wandelaar

@ Wu Ming Jen The development of modern western logic has become possible precisely because of the use of concise well defined terms en symbols. The drawn out posts of Ilovecoffee and voidisyinyang are a sad parody on the modern scientific approach. I suggest you look at the video (earlier posted by Aletheia) of Graham Priest to see a real logician carefully and concisely expressing his opinion:

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chan_Buddhism#Signification_of_Buddhism_and_Taoist_influences

Taoism and Buddhism did form Zen, so there should be some similarity.

Yes - Buddhist logic is quite advanced! That's why I don't see why Taoist logic would be impossible. I haven't read the book you mention but I will take a look.

I have already looked up a lot of texts from voidisyinyang and found them largely incomprehensible. There are much more effective ways of study.

Don't see what's so funny about that, the Buddhist philosopher Nāgārjuna also used logical reasoning.

I know the guy. Not personally, but I have read some of his articles, and I plan to buy some of his books. As far as I can see he is more interested in Buddhism than in Taoism, which (from the perspective of our topic) is a pity because he would be the right kind of logician to come up with a form of Taoist logic.

That's the positive side of the coin. That's right, but then again just as there's more to life than logic, there's also more to life than wisdom. It may be inconceivable to many but I actually like to play with logic, mathematics and science generally to construct rational systems of thought. A life of wisdom with nothing else besides would be extremely boring to me. And I don't have any talent for painting, music, athletics, etc.

Thanks for all the commends about the badness of logic. I always wonder how many people expressing this feeling actually know something about it? Modern logic doesn't claim to be anything else than a tool, so the criticism that there is more to life than logic is grossly beside the point. But never mind - it's the usual thing one gets to hear. So be it. All considered I have to conclude that there is not much to explore in the way of Taoist logic. To bad: but finding nothing also saves me a lot of time and energy.

In that case I prefer the simple explanations of Smullyan.

Thank you! Another worry gone! I can also follow the way of Lao & Chuang without the I Ching.

@ voidisyinyang Back on the old track again? Maybe someone on the World Wide Web will understand all this, but not me. Success!

All of them. The best thing I can think of in that direction are certain logical systems based on the I Ching.

Took a look at the last book via the internet, but I still don't see how it relates to Taoist logic. I have enough books on logic already to know what Gödel's proofs are about.

@ voidisyinyang The presentation of your posts here is much better now. But I don't understand your links.

How does that relate to Gödel's proof?

A short answer is much better anyway! Why don't you keep it short and simple as you did just now? Could you post a link to your research?

I have no specialist knowledge of the I Ching so I can not help here. The above problem is one of the main obstacles in my understanding of the meaning of the trigrams.

Thank you very much! This is a happy day indeed. Perhaps you also know the answer to my question about the I Ching? See:

For another perspective see (last quote): https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hui_Shi

Lao tse advised against (heated) discussions. But we want to discuss Taoism nevertheless, so - as Lost in Translation remarked - using the Socratic Method of mainly asking questions and giving answers looks like the right thing to do. I am wondering whether there are any books or articles that explore the relation between Lao tse and the Socratic Method. I couldn't find anything...

It would be nice if you could post a link on that. I am trying to understand the Tao Te Ching (and the Chuang tse) from a modern scientific perspective, and that would be much more difficult when the five-element theory or the I Ching formed an integral part of it. Change as a fundamental aspect of our world on the other hand is also recognized by modern science, so that would pose no problem.

@ Aletheia Thank you. But I am not looking for an explanation or criticism of western philosophy in this topic. I am looking for forms of Taoist logic, if they exist. It appears that very little has been done in that direction. Maybe it isn't a fruitful concept after all... I don't know.

@ Aletheia Good video! Do you happen to know a readable text that relates this to Taoist thought?

That's a big question. I think the first statement is incorrect. Pure uninterpreted perception would be inexpressible. Probably even a newborn baby has some instinctual ways of interpreting perceptions.