.
Heaven follows the Tao.
Tao follows what is natural.

From p50/162 of the pdf. Beautiful. Artistic and poetic.

About Jane English:

Quoting Wiki - Jane English

Jane English, born 1942 in Massachusetts, is a photographer, artist, and author who holds a doctorate in particle physics.

English received her B.A. in physics from Mount Holyoke College in 1964 and Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin–Madison for her work in high energy particle physics. She taught courses in Oriental thought and modern physics at Colorado College.[1]

English collaborated on a translation of the Tao Te Ching of Laozi which she illustrated through photography, in collaboration with her spouse Gia-Fu Feng.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Who says that it's just poetry? It can be science instead. Be cooperative, instead of intentionally trying to cause a disturbance in this Thread. I am the author of the OP and I am formally requesting you to be less disruptive. In other words, I'm giving you a "yellow card", a "warning", if you will.

I think you misinterpret @Janus's intentions. There is no disruption, here. Simply a questioning spirit.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Therefore, "Tao is great;
Heaven is great;
Earth is great;
The king is also great."
These are the four great powers of the universe,
And the king is one of them.
— Lao Tzu (Laozi)

The King is one of them. Who is to say that the King is not the Great Chinggis Khaan?

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Who is to say that the King is not instead Haile Selassie, Emperor of Ethiopia, the Second Incarnation of Christ, the Lion of Judah, who will unify all the peoples of Africa and all of the peoples of the African diaspora?

Jane English:

Quoting Amity

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

The human being follows the earth.
Earth follows heaven.
Heaven follows the Tao.
Tao follows what is natural.

Quoting Amazon - Tao Te Ching: Illustrated Edition: With Over 150 Photographs

Now Jane English and her long-time editor, Toinette Lippe, have refreshed and revised the translation, so that it more faithfully reflects the Classical Chinese in which it was first written, while taking into account changes in our own language and eliminating any lingering infelicities. [...] Also included is an introduction by the well-known writer and scholar of philosophy and comparative religion, Jacob Needleman.

You can read a sample. It includes a fascinating Foreword by Toinette Lippe.

Reply to PoeticUniverse
I've never read the rubaiyat. I should. I've added it to my list.

Quoting Wayfarer

It's about the fact that around 6th-3rd centuries B.C.E. a number of prophets and sages were active, including Pythagoras, Lao Tsu, the Buddha, and others, who set the wheels in motion for what were to become the great cultural formations of India, China and the West.

I've always wondered about this. I don't think there was much contact between the east and west 2,500 years ago, so why this coincidence? Perhaps I'm wrong about cross-cultural communication back then.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

what does the following phrase mean: "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao."

This is the heart of what Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, and others were trying to show us. The Tao is the primordial, undivided, unnamable reality. They call it "non-being." As I understand it it isn't even a thing. It doesn't exist until it's named and becomes "being." Being consists of the multiplicity of what we deal with on a daily basis. Horses, Danish pastry, electrons, Donald Trump Jr. They call it "the 10,000 things," which I love. That's @Janus's poetry. Not everyone sees it exactly this way.

The idea of "naming" is central to Taoism and it's something I've wrestled with. Who does the naming? Naming is dividing, making distinctions, embossing the Tao with human concepts. Both the Tao and the 10,000 things are respected, but they are not the same thing. See what I said previously about returning.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Who says that it's just poetry? It can be science instead. Be cooperative, instead of intentionally trying to cause a disturbance in this Thread. I am the author of the OP and I am formally requesting you to be less disruptive. In other words, I'm giving you a "yellow card", a "warning", if you will.

As we've discussed elsewhere, I think it's reasonable for you to work to keep the discussion on track as laid out in the original post. On the other hand, I don't see what @Janus is doing as intentionally disruptive.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Who is to say that the King is not instead Haile Selassie

It is, or at least it was. "King" refers to temporal rulers in China, so in Ethiopia and elsewhere, it refers to whoever is in charge there. A lot of the Tao Te Ching is explicitly political.

Forgive me for this. I just remembered that I wrote a long discussion of Verse 25 a few years ago for a discussion group I was in. It includes several different translations as well as some commentary by others. This discussion is based on my own understanding of the text and is in no way authoritative. I put it in hide/reveal so people can disregard it if they aren't interested.

[hide="Reveal"]Verse 25

Stephen Mitchell

There was something formless and perfect
before the universe was born.
It is serene. Empty.
Solitary. Unchanging.
Infinite. Eternally present.
It is the mother of the universe.
For lack of a better name,
I call it the Tao.
It flows through all things,
inside and outside, and returns
to the origin of all things.

The Tao is great.
The universe is great.
Earth is great.
Man is great.
These are the four great powers.

Man follows the earth.
Earth follows the universe.
The universe follows the Tao.
The Tao follows only itself.

Ellen Marie Chen

There was something nebulous existing (yu wu hun ch’eng),
Born before heaven and earth.
Silent, empty,
Standing alone (tu), altering not (pu kaki),
Moving cyclically without becoming exhausted (pu tai),
Which may be called the mother of all under heaven.
I know not its name,
I give its alias (tzu), Tao.
If forced to picture it,
I say it is “great” (ta).

Therefore Tao is great,
Heaven is great,
Earth is great,
The king is also great.
In the realm there are four greats,
And the king is one of them.
Humans follow (fa) earth,
Earth follows heaven,
Heaven follows Tao,
Tao follows self-becoming (tzu-jan).

Ron Hogan

Something perfect has existed forever,
even longer than the universe.
It's a vast, unchanging void.
There's nothing else like it.
It goes on forever and never stops.
Everything else came from it.
I don't know what else to call it
So I'll call it Tao.
What's it like?
I can tell you this much: it's great.

Something that great lasts.
Something that lasts goes a long way.
And something that goes a long way
always comes back to the beginning.

Tao's great.
Heaven's great.
Earth's great.
And someone who's in touch with Tao is great, too.
Those are the four greatest things in the universe
and a Master is one of them.

Someone who's in touch with Tao
is in touch with the earth.
The earth is in touch with heaven.
Heaven's in touch with Tao.
Tao's in touch with the way things are.

I like this verse, at least the first stanza. I get a bit lost in the others, especially since some of the translations indicate that the other stanzas directly follow from the first. I don’t see the connection.

I’ve included Ron Hogan’s interpretation, which I can’t decide if I like. This translation was suggested by ZzzoneiroCosm. It’s much more American and less poetic than any of the other translations. If I had read it first, I don’t know if I would have been attracted to the Tao Te Ching as much as I was.

I’ve also included all of Lin Yutang’s selections from the Chuang Tzu, which I really like.

Stanza 1 - Stephen Mitchell’s translation

There was something formless and perfect
before the universe was born.
It is serene. Empty.
Solitary. Unchanging.
Infinite. Eternally present.
It is the mother of the universe.
For lack of a better name,
I call it the Tao.
It flows through all things,
inside and outside, and returns
to the origin of all things.

As I noted, I like this stanza. It feels like a review section before the midterm exam for the verses covered so far. I especially like the discussion of how the Tao got its name. Turns out it was just made up because we couldn’t think of anything else to call it. It’s kind of a nickname. For me that answers the paradox of Verse 1, where Lao Tzu just jumps in without explanation and names the nameless.

The subject of the cyclic return of the 10,000 things to the Tao is reiterated here. As I’ve noted in earlier posts, I struggled with this idea for a long time. Now, I see it as recognition that, while the Tao is separated into the 10,000 things by the act of naming, the 10,000 things are always returning to the Tao, i.e. that the act of creation didn’t happen 14 billion years ago, it’s always happening. It’s happening now. I think the idea of returning is one of those things that means different things depending on the situation.

Stanzas 2 and 3 - Stephen Mitchell translation

The Tao is great.
The universe is great.
Earth is great.
Man is great.
These are the four great powers.

Man follows the earth.
Earth follows the universe.
The universe follows the Tao.
The Tao follows only itself.

These stanzas discuss what I have called a “ladder” in previous posts. There are a lot of different ladders in the Tao Te Ching and related documents. Here are a few examples:

From Verse 42 - Stephen Mitchell

The Tao gives birth to One.
One gives birth to Two.
Two gives birth to Three.
Three gives birth to all things.

From Verse 18 - Stephan Stenud

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.

From “The Great One Gives Birth to the Waters” - a text related to the Tao Te Ching. Very confusing.

{The Great One} gave birth to Water. Water returned to assist (A) {The Great One}, [and] by means of this the Heavens were completed/manifested. The Heavens returned to assist {The Great One}, [and] by means of this the Earth was completed. The Heavens and Earth [returned to assist each other] [and] by means of this the Spirits and Luminaries were completed. The Spirits and Luminaries returned to assist each other, [and] by means of this Yin and Yang were completed. Yin and Yang returned to assist each other, [and] by means of this the Four Seasons were completed. The Four Seasons returned to assist each other (E), [and] by means of this Cold and Hot (F) were completed. Cold and Hot returned to assist each other, [and] by means of this Wet and Dry (G) were completed. Wet and Dry returned to assist each other, completing the Yearly Cycle (H) and that‘s all….

In this verse, it seems as if Lao Tzu is working to connect the cosmic and the human. To show where we fit in.

Man follows the earth.
Earth follows the universe.
The universe follows the Tao.
The Tao follows only itself.

In some of the translations, instead of “man” it says “the ruler,” which raises the question that comes up often - whether the Tao Te Ching is meant for all of us or just the bosses.

Humanity, Earth, Heaven, and the Tao are called the four great powers. There is clearly a hierarchy with the Tao at the top.

Lin Yutang’s commentary

In this chapter, the working of the eternal principle of Tao and the silent revolutions of the heavenly bodies are seen as a model worthy of the imitation by man. It restates the argument that Tao should not be named, and if it is given a name, it is purely an exigency of human speech. It also states the principle of reversion of all things to their origin, a principle which makes creation and destruction different aspects of the same process.The universe is an orchestrated symphony, where human beings follow the laws of the land in which they live. At a level above this, the Earth follows the laws of astronomy - the rules that govern the motions of heavenly bodies. The cosmos in turn follow the patterns of the Tao at a macroscopic level. Ultimately, the Tao itself follows natural laws, which arise from the Tao process. This underscores the self-sufficiency and self-completeness of the Tao.

Lin Yutang’s selections from the Chuang Tzu relevant to this verse

The Chuang Tzu, also called the Zhuangzi, is the second foundational text of Taoism, written a couple of hundred years after the Tao Te Ching.

25.1. THE MYSTERY OF THE UNIVERSE. Is the sky revolving around? Is the earth remaining still? Are the sun and the moon competing for their places? Who manages them? Who holds them in control? Who has nothing to do and is making these things move? Is it perhaps that there is a mechanism so that the heavenly bodies cannot help themselves? Is it perhaps that they continue to revolve and cannot stop themselves? Clouds become rain, and rain becomes clouds. Who makes them rise and come down? Who has nothing to do and is urging them to do so for his own pleasure? The wind rises from the north; it blows east and west, and there is a steady blow in the stratosphere. Who is sucking and blowing it alternately? Who has nothing to do and is shaking it about like this?

Chuangtse does not answer the questions directly, but in the following paragraph speaks of these operations of nature in a description of what he calls the heavenly Tse-jan, lit. “self-so,” ”self-formed,” “‘that which is so by Itself.”

THE IMITATION OF TAO which ends with a quotation from an old sacred song of Yu-yen (Shen-nung')
.
''You listen and cannot hear Its voice, you look and cannot see its form. It fills the whole universe and encompasses the six points of space. You want to listen to it, and yet there is no point of
Contact. See also the selection 6.i, 'The Silent, Beautiful
Universe” "The heaven cannot help being high, the earth cannot
help being wide. The sun and the moon cannot help going around, and all things of the creation cannot help but live and grow. Perhaps this is Tao.See the context in 4.1. "Existing before the heaven and earth, it is not regarded as long ago, being older than the primeval beginnings, it is not regarded as old.'

25 2 TAO IS NAMED "GREAT.' THE ETERNAL CYCLES.

"Can you then just call it Tao?” asked Little Knowledge."No, replied Taikung Tiao. 'We speak of The myriad things' of the creation, although we know that there are more than a myriad of them. Because the number is so great, we just call it 'myriad.' The heaven and earth are the great in form. The yin and yang are the great in force. Tao is great in both. We merely give it the name "Great” because of its greatness. But with a given name,
it should not be compared with the names for other things. One cannot go on and argue that Tao is something by that name, as we say that dogs and horses are animals by those names. For that would be far off the mark.” 'Within the four points of the compass and above and how do the myriad things take their rise?” asked Little Knowledge. 'The yin and the yang principles act on one another, reflect one another and keep one another in place. The four seasons follow one another in succession, interrelated in their coming and going. Hence arise likes and
dislikes, and choices and preferences.

The male and the female mate and the race is continued. Peace and chaos follow one another; fortune breeds misfortune and vice versa. The slow and the quick rub against each other and things are formed and disperse. These are some of the things that we can say about material things and some of the subtle pnnciples that we can put down. All order is bom of a principle, and all rise and decay are interrelated. When something reaches a limit, then it reverses its direction; when the end is reached, the beginning begins. This is all that is evidenced by the material world, all that we know and all that we can say. And after all, our knowledge does not extend beyond the material universe. He who observes the working of Tao does not try to follow a thing to its very end, nor trace it to its very source. There all discussion ends.' (7:4)

25.3. COMPIETE, ENTIRE AND ALL. The three. Complete, Entire and All differ in name, but are the same in reality. They all indicate the One. Once they roamed about together in the Palace of Nowhere. Did they get together to discuss things and never come to an end? Did they go about doing nothing together, and remain mellow and quiet, and indifferent and free? Did they
get along well and spend their idle hours together? Free and unfettered is my mind, it reaches out and does not know where it reaches, it returns and does not know where it stops. My mind goes back and forth and does not know where it all ends. It loiters in the sphere of the Great Void, where the great Sage enters and does not know where it leads to. To realize that
matter is matter is to reach the infinite with matter. Where matter is finite, it is the limitations of finite matter. The limit of the limitless is the limitlessness of the limited. To take the phenomena of rise and fall, growth and decay, it does not regard rise and fall as rise and fall, and it does not regard growth and decay as growth and decay. It does not regard beginning and
end as beginning and end. It does not regard formation and dispersion as formation and dispersion. (6:3)

Derek Lin’s commentary

There is something that is formless, shapeless and non-physical, and yet also complete and perfect. Whatever it is, this "thing" existed before the universe came into being. How silent, tranquil and still! How ethereal, empty and boundless! It is completely independent and self-sufficient. Its nature is eternal and unchanging. Its functions circulate within every level of existence without ever stopping. Because it is the source of all creation, we can consider it to be the mother of all things. I do not know its name; I do not even know that it has a name. In order to identify it, I reluctantly call it the arbitrary name "Tao." If I were forced to describe it, I would have to say it is great beyond compare. Being great, it is always in a state of transition. Being perpetually in motion, it seems to recede far away from us. Being far away, it returns again to us. This great circle is the nature of Tao.

Therefore, the Tao is great. Heaven and Earth, being manifestations of the Tao, are also great. A leader who manifests the Tao, and can serve as an example for the people, is also great. He or she occupies one of the four aspects of greatness.[/hide]

@Amity @T Clark :up:

Reply to T Clark It’s not so much coincidence as parallel development. Have a browse of the Wikipedia entry on it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_Age

Reply to T Clark I'm looking at these different translations (Thank You Sincerely for taking the time and energy to hunt them down and share them here).

It is like you said: We cannot fully understand the True Tao, only catch glimpses of it, with the help of the many different translations.

Reply to Wayfarer Thank you very much for that useful reference.

Reply to Amity Thank you very much for your kind words, friend, and for your helpful contributions to this Thread.

Quoting Wayfarer

It’s not so much coincidence as parallel development.

Thanks. I probably used a confusing word. By "coincidence" I meant that the events described happened at the same time, not that it was (necessarily) a matter of chance. The article indicates it doesn't appear there was any intellectual or cultural contact between east and west during this period, which goes back to my original question.

Quoting T Clark

If it doesn't work for you, that's no surprise. It doesn't work for lots of people. It works for me.

Cheers T Clark, it actually does work for me. It and the Bhagavad Gita are two of my favorite texts.

Quoting Janus

it actually does work for me. It and the Bhagavad Gita are two of my favorite texts.

Then why were you so argumentative?

Quoting T Clark

Then why were you so argumentative?

I was questioning the justification for this interpretation which was being presented as the one true interpretation:
:
Quoting Arcane Sandwich

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

"What is natural" = Nature.

In some other translations, the last line says "Tao follows itself". That, is an entirely different interpretation.

I wanted to know why the OP was saying that the Dao is not Nature. To my mind I did not receive a satisfactory response, so I continued to question what was offered.

I have argued that the text, being poetical, does not have one true interpretation. The OP took it personally, so I decided to desist. I've no desire to offend anyone, and I always assume that people who post on a philosophy forum are open to having their ideas critiqued, until they show that they are not so open after all.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

EDIT: Moliere this might interest you, given our most recent philosophical conversation elsewhere on this Forum.

I've noticed on this forum if you edit in an "@' that it will not snag the person whose been '@"-ed -- just an fyi.

But I've been reading along (and obviously re-reading along) because I find the topic interesting -- only silent because I don't have anything to say.

