It's my understanding that what is considered to be "the way" is not the Tao, but the "Tao Te Ching".

In other words, Lao Tzu wrote a paper called the "Tao Te Ching" which loosely translates into "The way to strength and virtue through scripture"

Within that document Lao Tzu often refers to the "Tao" (which can mean "The Way", or "The Flow", or "The Essence", in fact, it was the nature of these ancient Chinese symbols to be open to a very wide berth of abstract notions. Any translations into English are necessarily going to lose that level of abstraction. These symbols were originally meant to convery more of an 'emotional and intutitive' type of communication rather than a literal sense that we give to Enlish words.

As an example, another symbol that Lao Tzu often used is often translated into English as "Ten Thousands Things". Whilst taken in the strictest mathematical meaning of that symbol this is the precise number that it would represent. However, this was also the highest number that the Chinese knew of at that time. So this symbol also represented informally (All Things) or (Infinitely Many Things) or, (as Many Things as you can Possibly Imagine).

To try to take it too literally to mean precisely 10,000 things would be silly as it's clear by the way that Lao Tzu uses this symbol that he simply means, "All Things".

So, similarly the symbol for the Tao itself, could mean, "The Way", or it can simply mean "The Way Something Behaves" (i.e. it's fundamental essence).

In fact, given the way that Lao Tzu uses the term I would personally take it to mean: That which gives essense to all things.

He writes:


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 (mother of everything)

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one see the manifestations (the ten thousand things)


So in other words, that which gives essence is the Tao. That which exhibits essence is not the Tao.

Of course this is my own personal interpretation. I'll quickly grant that.

Lao Tzu also writes:

Heaven and Earth last forever.
Why do heaven and Earth last forever?
They are unborn. So ever living.

Lao Tzu assumes that the universe is primordial with no beginning and no end. Keep in mind that back in the days when he wrote this no one knew of any such things as galaxies much less a Big Bang, etc.

So this philosophical view assumes that Earth is everlasting.

He says as much: "Earth lasts forever".

I'm personally not concerned with this trivial observation. For me it is indeed trivial. Just because there exists some sort of temporal dynamics to physical existence of this universe doesn't necessarily need to be translated into a philosophical catastropy.

Lao Tzu also speaks of an eternal Heaven. And he clearly refers to the Tao as being eternal. So there is a timelessness in this philosophy.

I think it would be wonderful to be able to speak with some of these ancient philosophers and she how they might modify, and or change their views in terms of today's knowledge of the universe.

I personally have no problem with a temporal physical world. I believe that the underlying essence (the Tao) is indeed based on pure conciousness (the lifeforce of being) and therefore the material world is just a dream of the Tao. The dream does not need to be eternal. Only the dreamer needs to be eternal.

The Tao is unknowable. That's the whole point to it.

To question the Tao is to miss the point.

It's clearly a faith-based philosophy, just like all philosophies are that are based on an underlying eternal spiritual (or lifeforce) essence.

It's basically saying that the Tao is from whence everything springs. (i.e. Our true essence springs from the Tao as does everything). Moreover we are this true essence. After all, what else could we be in this philosophy?

It also asserts that the Tao is eternal.

Hence, we are eternal because ultimately we are nothing more than the essence of the Tao.

It's a spiritual view of life, IMHO.

The Tao is the "spirit", and to say that we can't know the "Tao" is the same as saying that "Spirit" is beyond comprehension.

It's the same idea as all spiritualities placed in language of the Chinese culture.

This is my interpretation.

That's all I'm offering here. My own interepretation.

I would love to hear how other people interpret the "Tao".

It would be interesting to hear what other views exist.

creative, have you ever read the tao aof physics?
i havnt studied tao extensivly so i dont feel right commenting to much on it, bu it is a refreshing outlook on life.
my brother studies tao and its relation to judo, one of his favorites is "a bowl has no use unless its empty"
itl make you think if nothing else

That shows the essence of taoist thought. Finding the meaning of an object or idea through seeing what it is not. This is described in one translation as follows...

Thirty spokes meet at a nave;
Because of the hole we may use the wheel.
Clay is moulded into a vessel;
Because of the hollow we may use the cup.
Walls are built around a hearth;
Because of the doors we may use the house.
Thus tools come from what exists,
But use from what does not.


Great example.



