wandelaar

To remove any possibility of misunderstanding, Mudfoot is not on my ignore-list.

Yes Marblehead, but ignoring a whole thread is not that difficult, even I can do that. The really difficult thing is to go on reading a thread without using the ignore list and resisting the temptation to correct what you think is harmful nonsense. That's why I am happy that there is the possibility of putting some Bums on ones ignore-list. Strangely I still receive email-notifications when a Bum on my ignore-list posts something in a topic I am following or once followed. So that is what's happening!

Here I found some interesting basic information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_alchemy

Thank you OldDog! I will see if it's something for me. According to this interview the books of Dan G. Reid may very well be useful to me: But one more question: what is the difference between early Taoist alchemy and early Taoist inward training? I already read the book of Harold D. Roth Original Tao on the connection of early Taoism and the Nei-yeh, so that subject is already covered to my own satisfaction. Does the work of Dan G. Reid add something specifically alchemical?

My interest in alchemical interpretations of the Tao Te Ching is marginal, nevertheless I like to know what texts of Lao tzu, Chuang tzu and the like probably refer to alchemical matters. What book gives the most likely answer to that question?

@ OldDog Thank you! You gave interesting answers to my questions, except for this part: That is: did Lao tzu not only deliberately use allegorical language, but did he do so because he wanted to allow us room for interpretation?

In this topic I will give an explanation of complex numbers. Imaginary numbers are a special type of complex numbers so my explanation will at the same time explain what imaginary numbers are. There are basically two ways of introducing complex numbers: it can be done in a geometrical and in an algebraic way. Which way shall we choose?

Do you think Lao tzu (or those who wrote in his name) deliberately used allegorical language so as to allow us room for interpretation? And if so - why would he (or they) have done so?

@ OldDog No news medium can possibly give a fully comprehensive overview of "the news of today", because there is simply too much happening in the world for that. Further one cannot possibly choose what is and what isn't relevant news without some sort of moral compass on what we should or shouldn't know. So the best one could hope for is a free press where a great number of perspectives are represented and where it is clear what perspective is represented by what news medium. The way to go is personally choosing to watch or read those news media that one thinks are the most trustworthy and informative. I think attacking THE MEDIA as a whole as if it were some kind of alien force is very dangerous, and can easily create an atmosphere in which actual steps (whether legal or illegal) are taken to shut down those news media that don't please the government and/or parts of the general public.

One thing about the media - in a country with freedom of the press one could read news papers (or visit other media) with fundamentally different perspectives. That takes away a lot of the misinformation. One of the first things a (potential) dictator does is attacking and finally destroying those media sources that dare to oppose him. When the people in democratic countries don't inform themselves from a plurality of media sources when there is the possibility to do so, then it's mainly their own fault.

Clearly most if not all people survive with attachment or desire - not for all eternity, but attachment or desire don't kill us either. So my answer to your question is: yes! Now please answer my question. How long do you think one could survive if one didn't care about what would happen to oneself or anything else (that is: no attachments and desires)?

Is it even possible to survive without attachment or desire?

Just notice what happens when you get something you want: initially you will be happy, but after some time you will return to your usual level of happiness (or unhappiness) as you get used to your new possession and you start seeing that it brings it's own set of problems with it. So getting everything you want will sooner or later lead to the realisation that getting (everything) you want isn't the way to find happiness. What happens next will depend on whether you can still imagine and actually take steps to follow an alternative way to happiness. As the sages knew the best thing is to find contentment in a simple life and in the simple things that are (relatively) easy to get.

Derek Lin has some interesting things to say here: https://terebess.hu/english/tao/DerekLin.html#Kap50 Particularly this part: But how probable is his allegorical interpretation of the dangerous beasts and soldiers? Are there other chapters where Lao tzu is clearly using that kind of allegory?

“In this world there are only two tragedies. One is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it. The last is much the worst; the last is a real tragedy!” ― Oscar Wilde

Yes, we did good until you reached your limit. And that is OK. Further all the basics of the complex numbers (our road map) can now be found here, so the mission of this topic is successfully accomplished. I am happy with what we did. Bums who still have any questions on the complex numbers can ask them in my newly created topic: "Complex numbers - questions and answers". So I now hand over this topic to ViYY and others who like to play his game.

For serious discussion see: I have stopped following this topic.

@ ralis I have tried to read some of his links to his own texts, but they were just as incomprehensible as the crackpot stuff that he writes here. Can you post a link to something he wrote that you think is correct, understandable and useful?

And so it goes. Still hiding behind advanced scientific quotes and jargon to avoid a critical discussion of your own incomprehensible "theories". Some guys just never learn.

@ ralis I think it is the other way around, ViYY is systematically hiding behind advanced scientific quotes and jargon to scare away those who would like to critically investigate his theories. Apparently he doesn't want an open discussion, let alone a critical one.

Still don't see what all this talk about asymmetry and non-commutativity has to do with the complex numbers. Besides: even the division of things in Yin and Yang is an idealisation. As soon as you use words or symbols you simplify.

I agree with Marblehead that the mantra "The world is an illusion" has become an excuse of New Age people (and psychonauts) who prefer their own world of fantasy above the (hard) world of everyday reality. However there is a rational Buddhist way to acknowledge both the world of everyday reality and the world of absolute reality (or metaphysical truth), and that is the doctrine of the two truths. The doctrine of the two truths cannot be presented in a few posts (it would take a book), and doing it halfway will only land you in the kind of New Age weirdness as exemplified by the uncritical modern day usage of the mantra "The world is an illusion".

Now what have we learned about the connection between the complex numbers as defined in the approach of Louis Kauffman and Taoism by reading the posts of ViYY? Did he give any examples that prove the supposed connection? Did he give any proof that Western mathematics is a lie and that it is fundamentally wrong?

Don't think that "what we are" is a thing but rather a process, and a process can simply stop without having to go anywhere. The burning candle comes to mind, or a tornado. When the conditions for their existence are taken away the flame or tornado will simply stop or die out. However there is a "trick" to become immortal and that is identifying with Tao itself. Identifying not in the sense of somehow becoming Tao, but of considering our "real self" to be (part of) Tao. Because everything is what it is because of Tao, considering our "real self" to be Tao is even logically correct. I think the main reason why we don't draw that obvious conclusion is our evolutionary acquired concern for our (bodily) survival. That's why philosophical analysis alone is not enough to become enlightened.

It takes time to understand new mathematical concepts, and it often happens that when you reread a mathematical text after some time things suddenly start to make sense. If such a thing would happen to you, I will be happy to take up this topic again to help you understand the full road map as we have covered it in this topic.