It's at that border where sometimes something pops to mind and sometimes I just appreciate that others are talking about it.

Quoting Janus

I was questioning the justification for this interpretation which was being presented as the one true interpretation:

I misunderstood. I thought you were trying to call into question the entire approach of the Tao Te Ching, which would have been outside the scope of the discussion as described in the OP.

Reply to T Clark :up:

Quoting Janus

I was questioning the justification for this interpretation which was being presented as the one true interpretation:
:

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

"What is natural" = Nature.

In some other translations, the last line says "Tao follows itself". That, is an entirely different interpretation. — Arcane Sandwich


I wanted to know why the OP was saying that the Dao is not Nature. To my mind I did not receive a satisfactory response, so I continued to question what was offered.

Your response was in the OP itself:

Quoting Lao Tzu (Laozi)

Tao follows what is natural.

I've said my piece about that, several times. So, there are only two explanations here: either you still fail to understand that this is the topic that the Thread is investigating in a collaborative manner, or you are simply trolling.

Quoting Janus

I have argued that the text, being poetical, does not have one true interpretation.

You did not argue anything, you simply blurted out an opinion and wrongly assumed what my own thoughts about it are. You offered no argument whatsoever.

Quoting Janus

The OP took it personally, so I decided to desist.

The author of the Original Post, as in, myself, did not take anything personally. Again, stop assuming and stop making accusations, you uncivilized, uneducated barbarian.

Quoting Janus

I've no desire to offend anyone, and I always assume that people who post on a philosophy forum are open to having their ideas critique

Does a soccer player get kicked out of the game for receiving a warning in the form of a yellow card? No, he does not. Have I prohibited you from critiquing my ideas? No, I have not. Again, stop assuming and stop making accusations, you rude, uncivilized, uneducated barbarian.

Quoting Janus

until they show that they are not so open after all.

Again, have I prohibited you from critiquing my ideas? No, I have not. Again, stop assuming and stop making accusations, you rude, uncivilized, uneducated barbarian.

I have reported your comment, and this is the second warning from me that you're getting. If you keep up your disruptive behavior, the moderation team will have to step in. Drop the attitude or get kicked out of the Thread. Let a thousand flowers bloom and may your head roll if you dare to cut a single one. Plant one, cut one, or simply watch them grow. Your choice.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

you rude, uncivilized, uneducated barbarian.

This ad hominem shows you are obviously taking it personally. Others, with more balanced views have said they did not see me being disruptive but merely questioning. I have carefully read your responses, and they did not satisfy me at all. I still don't know why you want to separate Dao from Nature.

Call the mods in: I am confident they will not see my questions as disruptive. The disposition of one who finds reasonable critical questions disruptive rather than acknowledging them as being simply disagreements is more that of the proselytizer than the philosopher in my view.

Anyway, I have no desire to offend, so I won't bother you again.

Quoting Janus

Anyway, I have no desire to offend, so I won't bother you again.

You're not offending me personally, you're disrupting the Thread. This isn't my Thread, it's a public Thread, and you're doing a disservice to it by trying to see if I personally tolerate your lack of etiquette. It seems like you don't understand the rules of etiquette when discussing the Tao Te Ching. This isn't the coffee shop, and it's not the book reading club either. This particular topic has its own subset of specific rules, in addition to the general rules that any topic of conversation has.

Quoting Janus

Call the mods in: I am confident they will not see my questions as disruptive. The disposition of one who find reasonable critical questions disruptive rather than acknowledging them as being simply disagreements is more that of the proselytizer than the philosopher in my view.

And your view is mistaken. Your questions are not disruptive: your attitude is the disruptive element here.

Quoting Janus

you rude, uncivilized, uneducated barbarian. — Arcane Sandwich


This ad hominem shows you are obviously taking it personally.

It's not an ad hominem, it's a description of your character. It would be ad hominem if I said that your views are mistaken because of your personal characteristics. But since I've said no such thing, it does not qualify as an ad hominem. Go educate yourself on what an ad hominem is, before incorrectly using that term.

Quoting Janus

Others, with more balanced views have said they did not see me being disruptive but merely questioning.

Good for them. I have no obligation to share their views, just as you are under no obligation to share mine. You are still here after all, aren't you?

Quoting Janus

I have carefully read your responses, and they did not satisfy me at all.

Here's what you're saying: "I'm not satisfied. Satisfy me."
Newsflash: I'm under no obligation to satisfy you.

Quoting Janus

I still don't know why you want to separate Dao from Nature.

Again:

Quoting Lao Tzu (Laozi)

Tao follows what is natural.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

And your view is mistaken. Your questions are not disruptive: your attitude is the disruptive element here.

You know only my questions, you don't know my attitude. and it is presumptuous of you to think you do.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

It's not an ad hominem, it's a description of your character. It would be ad hominem if I said that your views are mistaken because of your personal characteristics.

It is an ad hominem because instead of addressing my arguments on their own terms you presume to know my character and dismiss what I say on account of that, which is of course absurd. Did you really think my views were not mistaken?

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Here's what you're saying: "I'm not satisfied. Satisfy me."
Newsflash: I'm under no obligation to satisfy you.

Of course you're not obligated. I had no intention of disrupting the thread, and even if I had you had no obligation to respond at all. you could have just ignored my posts. That's what I would do if I thought someone was being intentionally disruptive. I had thought that you might be interested in alternative views and in presenting actual justifications for your own views, but apparently not.

Anyway. I have no interest in attempting to engage with you further.

Quoting Janus

You know only my questions, you don't know my attitude. and it is presumptuous of you to think you do.

False. Your attitude is observable in the way that you choose to express yourself and communicate yourself in your written text. Lawyers and judges have no problem identifying the intentions of a person in a written communication of theirs. Nor, for that matter, ordinary people like you and me. So, stop lying.

Quoting Janus

It is an ad hominem because instead of addressing my arguments on their own terms

False. I already addressed your arguments on your own terms, many times.

Quoting Janus

you presume to know my character and dismiss what I say on account of that

False. I actually know what your character has been throughout this conversation, in the same sense that a Lawyer could, and in the same sense that any ordinary person can.

Quoting Janus

which is of course absurd.

False. It would be, if such was the case, but such is not the case, as I have already explained in my previous post. You don't understand the concept of what an ad hominem fallacy is. It's not identical to "just an insult". It is instead a type of fallacious reasoning. It requires at least two premises, and a conclusion that is deductively obtained. Ad hominems are not fallacious in account of their logical form, since they are indeed deductively valid arguments. That is why they are informal fallacies. It is their unsoundness that makes them fallacious. There you go, a free class on what an ad hominem fallacy is. Do you really think that this is the best use of my time, and of the Thread's attention? You could have learned this all by yourself.

Quoting Janus

Did you really think my views were not mistaken?

Your views are mistaken. If you disagree, explain why you disagree. Simple as that. Or, just tuck tail and run away. Or are you going to say that saying such a common saying is also a fallacy on my part?

Quoting Janus

I had no intention of disrupting the thread,

But you did it anyways. The fact that you're having this conversation with me is disruptive to the Thread. And you're dragging me into that Chaos as well. Because now I'm disrupting the Thread just as much as you are, and I take exception to that. This is not how a noble book such as the Tao Te Ching deserves to be spoken about. Do you even understand this basic concept, yes or no?

Quoting Janus

you had no obligation to respond at all. you could have just ignored my posts.

I have no obligation to remain silent either, especially in a Thread that I started, even though it's a public Thread, about a topic that I am passionate about. I tolerated you enough during the first messages of our exchange, but you keep doubling-down on your mistaken opinions.

Quoting Janus

That's what I would do

You do you, and let me do me.

Quoting Janus

if I thought someone was being intentionally disruptive.

I don't care if it was intentional or not. You're the one that said that I can't know your intentions, aren't you?

Quoting Janus

I had thought that you might be interested in alternative views

Yes, I am. That is why I started a Thread about it in the first place. Why do I have to explain such basic things to you? Do you not know these things already?

Quoting Janus

and in presenting actual justifications for your own views

If you don't like my justifications (i.e. "actual"), then explain what's wrong about them, instead of disrupting the Thread.

Quoting Janus

but apparently not.

Oh, so you know the inner workings of my mind, but I don't know the inner workings of yours? Is that it? I can't know your character or your attitude, but you somehow can know my character and my attitude? Do you see how senseless and mistaken your opinion is, on this specific point?

Quoting Janus

Anyway. I have no interest in attempting to engage with you further.

Then why are you doing it? Engage or don't engage, I don't care. If you want to talk about the Tao Te Ching here, you are welcome to do so. If you want to argue with me over the rules of this conversation, then I will ask that you relate that to the Tao Te Ching in some way. Otherwise, I'll just keep pointing out the fact that your interventions just keep impoverishing the quality of this Thread, and what's worse is that you've turned me into your accomplice in that sense.

I have no desire to engage further but if you insist on misrepresenting me then I feel compelled to correct you.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

False. Your attitude is observable in the way that you choose to express yourself and communicate yourself in your written text.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

False. I actually know what your character has been throughout this conversation, in the same sense that a Lawyer could, and in the same sense that any ordinary person can.

And your interpretations are infallible? I guess not since my attitude was never one of wishing to disrupt the thread. And the fact that others disagree with you about my attitude shows your idea of an "observable attitude" to be false.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

False. I already addressed your arguments on your own terms, many times.

You may believe that. It is not the way I see it. Call in the mods and let's see what they think.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Your views are mistaken. If you disagree, explain why you disagree. Simple as that.

What views are you referring to and why do you think they are mistaken. Answer that, and if I think you are right, I will change my views and if I disagree, I will defend the views in question.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

But you did it anyways. The fact that you're having this conversation with me is disruptive to the Thread.

I am merely defending myself against your personal attacks. You are disrupting your own thread.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

This is not how a noble book such as the Tao Te Ching deserves to be spoken about. Do you even understand this basic concept, yes or no?

I love the Tao Te Ching, and I have said nothing against it. I have merely questioned assertions you have made about its correct interpretation and asked you to explain them, which, as I see it, you are yet to do. I question the very idea of a correct interpretation.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

but apparently not.
— Janus

Oh, so you know the inner workings of my mind, but I don't know the inner workings of yours?

I'm not claiming to know that. I only know how it appears to me—hence "apparently". Perhaps you should learn to read more carefully.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Otherwise, I'll just keep pointing out the fact that your interventions just keep impoverishing the quality of this Thread, and what's worse is that you've turned me into your accomplice in that sense.

If my "interventions" that is questions have impoverished the thread, then how much more have your ad hominem attacks on me done so?

Shall we leave it here? Or if you want to answer my questions about precisely which views of mine are mistaken and why you think they are we could resume a civil discussion. It's your call.

Quoting Janus

I have no desire to engage further

Then why do you keep doing it?

Quoting Janus

if you insist on misrepresenting me then I feel compelled to correct you.

Then why do you need to state that you have no desire to engage further?

Quoting Janus

And your interpretations are infallible?

I don't know. Are they? You tell me.

Quoting Janus

I guess not

"Guessing" is not a valid methodological element of any philosophy worth it's salt.

Quoting Janus

my attitude was never one of wishing to disrupt the thread.

Who cares what you wished or didn't wish? Right now, you and me are both disrupting it, because we're detracting from the Main Topic, which is Chapter 25 of the Tao Te Ching.

Quoting Janus

the fact that others disagree with you about my attitude shows your idea of an "observable attitude" to be false.

So you just state that as a sound methodological thesis? Seems a bit flimsy to me. Is your observation or experiment repeatable? Do social scientists use that concept in their actual scientific work? Or do you just freestyle it in the sociology department?

Quoting Janus

You may believe that. It is not the way I see it. Call in the mods and let's see what they think.

I don't need to follow your orders. I will call in the mods when, and if, I see fit to do such a thing.

Quoting Janus

What views are you referring to and why do you think they are mistaken. Answer that, and if I think you are right, I will change my views and if I disagree, I will defend the views in question.

I'll let you choose. Pick some view of yours, and I will explain to you why that view in particular is mistaken. Or, like I said, just tuck tail and run away.

Quoting Janus

I am merely defending myself against your personal attacks.

And I am merely defending the Quality of this Thread against your qualitatively impoverishing comments.

Quoting Janus

You are disrupting your own thread.

Gee, I wonder who should take the blame here? Any ideas, Doc?

Quoting Janus

I love the Tao Te Ching, and I have said nothing against it. I have merely questioned assertions you have made about its correct interpretation and asked you to explain them, which, as I see it, you have to do. I question the very idea of a correct interpretation.

And I do not, for there is indeed such a thing as the correct interpretation of a written text.

Quoting Janus

I'm not claiming to know that. I only know how it appears to me—hence "apparently". Perhaps you should learn to read more carefully.

Perhaps you should learn how not to derail a public Thread, to say nothing of also learning how to get a public Thread back on track.

Quoting Janus

If my "interventions" that is questions have impoverished the thread, then how much more have your ad hominem attacks on me done so?

I explained to you why the statement "ad hominem = insult" is false. An ad hominem is not identical to an insult. An insult is just a statement. An ad hominem is a series of statements. The fact that I have to explain something so basic to you is an example of the consequences that your disruptive behavior brings to this Thread.

Quoting Janus

Shall we leave it here?

Do you whatever you want. I'm not going to "shut up", if that's what you're implying. If you say something, then I will probably say something back. Simple as that.

Quoting Janus

Or if you want to answer my questions about precisely which views of mine are mistaken and why you think they are we could resume a civil discussion. It's your call.

See above. Pick a view of yours that you believe that I disagree with, and I will explain to you why your view is mistaken. And relate it to the Tao Te Ching in some way, specifically to Chapter 25.

Otherwise, yeah, you're just impoverishing the quality of this conversation, which happens to be about a noble book that deserves better.

(Edited for quality)

Reply to Arcane Sandwich :roll:

Quoting Janus

Arcane Sandwich :roll:

That is another example and instance of a qualitatively impoverishing comment. Emojis impoverish the quality of any serious conversation. And the Tao Te Ching deserves better. It demands seriousness.

As the author of the Original Post (OP) of this public Thread, I have the authority to put this Thread back on track. And that is exactly what will happen now.

However, we are so, sooo far away from the Main Topic (Chapter 25 of the Tao Te Ching), that first and foremost, some ambience is required to get back to the Main Topic.

Therefore, I share the following song with the intention (I intend it as such) of getting back to Chapter 25 of the Tao Te Ching:



And here are the lyrics to that:

Quoting Borknagar

From out of static time has grown
Existence formed by substance unknown
Prelude to matter, shift of disorder
Completion of bonds between chaos and order

The era of seasons, the essence of being
The continuous process awakens the living
Absorber of every flickering sun
Arranging the pieces to vivid perfection

The stream of mortality flows uncontrolled
A boundless downward spiral to prospective void

Existence takes its toll,
extinction unfolds

The Colossus falls back from its threshold

The cosmic grip so tight. Heed the celestial call
The rise, the voyage, the fall- tangled womb of mortal soil

Universal key of inception, pulled out of the grind
The growing seed of creation and time
Complex fusion, the bond of four- the nature's core
Universal ritual, aesthetic beauty adored
The pendulum upholds the carnal deceit
Eternal, endless, indefinite

The paradox, render and the merge is complete

Nothing but the process is infinite
Nothing but the process is infinite
Eternal, endless, indefinite

@Wayfarer, is it too much of a stretch of the imagination to relate the lyrics of this song, to the first part of Chapter 25 of the Tao Te Ching?

Quoting Borknagar

Eternal, endless, indefinite

And what does that "look like", from an Anthropological Point of View? It looks more or less like the following:



EDIT:

[quote="Immortal;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal_(band)"]Armored horses,
gloves of steel.

Silver blades,
time to reveal.

We're the tyrants
that guard the land
Proud upon our gilded thrones.

Servants of the great ancestors
Who guarded the gates to infinity.

Once kings of shadows
on these blackened fields.

All the might and domination ruled the realms of the above

Inconquerable walls.
Weapons of might.

Splendor and nobility.
Barbaric times.

We're the tyrants
that guard the land
Proud upon our gilded thrones.

Kings remain
at their thrones.
Immortal and invincible, the mighty live on.

Armies hoovered across the land, here roll the Rivers of Red, beyond that has no man been.

Moments of time roll
Deep within the mind
Thoughts roam free and endless
Remembering the tyrant's time.

We're the tyrants.

Let's try the following, simply as a working hypothesis:

Quoting Lao Tzu (Laozi)

Something mysteriously formed,
Born before heaven and Earth.
In the silence and the void,
Standing alone and unchanging,
Ever present and in motion.

Quoting Borknagar

From out of static time has grown
Existence formed by substance unknown
Prelude to matter, shift of disorder
Completion of bonds between chaos and order

Quoting Lao Tzu (Laozi)

Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.
I do not know its name
Call it Tao.
For lack of a better word, I call it great.