I cannot sit here and claim that I can describe The Tao, for to do so would be to name it, and to do that would confine it, and to do that would automatically apply meaning to what exists without it.

Abracadabra,

Do you speak fluent Mandarin?

(hey, theres QM in a nutshell.)
So its semantics in otherwords. or its not, because to capture it, and define it is meaningless because "it" will never be the same.
Or am i confused? haha its a simple but profound and difficult concept(i hesitate to use the word concept)
Mabey this is off topic, tell me if im out of line but according to Quantum Theory its Impossible to know the momemtum and position of a particle at the same time. The closer you observe one, the more the other becomes Unoberservable (is that a word?) You can replace messure with observe. I used observe because according to QM when you observe something, you simultaneously influence it, and since its influenced its not the same as it was.

Anyways i dont have any references or established explenations to back that up, but what do you think?

Truly.

seems to me if everybody would just quit reading other peoples philosophies, tao, buddhism, the religions, whatever, and think deeply and come up with their own philosophy of leading a human life full of empathy the world would be a much safer place. must we forever rely on examples for everything we think? i wonder how many original thoughts would conclude that treating all living things with compashion is the sensical approach to life. don't know about you folks, but thoughts that i conjure up myself i tend to put more credence in than something i'm told. so if i waste my time reading philosophy, i have less time to conjure.

I have heard the same thing said about "God."

Oh by all means, don't waste you time reading.

you really do make use of the strawman bean if you got from my post that reading is a waste of time. but i expect that of you more and more as we continue to exchange views here. now, if you'd like to discuss my point that "reading philosophy" is largely a waste of time then fine, let's discuss that. but i'll not argue my point with a strawman who reads that i said that "all reading" is a waste of time. such an arguement would be nonsensical.

I wonder then, if you think that reading philosophy is a waste of time, why you are wasting your time in the Science and philosophy forum in a thread entitled "Taoism." Or would you prefer this forum exclude philosophy and just be about science?

If so, why be reading a Taoism thread? Just curious.

Oh and P.S.

By all means, don't waste your time reading philosophy."

jason wrote:



I can see where one could make correlations, however according to the translations of Lao Tzu which I have read, I do not think that there exists a correlation at all. I say that because any name at all is not the name. Lao Tzu uses the name The Tao(Dao,Way,etc) not to identify it so much as to bring the concept of it into conscious thought.

Taoist thought heavily depends upon opposites, therefore it is a dualistic philosophy of sorts. This is not the same kind of dualism as mind/body or spirit/body, moreover, it recognizes the need for both sides of the same coin.

Add to this the idea that in traditional Chinese, and much of Asian thought/culture there exists things which go unsaid(the unspoken word). The expectation of another to be able to know what one wants or needs go unspoken many times. The unspoken word is a difficult concept for someone who has established a pattern of Western thinking to grasp, and I give credit to Abra who touched upon the outside of this idea by mentioning the 'intuitive' nature of the Tao.



The specific concerning QM is off topic. I suggest you not believe that it is wise to replace measure with observer. That is for another thread. QM spirituality would probably yield results if you posted those questions there.

Also, I don't really know what you mean by "using the strawman." I do get sarcastic sometimes. I apologize. I just say what I think. I'll probably get kicked out of this club because of that.

I value reading very highly and books are some of my most prized possessions. Read what interests you. I think reading other people's philosophy is thought provoking. I don't think it is a waste of time. But everyone has their opinions.

indeed i am wasting my time here as regards philosophy in general or taoism specifically. last week i wasted several days at the beach reading a dean koontz novel. i'm here for my entertainment and amusement as i was at the beach for my entertainment and amusement. when i want to learn something i don't read dean koontz or books on philosophy.

somebody asked if this forum needed a name change. i suggested that the forum be split being as i see philosophy having nothing to do with science.



actually i've read little of this thread. i simply posted my feelings regarding personal philosophies and since then you and i have engaged in this exchange. but as i say, i'm not here to learn. i have many references on and off the internet for learning. i'm here to be amused and entertained.



of course. even as regards this thread, i know nothing about taoism as i've read no posts that discuss taoism. would be a waste of my time, as you said.

jrbogie,

Just curious really...

Why do you think that reading other people's philosophy is a waste of time?

If that is all that was said about 'God', then I would have to agree. However, with the Tao and 'God' both, far too often one attempts to describe the concept and in doing so loses the entire meaning of it.

