Is Taoist Knowledge a "Given" ?

[Stigweard]

There are two simplistic ways of viewing knowledge: It can either be "Knowledge as Given" or "Knowledge as Problematic."

 

Knowledge as given sees the subject content represented as facts, ie. a body of truth to be acquired by students. The transmission of the information may vary, but is based on the concept of knowledge as being static and able to be handled as property, perhaps in the form of tables, charts, handouts, texts, and comprehension activities.

 

Presenting knowledge as problematic involves an understanding of knowledge not as a fixed body of information, but rather as being constructed, and hence subject to political, social and cultural influences and implications. Multiple, contrasting, and potentially conflicting forms of knowledge are represented.

 

So the question arises: Is the Taoist ontology "Knowledge as Given" or "Knowledge as Problematic"?

 

What are the implications of your answer?

[三江源]

Knowledge as Given, is Taoism.

 

In that, as you learn it, is is like something being uncovered that you already knew but had somewhat forgotten.

 

 

Put's you back in touch with what you had lost touch with.

[seththewhite]

For such a MASSIVE forum involving so many profound thoughts and thinkers,

rooted in an understanding of the Tao...

there seems to be a recurring slip-up.

 

I understand that it is in human nature to attempt to place boundaries on concepts

so that we can grasp and define them for use in an objective world...

 

But when you go into detail about what the Tao 'is' or 'is not' in aims of giving it those same graspable qualities,

you must realize that whatever characteristic you decide upon will be both true and false at the same time.

 

The Tao is All-encompassing. It loosely translates to 'the Way.'

I take that to mean the Way of Everything and Nothing.

The Way of Life.

 

Don't focus on thinking it into objectivity.

Just feel it and give it the complete benefit of your doubt.

Then figure out how to rid yourself of doubt.

 

Please excuse me for interrupting your topic!!

 

Good morning my friends

[River Gazer]

SethTheWhite speaks the truth.

 

We see too much factually. We need to relax our minds, and most of all remove ourselves from the idea that scientific facts will be our salvation. There is a balance, and we are not walking it.

[三江源]

No, we know. We just like discussing stuff sometimes. It's part of being alive.

[River Gazer]

No, we know. We just like discussing stuff sometimes. It's part of being alive. smile.gif

 

Yo.

[三江源]

 

Yo.

 

xactamundo.

[zhoupeng]

Between the two, I would say Knowledge as Problematic. Our understanding of the Tao is subjective and different for each person (that's why we have forums such as this!).

 

If everyone had a uniformly perfect understanding of objective reality there would be no need for anyone to discuss anything, ever. We wouldn't be humans either.

[frp]

[Marblehead]

Knowledge as Given, is Taoism.

 

In that, as you learn it, is is like something being uncovered that you already knew but had somewhat forgotten.

 

 

Put's you back in touch with what you had lost touch with.

 

I like that well enough to not even say anything.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

If everyone had a uniformly perfect understanding of objective reality there would be no need for anyone to discuss anything, ever.

 

Now I would call that a profound statement.

 

Peace & Love!

[Sloppy Zhang]

Let's broaden this a little bit- how far reaching is "Tao"? Is it limited to Taoism and the Chinese point of view. What about Buddhists? If there is one all encompassing Tao, then surely Buddhists who have attained enlightenment have found that Tao? And Christian mystics who have communed with or become one with God, if not joined with the Tao, have at least glimpsed the Tao? And Pagans of various traditions that interact with various energies have surely experienced the Tao? And Native American Indians who have soared the skies on the eagle's wings and seen through its eyes have uncovered at least a bit of the Tao?

 

And that goes for any and all people, and all spiritual paths, even atheists, that each uncover the Tao in their own way, assuming the Tao is something that is indeed universal and which everyone is encircled by and united in.

 

Then again, knowledge as "given" and knowledge as "problematic" is another duality, so the answer must transcend either one. It must be both, yet neither. There are paths in which the knowledge is given, others in which it is problematic, others in which it is not so clear. If all of them are (pieces of, at least), the Tao, then all of them are right, but that means neither of them are.

 

But the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao, so what I said isn't really the Tao. Some traditions hold that you must "learn", others hold that you must "remember" (stuff that you forgot), but they all go to the same place (at least they appear to)

 

The Tao transcends, perhaps?

