Tao particle

[Marblehead]

It can be Known - it cannot be understood.

I like to use the phrase, "It can be experienced but it cannot be known." but I do understand what you are saying.

[gatito]

I like to use the phrase, "It can be experienced but it cannot be known." but I do understand what you are saying.

 

I doubt that.

[konchog uma]

It can be Known - it cannot be understood.

 

If you could understand it you could tell it and the Tao that can be told is not the Eternal Tao (unless that's a bad translation ).

 

"It is less what one is that should matter, than what one is not.

To acquire knowledge should not be our first aim, but rather to rid ourselves of ignorance - which is false-knowledge."

 

Fingers Pointing Towards The Moon; Reflections of a Pilgrim on the Way by Wei Wu Wei

 

Hope that's a bit more useful than "neti neti".

 

i guess usefulness is relative

 

i like neti neti better but thats just me

[gatito]

i guess usefulness is relative

 

i like neti neti better but thats just me

 

Everything's that can be said is relative.

 

And I'm beginning to prefer neti neti myself.

[konchog uma]

Everything's that can be said is relative.

 

i just meant that some might indeed find that wei wu wei quote more useful

 

but not to overclarify.. i get your meaning, agreed

 

And I'm beginning to prefer neti neti myself.

 

occam's razor ftw

[gatito]

occam's razor ftw

 

Still a bit ambiguous.

 

From Urban Dictionary; -

 

"For The Win."

 

An enthusiastic emphasis to the end of a comment, message, or post. Sometimes genuine, but often sarcastic.

 

Yes.

 

Occam's Razor in-deed.

Edited August 26, 2012 by gatito

[phore]

that which has no substance, enters into that which has no space.

-tao te ching

[Stosh]

'neti neti' seems to be indecisive by intent,and is probably self destructive.

(if wikip has it clear.)

Unappealing to me , it doesnt seem to have anything at all to do with Occams razor either.

but to each his own.

 

PS Judaism doesnt consider Jesus to have been the incarnate son of God that I ever heard.If you consider Christianity to be a branch of Judaism , you should note that the relationship between God and his people is radically different, its just not the same beliefs.Early Christians believed Jesus died on the cross , whilst God never did die.The triumvirate view of the holy trinity came later by committee conclusion. The definition of most 'holy people' by many actual scholars goes to the Hindus ( I forget the parameters of their decision but If I remember correctly its because they have a stong belief in the holiness or innate virtue of humanity whilst the abrahamic religions holiness is to be achieved by the grace of god alone.(therefore its considered low religion).

Where is Vmarco? this isnt my cup of tea.

Stosh

PS it says this at the heading of this forum Taoist DiscussionDiscussion focused specifically on Taoist teachings, particularly those found in available texts of the Taoist canon and as expressed through Taoist cultivation practices such as Tai Chi, Qigong, Neigong, and Zuowang.

Edited August 28, 2012 by Stosh

[samwardell]

Hideki Yukawa won the nobel prize for physics in 1949. He wrote the following about a passage in the Chuang-tzu (Chunagtse The Happy Fish published in Experimental Essays on Chuang-tzu ed. Mair 1983 - page 56-8):

 

... I was thinking about elementary particles when, quite suddenly, I recalled a passage from Chuangtse. Freely translated, the passage in question, which occurs in the last section of the inner part of the Chuangtse, runs as follows:

 

The Emperor of the South was called Shu and the Emperor of the North, Hu [both characters mean "very fast", "to run swiftly" and the two characters together in Chinese signify something like "in a flash".] The Emperor of the Center was known as Hun-t'un ["chaos"].

One time, the emperors of the South and the North visited Hun-t'un's territories, where they met with him. Hun-t'un made them heartily welcome. Shu and Hu conferred together as to how they could show their gratitude. They said, "All men have seven appetures - the eyes, the ears, the mouth, and the nose - whereby they see, hear, eat and breathe. Yet this Hun-t'un, unlike other men, is quite smooth with no apertures at all. He must find it very awkward. As a sign of our gratitude, therefore, let us try making some holes for him." So each day, they made one fresh hole; and on the seventh day Hun-t'un died.

 

Why should I have recalled this fable?