Quoting Borknagar

The era of seasons, the essence of being
The continuous process awakens the living
Absorber of every flickering sun
Arranging the pieces to vivid perfection

Quoting Lao Tzu (Laozi)

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

Quoting Borknagar

The stream of mortality flows uncontrolled
A boundless downward spiral to prospective void

Existence takes its toll,
extinction unfolds

The Colossus falls back from its threshold

Quoting Lao Tzu (Laozi)

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

Quoting Borknagar

The cosmic grip so tight. Heed the celestial call
The rise, the voyage, the fall- tangled womb of mortal soil

Universal key of inception, pulled out of the grind
The growing seed of creation and time
Complex fusion, the bond of four- the nature's core
Universal ritual, aesthetic beauty adored
The pendulum upholds the carnal deceit
Eternal, endless, indefinite

The paradox, render and the merge is complete

Quoting Lao Tzu (Laozi)

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

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

is it too much of a stretch of the imagination to relate the lyrics of this song, to the first part of Chapter 25 of the Tao Te Ching?

I don’t really go in for such comparisons. I will sometimes post graphics or videos to make a point, but rarely, and usually when their direct.

Quoting Wayfarer

I don’t really go in for such comparisons. I will sometimes post graphics or videos to make a point, but rarely, and usually when their direct.

Thank you very much, Wayfarer.

Reply to Arcane Sandwich That’s OK! I appreciate your courtesy.

Quoting Janus

If everything that can be said misses the mark then there is no point discussing it. On the other hand how could you know if the mark has been missed if you don't know what it is?

The "mark" is the "problem." The mark is not a place, or a fact, or a destination. You're already the mark. If the mark is the hand pointing, of course it's missing the mark when it points [away]. Then why point? Because with all of our pointing; not just wisdom like so-called Taoism; but calling a certain fruit an apple, proposing that e=mc², etc etc, we've succeeded at something spectacular and functional, and thereby forgotten that the hand pointing is the mark. At least, the wisdom like taoism and phenomenology, etc etc, is attempting to remember that the hand pointing has been and will continue to be the mark. But because we are so attached to the [language of] the pointing, and forgotten that the hand pointing is the mark, pointing is the only thing we've got. How could you know? That's the problem. You can't know the hand pointing at the mark, knowing is pointing. You must be the hand pointing at the mark. Then both pointing and mark finally fall away.

Quoting Janus

OK, so the translations contradict one another. How do you know which is correct, or considering what I said just above, how can there be a correct and incorrect at all?

Quoting Janus

I have argued that the text, being poetical, does not have one true interpretation

Yes. There are many translations and interpretations. Different approaches and readings.
From: https://terebess.hu/english/tao/_index.html

***

I'm currently working on the Jane English updated version but still keep others in mind. Quoting Amity

Downloadable with photographs and script.
2011 Edition - with over 100 photos

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html

***

Jane English:
Twenty-five

The human being follows the earth.
Earth follows heaven.
Heaven follows the Tao.
Tao follows what is natural.

It's interesting to consider what is meant by 'follow'. Some see this as a hierarchy. With the Tao at the top. For example:

Quoting T Clark

Humanity, Earth, Heaven, and the Tao are called the four great powers. There is clearly a hierarchy with the Tao at the top.

Quoting T Clark

I see this as one depiction of the hierarchy of steps between the Tao and the king or humankind.

Here, there seems to be a separation between vertical levels. 'Low' humans, portrayed as basic, climbing upwards to reach the Taoist Way. Perhaps, an eternal return. I like to think that humans form part of Nature's cycle. We 'follow' as in accompany. So, the form or structure is more of a circle than a ladder.

As humans we are part of nature, we can honour it, or not. We can listen to music, hear the birdsong or that created by humans. For whatever reason. We follow, or flow with, the circle of life and its seasons. The 'power' element variable. Being or doing 'great' is wide-ranging. In a colourful and creative spectrum.

The Jane English version:

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

***

To return to the circle. As depicted in the Yin-Yang symbol:

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Here is the Tao that can be told, and it shows the eternal Tao (the Tao that cannot be told)

[The Yin-Yang symbol is inserted ]

***
Further information:

Quoting Learn Religions - 8 important Taoist Visual Symbols

Taoist Cosmology. How do Yin and Yang relate to qi (chi), the Tao, and the Five Elements? This is Taoism's story of the creation and maintenance and continuous transformation of the universe.

Taoist practitioners enter into a "path of return"—a movement from the myriad things of the world back into wuji. The Immortals, or those who have entered the Tao, are those who have completed this "path of return."

Yin Qi and Yang Qi give birth to the Five Elements, whose various combinations produce the Ten-Thousand-Things.

The operation of the Five Elements can be seen within the human body, within an ecosystem, or within any other living system. When the elements of a system are in balance, the cycles of generation and control function to both nourish and contain one another. When the elements are out of balance, they "overact" on and/or "insult" one another.

From Jane English:
Quoting Tao - Earth Heart Blog - Jane English

Yin-Yang and The Ten Thousand Things

The traditional yin-yang (feminine/dark-masculine/light) symbol below shows a bit of yin in yang and of yang in yin. A phrase that appears often in Tao Te Ching is “the ten-thousand things,” as in this excerpt from that book:

Tao begot one
One begot two
Two begot three
And three begot the ten-thousand things.
The ten-thousand things carry yin and embrace yang
They achieve harmony by combining these forces
— Tao Te Ching, Chapter 42

This image below, Yin, Yang and the Ten-Thousand Things, came to me in meditation around 1988. It shows yin-yang opening up and bringing forth their rainbow children, all of creation, the “ten-thousand things.”

[Image]

Expanding on that traditional symbol and rather than seeing yin and yang as opposites, we can realize a co-creative balance of masculine yang and feminine yin in our lives, so that their children, the rainbow of our creativity, the ten-thousand things, can be born.

Tao may be found not only in the undivided ground of being, nor solely in the polarity of yin and yang, dark and light, dynamic and receptive, but also everywhere in the full rainbow spectrum of the ten-thousand things: all the myriad ways the un-nameable whole is divided into discrete beings.
—from page 16 in the book A Rainbow of Tao

***
Quoting Janus

Anyway. I have no interest in attempting to engage with you further.

I hope you can continue to engage with the text. Even if you just read along...
I've returned to the TTC, after a prolonged break. Sometimes, we need that. :sparkle:

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

However, we are so, sooo far away from the Main Topic (Chapter 25 of the Tao Te Ching), that first and foremost, some ambience is required to get back to the Main Topic.

Therefore, I share the following song with the intention (I intend it as such) of getting back to Chapter 25 of the Tao Te Ching:

Nothing quite like a bit of ambience. I hope you don't mind but I'd like to share the harmony of singer/musicians playing tribute to George Harrison and 'All Things Must Pass':


“All Things Must Pass,” the title song of George Harrison’s 1970 triple album, was inspired by Timothy Leary’s poem All Things Pass, an adaptation of the Tao Te Ching. The Beatles rehearsed the song in January 1969 but did not include it on the Let It Be album. Billy Preston was the first to release the song, as “All Things (Must) Pass,” in 1970.

Quoting All Things Pass - Timothy Leary

All Things Pass
by Timothy Leary

All things pass
A sunrise does not last all morning
All things pass
A cloudburst does not last all day
All things pass
Nor a sunset all night
All things pass
What always changes?

Earth . . . sky . . . thunder . . .
mountain . . . water . . .
wind . . . fire . . . lake . . .

These change
And if these do not last

Do man's visions last?
Do man's illusions?

Take things as they come

All things pass


Translation:
Language: English
Author of original: Lao Tzu

https://www.poemhunter.com/lao-tzu-2/

Reply to Arcane Sandwich
Quoting Lao Tzu (Laozi)

Twenty-five

Something mysteriously formed,
Born before heaven and Earth.
In the silence and the void,
Standing alone and unchanging,
Ever present and in motion.
Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.
[b]I do not know its name
Call it Tao.[/b]
For lack of a better word, I call it great.

Reply to Arcane Sandwich

I need to revise what is meant by the Tao as it corresponds to Nature, related to humanity.
Turning to wiki:

Quoting Wiki - Tao

The Tao or Dao[note 1] is the natural way of the universe, primarily as conceived in East Asian philosophy and religion. This seeing of life cannot be grasped as a concept. Rather, it is seen through actual living experience of one's everyday being.

Theconcept is represented by the Chinese character ?, which has meanings including 'way', 'path', 'road', and sometimes 'doctrine' or 'principle'.[1]

In the Tao Te Ching, the ancient philosopher Laozi explains that the Tao is not a name for a thing, but the underlying natural order of the universe whose ultimate essence is difficult to circumscribe because it is non-conceptual yet evident in one's being of aliveness.
The Tao is "eternally nameless" and should be distinguished from the countless named things that are considered to be its manifestations, the reality of life before its descriptions of it.

The word "Tao" has a variety of meanings in both the ancient and modern Chinese language. Aside from its purely prosaic use meaning road, channel, path, principle, or similar,[2] the word has acquired a variety of differing and often confusing metaphorical, philosophical, and religious uses.

In most belief systems, the word is used symbolically in its sense of "way" as the right or proper way of existence, or in the context of ongoing practices of attainment or of the full coming into being, or the state of enlightenment or spiritual perfection that is the outcome of such practices.

So, how we read and interpret words in a passage is important. Engaging with others who have different beliefs or perspectives is important. Reaching agreement in everything is not possible or probably not even desirable. What matters is how we engage. To show respect and not to be dismissive. To reach the best kind of understanding possible.

***

To return to the beginning:

Tao as the 'natural way of the universe'. Is it? What is the universe?
How amazing, and terrifying, is our progress. Zooming out:



Quoting Nasa Science - What is the Universe?

The universe is everything. It includes all of space, and all the matter and energy that space contains. It even includes time itself and, of course, it includes you.

Quoting Janus

If it doesn't work for you, that's no surprise. It doesn't work for lots of people. It works for me.
— T Clark

Cheers T Clark, it actually does work for me. It and the Bhagavad Gita are two of my favorite texts.

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

Quoting Amity

I hope you don't mind

I do not. Your contributions to this thread are substantive and greatly appreciated.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

I do not. Your contributions to this thread are substantive and greatly appreciated.

I'm glad to be part of a worthwhile discussion. Your OP motivated me to take another look at the TTC.

I hadn't come across the translation by Gia-Fu Feng (??? Feng Jia-fu, 1919–1985) and Jane English (1942–) Vintage Books, 1989.

Thank you for the introduction. It's wonderful. I'm curious. Why choose that one? Out of so many.

Quoting Amity

Here, there seems to be a separation between vertical levels. 'Low' humans, portrayed as basic, climbing upwards to reach the Taoist Way. Perhaps, an eternal return. I like to think that humans form part of Nature's cycle. We 'follow' as in accompany. So, the form or structure is more of a circle than a ladder.

This is a good description, although I don't think Lao Tzu saw humanity as a lower level - maybe just more complicated. The Tao Is absolute simplicity or, actually, what comes before absolute simplicity. This is Gia-Fu Feng's translation of Verse 1.

Quoting Tao Te Ching, Verse 1

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.
The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.

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

Quoting Amity

Why choose that one? Out of so many.

The Jane English version is "more ancient", more "ancestral" in its expressions. Compare it to Stephen Mitchell's translation, regarding the 10.000 things:

Quoting Lao Tzu (Laozi)

Standing alone and unchanging,
Ever present and in motion.
Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.

Quoting Translated by Stephen Mitchell, 1988

Solitary. Unchanging.
Infinite. Eternally present.
It is the mother of the universe.

The Jane English version is objectively superior to Stephen Mitchell's version. I am aware that I said something controversial in the previous sentence. Such are the intellectual luxuries that the Tao Te Ching affords. You will not be able to speak like this in your ordinary life. This is Chinese Philosophy. It is entirely different from Western Philosophy. The only people that understood this point were Hegel and Schopenhauer. Just them. No one else in the West is in that club, at least not during the 19th Century. Today, matters are different. Today, many of us are in "that club".

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Quoting Wayfarer

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

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

Carry on.

Quoting Gnomon

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

Yes. Indeed.

Quoting Gnomon

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

Hmmm...

Quoting Gnomon

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

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

At least such is my sentiment on those matters.

Quoting Gnomon

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

Perhaps.

EDIT:

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

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

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

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

Quoting T Clark

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

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

Quoting T Clark

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

It is.

Quoting T Clark

it shows a lack of understanding.

It does.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

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

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

Sorry, this is going a bit offtrack, away from Twenty-five. I took exception to his translation of Thirteen:
Quoting Terebess - Mitchell trans. of Tao Te Ching

13
[b]Success is as dangerous as failure.
Hope is as hollow as fear.[/b]

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

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

See the world as your self.
Have faith in the way things are.
Love the world as your self;
then you can care for all things.

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

Quoting Terebess - Translated by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English

Thirteen

Accept disgrace willingly.
Accept misfortune as the human condition.

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

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

Surrender yourself humbly; then you can be trusted to care for all things.
Love the world as your own self; then you can truly care for all things.

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

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

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

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

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

Quoting T Clark

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

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

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

Quoting Amity

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

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

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

Reply to Arcane Sandwich

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, it is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quoting Amity

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

A few thoughts—

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

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

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

Quoting T Clark

This is one of the first verses that grabbed me in Mitchell's translation - really opened my eyes.

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

It has stuck with me, so that says something.

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

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

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

Quoting T Clark

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter Sixteen:

Attain extreme tenuousness

Chapter 32:

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

Ivanhoe translation

Zhuangzi poses the problem this way:

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

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

Quoting punos

It is not "something",

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

Quoting punos

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

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

Quoting punos

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

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

Quoting punos

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

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

Quoting punos

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

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

Quoting Janus

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

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

Quoting Janus

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

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

Quoting Janus

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

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

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

Thanks for sharing. :sparkle:

Quoting Gnomon

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

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

Quoting Amity

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

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

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

Quoting T Clark

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

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

Quoting Amity

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

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

Quoting Amity

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

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

Quoting Fooloso4

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

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

Reply to T Clark
Thank you for sharing your experience and views. :sparkle:

Quoting T Clark

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

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

Quoting T Clark

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Quoting punos

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

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

Quoting punos

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

You and I see things differently.

Quoting punos

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

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

Quoting punos

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

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

Quoting punos

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

Our Destiny:

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

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

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

Quoting T Clark

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

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

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

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

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

Quoting PoeticUniverse

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

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

Quoting punos

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

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

plus:

Quantum Fields as the Simplest Review:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quoting T Clark

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


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

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

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

Reply to T Clark

Also, i make a strong connection between what the Greeks called the Logos to the Tao. I believe they were trying to explain the same thing, but in different cultural contexts. The concept of mathematical zero was quite foreign to both cultures, and they did not have this knowledge to give them further insight. I sometimes wonder how these sages and philosophers would reassess their thoughts on this matter if they were to be transported to our present time and presented with what we know today.

Reply to Amity

To name is to divide 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.

He says:

At the beginning, when I first began carving up oxen, all I could see was the whole carcass.
After three years I could no longer see the carcass whole ...

It is because he had been dividing oxen for three years that he no longer see the carcass as an undifferentiated whole. He saw that it is made up of parts. He say now:

I follow the natural form slicing the major joints I guide the knife through the big hollows ...

The ability to guide his knife takes skill developed through practice. But this is not the difference between him and a good cook:

What your servant loves, my lord, is the Dao, and that is a step beyond skill.

Going beyond skill does not mean to bypass skill. The cultivation of skill is an essential step in the effort to develop effortless action or wu -wei

We should not overlook the fact that this and other examples are about ordinary people doing ordinary practical things. As King Hue says in response:

Excellent.“I have heard the words of Cook Ding and learned how to nourish life!”

Quoting Fooloso4

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.

He says:

At the beginning, when I first began carving up oxen, all I could see was the whole carcass.
After three years I could no longer see the carcass whole ...


It is because he had been dividing oxen for three years that he no longer see the carcass as an undifferentiated whole. He saw that it is made up of parts. He say now:

I follow the natural form slicing the major joints I guide the knife through the big hollows ...

This reminds me of the verse in the Bible:
Hebrews 4:12 - "For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart."

Also, i make a strong connection between what the Greeks called the Logos to the Tao. I believe they were trying to explain the same thing, but in different cultural contexts. The concept of mathematical zero was quite foreign to both cultures, and they did not have this knowledge to give them further insight. I sometimes wonder how these sages and philosophers would reassess their thoughts on this matter if they were to be transported to our present time and presented with what we know today.

The word of God obviously in reference to the Logos.

Reply to Fooloso4

Daniel Z. Korman:
I can imagine some metaphysicians complaining that my approach is disgracefully messy and unprincipled. Even if the charge of arbitrariness can be defused, case by case, by appeal to a hodge-podge of different phenomena, the conservative treatment of ordinary and extraordinary objects evidently isn’t going to conform to any neat and tidy principles. So whatever conservatives are doing, they surely aren’t carving at the joints.
I would remind these metaphysicians of the story of Cook Ting, who offers the following account of his success as a butcher:

I go along with the natural makeup . . . and follow things as they are. So I never touch the smallest ligament or tendon, much less a main joint . . . However, whenever I come to a complicated place, I size up the dif?culties, tell myself to watch out and be careful, keep my eyes on what I’m doing, work very slowly, and move the knife with the greatest subtlety.

Some cooks are going to view Cook Ting’s approach with suspicion, as they watch him slowly working his knife through some unlikely part of the ox, carving oxen one way and turkeys a completely different way, even carving some oxen differently from other oxen. They’ll see his technique as messy and unprincipled, hardly an example of carving the beasts at their joints. But from Cook Ting’s perspective, it is these other cooks, the ones who would treat all animals alike, who are in the wrong. They aren’t carving at the joints. They’re hacking through the bones.