Edited January 9, 2010 by Sloppy Zhang

[Marblehead]

Let's broaden this a little bit- how far reaching is "Tao"? Is it limited to Taoism and the Chinese point of view. What about Buddhists? If there is one all encompassing Tao, then surely Buddhists who have attained enlightenment have found that Tao? And Christian mystics who have communed with or become one with God, if not joined with the Tao, have at least glimpsed the Tao? And Pagans of various traditions that interact with various energies have surely experienced the Tao? And Native American Indians who have soared the skies on the eagle's wings and seen through its eyes have uncovered at least a bit of the Tao?

 

And that goes for any and all people, and all spiritual paths, even atheists, that each uncover the Tao in their own way, assuming the Tao is something that is indeed universal and which everyone is encircled by and united in.

 

Then again, knowledge as "given" and knowledge as "problematic" is another duality, so the answer must transcend either one. It must be both, yet neither. There are paths in which the knowledge is given, others in which it is problematic, others in which it is not so clear. If all of them are (pieces of, at least), the Tao, then all of them are right, but that means neither of them are.

 

But the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao, so what I said isn't really the Tao. Some traditions hold that you must "learn", others hold that you must "remember" (stuff that you forgot), but they all go to the same place (at least they appear to)

 

The Tao transcends, perhaps?

 

Very nice post and I am in total agreement.

 

All is Tao. All dualities are both Tao and not-Tao.

 

Peace & Love!

[Creation]

Suppose I try saying something. What way do I have of knowing that if I say I know something I don't really not know it? Or what way do I have of knowing that if I say I don't know something I don't really in fact know it? Now let me ask you some questions. If a man sleeps in a damp place, his back aches and he ends up half paralyzed, but is this true of a loach? If he lives in a tree, he is terrified and shakes with fright, but is this true of a monkey? Of these three creatures, then, which one knows the proper place to live? Men eat the flesh of grass-fed and grain-fed animals, deer eat grass, centipedes find snakes tasty, and hawks and falcons relish mice. Of these four, which knows how food ought to taste? Monkeys pair with monkeys, deer go out with deer, and fish play around with fish. Men claim that Mao-ch'iang and Lady Li were beautiful, but if fish saw them they would dive to the bottom of the stream, if birds saw them they would fly away, and if deer saw them they would break into a run. Of these four, which knows how to fix the standard of beauty for the world? The way I see it, the rules of benevolence and righteousness and the paths of right and wrong are all hopelessly snarled and jumbled. How could I know anything about such discriminations?"

-Zhuangzi

[Tao99]

 

All is Tao. All dualities are both Tao and not-Tao.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Hi M, This caught my attention. Let's see, 'All is tao' so we have a set {tao} with All - or all entities, both real and unreal, positive and negative, high and low, left and right, up and down - as a member.

 

So the set {not-tao} is very mysterious and in fact I call it the Mysterium. This is because it contains neither existences or non-existences - both of them are in the tao. Thus I describe it:

 

Beyond the tao is nothing, not even nothing.

 

So if you say nothing is beyond the tao, wrong - Beyond the tao "is not even nothing".

 

If you say there is something beyond the tao, wrong again - Beyond the tao "is nothing."

 

Thus all dualities are a part of the tao.

 

And the set, not-tao, the Mysterium, can be created by the mind, but it is beyond all thought, and completely inconceivable. It contains neither wu or yo, so what's to think about?!?

Edited January 9, 2010 by Tao99

[Marblehead]

Hi M, This caught my attention. Let's see, 'All is tao' so we have a set {tao} with All - or all entities, both real and unreal, positive and negative, high and low, left and right, up and down - as a member.

 

So the set {not-tao} is very mysterious and in fact I call it the Mysterium. This is because it contains neither existences or non-existences - both of them are in the tao. Thus I describe it:

 

Beyond the tao is nothing, not even nothing.

 

So if you say nothing is beyond the tao, wrong - Beyond the tao "is not even nothing".

 

If you say there is something beyond the tao, wrong again - Beyond the tao "is nothing."

 

Thus all dualities are a part of the tao.

 

And the set, not-tao, the Mysterium, can be created by the mind, but it is beyond all thought, and completely inconceivable. It contains neither wu or yo, so what's to think about?!?

