leth

So we can't really attain Ziran? Everyone is a sage, and aspiring to one is pointless because we are already sages? But even if one is 'losing Dao' one is still Ziran. In fact the idea that Ziran is an attribute that everyone has and cannot possible be without deconstructs the whole word Ziran, it makes no sense to talk about Ziran if it doesn't mean anything. So why sould does the laozi mention Ziran?

I agree with this. You mean that there is no contrast to Dao, or to Ziran, then does that not mean that everything and thus everyone is already in the state of Ziran? Sure Imbalances produce disharmonies. But i guess my argument is mainly a semantic one. If we are to regard Dao as Nature, and Ziran ar Natural, then would not unnaturall be defined as being in contrast of Ziran? That is to say that unnaturallnes is by definition being out of sync with Dao. Nice link, i had to fix the URL though, but that might just be me rather non-standard computer.

I thank you for trying to clear this up, but my cognition still seems to fail me and I still find it unclear what the misunderstanding is that you are refering too. You mean that that the contrast of naturalness with being unnatural is a misunderstanding or misconception? That there is no such contrast?

Perhaps my language is unclear, I was asking what you meant in your statement in what the philosophers mean with the term. Since you put the word mean in precence I though you meant what present day philosophers think of the word as opposed to what hellenistic philosophers (which i assume we are talking about considering we are talking about the concept of sophia as understood by hellenistic philosophers) thought of the word. There are certainly records of exposure to judean thought in ancient greece, and there are even accounts of those that try to reconcile hellenistic philosophy with judean thought, but in general they were even then considered to be incompatible. In that sense the hellenistic philosophers idea of sophia was the study and understanding of nature rather then it being a reference to them. I still maintain that a definition can be said to be inherently wrong if it defines a term of a certain system of thought with concepts that are not compatible with said system of though. What would the difference be between a definition being technically wrong and inherently wrong? Is the inherent idea of a definition not to be technical? Or what do you mean with technical in this sense? I did not make the initial inquiry of this thread, I am simply responding to it. I don't mind looking at practical viewpoints, and have never expressed the opposite in any way. Besides can an academical viewpoint not also be practical? But why did you make the connection between a philosophers definition of wisdom and the tree of life, especially since the tree of life is not a common ground in terms of thought or logic amongst philosophers? Perhasp I do not, would you please explain to me what confusions I have and teach me what you woudl consider to be correct? I never expressed that sophia (as according ot hellenistic philosophers (or any other sytem of thought for that matter)) refered to either Ruach, Nephesh or Chockmah. I did say that the hellenistic idea of sophia did not compare to Chokmah though, which is in fact opposite of your claim. In what way was the english translation "Wisdom" misidentified? I can agree to the comparison between the hellenistic view of sophia to the concept of Binah to a certain degree but not with the idea that that the hellenistic philosophers would regard sophia to be considered the higher intelligence of nature. Nor would I say that the hellenistic philosophers idea of sophia would in any way make it fully comparable to Binah. I certainly would say that the idea of sophia amongs the hellensitic philosophers does indeed proceed from personal cognitive faculties. And this is why i would regard is at different from the idea of Binah. And that the hellenistic philosophers would not agree to it fully being compatible with the concept of Binah.

Can you in anyway transfer this knowledge of ontology through our common language? You mean to say that all ontological distinctions are in fact actuall ontological demarcations and not only constructs of our mind to understand our own demarcations of objects as understood by our mind? How are these ontological demarcations manifested in reality, from an objective perspective? If ontological objects are holons then how is autonomy and interconnectivity ontoligcally different?

As a side not, it is now more than 100 years ago the wright brothers first flew their famous first flight. But the gist of the post is the same.

I don't agree. The connection between hyperlipidemia and the intake of fat is not that simple.

Could you explain how this ontological demarcation works? What makes objects different from eachother on an ontological level?