Quoting T Clark

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

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.

As 3-dimensional beings, 2-, 1-, and 0-dimensional objects are unobservable to us, but does that mean they do not exist? Of course not, because our 3-dimensional existence depends on the lower dimensions. So 3-dimensional objects are physical (observable, tangible, and measurable within a 3D manifold), while objects made of fewer than 3 dimensions are, to us, metaphysical because we cannot interact directly with those dimensions. No one has ever seen any object that is not 3-dimensional.

Objects that are hyperdimensional (hypothetically above 3 spatial dimensions) are partly observable to us. We would only be able to interact with a 3-dimensional cross-section of that object while its other higher-dimensional aspects are hidden from our 3D perception. Consider also the perspective of a Flatlander (a hypothetical two-dimensional being) and what they would consider physical or metaphysical in respect to these dimensions.

I don't want to stray too far from the original poster's intended subject, but i just wanted to clarify my perspective on the relation between metaphysical and physical, since you and i have different notions about it. Also, I'm not trying to convince you or anyone about anything. My project is personal and for my own understanding. Since my methodology is quite different, to varying degrees, from how most people think about these things, i always assume from the very get-go that my perspective is significantly different from almost everyone's. If we really agreed on everything, then we wouldn't really have anything to talk about... don't you think? :smile:

Quoting T Clark

I agree causality is metaphysical. I'm not sure about information.

Information is interesting in this regard because it needs "physicality" in order to instantiate itself, yet it can be transferred from one physical substrate to another, and so it is not tied to any one physical substance. Consider that the information that makes you who you are remains mostly the same over long periods of time, even though the turnover rate of your cells that contain that information is relatively high in relation to how long your information pattern remains. The information that makes you who you are is distinct from the actual matter that you are made of. 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.

Geez Louise, you're getting way ahead of me. Give me a chance to catch up.

Quoting punos

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

I'll say what I always say - the Tao is metaphysics. I'm an admirer of R.G. Collingwood who said that metaphysics is the study of absolute presuppositions - the underlying assumptions, usually unspoken and unconscious, that underly our understanding of reality. Absolute presuppositions are not true or false - they have no truth value.

Quoting punos

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

I see Taoist principles as useful perspectives on how to think about the world. Why would that change? What would progress even mean? What new language would be required to grasp it? I am an engineer with a pragmatic approach to philosophy. Taoism as expressed in the Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu provide a solid and profound foundation for my views.

Quoting punos

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

One of the 10,000 things.

Quoting punos

I guess one can put it in those terms. The world that comes into existence by naming is the world in our own minds, the world of culture or in the world of the "King".

This is similar to how I see it.

Quoting punos

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

I don't think this is accurate from a psychological and neurological perspective. Babies are not blank slates. They bring their own perspectives and capacities into the world with them. Konrad Lorenz wrote that human brains and minds are formed by natural selection to interact effectively with the world they will live in. Here's a link to an article he wrote I really like -

https://archive.org/details/KantsDoctrineOfTheAPrioriInTheLightOfContemporaryBiologyKonradLorenz

Quoting punos

For me the term "name" symbolizes pattern. A thing is its pattern, and things with different patterns are assigned other patterns that we call names.

This is similar to how I see it.

Quoting punos

Also, i make a strong connection between what the Greeks called the Logos to the Tao. I believe they were trying to explain the same thing, but in different cultural contexts.

I don't know enough about Greek philosophy to comment on this specifically, but the basic idea of an unnamable reality underlying our everyday world is common to many philosophies, e.g. I see Kant's noumena as analogous to the Tao.

Quoting punos

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.

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.

Quoting punos

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?

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.

Quoting punos

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.

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.

Quoting Fooloso4

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.

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.

Quoting T Clark

Geez Louise, you're getting way ahead of me. Give me a chance to catch up.

Apologies..

Quoting T Clark

I'll say what I always say - the Tao is metaphysics. I'm an admirer of R.G. Collingwood who said that metaphysics is the study of absolute presuppositions - the underlying assumptions, usually unspoken and unconscious, that underly our understanding of reality. Absolute presuppositions are not true or false - they have no truth value.

Ah, interesting. I've not heard of R.G. Collingwood, and i'm not sure if i understand what not having a truth value means in this context. I shall do some homework, and familiarize myself with his ideas. Thank you.

Quoting T Clark

I see Taoist principles as useful perspectives on how to think about the world. Why would that change?

It shouldn't not change, and i do as well. 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.

Quoting T Clark

If something is not the Tao, then what is it, what could it be instead? — punos


One of the 10,000 things.

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".

One of the ways i conceive of the 10,000 things coming from the Tao goes something like this:

The Tao can, in part, be conceived as the mathematical value (or non-value/non-thing/nothing) of 0 (zero). This zero has an infinite potential to manifest things out of it we call numbers, which is really another word for "name". Zero can be decomposed into two opposing values such as -1 and +1 which, when recombined, return to a 0 value (from nothing, to something, back to nothing). The interesting thing is that even though this zero was decomposed into two numbers, the zero that manifested these two numbers is still there as zero along with the two values. The result is not just (-1) and (+1), but the original 0 remains unchanged. This can happen indefinitely; this one zero can continue to produce number and anti-number pairs. This is also the kind of thing that happens with the quantum, or false vacuum at the very foundation of our universe.

Now imagine an infinite field of these 0s. The sum result of all the zeros and all the manifest numbers equals exactly zero. This is why there are conservation laws. So it produces values, but as a whole, there is no value to the field. Nothing is taken away, and nothing is added, and yet it grows in complexity. Furthermore, these numbers can combine such that a (+1) and a (+1) can produce the value of (+2), a (+2) with a (+1) yields a (+3), and a (+2) and a (+2) yield a (+4). In this way, all 10,000 things come about. In the end, all things are parts of the Tao or the Great Zero, but because values come in opposing pairs, the Tao remains unbroken, and perfectly balanced.

Quoting T Clark

I definitely don't agree with you about energy.

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.

Quoting T Clark

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.

Best way to go about it in my opinion as well.

Reply to punos

Quoting T Clark

If something is not the Tao, then what is it, what could it be instead?
—

One of the 10,000 things.

Yah, everything conditioning those of us born into human history is not the Tao. To borrow from Zen, the Tao is your original face, the face you had before you were born.

Quoting punos

Zero can be decomposed into two opposing values such as -1 and +1 which, when recombined, return to a 0 value (from nothing, to something, back to nothing). The interesting thing is that even though this zero was decomposed into two numbers, the zero that manifested these two numbers is still there as zero along with the two values. The result is not just (-1) and (+1), but the original 0 remains unchanged.

Or… similar?

The Math

0/0 = n (all variations), since any n times 0 = 0,
So, 0/0 is as nonexistence divided by itself
Into all of the various relative states;

Zero is the greatest number, for it represents
The sum of negative and positive infinities.
Note that an actual infinity cannot be,
For it cannot be capped, and thus has no being.

Talking to the Lama who lives near me…

I said to the Great Lama, “I’ve heard that this world isn’t really real, for it is an illusion, that we shouldn’t worry about the rain or about life’s tribulations.”

“That’s what we believe. Tell me, does that work?”

“Well, um, does not life’s existence look, seem, and act just the way it would, in every detail, as if it were really real?”

“Yes, indeed. Exactly. That’s what they say makes for the greatest illusion of all.”

“I hate to say this, but a ‘difference’ that makes no difference Is no difference. If I use an mp3 player the music is still the message, regardless of the messenger, the implementation.”

“I think you’re onto something. I get the message!”

The Zero-Point of creation-annihilation
Is extended into a faux reality.

Our parentheses in eternity
Flashes as a twinkling, but’s extended
By ‘time’ into a phantasmic life dream
That’s ‘existent' the same as if it were.

A life dream’s like a rainbow, not really there,
A false phenomenon become tangible
As temporary, this faux true,
Molding transient significance.
In the Eye of the Beholder.

Quoting T Clark

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.

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. And of course, some things, on the other hand, can be measured. What is measurable is always connected fundamentally to what is not measurable. This is i believe the difference between physical and metaphysical?

Whatever scientists did to hypothesize dark matter is, in my view, the same as what the old Taoist sages did to hypothesize the Tao. Neither have been measured directly, and the gravitational effects attributed to dark matter may be something else. Our theory of gravitation may be flawed in some way, making it seem as though there is some other kind of matter that we can't see or measure directly. Some people i suppose may then consider dark matter a metaphysical concept for this reason. Dark energy certainly appears to be metaphysical as well. In the same way that our theory of gravitation may be very useful and mostly correct, it can also be incomplete and yield false artifacts, such as the concept of dark matter potentially.

I'm sorry if I'm not making sense, but some of this stuff is pretty abstract to express concretely, and some of our definitions don't appear to be nicely aligned.

Quoting punos

I'm a monist, and thus i believe that whatever things are, they are made of one "thing" or, more precisely, one "non-thing".

Perhaps shorten this to "I'm a monist, and thus i believe that whatever things are, they are made of one "thing", for the Tao would be the only fact, as you said, ever identical to itself, as the only real thing, whereas the temporaries from it are never identical to themselves over time, but are semblances, such as the sun burning its fuel, but remaining as a sun semblance to us.

It appears to some, not us though, that the world consists of parts that have continued from a moment ago, and thus retain their identity in time; yet, they don’t.

Quoting punos

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 need to know whether time is linear, as in Presentism, or if there is an all-at-once block-universe, as in Eternalism. No one yet seems to know, since both modes of time would appear the same to us. I'm stuck having to always figure out things two ways.

Reply to PoeticUniverse

Quoting PoeticUniverse

Perhaps shorten this to "I'm a monist, and thus i believe that whatever things are, they are made of one "thing", for the Tao would be the only fact, as you said, ever identical to itself, as the only real thing, whereas the temporaries from it are never identical to themselves over time, but are semblances, such as the sun burning its fuel, but remaining as a sun semblance to us.

Sounds good to me.

Change is the only constant. It is only the Tao that changes without changing. The constancy of change is what remains unchanging and thus constant throughout time. Or something like that.. :smile:

Quoting punos

What feature of the Tao is missing in the quantum vacuum in your view?

The concept "quantum vacuum." That's the fearure you won't find in the Tao.

Sorry, you could probably run circles around me regarding quantum vacuum. And conceptually, you probably make an intriguing and useful point.

I just think Taoism is an attempt to remind us that while we produce concepts, no matter how genius and functional, we can reduce/alleviate our universal anxiety by simply being aware that we are just producing concepts. It's like we can play football and take it as seriously as we want, even with complete determination to win, and so on, but if we forget we're just playing a game, we risk all of the suffering associated with winning/losing.

It's the same with these discussions. I'm prepared to entertain a Hypothesis that Taoism influenced Cha'an, or was a reaction against Confucianism, or that Taoism contemplates the quantum vacuum (which I'm certainly not instructed enough to even chime in on). And I acknowledge these hypotheses can be very fruitful etc. But ultimately, they're all ironically adding to the layers of dirt under which we've buried the so called Tao.

I don't mean to spoil the fun, or purport to criticize the genius of the connections being drawn.

I'll bow out.

Quoting punos

Change is the only constant. It is only the Tao that changes without changing. The constancy of change is what remains unchanging and thus constant throughout time.

In what we can now get at through science, it would be the quantum fields that naturally arrange into quanta.

Quoting PoeticUniverse

I need to know whether time is linear, as in Presentism, or if there is an all-at-once block-universe, as in Eternalism. No one yet seems to know, since both modes of time would appear the same to us. I'm stuck having to always figure out things two ways.

I definitely do not believe in the all-at-once block universe, except to say that each time step happens throughout the entire spatial universe all at once. I do believe in Presentism, but depending on how one defines Presentism, i would need to qualify some aspects of it in my personal view.

In my view, time acts on the whole of the universe simultaneously, but there are no past or future copies of the universe in different time states. I believe that change occurs in space, and the state of space changes or evolves as time progresses. The state space of the universe is, in a sense, copied, processed, and reinstantiated in the same space once every Planck time. Any information that is not reinstantiated is considered lost forever, except that space acts as a memory that holds the change caused by time. If there were no space, and only time existed, then any potential change of any kind would be lost at the next time step, or simply impossible.

If the universe were a computer system, then space would be its memory, time would be its processor, and the Tao or Logos would be its internal logic (the Way it operates). These three things are absolutely necessary for anything to even happen in a computer or in the universe. These three things are also the basic requirements for a mind, and thus i consider the universe a kind of computational mind. The way a computer's memory changes as the processor operates upon it is the same way i believe time works in our universe.

Quoting punos

I definitely do not believe in the all-at-once block universe

I don't either, as per the Presentism advanced by Lee Smolin.

I'm glad you're on the forum: you have a lot to offer!

From my notes looking into the two modes of time, only to note that both seem to have some problems left to work out:

Bolstering Eternalism by diminishing the alternative of Presentism:

There are damning problems with the scheme of Presentism as a sequence of nows with the past not kept and the future not yet existing, the first problem being its unrelenting besiegement by Einstein’s relativity of simultaneity.

Second, the turning of a ‘now’ into the next ‘now’ sits on the thinnest knife edge imaginable, the previous ‘now’ wholly consumed in the making of the new ‘now’ all over the universe at once in a dynamical updating—the present now exhausting all reality. The incredibly short Planck time could be the processing time.

Third, what is going to exist or was existent, as the presentist must refer to as ‘to be’ or ‘has been’ is indicated as coming or going and is thus inherent in the totality of what is, and so Presentism has no true ‘nonexistence’ of the future and the past—which means that there is no contrast between a real future and an unreal future, for what is real or exists can have no opposite to form a contrast class.


The Con to the Timeless: (from Gisin)

[i]In a predetermined world in which time only seems to unfold, exactly what will happen for all time actually had to be set from the start, with the initial state of every single particle encoded with infinitely many digits of precision. Otherwise there would be a time in the far future when the clockwork universe itself would break down.

But information is physical. Modern research shows that it requires energy and occupies space. Any volume of space is known to have a finite information capacity (with the densest possible information storage happening inside black holes). The universe’s initial conditions would require far too much information crammed into too little space. A real number with infinite digits can’t be physically relevant. The block universe, which implicitly assumes the existence of infinite information, must fall apart.[/i]

Quoting ENOAH

I just think Taoism is an attempt to remind us that while we produce concepts, no matter how genius and functional, we can reduce/alleviate our universal anxiety by simply being aware that we are just producing concepts.

Quoting ENOAH

It's like we can play football and take it as seriously as we want, even with complete determination to win, and so on, but if we forget we're just playing a game, we risk all of the suffering associated with winning/losing.

A Taoist perspective is, in my opinion, a suitable and excellent worldview to alleviate existential anxiety as you say, but it could be much more. I personally do not suffer from this kind of anxiety, and so I push its utility into other areas, which i find very insightful when I do.

Since I was a teenager, i've thought about the world almost exactly as a game. It's part of the reason why i don't play video games, because i believe i'm already in one - the greatest game ever created, the game of games. Even though i know it's all a game or a simulation of sorts, i still like to take it seriously every once in a while, because it makes it more fun. Try to play a game with no stakes, and you'll get bored in short order. In the end... nothing gained, and nothing lost, back to zero... the Tao.

Quoting punos

Even though i know it's all a game or a simulation of sorts, i still like to take it seriously every once in a while, because it makes it more fun.

:up:

Quoting PoeticUniverse

I'm glad you're on the forum: you have a lot to offer!

I'm glad i can talk to intelligent people as yourself about these heavy ideas. I don't have many people in my life i can talk to about these things. So.. thank you very much. :smile:

Quoting PoeticUniverse

There are damning problems with the scheme of Presentism as a sequence of nows with the past not kept and the future not yet existing, the first problem being its unrelenting besiegement by Einstein’s relativity of simultaneity.

I think this is a perceptual phenomenon, which is why it's called relativity. There is no relativity in the universe when it comes to the actual local occurrence of events. The difference arises because the speed of light, which carries information about events that happened at a certain distance, can result in that information arriving at different times for observers in different spatial locations or moving frames of reference. Time is occurring at essentially the same rate everywhere in the universe, but the time it takes for information to reach different places varies for different observers, and is thus relative. This is the essence of what "relative" means in this context.

Quoting PoeticUniverse

Second, the turning of a ‘now’ into the next ‘now’ sits on the thinnest knife edge imaginable, the previous ‘now’ wholly consumed in the making of the new ‘now’ all over the universe at once in a dynamical updating—the present now exhausting all reality. The incredibly short Planck time could be the processing time.

I believe the entirety of the universe is updated once every Planck time, but please explain what you believe the problem is with this concept.

Quoting PoeticUniverse

Third, what is going to exist or was existent, as the presentist must refer to as ‘to be’ or ‘has been’ is indicated as coming or going and is thus inherent in the totality of what is, and so Presentism has no true ‘nonexistence’ of the future and the past—which means that there is no contrast between a real future and an unreal future, for what is real or exists can have no opposite to form a contrast class.

What has been is contained in the present as memory (space), and what will be is contained in the potential of the present state of space, determined by the memory of the past. The future does not exist, but its determinants do exist in the present. So, in essence, this is how i define the past and present in my own understanding. Does this address the issue you raised?

