wandelaar

You did "what you felt was best at the time." What more can you do? The idea of "perfect choice" or perfection to me looks like a notion that is too far removed from the real world to be of any use in understanding anything. It will lead you wildly astray. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Anselm

That's not exactly true. The interpretation of Einstein for relativistic phenomena is followed by the majority of physicists, but it still remains logically possible to explain things in a Lorentzian manner and hold on to absolute time (existing independent from space). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory But things get more difficult in general relativity. I will leave that to the professionals.

Thank you! Seems reasonable enough, but is it Taoist? Is it to be found in Lao tse or Chuang tse? Or perhaps it's a consequence of not overdoing things and of preferring harmony and the middle way? That brings me to some other rules a missed: - Follow the middle way. - Use the golden rule (not doing to others what you don't want to be done to yourself). - Prefer harmony.

Well if you rather "admit ignorance and look at it struck with wonder" instead of disposing of the question as being senseless and impossible to answer, that is your choice. I rather wonder about the universe as such than punish my brain with philosophical pseudo-problems. I have wasted enough time on the latter when I was young and eager to think about almost anything.

So you found in the Rig Veda what I already told you in a rational way. Does it make more sense now?

Everybody is using rules. Whether you call it rules or not. Language wouldn't exist without rules, society wouldn't exist without rules, internet wouldn't exist without rules. Even the meta-rule declaring that RULES ARE TO BE AVOIDED is a rule. Freedom of mind is not to be found in promoting new taboos that are the opposite of the old ones, but in finding your own way.

I think there is a kernel of truth in your idea. But the quality of "perfection" is too slippery to make it rigorous. In more abstract terms we can say that a creature if it wants to demonstrate a quality Q has to accept a reduction of it's spectrum S of acceptable forms of behavior. In other words the spectrum S of acceptable forms of behavior for a creature C is a function S = S(Q) of the quality Q that C wants to exhibit. This is a however a purely logical relation, the same relation S = S(Q) holds for a sage, a criminal, a Dao Bum, or a robot for example.

The last time I read the complete Chuang tse is many years ago. Maybe time to do it again...?

That doesn't solve the problem either. Whatever your hypothetical workplace would be, it would still have it's own characteristics. And than you can ask the same questions about those characteristics. Where did they come from, and so on.... ? Then further discussion is useless. Maybe there are people here who's heart feels the same, and they might be able to give you some more supporting answers.

We have to live with that I guess. But on the other hand: how would it be if every problem in life had a clear answer, and our role was reduced to trying to follow up those answers to the best of our ability.

Because there can not have been tools and machines before there were material things and laws of nature there can not have been a "workshop" in which the world was made. The existence of a God will not help either because then you could ask where God came from. A smart guy might say God always existed and did not need anything else to exist. But then one could just as well suppose the world to have always existed. So that's no solution either. But modern cosmology supposed the universe to have started with the Big Bang, but then what started the Big Bang? And where do the laws of nature derive from? Long story short: the foundation of it all (Tao) escapes our understanding but can be seen at work literally everywhere. Studying nature or even you own mind gives an idea of the operations of Tao. The "Why?" asks for reasons. But reasons presuppose a "someone" evaluating the pro's and con's of certain lines of action. So there can be no answer to the question of why there is something (or this world) rather than nothing because that would have involved the impossibility of a someone being present at a time when there was nothing to deliberate about whether to create something.

It's not that the perfect creature is somehow forced to choose what it does, but that what it of itself chooses is the most reasonable thing to do given it's willingness and ability to be perfect. The same reasoning applies for instance to the willingness and ability of being a top criminal. So there is nothing particularly spiritual or heavenly about your philosophical problem. You seem to demand the possibility of deviation from one's ideals before you would call something a choice. I would rather say that choices consists exactly in one's attempts at behaving in a certain manner. When those attempts perfectly succeed you can not because of that conclude that those attempts were not choices at all. There is also something weird about defining a creature on the basis of the way it behaves, and then asking whether the creature could have behaved differently. Could a winner have lost? Could a truthful person have lied?