 

Interesting subject, this. Yes, nothingness is Tao. I had this discussion a while back and ended with the concept "Absolute Nothingness". There was an excellent paper discussing this concept when I was questioning it on the net but then a couple years later when I wanted to refer to it it was gone.

 

Objectively, if you start at one extreme outer point of the universe (which really there is none) and move toward to opposite extreme side of the universe (which really there is none) you will have been to both limits of the universe. But this ain't gonna happen because there are no limits, first, because most likely if we start at one extreme point and go the the opposite extreme point all we have really done is go in a complete 360 circle. Secondly, in order to view the outer most edge of the universe you must go beyond the limit and you have therein expanded the limit of the universe.

 

So even though the concept of "Absolute Nothingness" is valid it can never be attained. Therefore All is Tao.

 

Your set {not-Tao} would be "Absolute Nothingness" but of course, that does not exist.

 

Your 'Mysterium' is what I understand to be "Wu" or what I normally refer to as the Mystery. It doesn't exist objectively but it exists mysteriously? Hehehe.

 

"Wu" is what is sometimes called nothingness or emptiness. But it is not nothingness or emptiness because it is potential thus-ness.

 

From the point of view of Tao there are no dualities - there is only thus-ness. It is the way our brains work that gives the impression of dualities.

 

Am I confused?

 

Peace & Love!

[seththewhite]

Beyond the tao is nothing, not even nothing.

 

So if you say nothing is beyond the tao, wrong - Beyond the tao "is not even nothing".

 

And the set, not-tao, the Mysterium, can be created by the mind, but it is beyond all thought, and completely inconceivable. It contains neither wu or yo, so what's to think about?!?

 

I've recently had this same conversation with a 'Scientific' friend of mine.

When he posed his version of the thought 'not even nothing,' I was stumped.

I had no answer for him, and thus, he was not able to accept the Tao into his objective reality.

Which, in turn, left him feeling victorious and me feeling defeated.

So, through my defeat, the Tao proved to me that it cannot be proven...

I graciously accepted the loss and realized the gain.

 

Since then, I've come upon a very interesting Nobel-Prize winning experiment

claiming that there is no such thing as empty space or non-existence... only a state of perpetual fluctuation.

This conclusion developed through their study of the "empty space" in protons.

 

It's mentioned and graphically-represented toward the middle of this Lawrence Krauss lecture:

 

From the point of view of Tao there are no dualities - there is only thus-ness. It is the way our brains work that gives the impression of dualities.

 

WOW. You said it friend.

When involved in a conversation of distinctions,

I constantly feel like yelling, "YOU'RE GETTING AWAY FROM THE IMPORTANT MATTER AT HAND...

POTENTIAL!!"

 

Thanks Marble

Edited January 9, 2010 by seththewhite

[soaring crane]

So the question arises: Is the Taoist ontology "Knowledge as Given" or "Knowledge as Problematic"?

 

I'd say the Taoist ontology is given, whereas the practice is problematic. TTC 42 is so slick and streamlined, it's pretty tough to modify or improve upon. But the interpretation and expression of one's findings within that ontology (can I just say "philosophy"?) can take many forms, and it's done just that over the millenia.

 

It's because early Chinese spiritualists were so experimental and open to other prespectives, that they eventually took a back seat to the Buddhists.

 

If it isn't flexible, it isn't Tao(ism). Bend, but please don't break.

[Marblehead]

If it isn't flexible, it isn't Tao(ism). Bend, but please don't break.

 

Yeah. How does that saying go? It is the oak, tall and strong, that is blown over during a raging storm but it is the reed by the water's edge that bends with the wind that survives.

 

Peace & Love!

[Stigweard]

I would say that Taoism has elements of both static and fluid knowledge. For instance the laws that governed the earth and the universe 6000 years ago are still the laws of today. And I think we can be confident that Laozi and co. did a find job of articulating those laws as close to perfect as possible.

 

What has changed however is the culture of humanity. So, in the trinity of Tian (heaven), Ren (humanity), and Di (Earth), it is Ren that is most mutable. As such the Dao of the ancients must be expressed in a way that is in harmony with the Dao of contemporary life.

[goldisheavy]

There are two simplistic ways of viewing knowledge: It can either be "Knowledge as Given" or "Knowledge as Problematic."