It have been doing research on elementary particles for many years, and by now more than thirty different types of elementary particles have been discovered, each of which presents something of a riddle. When this kind of thing happens, one is obliged to go one step ahead and consider what may lie beyond these particles. One wants to get at the the most basic form of matter, but it is awkward if there prove to be more than thirty different forms of it; it is more likely that the most basic thing of all has no fixed form and corresponds to none of the elementary particles we know at present. It may be something that has the possibility of of differentiation into all kinds of particles but has not yet done so in fact. Expressed in familiar terminology, it is probably a kind of "chaos". It was while I was thinking on these lines that I recalled the fable of Chaungtse.

I am not the only one, of course, who is occupied with this question of a fundamental theory of elementary particles. Professor Heisenberg in Germany, speculating on what lies beyond elementary particles, has used the term Urmaterie ("primordial matter"). Whether one calls it "primordial matter" or "chaos" does not matter, but my ideas and Professor Heisenberg's, while alike in some respects, also have their differences.

Recently, then, I have found a renewed fascination in Chaungtse's fable. I amuse myself by seeing Shu and Hu as something like the elementary particles. So long as they were rushing about freely nothing happened - until, advancing from south and north, they came together on the territory of Hun-t'un, or chaos, when an event like the collision of elementary particles occurred. Looked at this way, which implies a kind of dualism, the chaos of Hun-t'un can be seen as the time and space in which the elementary particles are enfolded. Such an interpretation seems possible to me.

It may not make much sense, of course, to fiddle with the words of men of old to make them fit in with modern physics. Chuangtse, who lived some twenty-three hundred years ago, almost certainly knew nothing of the atom. Even so, it is interesting and surprising that he should have ideas that, in a sense, are very similar to those of people like myself today.

[Marblehead]

Hideki Yukawa won the nobel prize for physics in 1949. He wrote the following about a passage in the Chuang-tzu (Chunagtse The Happy Fish published in Experimental Essays on Chuang-tzu ed. Mair 1983 - page 56-8):.

That story has meant much to me during my latter years.

[samwardell]

That story has meant much to me during my latter years.

 

Me too. Funny and sad all at the same time.

[Marblehead]

Me too. Funny and sad all at the same time.

Yes, funny, came the thought, "If I had known then what I know now."

[Stosh]

Im lost you guys , funny ? sad ? Elementary particles ?

Isnt the story just explaining

that when one introduces points of distinction

(putting a human face on it)

then chaos or unity is ended?

 

Stosh

[Marblehead]

Im lost you guys , funny ? sad ? Elementary particles ?

Isnt the story just explaining

that when one introduces points of distinction

(putting a human face on it)

then chaos or unity is ended?

 

Stosh

No problem Stosh. We got off topic. (I do that often.)

 

The thing is, when we break something down into its various parts trying to find its true essence we have already lost the things true essence as soo as we make the first separations.

 

There is no Tao Particle. As someone else has said, There is only what be.

[Stosh]

Ill agree to ...There is only, that which is.

but..

I challenge that idea that understanding is destruction

The mind reconstructs most things...

,unless of course, one wishes to keep confusion intact.

Which may be the preferred situation to some.

Not me. Not buying it. Nope.

Stosh

[Marblehead]

I challenge that idea that understanding is destruction

The mind reconstructs most things...

I hope I did not unconsciously imply that understanding is destruction. That is not what I believe.

 

However, I do believe that if we get too serious about the parts we will forget about the whole. That is, our life is the whole of many different things, thoughts, etc. To remember only the negative things that have happened to us it to deny all the nice and wonderful thaings that have happened.

 

Ah, the mind. I agree in a way with what you said. There is the objective and then there is the way we construct the images in our mind. The same thing might be beautiful to me but ugly to you. But it is still the same thing.

[samwardell]

Im lost you guys , funny ? sad ? Elementary particles ?

Isnt the story just explaining

that when one introduces points of distinction

(putting a human face on it)

then chaos or unity is ended?