Quoting punos

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.

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

Quoting T Clark

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

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 named is not the eternal Tao". :smile:

Quoting punos

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".

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.

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

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.

Quoting punos

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.

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

Quoting punos

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.

Admirably condescending.

Quoting punos

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.

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

Quoting punos

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

I don't know what this means.

Quoting punos

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

You and I understand this very differently.

Quoting punos

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:

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.

Quoting T Clark

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.

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.

Quoting T Clark

Admirably condescending.

It was not my intention to sound condescending. Please forgive.

Quoting T Clark

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

I don't know what this means.

I don't have a better way of explaining this here right now. I'll come back to it after i get some rest. It's a bit late here, and i'm i bit tired. probably going to bed soon.

Quoting T Clark

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.

This is probably a good thing. I believe i have a different way of relating to the same concepts. I use physics terms to describe ideas that were expressed in a time without physics or even science. 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. The principles of the Tao are applicable to everything in existence. The Tao holds no meaning for me if it cannot be universally applied to all that exists. The Tao is generally equated with nature and its workings; therefore, why would it not be applicable to the sciences, which aim to understand the workings of nature? In other words, the way nature works (the Tao) should be relevant to scientific inquiry.

Quoting T Clark

No, I think you and I have diametrically opposed understandings of what Lao Tzu was trying to say.

Can anyone truly claim to know exactly what Lao Tzu meant? Was Lao Tzu the only person in the history of the universe capable of understanding the Tao as he did? When two people observe the same event, will their accounts match up perfectly? No, not really. Does this mean that both are wrong, or could it indicate that they saw different aspects of the same phenomenon? For me, Lao Tzu is merely supplemental; he is not the last or only word on the matter.

Quoting T Clark

You and I are just repeating our arguments without adding anything new. I suggest we leave it here.

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. Either way, good night good Sir. :up:

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. And for anyone interested it provides a cultural background that can help understanding.

It is however, difficult and in some ways more like a pack of tarot cards than a work of science or philosophy. But without having to accept the woo, there is still a background of the attempt to make fundamental binary distinctions that in combination can form a way of understanding the universe and man's place in it, beginning with Yin and Yang. And that distinction is even echoed in Mao Tse Tung's comment that 'women hold up half the sky'.

Jung's Introduction to the English translation to Wilhelm's German translation is as gentle an introduction as I can think of.

Or jump head first into the complexity.

Reply to unenlightened Still reckon The Tao of Physics is alright. Capra interviewed Heisenberg extensively while preparing the draft. @Arcane Sandwich - you know that book?

Reply to Wayfarer I prefer The Tao of Pooh.

Reply to unenlightened
Oh, I read that a lifetime ago! Thanks for the pdf link, I might just read it again to see what I think now.

Benjamin Hoff has also translated the TTC (2021), downloadable with photographs. From: https://terebess.hu/english/tao/_index.html

Reply to Arcane Sandwich

This is simply beautiful. The Symphony of Science: Children of Africa. What a wonderful creation, this mix of music, audio and visuals. More about it here:

The Symphony of Science is a music project created by Washington-based electronic musician John D. Boswell. The project seeks to "spread scientific knowledge and philosophy through musical remixes." Boswell uses pitch-corrected audio and video samples from television programs featuring popular educators and scientists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphony_of_Science

I will listen to more of the Symphony later. Now to read the lyrics of Children of Africa. They came in a wall of text, so I've split them up and placed emphasis on parts, meaningful to me. This is brilliant as a whole experience:

Man is a singular creature;
He has a set of gifts which make him unique among the animals
So that unlike them, [b]he is not a figure in the landscape
He is the shaper of the landscape[/b]

We are all children of Africa
They say this is where it all began
In a parched African landscape
Man first put his foot to the ground

Africa was our only home
for tens of thousands of years
until a small handful of people made their way
out of Africa

[b]These beings with soaring imagination
Eventually flung themselves and their machines
Into interplanetary space[/b]

We are all children of africa
This landscape has been home to humans
Two hundred thousand years

[b]We have come so far
All of this is cause for great celebration
We have come so far[/b]
This is a story about us
Those early Europeans
Were people like you and me

But it is humbling
When you see the challenges they faced

[b]People like you and me
Overcame the Neanderthals
People like you and me
Made it through the ice age[/b]

We are not the only beings
With personalities, minds, and feelings
Chimpanzees have very clear personalities
Take a chimp brain foetally
And [b]let it go two or three more rounds of division
And out comes symphonies and ideology[/b]

Everything that we are
That distinguishes us from chimps
Emerges from that [b]one percent
Difference in DNA[/b]

[b]People like you and me
Overcame the Neaderthals
People like you and me
Made it through the ice age[/b]

Using his burgeoning intelligence,
[b]This most successful of all mammals
Has exploited the environment to produce food
For an ever increasing population.[/b]

Instead of controlling the environment
For the benefit of the population
[b]Perhaps it's time we controlled the population
To allow the survival of the environment[/b]

With our 'soaring imagination', we've launched into interplanetary space. Small creatures of the universe that we are. We have used and abused our position as shapers of the world. We will reap the rewards.
Some more than others. Is this the harmony of physical and spiritual wellbeing? We have come so far, and now what...will we follow nature and our imagination...to help or harm?

***

I'd like to see and hear more. Five tracks and lyrics from:
https://genius.com/albums/Melodysheep/Best-of-symphony-of-science

Quoting T Clark

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.

One who has "learned how to nourish life" does not bring things into existence but rather sees and acts in accordance with how things are.

A name that can be named is not a constant name.
Nameless, it is the beginning of Heaven and earth;
Named, it is the mother of the myriad creatures.

(Dao Chapter 1)

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. This does not mean we bring the myriad creatures into existence any more than we bring the part of the ox into existence. We can either act in accord with the Way or try to hack our way through life.

Symphony of Science - 'We Are All Connected' (ft. Sagan, Feynman, deGrasse Tyson & Bill Nye)



We Are All Connected

[deGrasse Tyson]
We are all connected;
To each other, biologically
To the earth, chemically
To the rest of the universe atomically

[Feynman]
I think nature's imagination
Is so much greater than man's
She's never going to let us relax

[Sagan]
We live in an in-between universe
Where things change all right
But according to patterns, rules,
Or as we call them, laws of nature

[Nye]
I'm this guy standing on a planet
Really I'm just a speck
Compared with a star, the planet is just another speck
To think about all of this
To think about the vast emptiness of space
There's billions and billions of stars
Billions and billions of specks

[Sagan]
The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it
But the way those atoms are put together
The cosmos is also within us
We're made of star stuff
We are a way for the cosmos to know itself

Across the sea of space
The stars are other suns
We have traveled this way before
And there is much to be learned

I find it elevating and exhilarating
To discover that we live in a universe
Which permits the evolution of molecular machines
As intricate and subtle as we

[deGrasse Tyson]
I know that the molecules in my body are traceable
To phenomena in the cosmos
That makes me want to grab people in the street
And say, have you heard this??

(Richard Feynman on hand drums and chanting)

[Feynman]
There's this tremendous mess
Of waves all over in space
Which is the light bouncing around the room
And going from one thing to the other

And it's all really there
But you gotta stop and think about it
About the complexity to really get the pleasure
And it's all really there
The inconceivable nature of nature

Quoting Fooloso4

We can either act in accord with the Way or try to hack our way through life.

How do you connect with the Way? What does it mean for you in everyday life?
Is to be aware of how you are and what you do? With appreciation and awareness of the best way to live? To be the best you can be? Treating other beings and the world with respect?

Is this being in accord with the Way, about being connected in a creative and caring way?
Why do we need to name it? Why do some lay claim to understanding it better than others? But still do not seem to enjoy the flowing, questioning spirit? Becoming defensive, as if under attack?

This. I find so difficult to believe and imagine. Are we really 'stardust in the highest exalted way'?
Looking around the world...hmm...I think we can enjoy the perspective of 'being in the middle'. Small beings in an enormous universe. Trying to understand...dumbstruck in awe. No wonder we let our imagination wander. For better or worse. Creating stories.

"We Are Star Dust" - Symphony of Science


[Neil deGrasse Tyson]
We are part of this universe
We are in this universe
The universe is in us
Yes, the universe is in us

[Lawrence Krauss]
Every atom in your body
Came from a star that exploded
You are all star dust
From a star that exploded

[Neil deGrasse Tyson]
Look up at the night sky
We are part of that
The universe itself
Exists within us

We are star dust
In the highest exalted way
Called by the universe
Reaching out to the universe

We are star dust
In the highest exalted way
Reaching out to the universe
With these methods and tools of science

[Richard Feynman]
[b]Stand in the middle and enjoy everything both ways
The tininess of us;
The enormity of the universe[/b]

[Neil deGrasse Tyson]
The atoms that make up the human body
Are traceable to the crucibles
That cooked light elements
Into heavy elements
These stars went unstable in their later years
And then exploded
Scattering their enriched guts
Across the galaxy

[Neil deGrasse Tyson]
We are part of this universe
We are in this universe
The universe is in us
Yes, the universe is in us

[Neil deGrasse Tyson]
We are part of this universe
We are in this universe
The universe is in us
Yes, the universe is in us

I know this has been a series of side-tracks from the TTC and the OP, Twenty-five. It does seem so far away from an ancient Chinese text. But isn't it all connected?
Just gonna post one more. I love the opening sounds and the apple pie :cool:
[Sagan]
If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch
You must first invent the universe

Carl Sagan - 'A Glorious Dawn' ft Stephen Hawking (Symphony of Science)


Excerpt:
Quoting Carl Sagan - A Glorious Dawn lyrics

[Hawking]
For thousands of years
People have wondered about the universe
Did it stretch out forever
Or was there a limit

From the big bang to black holes
From dark matter to a possible big crunch
Our image of the universe today
Is full of strange sounding ideas

Reply to punos
Very well said. Thank you. :sparkle:

Quoting punos

This is probably a good thing. I believe i have a different way of relating to the same concepts. I use physics terms to describe ideas that were expressed in a time without physics or even science. 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.

The principles of the Tao are applicable to everything in existence. The Tao holds no meaning for me if it cannot be universally applied to all that exists. The Tao is generally equated with nature and its workings; therefore, why would it not be applicable to the sciences, which aim to understand the workings of nature? In other words, the way nature works (the Tao) should be relevant to scientific inquiry.

If you believe in the Tao as nature and its workings - the world, the universe and everything - then it makes complete sense to include modern, scientific questions.

If the Tao is eternal and there is a flow in time and space, it should not be limited to the TTC. Let it soar outside the text box. :sparkle:

Could you explain more about 'the principles of the Tao'? Other than to say it is Nature?

Quoting punos

Can anyone truly claim to know exactly what Lao Tzu meant? Was Lao Tzu the only person in the history of the universe capable of understanding the Tao as he did? When two people observe the same event, will their accounts match up perfectly? No, not really. Does this mean that both are wrong, or could it indicate that they saw different aspects of the same phenomenon? For me, Lao Tzu is merely supplemental; he is not the last or only word on the matter.

Given the amount of confusion, translations and interpretations, the answer to your question is No.
I am not sure that I would describe the author/s of the TTC as 'merely supplemental'. That would cause great offence to many people.
There will always be more to be said...
I think it's time I left the discussion. I have a novel to read. Yet another story. :sparkle:

Quoting Amity

How do you connect with the Way? What does it mean for you in everyday life?

... sages abide in the business of nonaction, and practice the teaching that is without words.

(Dao chapter 2)

I am not a Daoist sage. For the most part all I have to offer are words, most of which are not even even my own.

A great deal has been written about nonaction (wuwei). Cook Ting is an example of wuwei and a practice that is without words. Of course he acts but by carving between the joints his actions are rhythmical and effortless, they meet no resistance. To reach this point, however, requires a great deal of effort. Certainly it is not something that occurs on its own or happens to us while we sit idly by. It does however require a kind of passivity, a looking and observing instead of just doing. It is a doing guided by seeing how things are.

Right action follows right desire:

Always eliminate desires in order to observe its mysteries;
Always have desires in order to observe its manifestations.

(Dao Chapter 1)

Quoting Amity

Is to be aware of how you are and what you do?

I think so. And also of how others are and what they do.

Readers often form a picture of a peaceful, idyllic way of life, but:

To embody the Way is to be long lived,
And one will avoid danger to the end of one’s days.

(Dao Chapter 16)

Quoting punos

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.

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

Quoting Fooloso4

I am not a Daoist sage. For the most part all I have to offer are words, most of which are not even even my own.

Ah well, never mind, poor human. We got the internet! [*] And sometimes we can offer some words of wisdom, from own experience and careful reading. Applying it to real life. And we don't even know if our words harm or help...

Quoting Fooloso4

A great deal has been written about nonaction (wuwei). Cook Ting is an example of wuwei and a practice that is without words. Of course he acts but by carving between the joints his actions are rhythmical and effortless, they meet no resistance. To reach this point, however, requires a great deal of effort. Certainly it is not something that occurs on its own or happens to us while we sit idly by. It does however require a kind of passivity, a looking and observing instead of just doing. It is a doing guided by seeing how things are.

So, when it comes to reading, reflecting and writing...cutting through the bullshit really is a matter of practice. Even writing a few sensible words can take effort, if our aim is to be clear and understood.
It takes time and patience to be still in an awareness of thoughts and feelings. Seeing how things are, is not as easy as it sounds.

Quoting Fooloso4

Right action follows right desire:

Always eliminate desires in order to observe its mysteries;
Always have desires in order to observe its manifestations.
(Dao Chapter 1)

I note this is the Ivanhoe translation. What seems to be common in the TTC is the prescriptive form.
Here, the use of 'Always', followed by a command. This doesn't seem to account for any exceptions.

But yes, I can see how it makes sense. If in mysterious mode, we let go of the desire to know facts? We simply let thoughts be. Stillness is the order of the day.
If we want to know (by observation), then we must engage the brain. This takes into account subjectivity and objectivity, yes? What is 'right desire'? Is it to keep a mental balance? And so, this will result in beneficial behaviour? Well, we can only hope...

Quoting Fooloso4

Is to be aware of how you are and what you do?
— Amity

I think so. And also of how others are and what they do.

That makes sense. And I like how you are comfortable with a degree of uncertainty.

Quoting Fooloso4

Readers often form a picture of a peaceful, idyllic way of life, but:

To embody the Way is to be long lived,
And one will avoid danger to the end of one’s days.
(Dao Chapter 16)

I'm not sure about this. Perhaps, there is an image of an ancient sage, sitting still in his serenity. Won't there always be some challenging circumstance? 'Danger' to be avoided if we think the way that we are told to. Hmmm. Danger from what or who? Everything and everyone? A few? There is no guarantee of a long life. Unless, this refers to eternity. Oh, dear...eternal heaven or hell?

***
[*]
Here's something:

Quoting IEP - Daoist Philosophy

The Daodejing teaches that humans cannot fathom the Dao, because any name we give to it cannot capture it. It is beyond what we can express in language (ch.1). Those who experience oneness with dao, known as “obtaining dao,” will be enabled to wu-wei .

Wu-wei is a difficult notion to translate. Yet, it is generally agreed that the traditional rendering of it as “nonaction” or “no action” is incorrect. Those who wu wei do act.

Daoism is not a philosophy of “doing nothing.” Wu-wei means something like “act naturally,” “effortless action,” or “nonwillful action.” The point is that there is no need for human tampering with the flow of reality. Wu-wei should be our way of life, because the dao always benefits, it does not harm (ch. 81) The way of heaven (dao of tian) is always on the side of good (ch. 79) and virtue (de) comes forth from the dao alone (ch. 21).

What causes this natural embedding of good and benefit in the dao is vague and elusive (ch. 35), not even the sages understand it (ch. 76).

Is it any consolation at all to know that the vagueness is not understood by the sages! :smile:
This is when it becomes clear that we are not meant to know...so why do we go on so?

Quoting punos

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

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

Quoting punos

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.

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

Quoting punos

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

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

Quoting punos

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.

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.

Quoting unenlightened

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.

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.

Quoting Fooloso4

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.

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.

Quoting Fooloso4

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

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.

Quoting Amity

This doesn't seem to account for any exceptions.

Except:

Attain extreme tenuousness

Quoting Amity

If in mysterious mode, we let go of the desire to know facts? We simply let thoughts be.

I don't think it is a matter of letting go of the desire to know facts. It is the source of facts that is mysterious.

Quoting Amity

Danger from what or who?

Doesn't avoiding danger require knowing the source?

Quoting Amity

This is when it becomes clear that we are not meant to know...so why do we go on so?

We do act and can come to a better understanding of our actions and motivations.

Quoting ENOAH

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

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

Quoting Gnomon

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

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

Reply to 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.

EDIT: But I hasten to add, unless you mean the concept of biological evolution etc.

Quoting Fooloso4

Except:

Attain extreme tenuousness

I had a hard time understanding this the first time round.

And if I ever had an inkling, it is no longer shining through the dust of memory.

Would it be worth your while to explain again? My brain is turning away.

Yes. Fortunately, it is possible to reach a better understanding of actions and motivations. By ways and means...

Perhaps I'm blaming my brain when really I've had enough!
This haunting sense of deja vue...