For what you hold in your hands is not what is held.

I enjoy reading about other religions, philosophies and spiritualities. I learn so much about human psychology and I have found some truth in them all that applies to my life. There is always more to learn.

If there is a heaven I think it will be a place where we continue to learn without all the difficulties and limitation we have now and without all the arguing. It will just be continuous learning of new things and ideas.

i know it's impossible to read every post but "why" was the topic of my original post in this thread. i copy/paste it here to save you some time:

"seems to me if everybody would just quit reading other peoples philosophies, tao, buddhism, the religions, whatever, and think deeply and come up with their own philosophy of leading a human life full of empathy the world would be a much safer place. must we forever rely on examples for everything we think? i wonder how many original thoughts would conclude that treating all living things with compashion is the sensical approach to life. don't know about you folks, but thoughts that i conjure up myself i tend to put more credence in than something i'm told. so if i waste my time reading philosophy, i have less time to conjure."


let me add that i carry my thinking about philosophy to religious beliefs as well and specifically to our moral standards. i feel that because i have spent considerable time developing my own moral standards, that i am more adept at adapting to new moral delimas that i have not thought of when compared to say a christian for example, who's had his morals taught to him or read to him from the bible. we all run into situations from time to time where the moral aspects have not been covered in our moral compass. i've experienced that i'm less likely to go afoul morally than is the christian simply because all of my moral implications were my own and not someone elses. i'm practiced in dealing with new delimas.

think of it as an airplane. the pilot in me, sorry. i design and build an airplane and i know everything there is to know about that beast. i write the airplane flight manual, afm, so that other pilots like you can fly it. now just because i'm a sh1thot airplane designer and builder, does not make me a very good technical writer. so it just might be that the afm is lacking some information that you just might need at forty thousand feet some day.

so there you are, ["no ****, there i was" is how every war or pilot story starts], cruising along and this red light starts flashing. hmmmm, seems i forgot to mark that particular light saying what the hell it means when it flashes red. if i were there i'd know that it's the engine fire light and i'd go to the "engine fire" section of the checklist. but i'm not there and danged if you don't instead flip to the "generator inoperative" checklist. you can load shed every generator on the airplane but that engine will keep on burning. as i built the airplane, we'd all be safe if only i was there. but i'm not there, only you are there and you've nothing but what you've learned from reading my "bible". we actually do refer to the afm as our bible. but never had god as my copilot.

Well, in truth that would be pretty difficult would it not?

What is science but a collection of observations made of the world around us. To insist that philosophers cannot ponder the observations of science would be to suggest that they cannot even ponder any observations of the physical world really.

I mean where would it stop? Could a philosopher speak about the "Big Bang" (i.e. a universe that had a beginning versus one that is eternal), without being accused of referring to "science"?

Taosim, for example, is entirely based on the idea that the physical world is eternal. Back then, they didn't know about things such as galaxies, other planets, or a big bang. In fact, they didn't even realize that the stars in the sky are just other suns no different from ours. So their philosophy was based on an eternal world where potentially the earth is the only world and the sun is the only sun, etc.

I would love to hear how these ancient philosophers would react to todays knowledge of the true vastness of the universe and the fact that this Earth and Sun are not only temporary but don't even hold any special place in the scheme of things.

I think they might keep their fundamental beliefs, but at the same time they would be forced to think of them a bit differently. All because of physical observations (That we now call "science")

But does "science" hold the rights to all physical observations?

More importantly can the dicipline of science be said to be absolute and perfect in its knowledge. I think the answer to this second question is defintely a resounding no. Even the theories within science itself demands that our knowledge is incomplete and imprecise. Not to mention that even prominent scientists disagree on the philosophical interepretations of observations.

I personally feel that the only place where science causes problems with respect to philosophy is when very secular-thinking philosophers attempt to hold science out as supporting their secularism whilst demanding that science cannot be used to support any other philosophies. That's a very one-sided view, IMHO.

It's that kind of extremism that seems to be causing problems between philosophy and science. It's just plain old fanatical extremism. The same thing that causes problems in all other walks of life.

I personally see no conflicts or problems between philosophy and science in general. But then I view science for what it truly is. I don't hold it up on a pedestal of unrealistic expections of perfectionism.