wandelaar

Maybe time to ask again. As I said logic by definition is a kind of reasoning. Now it may be that one doesn't like reasoning or that one thinks reasoning (particularly of the formal type) is antithetical to Taoism. That's all right with me. In that case there simple is no Taoist logic. And that would be your answer to my question. But if there are forms of Taoist logic than they have to be forms of reasoning, for if not the term logic (as currently used) would be inappropriate. As I happen to know something about mathematics and physics the post of voidisyinyang on first sight looks like the right thing to delve into. But unhappily it's an illogical jumble of words. Take this: This is the typical pick and choose of somebody who doesn't know what he is talking about, but nevertheless thinks he knows better than more than two millennia of Western mathematics. Gödel used formal logic of the Western type, so if that type of logic is wrong how can you accept his proof as correct? And what on earth is "symmetric mathematics of irrational magnitude and logarithms"? And yes - I know what irrational magnitudes and logarithms are.

YouTube perhaps?

0 = {} 1 = {0} 2 = {0,1} 3 = {0,1,2} ...

Haven't found anything more.

This pdf gives an impression of what Taoist logic might be (but doesn't go deep enough to actually add something to what we already know): http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.103.134&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Yes - that's also how I see it. But Taoist logic - if it exists - should be a form of reasoning that shares some of the typical characteristics of Taoism. Because formal reasoning is looked down upon in Taoism, in a strict sense Taoist logic would be impossible. (That's why I wrote "some" .) But in a wider sense perhaps there could be something like Taoist logic. I have made a quick Google search, and am currently reading the finds. I will post the most interesting links when I am ready.

OK - I will start another topic about Taoist logic. I think it is an interesting concept in its own right.

I am currently reading a Chuang tse translation and am unclear about how Chuang tse actually evaluated technology. Sometimes he appears to value arts and crafts as great examples of how to follow Tao and at other times he speaks out against the use of even the most simple inventions as contrary to the Tao. How do the Bums see this?

Maybe the answer is that even Chuang tse doesn't know how to decide the issue, and that he just points out two or more different (but conflicting) ways one could reasonably look at it. And leaves it at that...?

Wondering what Taoist logic might be like....

The argument made is that technology only seems to reduce conflicts, but that looked at from a larger perspective the natures of things are being hurt by the clever inventions of man. And so all kinds of natural en social disasters will appear as a result.

I follow Epicurus on death. Not that I am absolutely sure about it, but I think the most probable thing to happen is that we as conscious beings just disappear as we die. After all: our inner life is a functioning, and a functioning can start and stop. But dying itself may be painful. See: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Epicurus

That's correct for his general theory of relativity.

@ Goowday What is the point you are trying to make? What is natural logic? Einstein's ideas about special relativity were experimentally verified even before he came up with his theory. The Lorentz transformations which mathematically capture effects such as time dilation, length contraction, and so forth were already known. What Einstein did was greatly simplifying the theories of Lorentz, Poincaré and others by deriving everything from his famous two postulates of special relativity and doing away with the Aether.

If you don't believe in life after death, reincarnation, etc. life is ultimate futile. The effect one has on the world at large is negligible. And even if one has some effect, the long term consequences are unknown. And even if the long term consequences are known, one cannot be sure about the ethical evaluation of those consequences. But should we on the other hand focus on our own cultivation, that's useless too because we will likely rot away (or be burned up) after we die. So thinking about life in terms of utility is ultimately useless, because there are no credible goals beyond life itself. Facing the ultimate futility of human existence can become a formidable obstacle to finding some peace and happiness in one's life, unless one embraces the futility as a doorway to a playful form of existence. I'm not there yet, because the problems of daily life frequently spoil the above playful perspective, and so I hardly ever actually live it. I will probably have to meditate more than I currently do. Nevertheless I think it's a useful way for a modern philosophical Taoist to solve the existential problem of the ultimate futility of life.

Also relevant here is the Needham Question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Needham#Needham_Question The Taoist sages also didn't take the step, probably - as I see it - because they didn't appreciate logical and rational thinking (enough).

Illustrates parts of the Chuang tse translation I am currently reading. The more knowledge people have, the more strange (including unwanted) things there will happen.

It's almost a week now that I am unable to open my postbox, so I can no longer reach the letters and occasionally books I am receiving. As I live in a rented apartment the owner (a large organization) will have to repair it. But after three telephone calls I still haven't heard anything of the firm that is ordered by the owner to repair my postbox. As I am also interested in applying Taoism to daily life, I like to hear how other Bums would solve this issue.

Almost right - I am looking for the meditation technique they probably used. But it seems this book attempts just that: https://books.google.nl/books?id=rJd7o9Ub960C I don't plan to become a specialist on the subject myself, so reading a serious scientific study will be enough.

Didn't try YouTube because there is no visible name or code on the lock of my postbox. But as I now look on YouTube there appear to be simple methods to open a lock even without a key!

@ thelerner What I am after is a rational reconstruction that tries to catch the spirit of the Taoism of Lao tse and Chuang tse, without trying to copy exactly how they acted and thought. I want to try out that road myself in the here and now, and as I live in contemporary society it would be useless and in fact counterproductive to try to exactly act and think as the ancient Chinese did in their time. The construction has to be rational because I am (or at least try to be ). I know the word "rational" is kind of taboo here, but I also have to respect my own inner nature, and my result will thus deviate in some essential aspects from the way of the ancients.

See for some cosmological thoughts:

And time seems to speed up.

It is always possible to call a mule a cow, if one wants to.

A philosophy indeed "can be" a doctrine without scientific observation or input, and that's exactly what gave philosophy such a bad name. But that happily isn't all there is to it, taking note of scientific findings or just of your own observations of the world doesn't of itself make your thoughts about life or the world at large non-philosophical. The term "philosophy" includes pure speculative thought, but it also covers a lot more than that.