One more rule of thumb: - To conquer oneself is better than conquering others. (Except in cases of emergency I guess.)

If I understand correctly you are essentially saying that a perfect creature cannot have the possibility to make choices because perfect behavior doesn't allow one to deviate from the perfect path. Now there are several problems with this thesis: 1. How do you verify whether something is perfect (what are the criteria)? 2. Is there only one way to be perfect? 3. Why could not a creature that is willing and able to be perfect on the basis of it's preferences choose a perfect behavior? There is no problem here. A creature willing and able to be X (fill in whatever quality you want) will choose behavior in concord with X. The being of the creature includes it's willing and being able to be X, so the choices of the creature will than naturally be in line with X.

Indeed - I'm a newbie. I always start with keeping the discussion factual, but as soon as I see it will lead nowhere I just stop. For Einstein and the paranormal see: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/jul/14/3

How about the last rule?

Could you explain how the experimental set up allows us to conclude that the measured pain relief has to be ascribed to telekinesis or extrasensory perception? And spare me your haha's.

The big problem with parapsychology is that after more than a hundred years of research there still is no experiment proving the existence of paranormal phenomena in a scientifically acceptable manner. Hopeful experimental results found (beginner's luck?) tend to evaporate after some time or are found to be the result of errors in the experiment. Sometimes fraudulent results are presented. But if it's quantum mechanics that lies at the heart of paranormal phenomena perhaps with modern technological developments some way will be found to construct a reproducible parapsychological experiment proving the existence of paranormal phenomena without the shadow of a doubt? I wouldn't count on it, but we will see. . .

No - the expression "Spooky Action at a Distance" is from Einstein. See: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/427174/einsteins-spooky-action-at-a-distance-paradox-older-than-thought/

Great! I am not looking for heroic deeds or magical short cuts but for practical everyday examples of what it might mean to live a Taoist life in the world of today. Using the wisdom of the I Ching might be one way. I didn't think I had some personal example to offer, but your example of the I Ching reminded I actually have. A friend of mine uses the I Ching a lot. I tried it a few times myself but it didn't seem to be the right thing for me. Nevertheless the idea of regularly considering some Chinese pieces of wisdom in the hope of letting them become a part my philosophical background did seem a good idea. So I bought a "Tao Box" containing cards with texts from the Tao Te Ching and have now been using it for quite some time to daily draw a card to read the text on it and think about it. My familiarity with the Tao Te Ching already has been greatly improved, and it's become much easier for me to see when in daily life a certain Taoist principle might suggest an appropriate way to proceed.

It somehow still appears strange to me to ascribe aspirations people may of may not have to the influence of society. I personally don't care about luxury but I do about learning and spiritual matters. My aspirations are exactly opposite to the direction society and my personal surroundings tried to push me in. I would rather ascribe the relative absence of higher spiritual or materialistic aspirations in isolated societies to a lack of knowledge about the possibilities of living another life than usual. That would concord with the advise of Lao tse to not expose the people to forms of luxury or knowledge that might ignite their desire to deviate from their old fashioned simple way of living. The desires may still be there, but they are be kept slumbering. And the smart people who can not help to pick their own course are to be held in check. So this is not an aspect of Lao tse that I am very happy with...

When "having a safe place to sleep when tired and knowing where to get food when hungry" is problematic it will of course become your first concern. It gets interesting when those things are no longer problematic, do you know of societies where people are just happy with life as it is (without any higher spiritual of materialistic aspirations). That would then be a realization of the utopian small village described by Lao tse.

The problem is that we as human being always tend to think there should be something more to life than just living well. A yoga teacher once said that (or something very similar), and I guess this might very well be the biggest existential problem we as "spoiled children of the western world" still have to cope with.

Which principles mentioned by Lao tse and Chung tse are to be considered as rules of thumb and which as laws of nature that invariably apply?

And that shall be the whole of the Law! But no kidding - in a sense it is....