wandelaar

Yes - I agree with steve. Even judging your judging as wrong would only create more problems. And besides, some simple forms of judgment are necessary for survival and staying out of trouble.

In it's essence it's simple enough: - Those aspects of culture that can be experienced without disrupting the way of life of other people pose no problem. Multiculturalism is a possibility in this sphere. - As for those aspects of culture (government, law, etc.) that concern society as a whole there can reasonably be only one system at a given time that applies to everybody in the society under consideration. Multiculturalism in this sphere isn't a stable situation and can easily lead to civil war.

And the answer suddenly appeared to me. Reasoning and consciously worked out value systems aren't necessary for if they were plants wouldn't even grow, bear fruit and die. It's enough for there being an inner drive to develop ones potential. And in case the inner drive isn't there, it isn't there. It's just a matter of facts. No need to judge, because in both cases one just does what one feels like doing.

That's exactly the Way of the ancient (Greek and Roman) sceptics.

Bertrand Russell said: "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision." I am still struggling with this problem! What is the use of study, cultivation, and experience when all stages on the road are of equal worth? The solution probably lies in accepting two forms of truth (practical and metaphysical).

https://books.google.nl/books?id=cJfm_FO_TEAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=hacker+i+ching+handbook&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjojeKd6sjbAhVD0xQKHWeaDUsQ6wEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=probabilities&f=false This book has much information on the probabilities of hexagrams with moving and/or static lines.

Lao tzu and Chuang tzu were not entirely consistent themselves, and I am not a 100% Taoist. The paradox resides in trying to be natural. In their criticism of Confucianism Lao tzu and Chuang tzu erred in the opposite direction of not taking the aspect of training serious enough. Training is always "forced" in the sense that you wouldn't need to train yourself if you were already able to do what you are trying to achieve. "Just do what you have to do. Don't overdo things. Don't force it." These are actually quite difficult things to achieve. Our egocentric perspective makes it all to easy to ignore the natural dynamics of the situation, and the viewpoints of others, and it is difficult to be happy with just the little unassuming bit of action that is really necessary. So just doing what feels natural is not enough. Forcing yourself to just sit for maybe an hour and not to act on your thought or feelings is an excellent training to break the many dysfunctional egocentric reaction patterns we have.

It doesn't need to be politics. You can pick any other example of change you like. Yes - but that doesn't involve the hexagrams. And so it goes... The book of the I Ching contains a lot of wisdom and using it as an oracle may be of help in finding creative/intuitive ways to deal with difficult decisions where rational deliberation is of no help, but beyond that I don't see of what use it could be.

There appear to be a lot of people on this forum who claim to possess or have witnessed paranormal phenomena. Now as this is a serious matter, subjective experiences and anecdotal stories are not considered as solid scientific proof. But perhaps we can set up an experiment with an online random number generator that the person claiming to have paranormal abilities will than have to influence by means of his/her psychokinetic power. In this way we can see what those claims are worth when put to the test.

@ OldDog Thank you. The idea that the hexagrams somehow (probably more qualitative than quantitative ) symbolize how things change is promising, but I haven't seen any application of the hexagrams that actually leads to a deeper understanding of change. Politics is a good test case. Can applying the hexagrams to such swinging back and forth in politics lead to a deeper understanding of what's going on. If so I like to see it.

I am still open to further study of the I Ching as a model of change as soon as I see a convincing application. The example of politics going from one extreme to the other, is quite correct. But that can already be explained and understood on the basis of the Tao Te Ching or even the picture of Yin and Yang interacting and following upon each other. I still don't see the extra value of the system of hexagrams as a model of change.

I already have lots of books on the I Ching including the Wilhelm-version. And I have read some of them, but I found out I prefer studying Lao tzu and Chuang tzu. I don't think the I Ching gives a good picture of the way change happens. The I Ching is supposed to be superior to the modern scientific approach (which generally uses differential equations to model change). But I haven't read any convincing proof of that either.

Just do what you have to do. Don't overdo things. Living out one's natural span of life. Don't force it. Be natural. Etc. That's Lao tzu and Chuang tzu. The simple forms of meditation they promoted were for overcoming the self centered perspective of the ego and for connecting to the natural way of the Tao. But it's no use debating this as those who absolutely want to trace their esoteric practices back to Lao tzu and Chuang tzu will find ways to do so, no matter what.

Yes - I also made a print out for myself because you never know how long the article will stay available on the internet.

Just read a very interesting article on the rhetorical methods of the Chuang tzu: https://www.bc.edu/res/gssw-research-home/funding/proposal-development/_jcr_content/content/download_43/file.res/Kirkwood%2C 'Revealing the Mind of the Sage the Narrative Rhetoric of the Chuang Tzu'.pdf

What is that?

I rather settle for less that is reasonably certain, than for more that is probably unfounded.

No - I cannot because they claim to posses secret knowledge past down from generation to generation. That's what makes those practices esoteric. It's a matter of faith whether you accept the claim that those practices go back to Lao tzu and Chuang tzu. But as the philosophies of Lao tzu and Chuang tzu as known from the texts seem adverse to those practices I consider them as not belonging to the original doctrines of Lao tzu and Chuang tzu.

Source: https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu2.html#25 So Chuang tzu recognizes inborn nature. The post-modern idea that bodily beauty is a social construction is thus denied.

That's already a much more defensible and nuanced position than just ignoring the social/political dimension.

Currently reading chapter 24 and there some advice on ruling a country is given....

I am asking this question because I consider it a waste of time to endlessly contemplate pieces of the Chuang tzu that don't derive from the philosophy of Chuang tzu. Such could be the case with pieces of text that accidentally became part of the collection called the Chuang tzu. Not recognizing those pieces for what they are could sabotage my understanding of Chuang tzu. I am not going to point at any pieces of text now because I want to read what pieces of text others consider doubtful and why they do so.

Not at all! No use reminding people of the role of meditation in a topic called: "Form of meditation of Lao tse and Chuang tse". This is again fighting a straw man. There is meditation, there is thinking, there is looking around in the world as it is - and they all have a role to play in the philosophy of Lao tzu and Chuang tzu. But esoteric practices are not part of their philosophy.

That's why I still consider the terms philosophical and religious Taoism very useful. There's a tendency in modern scholarship to depreciate philosophical Taoism as a western, colonial, imperialist, rationalist, etc. invention. Apparently we are to view Taoism as a kind of package deal. But I am not buying into that. Particularly Chuang tzu has much more of a freethinker than of a New Age guy. His philosophy is quite close to ancient western scepticism, and not at all like the bigotic politically correct post-modernism of today. I too move around in both circles and it's quite depressing to see how little people care about what you are actually saying as opposed to what they think you must be saying on the basis of their stereotypical picture of the group they think you fit in.

Maybe you could give your opinion after you have read the posts of the others?