What misunderstanding are you refereing too? Yes you do study to know how to act, but you need to know how to act to be able to be natural, so in a sense you are studying to be(come) natural. In general you study to accomplish De, which is an important part in attaining naturalness. While wuwei is a compliment to naturalness I don't necesarilty think it is wrong to contrast naturallness with being unnatural. Just as you can contrast wuewei with effort/work/struggle. And both are in essence the same practice, one of being natural; to act without acting. Sure, wuwei and naturalness complements eachother. Both are descriptions of behaviour in harmony with Dao. I speculate that there is no difference in them, they are the same. One of them explains the same concept from the perspective of habits, impulses and following what comes natural for one, the other explains the concept from the idea of effort or work put into behaviour and our cognitive struggle of puting our mind into something. This all points to the idea that we have to study and alter our natural behaviour to reach this state.

Sure you can, but Chokhmah is not exactly the same thing as Sophia (as used in hellenistic philosophy).

What is distinction? Is there an ontological demarcation between objects? Is the self really a ontological object separated by any sort of ontological demarcation?

Now that is the question, the idea of naturalness in Daoist thought is not easy to define or to understand. There is still debate on this subject as there have been for thousands of years. I can but give a small contribution of my view on the subject, you must make your own conclusions. Naturalness is a central concept in Daoist thought and it can be said that a person that obtains (if that is ever possible) a state of naturalness can be considered enlightened and in harmony with the Dao. Naturalness is the principle that Dao itself follows, and in turn so does Heaven and Earth and People to lesser degrees. We are however fully capable of being unnatural, we make choices and they are not always aligned with the Dao. And so it is for Earth and Heaven aswell, just less so. And by looking at Earth and Heaven we will see the path towards naturalness. By "studying hard" and developing De we can take the path towards Naturalness and thus come closer to Dao. I would dare to say that we are to alter our behaviour or form habits so that a moral and correct behaviour comes natural to us, we should not need to put effort inbehaving virtuously, it should just come natural to us. Aside from this being my interpretion it is but a small part of the concept of Naturalness and hasn't really explain De which is a central concept that in my view is as important to understand Naturalness. It sure is a tendency amongst humans but it does not seem to be something all humans do. IMHO it is not however a natural behaviour, but rather a cultural construct that is not aligned with Dao. It is unnatural for humans to isolate themselves completly from the rest of the world, we are earthly beings aswell as heavenly beings. So it can't be said to be normal for a person to grow up alone, or with no contact with other humans. What is the definition of looking nice for a person that has never been observed by someone else, to whom does that person want to look nice? To make ones apperance only for oneself or to make it for others is a different thing. What is beauty, and how much of it is cultural? Likewise how much of or cognition is natural, or our language for that matter? Is the concept of beauty even natural, or how does or concept of beauty differe from natural beauty?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist is a good beginning. Well, such a comparison will be inherently wrong in defining the term because it's based on a completely different model of thought. Secondly i would dare to say that comparatively speaking at the begining of what we today call hellenistic philosophy it was more considered in the domain of Ruach and Nephesch (as a comparison sophia was associated with Athena and Metis (who at the time where not really that mystical anymore)) however Hellenistic thought never really had those distinctions or that view of the soul, so that comaprison is just really odd and way off. In fact forget i did that comparison, it's just wrong no matter how you do it.

It is TCM-related in the sense that she used modern scientific methodology on a recipy from TCM. To say that what she did had nothing to do with TCM is far from the truth.

Are you putting htis into the modern day? Mean is in prescence, which suggest now. And then it's as easy as using a modern dicitonary, which seems to disagree with your next statement. I don't agree, wisdom or sophia in ancient greek was not percieved in to be connected to any concepts from judean thought, most likely because judean thought was not really well spread in ancient greece.

Wisdom is well usage of cognitive abilities.

I don't agree with this, our "natural behaviour" is different from animals natural behaviour. But i also think that the idea that naturallness is about natural behaviour is inherently wrong. Naturallness can be shaped, and it is through De that we should find this naturallness. Is being vanity a genetic trait then? I don't think that all our social behaviour is natural, I think a lot of it is unnaturall, and that it is more built on our insecurties than our own realisations of ourself.

I don't see how this is different from a Toaists view. Sure any sort of modification that goes beyond nature would be pervers, however i think you really have to ask yourself what is natural and what is not. Doaism is to follow our nature, all daoistic practices is to see the natural in oneself. In fact a lot of the practiced is focused on the philosophy of wei wu wei. Itäs hard not to in this society, but art does not have to be unnatural, it can be a natural expression of ones inner life. Taking care of ones body is not unnaturall either. Now this is the question, if you where content then what is it that merits the change?

