wandelaar

It looks like this book contains a concordance on the Tao Te Ching: https://www.amazon.com/Tao-Ching-Definitive-Lao-Tzu/dp/1585420999 But the preview doesn't show the part of the book with the concordance. I also saw versions of the book on the internet with not enough pages. Anybody knows more about this?

It is political! Lao tzu was definitely concerned about political matters. I think that's the fundamental difference between Lao tzu and Chuang tzu who hardly ever refers to politics.

Still wondering why there is one Bum (whitesilk) whom I am not allowed to ignore: is this a problem with the forum software, or is there a special reason having to do with who whitesilk is?

I very much doubt that everything in life happens for a reason, and certainly not for helping individual people in their (spiritual) development. How could that even be so, when there are so many people who would all have there lessons presented to them and only one world in which all those lessons would have to happen at the same time? Lao tzu's saying of the straw dogs seems more appropriate. The internet certainly can be a big help in learning about all sorts of things, but you have to be very selective or else it will turn into an enormous waste of time.

Why can't I put whitesilk on my ignore list?! I am getting the message: I had something similar some time ago. Is he/she something special?

Truthful words are not beautiful; beautiful words are not truthful. Lao Tzu

Just found a free pdf with notes to Mair's translation: http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp048_chuangtzu_zhuangzi.pdf

OK - good to know.

That book already has an index of 19 pages that you could use as long as we don't have a concordance. But if you want to go digital you could also use this site: https://ctext.org/tools/concordance/ens

http://www.egreenway.com/taoism/ttclzindex32.htm This looks like a concordance to the Tao Te Ching, but still not as a physical book as far as I can see.

That rather looks like fooling yourself. Imagine someone else to visit your future, to write it down in separate letters and put those letters in closed envelopes with only the dates on it of the things that are predicted to happen. The letters in closed envelopes are then handed to you. Now if you are right you will still be free to choose how to behave and live as long as you decide to read those letters only after the predicted facts have happened. But I think it would be unreasonable to keep on believing in free choice, if everything turns out just as predicted in the letters!

Yes - there are hundreds of interpretations of QM! But the experiments are getting smarter and more precise lately, so maybe we will get an idea of what is really going on after all.

I see Stosh just solved the fundamental problem of quantum mechanics! Now go and collect your Nobel Prize.

I don't see how the scientific method could be discredited because there are people who consider it sacrosanct, or because western religion has lead to the inquisition. I don't consider the scientific method sacrosanct, and I am aware that it has it's limitations. However I currently don't know of a better method, but I am prepared to study any likely candidate you may propose. Science may or may not have applications, but applications are not what it's all about. Science is about finding out about the structure of the world and how it works. Demanding applications will likely distort the scientific process. Applications are OK for applied science (as the name indicates), but they should be irrelevant for pure science. I can't help it when people don't understand the difference. So you are right: there are reasons to be sceptical about science as it actually exists, but it is not the scientific method that's to blame. The same or similar reasons will no doubt exist to be sceptical about any proposed alternative methods of investigation when they are implemented by people or societies as they actually are.

A ) Sentence B is false B ) Sentence C is true C ) Sentence A is true A B C 0 0 0 -> no way 0 0 1 -> no way 0 1 0 -> no way 0 1 1 -> no way 1 0 0 -> no way 1 0 1 -> no way 1 1 0 -> no way 1 1 1 -> no way (With 0 = false & 1 = true)

@ OldDog No problem. The discussion wouldn't have gone well anyway. There is a huge gap between scientific proof and personal experience, and I don't see any easy way to bridge it. I have done some more thinking on this problem as a result of this discussion. I practise daily meditation myself, and on the basis of my personal experience I consider it very likely that it helps me in becoming more relaxed and easy going. But scientifically speaking I have no proof whatever. I haven't done any decent scientific experiment. Further I had some positive sentiments about meditation before I started, so the results - if there really are any - might even be caused by the placebo-effect or self hypnosis. Now one's interpretation of this state of affairs completely depends on one's general view of life. From a purely practical point of view there is no relevant difference between something that only seems to work and something that actually does work as long as the result is the same. So if I were a purely practical guy I would say that all I care about is the result and that meditation thus works for me. And then no amount of scientific proof could possibly change my opinion. On the other hand if I were more of a scientist or philosopher I might very well take the position that I don't know whether meditation works, but that I keep doing it because it seems to work and that the seeming results that I found are reason enough to continue doing it. What exactly it is that causes meditation to seemingly work would then be something for scientific research to find out. This must all look like hair-splitting nonsense, and in practical life it would indeed be just that, but in science and philosophy we have to go to such extremes to rise above naive explanations and search for the real causes of things.

A book is here to stay for decades or maybe even hundreds of years. And it doesn't make you dependent of computer technology, the internet or e-readers. Lately I even find that my CD's and DVD's on which I did burn collections of e-books are beginning to give errors or even have become completely unreadable within the space a only a few years time. So I definitely prefer real books, even when I already have pdf's of them. There is also the problem of overkill - one can find thousands of pdf's (books and articles) on almost anything. But it's humanly impossible to sensibly navigate such an amount of data. One good and well researched book on a subject is much more useful than a collection of a thousand e-books on the same subject.

Yes! And that's exactly what is so great about empirical science, it doesn't like empty proclamations (such as are found in many religions, new age thinking and crackpot theories) that are impossible to test. Claims that one could hold onto whatever happens have no real or concrete content, and consequently have no place in empirical science. In science one simply accepts the fact that one cannot know for sure. All scientific theories (even the most heavily tested!) are provisional.

Yes - I have been searching for a short introduction to Chinese alchemy, and the pdf from Pregadio is the best thing I found. Sadly it only appears to exist as a pdf and not as a physical book. Maybe I will print it out myself and in that way make a real book of it.

Not learning are you? Just repeating the same mistakes I mentioned. It's simple enough: the complex numbers are commutative and no non-commutative mathematics, logic or music theory is needed to fully understand them. But I don't want to spoil the topic of LiT, so I will leave it at that.

@ ViYY Still playing your games: - Quoting out of context. - Bragging about supposed relations with famous scientists. - Misusing advanced scientific jargon to scare off possible critics. - Writing or rather haphazardly pasting together huge incomprehensible posts to intimidate the reader. - Not answering simple questions aimed at clarifying your position. - Systematically ignoring the subjects of the topics you are posting in.

@ LiT About complex numbers:

Strange how a topic about fundamental doubt quickly turns into a podium for the expression of personal dogmatic "truths".

A piece of martial arts wisdom.

You have found the answer already! The ancient sceptics knew as much, and they also found a way to live on the basis of not knowing the (ultimate) truth. I suggest you read about Hellenistic scepticism and their proposed way of life. Problem is: most people don't like to live in doubt! So dogma's are promulgated and defended by those reckoning themselves as belonging to the select few who know. But how to know which cult (if any) is right? Just become like them they say, and then you will see. But how can the different cults (with their contradicting opinions) all be so damn sure of themselves? They cannot all of them be right, so which one to choose and/or believe? And so the search goes on, and on, ... Lao tzu and Chuang tzu knew that there is no end to such a search, and one should by happy with the little practical knowledge one needs for simply living ones life. Personally I only follow half of that recommendation, that is I don't think we can be absolutely sure about anything (and not even that). And that search has stopped. But I keep on reading, learning and thinking. I am still too much of a philosopher to stop with that...