Quoting T Clark

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

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. :smile:

PS___I don't think of Taoism as a popular religion, as is was long ago in China. Perhaps it was a pre-scientific philosophy similar to modern Deism :
"Deism can be described as a rational, science-based worldview with pragmatic reasons for believing in a non-traditional non-anthro-morphic deity, rather than a faith-based belief system relying on the imaginative official myths of a minor ancient culture. So a Deist does not live by faith, but by reason. However, on topics where science is still uncertain (see Qualia), Deists feel free to use their reasoning powers to develop plausible beliefs that lie outside the current paradigm".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

Tao is the unmanifest hypostasis of God. The concept of Tao is close to such concepts as Emptiness in Buddhism, Ranganatha or Brahman ...
https://www.reddit.com/r/taoism/comments/105j7ep/is_the_tao_the_same_as_god/

Quoting T Clark

I have always thought of naming as described in the Tao Te Ching as something humans do.

I think there is an ambiguity regarding human action. Some of our ways are in accord with but others contrary to the Way. Naming is something humans do. To be human is to be part of rather than apart from the Way. The authors of the Tao Te Ching uses names. But

Now that there are names, know enough to stop!

Quoting T Clark

I think the Tao Te Ching means what it says.

Does it say that we bring the myriad creatures into existence? As I read it, when it says in the first chapter:

Named, it is the mother of the myriad creatures.

'it' refers back to the Way.

The Way is like an empty vessel ...
It seems to be the ancestor of the myriad creatures.

(Chapter 4)

The myriad creatures rely upon it [the Way] for life, and it turns none of them
away. ...
It clothes and nourishes the myriad creatures, but does not lord it over them.

(Chapter 34)

The Way produces the One.
The One produces two.
Two produces three.
Three produces the myriad creatures.

(Chapter 42)

Quoting Fooloso4

I think there is an ambiguity regarding human action. Some of our ways are in accord with but others contrary to the Way. Naming is something humans do. To be human is to be part of rather than apart from the Way. The authors of the Tao Te Ching uses names. But

If we need to read poems and philosophy to “get back to Nature” or “the Way”, perhaps we can never truly be “in it”, contrary to the “ways of life” of other animals.

Quoting Amity

I had a hard time understanding this the first time round.

And if I ever had an inkling, it is no longer shining through the dust of memory.

We would not expect attaining and tenuous to be joined together. They seem to contradict each other, but throughout there is a play of opposites:

Everyone in the world knows that when the beautiful strives to be
beautiful, it is repulsive.
Everyone knows that when the good strives to be good, it is no good.5
And so,
To have and to lack generate each other.6
Difficult and easy give form to each other.
Long and short off-set each other.
High and low incline into each other.
Note and rhythm harmonize with each other.
Before and after follow each other.

(Chapter 2)

Quoting schopenhauer1

... contrary to the “ways of life” of other animals.

Yup. There is at the heart of it something comical, or as some might regard it, tragic.

Quoting Fooloso4

We would not expect attaining and tenuous to be joined together. They seem to contradict each other, but throughout there is a play of opposites:

Everyone in the world knows that when the beautiful strives to be
beautiful, it is repulsive.
Everyone knows that when the good strives to be good, it is no good.5
And so,
To have and to lack generate each other.6
Difficult and easy give form to each other.
Long and short off-set each other.
High and low incline into each other.
Note and rhythm harmonize with each other.
Before and after follow each other.
(Chapter 2)

Thank you. I understand the play of opposites. Isn't this found in other philosophical, or even literary, texts where unity is comprised of interconnection and interdependence. For some reason, I'm reminded of Plato's interplay of serious and fun. The humour not always obvious.
The Ying/Yang. The natural themes of birth/death. Reason/emotion.
All make up Life as we know it. Pain/Pleasure.


I am beginning to appreciate the artistry in some translations of the TCC.

Here is the equivalent excerpt from Jane English:

Under heaven all can see beauty as beauty only because there is ugliness.
All can know good as good only because there is evil.

Therefore having and not having arise together;
Difficult and easy complement each other;
Long and short contrast each other;
High and low rest upon each other;
Voice and sound harmonize each other;
Front and back follow each other.

Quoting T Clark

For me - Tao = metaphysics; quantum vacuum = science.

Yes, i understand completely that they are two different things, but i think of them in the same way we consider quantum mechanics and relativity two different and apparently incompatible theories. However, 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.

Quoting T Clark

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

I don’t know if one should call it an improvement on the Tao Te Ching, but rather an extension, perhaps retranslated for the modern era. I would need to convince you at least that metaphysics and science are not as far apart as you or others might claim.

Quoting T Clark

I see the Tao Te Ching as metaphysics, you don't. For me, that's a fundamental and profound difference.

I think there is a significant intersection between metaphysics and physics, particularly as both fields explore fundamental questions about reality, existence, and the nature of the universe. Many principles in physics rely on metaphysical assumptions that cannot be empirically tested. For instance, the stability of natural laws and the existence of a uniform space and time are taken as given in physics but represent fundamentally metaphysical claims.

Metaphysical ideas can guide theoretical research in physics, especially when empirical data is limited or when looking at concepts like time, causality, and the nature of particles. Theoretical constructs in physics often lead to metaphysical speculation. For example, discussions about the multiverse or the nature of dark matter, as you mentioned in a previous post, involve assumptions that extend beyond current empirical validation.

In short, while physics provides empirical insights into the workings of the universe, metaphysics offers a framework for understanding the underlying principles that govern those observations. One can inform the other.

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.

Quoting punos

In short, while physics provides empirical insights into the workings of the universe, metaphysics offers a framework for understanding the underlying principles that govern those observations. One can inform the other.

Isn't this necessary if we are to have an holistic approach to understanding life?
It's similar to what I've just discussed with @Fooloso4 .
Regarding the play of opposites.
I see no reason why this would be objected to by the author/s of the TCC.

Quoting Gnomon

Yes. In Lao Tse's time, there was no formal discipline of empirical Science. So philosophers and sages relied upon Intuition (look inward), Contemplation (observe together), or Meditation (mindful attention) to construct models of how the world works. Such practices might produce superficial (poetic) insights into how the Tao works, but subjective knowledge only becomes common knowledge when shared as objective & technical information : i.e. Science.

The lived experiences of agrian life, woven into the soil, air, water, plants and animals with which humans existed, was their "science".

Nevermind me, I'm just playing the role of the DJ / Bouncer of this Thread, right now. It's all ambience from me at the moment.



Quoting Alestorm

[Verse 1]
How did we come to this place and time?
Our lives now ruled by a mariner's rime
We sold our souls to tell this tale
This quest for treasure we regale

[Pre-Chorus]
With the stars in the sky our guide
Voyage ever onwards
Set a course to the other side
Of the endless oceans blue

[Chorus]
Treasure Island
Oh, the legends told of a land of rum and plunder
Treasure Island
On a quest for gold we'll sail the seven seas
Treasure Island
Oh, the legends told of a land of rum and plunder
Treasure Island
On a quest for gold we'll sail the seven seas
I can't believe we're on our way
We're going there today
Yarr ahoy

[Post-Chorus]
The mate was fixed by the Bosun's pike
The Bosun brained with a marlinspike
And cookey's throat was marked belike
It had been gripped by fingers ten
And there they lay all good dead men
Like break o'day in a boozing ken

[Verse 2]
High was the price that was paid this day
We spun the wheel 'til the coppers ran dry
Nevada sun was burning bare
The stench of everclear filled the air

[Pre-Chorus]
With the stars in the sky our guide
Voyage ever onwards
Set a course to the other side
Of the endless oceans blue

[Chorus]
Treasure Island
Oh, the legends told of a land of rum and plunder
Treasure Island
On a quest for gold we'll sail the seven seas
Treasure Island
Oh, the legends told of a land of rum and plunder
Treasure Island
On a quest for gold we'll sail the seven seas
I can't believe we're on our way
We're going there today

[Solo]

[Bridge 1]
Fifteen men on the dead man's chest
Drink and the devil had done for the rest
But one man of her crew alive
What put to sea was seventy-five

[Solo]

[Bridge 2]
On the endless quest
So far into the west
Where history and destiny collide
Our luck will last forever and
The truth will never die
Prepare to roll the dice just one more time

On the endless quest
So far into the west
Where history and destiny collide
Your luck will last forever and
The truth will never die
The fates shall be eternal on your side
Prepare to roll the dice just one more time

[Pre-Chorus]
With the stars in the sky our guide
Voyage ever onwards
Set a course to the other side
Of the endless oceans blue

[Outro]
Treasure Island
Oh, the legends told of a land of rum and plunder
Treasure Island
On a quest for gold we'll sail the seven seas
Treasure Island
Oh, the legends told of a land of rum and plunder
Treasure Island
On a quest for gold we'll sail the seven seas
I can't believe we're on our way
Our destiny lies in the waves
We're going there today
Yarr ahoy

Quoting Alestorm

[Pre-Chorus]
With the stars in the sky our guide
Voyage ever onwards
Set a course to the other side
Of the endless oceans blue

Quoting Amity

If the Tao is eternal and there is a flow in time and space, it should not be limited to the TTC. Let it soar outside the text box. :sparkle:

Quoting Amity

In short, while physics provides empirical insights into the workings of the universe, metaphysics offers a framework for understanding the underlying principles that govern those observations. One can inform the other. — punos

Isn't this necessary if we are to have an holistic approach to understanding life?
It's similar to what I've just discussed with Fooloso4.
Regarding the play of opposites.
I see no reason why this would be objected to by the author/s of the TCC.

Absolutely, i agree. And thank you for the encouragement. :smile:

Quoting unenlightened

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.

I've done this, and it was supremely insightful regarding the binary computational nature of the universe. It actually inspired in me a new way of looking at quantum mechanics. I would get into it right now, but unfortunately, at the moment, i don't have the time. Perhaps i will at some point in the future.

Quoting Amity

I will listen to more of the Symphony later.

The following song would be something like John's political Manifesto, I would say. And I happen to agree with him, if he intended it as such. Otherwise, if I have the right to interpret it as such (as a political Manifesto, no matter if John intended it otherwise), then I would say that I mostly disagree with all of the points being made.

Quoting punos

It actually inspired in me a new way of looking at quantum mechanics. I would get into it right now, but unfortunately, at the moment, i don't have the time. Perhaps i will at some point in the future.

Cool! The tendency is usually to try to back-project distinctions we make, like that between physics and metaphysics, onto the writing of the ancients, rather than trying to understand how they would project their distinctions -perhaps between heaven and earth, forwards, and the effect of this is that though one calls the result "The Tao of Physics" it is actually more so "The Physics of the Tao.". One praises them for 'guessing right'.

Quoting punos

What has been is contained in the present as memory (space), and what will be is contained in the potential of the present state of space, determined by the memory of the past. The future does not exist, but its determinants do exist in the present. So, in essence, this is how i define the past and present in my own understanding. Does this address the issue you raised?

Yes, that's good. What a high frame rate the universe has! It's astronomical! High resolution, too.

I'm also looking to see if there is any kind of quantum guidance principle to what goes on, although the universe really seems to be a colossal waste of material, extravagant to the max, burning and exploding all over the place, and freezing in between. And today there is a big snow storm happening in New York to be followed by single digit temperatures.

So, here we go, in an entertaining video made by putting words into invideo, in generative mode, to look for clues, from creatures between man and angel, such as from the cosmic alphabet of the standard model, ending up finding a poetic uni-verse. I wish I knew more about what I meant in some of it.



Introduction

From quantum non-locality and entanglement, we know that information is more primary than distance, and that objects don’t have to have the appearance of being near each other to be related or to cause an effect.

Everything connected to everything would seem to be a ‘perception’ as far as one could be had by the entangled network. The all-at-once connections, as like in a hologram, would seem to provide for the direction of what goes on in the overall information process.

I am thinking like a yogi and a guru, the entire cosmos situated within me.

Quantum non-locality seems to imply that every region of space is in instant and constant contact with every other, perhaps even in time as well, and so the holistic universe is governed by the property of the solitary whole; thus, that could be the underlying guidance principle. An individual particle might ‘know’ something about what to do, acting according to all the others, as in relationism.

Thus both our consciousness and the holistic universe, each having a singular nature, could be the clue. Maybe they are of the same basis of fundamental consciousness, but separate, as two manifestations, each controlling a different realm, such as internal and external, our internal consciousness giving us ‘future’, and the external consciousness granting ‘future’ to the universe. I don't know which has the tougher job.

Lee Smolin has it that qualia are intrinsic, as fundamental, and Chalmers has it that information is fundamental and can express itself in two ways, in consciousness and in matter.

Quantum entanglement suggests that each particle has the entire 3-D or 4-D map of the universe, the information ever updated, the universe being as a single entity. While this may not be consciousness at the level we have, it may help the universe accomplish something of the movements of particles and fields in their energy, mass, and momentum, in some global way that goes forward overall. This may not seem to be saying a whole lot, in depth, but since the quantum realm is beneath everything then one would surmise that it must have all to do with everything that goes on.

It is still that the apparent atoms and molecules make the happenings, via physical-chemical reactions; however, this observation cannot be equated to an ‘explanation’, for we must wonder what underlies the chemical mattering and reacting that seems to have a unity of direction to it.

— Austin P. Torney


To the Quantum Depths of the Poetic Universe

I had finished with the yogis and the gurus, and the seers and the oracles only know of the future; so, I surmised, to uncover the deepness of the present, for nature and the conscious animates, I must seek out Nature’s Great Poet in her Uni-verse, in order to fully apprehend the ethereal phantasms of the entangled and enchanted branches in the forest of nature, bringing them into the light.

Fortunately, I was a poet myself, and so I could gain entrance to the elfin dell, as a human, having to first pass through the neophytes, resisting their temptations and spells; however, the sensual can often take a back seat to the intellectual, although the ecstasy can be similar.

I had been to Elf-lande once before, bringing my epic poem, ‘Flora Symbolica’, unto them, and writing up the results in ‘Elfin Legends’, and so they had bid me to return one day on a quest.

Theirs was more of an ethereal world, whereas mine was often clunky, except when I dreamt at night, and it was time for me to wander again, to ask about and better understand the quantum guidance principle, especially learning from those closer to nature and the heavens, they being the elven mixture of spirit–angel beings and humans, and thus aware of the causal nexus.

I flew to England, to the special forest fairy Kingdom, near Gallienne’s old haunts, and waited for the funnel to open up into the tunnel, and then I came out into their fairy realm and walked on for a full day, seeing no one straight out yet, just sideward waverings, but noting many new colors heretofore unknown, as there were more waves and frequencies here.

[i]Here the blesséd and haunted old forest,
Whereat the base of an oak I rest,
While all about lay wondrous deep coverts,
And a green-turfed path that leads o’er a crest.[/i]

They all knew what I was after, as evidenced in the first encounter.

“To pass and learn of the connectedness of all things, you must kiss me, after which I’ll give you your first clue.”

The kiss vibrated deep within my being, and I felt it to my core, and then she related, “All of life’s entities embrace one another, including cells, organisms, species, and biotope”.

“Um, I have to go.”

“Stay with me tonight.”

I was on my way again the next morning, the hours having flown by, as when Einstein had sat next to a pretty girl and had noted the much quicker passage of time, over the slower passage of his instant of touching a hot stove.

I learned more as I meandered through the labyrinth of the forest and met another beautiful creature.

She said, “Hold me tight and love me, and I will unveil some of the poetic structure afterward.”

Well, two days went by, and she revealed more of my quest, “Living conscious creatures are as a poem, they ever revealing further dimensions and expressing new properties at every level of organization, via strokes, letters, phonemes, words, phrases, and sentences, in and of a uni-verse of rhythm, reason, rhyme, meter, metric, and melody. This relates to the quantum All.”

I was hungry for the continuation of life’s quantum poem, and hoped I’d be able to move on more quickly, but her allure was testing my resolve; however, she told me something very soon after we’d rubbed our cheeks together, “Meanings in life are not just discovered or gleaned by mere observation but by understanding through participation, these informationally derived meanings combined to make sense in a non-reductive process, as in the relational reality of life happening at our semantical level of syntactical information exchange, with no breaking of any of the holistic connections, all this as the epic whole of the book of nature.”

[i]It was so still you could hear a nut fall,
And the musical strain of mystic call,
In soft tones flowered upon the silence,
As floating on the surface of the All.[/i]

“There is the particle and there is the wave—either one forced on us by our observations, being jointly known as the ‘wavicle’, all three states of which are truly not the actual reality.”

"She continued," “The actual reality is quantum fields.”

After two weeks with her, I had to survive the passage through the land of skulls and roses.

Finally, I emerged, unscathed, into the Land of Spring, and found out about more about growth.

“There are no objects that are identical with themselves over time, and so the temporal sequence remains open. Nature is a ‘possibility gestalt’, with the world forming anew each moment, from the deeper, enfolded realm, which is a unity in the sense of an indivisible ‘potentiality’ which can realize itself in many possible ways, it not being a strict sum of the partial states.”

[i]‘Twas that time of morn when the exiled rise,
Thrown to time’s Earthly bondage through the skies,
Being for an hour their own Heavenly selves,
Their full glory unhidden by disguise.[/i]

“It still appears to us, though, that the world consists of parts that have continued from ‘a moment ago’, and thus retain their identity in time; yet, matter really only appears secondarily, as a congealed potentiality.”