This is sold as a finished product over here. Can be found in just about every supermarket.

Yes, it's beautiful.

I don't agree that everything can be regarded as pointless, and yes love for or being pleased by something means that it is not pointless. Yes, i guess you could see it as a scale, so where do you draw the line if you are to draw a line? Or you could ask yourself why you should need any form of modification insead of just trying to appriceate the natural beauty, which i gues is the point of the taoist viewpoint of this. Just because it's a shell doesn't mean it's separated from the core, in fact i would argue that the shell is connected to the core. Why not apply it to things as they are already? Why do we need to modify things to find them beautiful?

Personaly I have had this instinct or intuition that i should not damage my own body, or self-mutilate as i have many times thought about it as. But I'm not sure about where i draw the line really. I have considered getting a tattoo, but i have always been wary about getting one considering it is a rather permanent thing I don't want to regret it decades later. In the end i have always ended up arguing that I can't be sure I belive in anything so adamantly that I can't possible regret getting a tatto with a symbol of it. Sometimes this intuition on not harming myself has influenced the decision to some extent but mostly it has been the chance of regret that has made the decision. I kept long hair for a period of time during my teens and young adult years, because I didn't want to cut it. But somewhere in my late twenties i decided to cut it short, so i guess that doesn't matter much. Besides i have shaved my facial hair away my whole life, i find that what grows doesn't really look good if I let it grow out and I guess there is some part of me that is a bit vain. Other than that I don't think i've thought much on it myself. But I hold the opinion that any sort of modificatin of my body that is no necessary is pointless to make. I've had some friends that has been into bodymods of varying degrees and I have in a sense had the opportunity to see that culture up front, which is rather fascinating but i have myself never really felt the need for it, the only bodmod i've ever considered in any way is tattoos as i described before. But i guess I can play with the idea a bit. In one seense i'd have to agree with myself, if it's not needed then why do it? I guess that is a sort of functional view of the body, and it disregards any aesthethic arguments, which of course would be valid. But i see no need for aesthethics when it comes to the body, I guess Im more focused on the inner part of our beingness. One can look at the body as just a body, something that is just a shell, and in that case what can posibly be wrong with decorating that shell or modifying it according to ones preferences? On the other hand there is the question on any sort of modification of the body comes from being vain, and that could be considered an inherently unwanted trait. But in the end i think it is up to each and everyone to do as they themselves pleases.

Yes hopefully I will one day express myself with art more than I do now. I know that feeling that ones art is not good enough or just mediocre, having a father as an artis both gave me lots of theoretical knowledge on art and a very high standard to live up to, so naturaly i was never satisfied with my own artistic expression when i was younger. In combination with impatience I guess it led to me prusuing other paths in life. Now i am older and have more patience but also understand that one has to train to become better an that I can't have to high expectations on myself. But I know have other focuses in life that I prioritise instead. Everything has it's time I guess. And art is still art even if it's painted by an amature, i can certainly appreciate artistic expression regardles of the skill of the artist nowdays. It's not about skill, it's about expressing oneself.

It gives us understanding, and I posit that understanding is a worthy goal in itself. If i understand someone elses viewpoints then I can better behave accordingly and adapt to and show respect towards that person. I can for instance not follow a custom i do not agree to out of respect unless I understand what that custom is. There are many other reason why understanding is worhty to seek of course, i just wanted to give one example. Even though my poinion has changed it does not have to lead to consensus in the debate. It can even lead towards a wider gap in viewpoints, none the less there has been progression. Which ever way we see things, and whatever we think are better is not the same for others. We do not know whether the other person could have valid points that would cause us to gain better understanding of what we think is better, or if our ideas could inspire better understanding in the other person. But the progression would never happen in either parties unless there is a change of ideas and discussion.

Consensus is not always a viable or even reasonable goal, I think a better goal is to understand eachother. Consesus should only arise if people actually agree, but there is nothing wrong with disagreeing and discussion will point out in detail how people do disagree. Sometimes it's worthwhile to understand the finer details how there is disagreement. Discussion is a way to both understnad others reasoning aswell as ones own resoning, and a good way to further develop ones reasoning and to learn new ways to reason.