 

Knowledge as given sees the subject content represented as facts, ie. a body of truth to be acquired by students. The transmission of the information may vary, but is based on the concept of knowledge as being static and able to be handled as property, perhaps in the form of tables, charts, handouts, texts, and comprehension activities.

 

Presenting knowledge as problematic involves an understanding of knowledge not as a fixed body of information, but rather as being constructed, and hence subject to political, social and cultural influences and implications. Multiple, contrasting, and potentially conflicting forms of knowledge are represented.

 

So the question arises: Is the Taoist ontology "Knowledge as Given" or "Knowledge as Problematic"?

 

What are the implications of your answer?

 

"Knowledge as Problematic."

 

Although "problematic" is a poor choice of words, I think. It's only problematic if you take knowledge as a given when it's not a given at all.

 

Zhuangzi would laugh at "yes this," "no that", right? Any rigid relation to knowledge is a dead relation. The Daoist idea of life is one of softness. Teeth are more rigid than tongue but the tongue outlives the teeth due to its softness. The idea of softness at the highest level is the softness of one's relationship to knowledge. This means that your grasp on knowledge is not rigid. It's fluid. You can forget things and learn new things easily. This is true at least with regard to all relative knowledge. When it comes to the knowledge of Dao, Daoists seem to be very circuitous and cautious when pointing it out, so it's very hard to say anything about non-relative knowledge or one's relationship to it.

Edited January 10, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Stigweard]

"Knowledge as Problematic."

 

Although "problematic" is a poor choice of words, I think. It's only problematic if you take knowledge as a given when it's not a given at all.

 

Zhuangzi would laugh at "yes this," "no that", right? Any rigid relation to knowledge is a dead relation. The Daoist idea of life is one of softness. Teeth are more rigid than tongue but the tongue outlives the teeth due to its softness. The idea of softness at the highest level is the softness of one's relationship to knowledge. This means that your grasp on knowledge is not rigid. It's fluid. You can forget things and learn new things easily. This is true at least with regard to all relative knowledge. When it comes to the knowledge of Dao, Daoists seem to be very circuitous and cautious when pointing it out, so it's very hard to say anything about non-relative knowledge or one's relationship to it.

Steve f would say: "Answers are dead, only questions are alive." I think this sums up the idea of "knowledge as problematic".

[forestofclarity]

I vote for knowledge is problematic. As a source, I cite the TTC below, and also Confucius.

 

Anything that is added on, be it power, knowledge, possessions, family members, etc. is not a part of what we truly are. Anything that has a beginning must have an ending. Anything we receive, we will lose. Once we reach the limit, then we recede. The only thing we have is what we are, all the time. Everything else is just a guest.

 

Chapter 48

 

Pursue knowledge, daily gain

Pursue Tao, daily loss

 

Loss and more loss

Until one reaches unattached action

With unattached action, there is nothing one cannot do

 

Take the world by constantly applying non-interference

The one who interferes is not qualified to take the world

 

Confucius said:

The Tao cannot be left for an instant. If it could be left, it would not be the Tao.

[Marblehead]

"Answers are dead, only questions are alive."

 

I have often said that I do not expect to know many of the answers but I do, at least, try to understand the questions.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Edit to add:

 

Nice post Forest!

 

Peace & Love!

Edited January 10, 2010 by Marblehead

[Chitoryu]

"""What has changed however is the culture of humanity. So, in the trinity of Tian (heaven), Ren (humanity), and Di (Earth), it is Ren that is most mutable. As such the Dao of the ancients must be expressed in a way that is in harmony with the Dao of contemporary life."""

 

And this is why I have joined this forum. I truly believe many of the confusions we suffer are due to our programming. Atheists who go crazy buying Christmas presents is my example.

 

When we talk of understanding the way, I think we speak of taking a snapshot. I think we fail in that we think that snapshot is like a map. It is only of the very second and then none of the unknowable.

 

But, human nature persists, as it changes. I'll leave this: I lived in New Orleans and Mardis Gras was a great all time dissipation. So much so that even the atheists believed in Lent. Out of need!

[Marblehead]

Atheists who go crazy buying Christmas presents is my example.

 

Yes, that is truely a paradox. Well, not even a paradox, it is a direct contradiction.

 

Peace & Love!