[i]These forest fairies, dryads, nymphs, and fauns,
Ever flash their nude blossoms on the lawns.
They beckon me along, for through the air
I pass thoughts of love, verses, and songs.[/i]

“In a stable configuration of matter, such as in the inanimate, all the quantum uncertainties are effectively statistically averaged out, this thus ever being deterministic; but in the case of the statically unstable but dynamically stable configurations the ‘lively’ features of the underlying quantum structure have a chance to surface to the macroscopic level.”

And so they tell more, “Physical phenomena are made of information processors that generate overlappings of correlated multi–dimensional wave fields which are propagating through time, as fields of possibility, whose intensity is a measure of the probability of an object-like realization.”

[i]The life of her face is in her deep blue eyes,
Soft-lipped mouth, and the ears that pointed rise,
As the moon and stars reflect in a pool,
Which look as for a lifetime pours surprise.[/i]

“So, there is form before substance, relationality before a materiality that is of a secondary arising and importance, its information being primary. Impressions of realizations are left in our world by the gestalt that ‘lives’ in the multidimensional spaces of quantum superpositional possibility.”

[i]I dive into her eyes, her soulful gate,
And worship before her heart’s flaming grate,
Midst flowers in the gardens of her dreams,
Then whirl back up through her eyes as her mate.[/i]

“There are no point masses then, but only smudged particles, such as we know of in the space-filling representations of the distribution of electrons in the shells of atoms—called the ‘cloud’.

“What remains unchanged over time are certain properties that find expression in the laws of conservation of energy, momentum, electrical charge, etc., these necessarily being closer to the basis of all.”

At last, I met the ultimate Poet, the Elfin Queen, who told, “There is a relationship structure that arises not only from the manifold and the complicated interactions of the imagined building blocks of matter, but also one that is substantially more inherent and holistic.”

She continued, “So, then, the weaves, warps, and woofs of the quantum bits as strokes makes for the letters of the elementals, as in the alphabet of the standard model, forming the words as the atoms that go on to form the molecules as the phrases, on into cells as sentences, up to the paragraphs of the organisms, and unto the stories of the species, via the unity of life’s conscious literature as the unified verse in which we live out our poems.”

[i]I’m left with a feeling that’s no mere spell,
But a fact in Heaven that’s fancy in Hell,
Of elemental affinity’s flame,
Deeper than thought, much older than speech can tell.[/I]

I had discovered The Poetic Universe.

I headed back home, this taking a few months, never stepping into the same universe twice, or even once. Funny thing, I thought, they didn’t use poems in what they told me, but, then again, they are as living poetic forms themselves.

I live by the beach, you see.
Artificial Intelligence don't mean a thing to me.

Quoting T Clark

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

Quoting ENOAH

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

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.

Konrad Lorenz - Behind the Mirror: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.

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

Carl Sagan:Every cell is a triumph of natural selection.

Quoting Gnomon

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

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.

Quoting Gnomon

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

Taoism is a popular religion in China today.

Quoting Fooloso4

Naming is something humans do.

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

Quoting Fooloso4

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

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.

Quoting punos

...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.

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.

Quoting punos

What has been is contained in the present as memory (space), and what will be is contained in the potential of the present state of space, determined by the memory of the past. The future does not exist, but its determinants do exist in the present

The Trio

Memory’s ideas recall the last heard tone;
Sensation savors what is presently known;
Imagination anticipates coming sounds;
The delight is such that none could produce alone.

Like orchestras that weave their music bright,
From strings of past and present and delight,
In future notes that hover just ahead—
Our minds compose their symphonies of sight.

The senses drink the moment’s flowing wine,
While memory’s cellars store each vintage fine,
And fancy spreads its wings to catch the breeze
Of possibilities that might combine.

What echoes linger in the chambers deep,
Where yesterday’s sweet songs still softly sleep?
What present bells ring clear in morning air?
What future chimes does hope in waiting keep?

The now flows swift between what was and might,
Like rivers fed by streams of past delight,
While dreams cast forward like the morning sun
To paint tomorrow’s canvas burning bright.

Three sisters weave the tapestry of mind:
One reads the patterns time has left behind,
One threads the needle of the present hour,
One spins the gold of what we hope to find.

In wisdom’s garden, three flowers grow:
The pressed rose of the past we used to know,
The blooming lily of the present day,
The budding promise of tomorrow's show.

Without the past to give the present weight,
Without the now to make tomorrow great,
Without the dream of what is yet to be—
Each faculty alone stands incomplete.

So let them dance, these powers of the soul,
Let memory and sense make fancy whole,
For in their triple-braided harmony
Lives wisdom that transcends each single role.

The sweetest music needs all strings to play,
The brightest rainbow needs each colored ray,
And consciousness requires its triple light
To illuminate our brief and wondrous way.

Reply to PoeticUniverse

Quoting Richard Brautigan

All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace

I like to think (and
the sooner the better!)
of a cybernetic meadow
where mammals and computers
live together in mutually
programming harmony
like pure water
touching clear sky.

I like to think
(right now, please!)
of a cybernetic forest
filled with pines and electronics
where deer stroll peacefully
past computers
as if they were flowers
with spinning blossoms.

I like to think
(it has to be!)
of a cybernetic ecology
where we are free of our labors
and joined back to nature,
returned to our mammal
brothers and sisters,
and all watched over
by machines of loving grace.

Reply to T Clark Ok, 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]:

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?

4. 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?


(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.

Rather, Taoism is a shoving, or a poking:
1. wake up, it says, there is a reality, [Tao]
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. And these make-believes are not nature (hence, not a natural or necessary function of your brain/body--albeit, possible because of your brain body). They are the myriad things, which we humans make displacing reality or the Tao. Ironically, they are the Logos, or Reason, or science, economics, governance, law, or philosophy, etc etc etc, no matter how neatly they function from time to time in making the universe seem orderly and predictable. They give order to the so called chaotic (not a fair term--ultimately what are we to call it chaos or order?) Universe; they dont discover it.

Now granted,
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. We are not as animals, uniquely singled out aliens from another universe, nor demons born with original sin etc etc, inescapably stuck in fiction (I.e. as Lorenz suggests, incapable of sensing reality) We too are natural, and therefore it must be within our natures to be natural.
2. 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. Expect, the unexpected, be ready for the inevitable twists and turns of reality--those which, without our make-believes, we would live with just fine:pain would be painful, pleasure would be pleasurable, neither would be a long story about pain and pleasure, and a subject who is victim and victor.

If Lorenz is correct, and if we leap from his conclusions (which I think, can be restricted to, for example, a scientific explanation of the neurological---but that is so definitely not a conclusion I am qualified to make) and there is no way for us but to sense/behave unnaturally; that 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 Reply to punos was right to ask/suggest that all along), then taoism's wake-up call is a farce.

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.

To once again borrow from Zen to illuminate Taoism (Although as a shield against the anticipated pedantic objection, I recognize that the two are not the same), that is precisely why, first thing you do when the shove awakens you: you kill the Buddha. Because the Buddha too is a farce.

Quoting T Clark

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.

Hmmm. Disagree with what? Apparently Lao Tse's Tao is very important to you. But not as "empirical science" or "philosophical poetry". Not even "Metaphysics". So, how would you characterize the importance and application of this ancient work of art? If you disagree with my descriptions, how would you concisely construe its relationship to Science, Philosophy, Metaphysics, Art, Poetry?

Here's a few books I have read that compare & contrast ancient & non-western worldviews with modern science --- specifically quantum physics. One book review labeled The Tao of Physics as "quantum woo". But the author seemed to think of it as Timeless Philosophy. Yet his subtitle labeled The Tao as "mysticism". :smile:


The Tao of Physics
An Exploration of the Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism
Fritjof Capra ; 1975 ; physicist and systems theorist
Re : 4th century BC worldview and guidebook
Quote : "Quantum theory thus reveals a basic oneness of the universe. Subatomic particles do not exist but rather show 'tendencies to exist"

Fire in the Mind
Science, Faith, and the Search for Order
George Johnson ; 1995 ; science writer
Re : Native American wisdom traditions compared to quantum physics and information theory.
Quote : "But science can also be seen as a construction . . . . one of many alternative ways of carving up the world."

Blackfoot Physics
A Journey into the Native American Universe
F. David Peat ; 2002 ; theoretical physicist
Re : Native American wisdom traditions compared to quantum physics and information theory.
Quote : Geographer held a rock (with glyphs) in one hand, and a computer disc (with pictograms) in the other. "yet both contained the same information."


A.I. description of an ancient Chinese work of art :
[i]The Tao Te Ching is a collection of 81 short sections that are written in a poetic style.
The text uses short, declarative statements and intentional contradictions to create memorable phrases and encourage different interpretations.
The Tao Te Ching is a guide to living that covers a wide range of topics, including politics, society, and personal wisdom.[/i] ___Google AI overview

"the central Taoist text, ascribed to Lao-tzu, the traditional founder of Taoism. Apparently written as a guide for rulers, it defined the Tao, or way, and established the philosophical basis of Taoism."
___Oxford dictionary

Quoting ENOAH

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]:

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.

Quoting T Clark

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.

Quoting ENOAH

?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.

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.

Quoting ENOAH

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?

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.

Quoting ENOAH

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?

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.

Quoting ENOAH

(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.

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.

Quoting ENOAH

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

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.

Quoting ENOAH

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.

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.

Quoting ENOAH

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.

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.

Quoting ENOAH

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.

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

Quoting ENOAH

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.

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

Quoting ENOAH

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.

"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.

Quoting Gnomon

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

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.

Quoting Gnomon

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

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.

Quoting punos

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.

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.

Reply to T Clark Very good book, was on college curricula for many a year.

What am I? What is one? Is one a person?

Is one just a person? I am not just a person. Every person is an animal. Therefore, I am an animal. One is an animal.

Is one just an animal? I am not just an animal. Every animal is a collection of chemical elements, most notably carbon. One is a collection of chemical elements.

One is, more generally, a classical physical body, occupying a spatiotemporal location, subject to physical forces, such as the force of gravity. One is a physical entity. As such, one is a physical subject, not merely a person.

Is there nature on Mars?
That angry red planet, which the ancient Romans believed was the God of War.

Is there nature in a stone?
That lifeless inorganic object made of minerals.

Is there nature in a number?
That abstraction of the human mind that has no more existence than mythological creatures.

Is there nature in table?
That piece of wood that a carpenter shaped until it looked like a table.

Is there nature in philosophy?
That love of wisdom that one learns in preparation for one's own inevitable death.

Is there nature in poetry?
Emily Dickinson understood poetry better than me.

Is there nature in a song?

Do whales sing?
Do whales speak to each other?
What do they say to each other?

Are they sad because they know that they will eventually die?
Is that why they beach themselves when they are sick?

Why do living creatures have to die?

Quoting T Clark

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.

So we do agree. For me, Philosophy is Meta-Physics (study of Mind) as opposed to Physics (study of Matter)*1. The Tao Te Ching is a philosophical poem, but more holistic than analytical Greek philosophy*2. Of course, as a modern American, my philosophy is basically Greek/Logic, with a cherry topping of Taoism/Holism. But my current path tends more toward Holism & Harmony. :smile:


*1. 4. 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). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html


*2. When comparing Taoism to ancient Greek philosophy, the most significant difference lies in their fundamental approach to the universe, with Taoism emphasizing harmony with nature and a more holistic view, while Greek philosophy often focused on logic, reason, and a more anthropomorphic understanding of the world, including a pantheon of gods actively involved in human affairs; essentially, Taoism sees the universe as a flowing, interconnected system, while Greek thought tends towards a more structured, individualistic view.
___ Google A.I. overview

Quoting Gnomon

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).

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

Quoting Gnomon

Google A.I. overview

We're not supposed to use AI generated content.

Quoting T Clark

We're not supposed to use AI generated content.

I just want to state for the record that I have no problem with AI generated content in this specific Thread, but I do have several reservations about it, outside of this Thread. I think that the use of AI generated content is indeed displacing jobs in several creative fields, especially the visual arts, particularly illustration, concept art, video game asset design, etc. This was a huge deal in the world of professional writers not too long ago, and it still is.

The consensus among specialists on the topic of AI & Art, for the moment, seems to be that AI generated poetry is no match for human poetry in terms of its conceptual complexity. There is no AI equivalent to Emily Dickinson. There just isn't. There's no AI equivalent to Hesiod's Theogony, or to Parmenides' poem On Being. There just aren't. Machines have not reached that level of abstraction yet, as counter-intuitive as that sounds.

(slightly edited grammar)

EDIT: And, to my knowledge, no AI has produced, or is even capable of producing, a text like the Tao Te Ching. Conceptually, it is far too complex for even the best AIs out there to replicate.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

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

@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.

Quoting T Clark

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.

There's an even larger problem here, to my mind at least. Not too long ago, there was a meme about a person that asked an AI something like "What's the best recipe for Glue Pizza? Tell me the answer with an actual step-by-step recipe". And there was a numbered step that said something like "Add glue to the pizza". Apparently it didn't understand the concept that human beings do not eat glue, therefore a cooking recipe should not include glue. Why not? Well, because no one has solved Hume's is-ought problem. So, as best as the machine could "take a guess", maybe it's ok to make a recipe for a Glue Pizza. Why not? Didn't the human tell me to do exactly that? Suppose that it would be in her best interest (assuming charitableness of intentions), then the answer is yes. So, here's your recipe for a Glue Pizza."

It's a genuine problem. Large-Language Models (LLMs) don't experience "Qualia", to use a philosophically loaded word from Philosophy of Mind. In other words: they don't have good common sense.

(edited grammar)

Quoting T Clark

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

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". The distinction is essential to my personal worldview of Enformationism. I don't have any formal training in philosophy, so I tend to be very free & informal in my use of the language. I think our alternative definitions are actually compatible, according to my BothAnd philosophy {see below}, which accepts that words may have more than one meaning, depending on the context. :smile:

.Quoting T Clark

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.

Regarding the Tao of Physics books listed in my post above, I view them as dealing with the challenge to scientific metaphysics since the advent of Quantum Physics. Since quantum uncertainty undermined the macro determinism of Newtonian physics, some of the pioneers interpreted the "new reality" in oriental terms (e.g Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism), and were accused of spreading religious woo. Yet, it's simply a case of clashing worldviews, to which some scientists reacted like the Catholic priests, who tried to force Native Americans to change from their traditional fluid natural religions to a western formal doctrine.

The contrasting worldviews depicted in The Tao of Physics and Fire in the Mind reminded me of the ancient Aesop's Fable about the rule-bound City Mouse and the laid-back Country Mouse, who lived closer to Nature. For example, by the time of Lao Tse and Confucius, China had been civilized & citified & imperialized for centuries. So the sages preached a more traditional set of peasant values & virtues to the kings, but were ignored. Ironically, the Chinese peasants & cityfolk created a formal traditional religion from Lao Tse's self-help advice, and elevated him to a fatherly deity*1.

In Blackfoot Physics, the author described the difference between the New Physics and Newtonian Physics by comparing them to the worldviews of Native Americans and European Catholics. He says, "Where Western science has always sought fixed laws and ultimate levels, Indigenous science deals in flux, change, and transformation". He doesn't mention Taoism specifically, but he does use Buddhism to compare & contrast the Western & Eastern notion of Causation.

"But not all the world's philosophies view causality in the same way. . . . The Buddhist notion of causation transcends the more limited scientific notions involving the outcome of a purely mechanical application of force. . . . Wolfgang Pauli introduced the notion of . . . . an [i]acausal connecting principle.[/i]" Yet, in my own worldview, I am able to reconcile those apparent differences --- city/country, science/religion, artificial/natural --- in reality by following the Tao of the BothAnd principle*2, which is essentially Yin/Yang Holism. ??

Quoting T Clark

We're not supposed to use AI generated content.

Google A.I. overview is a recent enhancement of their search engine, which summarizes ideas from various sources. The overview is merely an abstract of published human expert opinions, not technically A.I generated, but more like an abbreviated Wikipedia entry. I find it helpful for my non-academic posts on an informal forum. A.I. may be taking us away from Nature, but you can only go back-to-nature by trashing your computer. :cool:


*1. Confucianism focuses on societal rules and moral values, whereas Taoism advocates simplicity and living happily while in tune with nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_teachings

*2. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Quoting Gnomon

A.I. may be taking us away from Nature, but you can only go back-to-nature by trashing your computer. :cool:

Quoting Richard Brautigan

All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace

I like to think (and
the sooner the better!)
of a cybernetic meadow
where mammals and computers
live together in mutually
programming harmony
like pure water
touching clear sky.

I like to think
(right now, please!)
of a cybernetic forest
filled with pines and electronics
where deer stroll peacefully
past computers
as if they were flowers
with spinning blossoms.

I like to think
(it has to be!)
of a cybernetic ecology
where we are free of our labors
and joined back to nature,
returned to our mammal
brothers and sisters,
and all watched over
by machines of loving grace.

Quoting Gnomon

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".

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.

Quoting Gnomon

Regarding the Tao of Physics

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

Quoting T Clark

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

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).

There is a saying (you already know it) that one should not judge a book by its cover. But that does not apply here. You were not judging the book's cover. You were judging its content. How can one judge the content of a book without reading it? By reading its title, author, and synopsis, for example. By skimming through the pages. By reading the index, or the table of contents. By looking at the bibliographical references cited. By reading the marketing blurbs. Etc. We don't need to read an entire book just to have a more or less accurate opinion on it.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

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).

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.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

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

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

Quoting T Clark

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.

Unfortunately the misrepresentation of quantum physics outside of the university is something of an intellectual epidemic. Non-physicists tend to say nonsense when they talk about quantum physics. Like, it would be as if you or I suddenly started talking about the geology of Mars or whatever. But the difference between us and the people that use quantum physics without understanding it is that we're not profiting off of someone's ignorance. I'm not in the habit of writing self-help books, I don't think that's an Ethical line of work, to be perfectly honest. Why not? Because then you have self-appointed gurus talking about quantum physics without knowing anything about quantum physics.

It's like, where does it stop? The next book they'll have us reading will be "Quantum Physics and How to Fix Your Kitchen Sink". I mean, come on. Enough already.

Quoting T Clark

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

Well, you're a better person than me, that's for sure. I wouldn't read that thing even if someone paid me to do it.

Quoting Translated by Archie J. Bahm, 1958

25

There exists something which is prior to all beginnings and endings, Which, unmoved and unmanifest, itself neither begins nor ends. All-pervasive and inexhaustible, it is the perpetual source of everything else,
For want of a better name, I call it Nature. If I am forced to describe it, I speak of it as "ultimate reality."

Ultimate reality involves initiation of growth, initiation of growth involves completion of growth, and completion of growth involves returning to that whence it came.

Nature is ultimate, the principle of initiating is ultimate, and the principle of perfecting is ultimate. And the intelligent person is also ultimate. Four kinds of ultimate, then, exist, and the intelligent man is one of them.

Man devotes himself to satisfying his desires, fulfilling his purposes, realizing his ideals, or achieving his goals. But goals are derived from aims. And all aiming is Nature's aiming, and is Nature's way of being itself.

Quoting Translated by Archie J. Bahm, 1958

1

Nature can never be completely described, for such a description of Nature would have to duplicate Nature. No name can fully express what it represents.
It is Nature itself, and not any part (or name or description) abstracted from Nature, which is the ultimate source of all that happens, all that comes and goes, begins and ends, is and is not. But to describe Nature as "the ultimate source of all" is still only a description, and such a description is not Nature itself. Yet since, in order to speak of it, we must use words, we shall have to describe it as "the ultimate source of all."
If Nature is inexpressible, he who desires to know Nature as it is in itself will not try to express it in words
Although the existence of Nature and a description of that existence are two different things, yet they are also the same.
For both are ways of existing. That is, a description of existence must have its own existence, which is different from the existence of that which it describes; and so again we have to recognize an existence which cannot be described.

Quoting T Clark

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.

Since you didn't want to talk about Taoism, except in traditional authoritative doctrinal terms, I have refrained from adding the Axiarchism post to this thread. It's a new, non-traditional worldview, that the article compared favorably to Taoism. For a faithful follower of the Tao, such modern notions might be "needlessly confusing" and even profane. :smile:

PS___I don't recommend that you look at it, because the OP quickly prompted a variety of contradictory & confusing views of the science/philosophy of Taoism. But, just in case, here's the link :
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15732/axiarchism-as-21st-century-taoism

PPS___ My notion of Meta-Physics is actually about "the fundamental structure of reality". I view ultimate reality as a combination of Physics (Materialism ; Objective ; impersonal) and non-physical Life/Mind (Idealism ; Subjective ; personal). As I view it, Taoism seems similar : Nature itself is lawful-but-mindless, like a flowing river. Yet the rational or intuitive human mind can find a way to cross the river, not by swimming against the current, but by finding the balance between human purpose and natural tendency.

Quoting Gnomon

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

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.

Reply to Arcane Sandwich
Returning to the TTC, 25. And another translation. Why this one, out of the many? Are you working your way through the terebess list? https://terebess.hu/english/tao/_index.html
Or is it one that 'works' for you, or prefer, in some way?

Quoting Translated by Archie J. Bahm, 1958

There exists something which is prior to all beginnings and endings, Which, unmoved and unmanifest, itself neither begins nor ends.
All-pervasive and inexhaustible, it is the perpetual source of everything else,
For want of a better name, I call it Nature. If I am forced to describe it, I speak of it as "ultimate reality."

I think Bahm stands out well in comparison to some already discussed. [ See below * ]
The voice seems authoritative, explanatory, yet not dogmatic. It goes further in describing the Tao as 'ultimate reality'. It's nature is that of Nature. The Tao follows Nature. It is both called Nature and accompanies it. A combination of Part and the Whole. As a seed or source - growing like the fruit of cherry tree. The circle of the seasons. The eternal return.

My problem lies in what is meant by 'ultimate reality'. According to Bahn:

Quoting Translated by Archie J. Bahm, 1958

Ultimate reality involves initiation of growth, initiation of growth involves completion of growth, and completion of growth involves returning to that whence it came.

Nature is ultimate, the principle of initiating is ultimate, and the principle of perfecting is ultimate. And the intelligent person is also ultimate. Four kinds of ultimate, then, exist, and the intelligent man is one of them.

The word 'ultimate' is repeated. Does it mean the same thing, every time? There are 4 kinds. How do they pertain, or relate, to 'reality'?
Ultimate: Fundamental, basic, primary, absolute, infinite, model or ideal, conclusive, unquestionable...
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/another-word-for/ultimate.html
Reality: Actuality, existence, world, truth...
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/another-word-for/reality.html

There is an emphasis on the 'intelligent man'. What does he mean by this? Why the emphasis on 'intelligent'? Not all men are. Unless, it simply means having an ability to think. It's unfortunate that Bahm keeps to the word 'man' rather than 'human' or 'human beings' (as per Jane English update). Then again, a man of his time. Edit: On a re-read, I note he also used the word 'person'.

Quoting Translated by Archie J. Bahm, 1958

Man devotes himself to satisfying his desires, fulfilling his purposes, realizing his ideals, or achieving his goals. But goals are derived from aims. And all aiming is Nature's aiming, and is Nature's way of being itself.

Curious about Bahm, I discover:
Quoting Wiki - Archie J. Bahm

He was a member of numerous committees to support and promote the exchange of philosophical ideas and organized the Albuquerque Chapter of the Southwestern Regional American Humanist Association in 1954. He was one of the signers of the Humanist Manifesto.[2] He was also an organizer, past president, and past secretary-treasurer of the New Mexico Philosophical Society.

The Humanist Manifesto
https://web.archive.org/web/20121020110719/http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_II

For anyone looking for a list of '10 Commandments', this might come close:

Bahm in 1933 contributed “A Religious Affirmation” to The New Humanist, listing items that “a person should”:

Be creedless; that is, be intelligent enough to make adaptations without dependence upon some formula.
Be self-reliant; that is, be not dependent upon supernatural agency for intellectual support or moral guidance.
Be critical; that is, question assumptions and seek certitude scientifically.
Be tolerant; that is, be open-minded and hold conclusions tentatively.
Be active; that is, live today and grow by exercising his capacities.
Be efficient; that is, accomplish the most with the least effort.
Be versatile; that is, vary his interests to attain a variety of interesting thoughts.
Be cooperative; that is, find some of his satisfactions in social activities.
Be appreciative; that is, make the present enjoyable by his attitude.
Be idealistic; that is, create and live by ideals which he finds inspiring.

***

[*]
To compare:

Quoting Jane English (update)

Something mysteriously formed,
Born before heaven and earth.
In the silence and the void,
Standing alone and unchanging,
Ever present and in motion.
Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.
[b]I do not know its name.
Call it Tao.
For lack of a better word, I call it great [/b]

[...]

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

***

Quoting Translated by Stephen Mitchell, 1988

There was something formless and perfect
before the universe was born.
It is serene. Empty.
Solitary. Unchanging.
Infinite. Eternally present.
It is the mother of the universe.
[b]For lack of a better name,
I call it the Tao[/b].

[...]
The Tao is great.
The universe is great.
Earth is great.
Man is great.
These are the four great powers.

Quoting Translated by Archie J. Bahm, 1958

But goals are derived from aims. And all aiming is Nature's aiming, and is Nature's way of being itself.

Also, not sure of this. Human goals or aims seem not to be the same as that of Nature.
How do we even know if Nature has a goal or aim? Is it simply to be itself?
So, how useful is this? The Tao just is. Humans just are? No, there is a vision here of improvement and growing. But will humans, their greed and inventions kill nature? Or will Nature always survive. No matter what? The Universe is greater than our world.

Quoting Amity

Returning to the TTC, 25. And another translation. Why this one, out of the many? Are you working your way through the terebess list? https://terebess.hu/english/tao/_index.html
Or is it one that 'works' for you, or prefer, in some way?

All of the translations deserve attention. The reason why the Bahm translation stands out to me in particular, is because it's arguably the least orthodox one. It's the most "European-ish" or "Western-ish", and think that's an interesting lens or perspective from which to read the Tao Te Ching. I prefer the Gia-Fu Feng & Jane English translation, of course. And that's the one that I'm obsessed with. But that's a character flaw that I have, admittedly. The other translations should be taken into account, of course, despite my predilection.

Quoting Amity

The voice seems authoritative, explanatory, yet not dogmatic. It goes further in describing the Tao as 'ultimate reality'.

On the topic of the ultimate (or ultimates, plural), it's useful to consider the SEP entry on God and other ultimates, because it compares the concept of Tao to the concept of Brahman and the concept of God. From the entry:

Quoting Jeanine Diller

What it takes to be ultimate is to be the most fundamentally real, valuable or fulfilling among all that there is or could be. Historically, philosophy of religion in the West has taken God to be ultimate. Over the past century, the field has become increasingly aware that ultimacy is grasped under different concepts in the world’s religions, philosophies and quasi-religious philosophies—so not only as “God” but also as, e.g., “Brahman”, “the Dao”, and more. Moreover, people have thought to conceptualize each of these ultimates in numerous ways across cultures and times, so there are many models of Brahman, many models of God, many models of the Dao, and more; perhaps there is even a model of what is ultimate for each person who has thought hard about it. This entry presents a framework for understanding this vast landscape of models of God and other ultimates and then surveys some of its major sights. Familiarity with this landscape can clarify the long journey to deciding whether there is anything ultimate, among other benefits.

Quoting Amity

There is an emphasis on the 'intelligent man'. What does he mean by this? Why the emphasis on 'intelligent'? Not all men are. Unless, it simply means having an ability to think. It's unfortunate that Bahm keeps to the word 'man' rather than 'human' or 'human beings' (as per Jane English update). Then again, a man of his time. Edit: On a re-read, I note he also used the word 'person'.

The "intelligent man" is what Gia-Fu Feng & Jane English call "the king", and what some other translations simply call "man". In that sense, we should also speak of the intelligent woman, the Queen, and simply woman. "Intelligent person" and "intelligent human being" are even better expressions, not because they're more politically correct, but rather because they get to the heart of the matter in a more efficient way. That still leaves the question regarding politics: should we understand the terms "king" and "queen" politically? Or do intelligent people aspire to become kings and queens of their own lives? Kings and queens ruling over their own emotions and impulses? Kings and queens that keep their passions in control and in check, instead of surrendering themselves to such passions? These are difficult questions to answer.

I've spoken to engineers about the Tao Te Ching before. They are far more level-headed than mathematicians and physicists on this topic, and that is the reason why I'm fascinated by how someone like @T Clark approaches this topic. Because an engineer, etymologically, is someone who specializes in engines (and structures, and machines). An engine is a human construct, it's a machine in some sense. It's a work of artifice, not nature. And that is why I think that the Tao is not identical to Nature. The Tao is a work of artifice, it is not Nature itself. The Way itself, the Path itself, is the Artifice that points to, refers to, or emerges from, Nature itself. We should note that the word "Nature" derives from the Roman Latin Natura, which is more or less equivalent to the ancient Greek word Physis. In this sense physics is "the study of nature". But the laws of physics also apply to machines, such as engines. The problem is that there is a lot of nonsense in physics today, as well as in mathematics. Even professional, prominent physicist, say nonsensical things when they say that "the observer creates quantum reality" or whatnot. Mathematicians say nonsense when they say that mathematics itself is some sort of Platonic ultimate (Max Tegmark holds this opinion, for example). Engineers are far more rational than physicists and mathematicians in that sense.

So, are machines natural? Are engines natural? Is my computer natural? They're physical things, aren't they? They are subjected to the same physical laws that trees and stones are subjected to, aren't they? But I think it makes sense to trace a distinction between Nature and Artifice, or between Nature and Culture (or Nature and Tao, if you will), even though everything is physical. Which is why I don't think that the Latin natura is identical to the Greek physis.

As for the Ultimate, in my personal philosophy, it is identical to Reality itself, not to Nature, nor to Tao.

Does that make sense?

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

As for the Ultimate, in my personal philosophy, it is identical to Reality itself, not to Nature, nor to Tao.

Does that make sense?

Yes, if one considers the message that comes through, regardless of the implementation that is only the messenger, kind of analogous to music as the message, whether from a live band or a studio recording.

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

As for the Ultimate

On the Eternal Tao and Its Manifestations

The Foundation

Let us realize that what is Eternal
Stands as the bedrock of all that appears,
The permanent presence beneath every change,
Unchanging through all of time’s gathering years.

What truly exists cannot fade or dissolve,
Cannot be created or suffer decay;
The Eternal simply and perfectly Is,
While temporary forms drift like clouds away.

The Manifestation

Through endless transmutation’s flowing dance,
The Eternal dons ten thousand changing forms,
Like one great ocean lifting countless waves,
Or single sky spawning infinite storms.

Each temporal thing that rises from its depths
Bears witness to that which forever stays,
A momentary expression of the whole,
A fleeting actor in eternal plays.

The Paradox

How strange that what seems most solid and real—
The mountains, the stars, our own flesh and bone—
Are but the ripples on timeless seas,
While the unchanging source remains unknown.

Yet in each mote of cosmic dust there dwells
The fullness of that which can never die,
As every drop contains the entire sea,
And each moment holds eternity’s sky.

The Understanding

The wise ones tell us: look beneath the flux
Of birth and death, of pleasure and of pain,
To find that which has never come or gone,
The deathless presence that does e’er remain.

For though all forms must shift and change and flow,
Their essence rests in that which cannot move,
The changeless witness to all changing things,
The ground of being that all forms must prove.

The Perspective

From highest heaven to the deepest seas,
From quantum foam to galactic expanse,
All manifestation’s endless pageantry
Emerges from the Eternal’s timeless dance.

What seems to perish never truly dies,
What seems to birth was never truly born;
Forms merely shift like waves upon the deep,
While that which Is continues without morn.

The Recognition

To know this truth is not to turn away
From life’s rich play of shadow and of light,
But to perceive within each passing show
The presence of the Infinite’s delight.

For in the dance of atom and of star,
Of thought and feeling, birth and final breath,
We glimpse the face of that which always Is,
Beyond all bounds of life and time and death.

The Living

Thus may we walk through time’s swift-flowing stream,
Aware of both the wave and water’s truth:
The forms that pass, the presence that remains,
The aged wisdom and eternal youth.

Each moment precious in its swift-winged flight,
Yet held within that which can never fade;
Each change a window to unchanging light,
Each temporal thing of timeless essence made.

The Synthesis

Let us then cherish every passing day,
While resting in the truth that cannot pass;
Dance with the waves while knowing we are sea,
Be both the changing leaves and changeless mass.

For this is wisdom’s deepest, sweetest song:
That in the heart of all that seems to flee,
There dwells that which has never left its place—
The one still point of all eternity.

The Resolution

The Eternal remains forever what it is,
Though dressed in time’s kaleidoscopic show;
The permanent wears impermanence like robes,
Through which its timeless radiance may flow.

And we who walk in bodies made of time
Carry within the spark of timeless fire,
Both wave and ocean, both the dance and still,
Both changing form and changeless heart’s desire.

Quoting PoeticUniverse

For this is wisdom’s deepest, sweetest song

Quoting Arcane Sandwich

Bin Laden

What the heck is Bin Laden doing here in the Tao?

Abbottabad
About a Bad

The specter fled to Abottabad,
Having done a whole lotta bad,
His courier’s bin laden with what OBL had,
It being their way or no way—how sad..

No phone, internet, or even any trash
Was the giveaway to what the mansion hath,
And even in the nearby counter-terrorism’s path,
The Jihad of Evil courting the goodly wrath.

SEALs swept into the heart of the storm
Coptering into the hilltop’s guarding swarm,
In a foreign land, the tempest ID’d by the CIA,
And so the leader and his men live no more today.

A shot to the head and he was dead,
And to evil the end, as to all in his stead,
Whether clerics or just plain terror led.

The backup Chinook replaced the fallen stealth,
Perhaps too new of a device to sustain its health.

Osama rules nothing now, as he’s not to be,
Rotting at the bottom of the Arabian sea.


NAPOLEON

I wrote to the banished Napoleon,
Asking if all was well, and he replied,

No, sir.
PS: Liveable was I ere I saw Elba, evil’s prison.

(I extended the palindrome;
However, there is one cheat…)

Quoting PoeticUniverse

What the heck is Bin Laden doing here in the Tao?

Looks like not everything is rose-tinted in the world of the Tao, innit.