 

Well I never think a story in the Chuang-tzu is 'just' about any one thing... I think your interpretation is largely correct though; the notion that humans are uniquely 'mutilated' by heaven is a common one in Chuang-tzu inner Chps (see esp Ch5); so the story, at one level, does seem to be making the point that humans have a lack of access to the primordial Hun-t'un. Having said that I am not sure I agree that Hun-t'un is 'unity' but rather an undifferentiated 'hodge-podge'; if anything the idea of 'unity' is a very human one, and one that Chuang-tzu, in the inner chapters, rejects (Ch2).

 

I won't speak for Yukawa's ideas about Hun-t'un and particle physics, though my guess is that he is being playful in his interpretation (see last para of the quote above). I find the story funny, because of the misguided goodwill of Hu and Shu (who fail to adapt to the nature of Hun-t'un), and sad because of the fate of Hun-t'un. It is interesting to compare this passage to the last three stories in Ch1, where a similar inability to adapt to changing circumstances is lampooned.

Edited August 30, 2012 by samwardell

[gatito]

'neti neti' seems to be indecisive by intent,and is probably self destructive.

(if wikip has it clear.)

Unappealing to me , it doesnt seem to have anything at all to do with Occams razor either.

but to each his own.

PS Judaism doesnt consider Jesus to have been the incarnate son of God that I ever heard.If you consider Christianity to be a branch of Judaism , you should note that the relationship between God and his people is radically different, its just not the same beliefs.Early Christians believed Jesus died on the cross , whilst God never did die.The triumvirate view of the holy trinity came later by committee conclusion. The definition of most 'holy people' by many actual scholars goes to the Hindus ( I forget the parameters of their decision but If I remember correctly its because they have a stong belief in the holiness or innate virtue of humanity whilst the abrahamic religions holiness is to be achieved by the grace of god alone.(therefore its considered low religion).

Where is Vmarco? this isnt my cup of tea.

Stosh

PS it says this at the heading of this forum Taoist DiscussionDiscussion focused specifically on Taoist teachings, particularly those found in available texts of the Taoist canon and as expressed through Taoist cultivation practices such as Tai Chi, Qigong, Neigong, and Zuowang.

 

Neti Neti is about as close to the Truth as it's possible to get without remaining silent.

[Stosh]

Then the truth and silence are self destructive

humans are made to interact and express

And we live in a world of subjective and objective illusions

Im accepting that rather than turning away from it

to embrace an alien 'truth'.

But neti neti all you want

Stosh

[rene]

sam - thanks for posting the Yukawa article; most enjoyable read!

 

Especially this:

 

... One wants to get at the the most basic form of matter, but it is awkward if there prove to be more than thirty different forms of it; it is more likely that the most basic thing of all has no fixed form and corresponds to none of the elementary particles we know at present. It may be something that has the possibility of of differentiation into all kinds of particles but has not yet done so in fact. ...

 

- which seems to point at pre-manifest Tao..lol

 

warm regards

[gatito]

Then the truth and silence are self destructive

humans are made to interact and express

And we live in a world of subjective and objective illusions

Im accepting that rather than turning away from it

to embrace an alien 'truth'.

But neti neti all you want

Stosh

 

The truth and silence destroy ignorance and unveil the underlying Happiness.

 

However, people believe whatever they want to believe and see whatever they want to see and I'm certainly not in the slightest bit interested in raining anyone's parade.

 

By all means embrace duality if it makes you happy. Finding eternal Happiness is what it's all about. If you've found that then enjoy it.

 

Neti neti, appeared to have been useful to someone else but Perhaps in a Taoist thread, It would have been clearer to comment that, "The Tao that can be told is not the Eternal Tao" - although that seems to have got lost in the translations. :-)

[Stosh]

Gatito,

You remind me a lot of a guy I know.

Bright and interesting

full of certainty

and always on the opposite side of my fence.

Flow onward and full

Stosh

[gatito]

Gatito,

You remind me a lot of a guy I know.

Bright and interesting

full of certainty

and always on the opposite side of my fence.

Flow onward and full

Stosh

 

 

Perhaps, in real life, I'm dull boring and uncertain with a foot on both sides of the fence?

 

Be Happy Stosh.

[Basher]

 

Perhaps, in real life, I'm dull boring and uncertain with a foot on both sides of the fence?

 

 

Could be Painful/Dangerous, especially if you have short legs or a high fence !

Edited September 3, 2012 by Basher

[Marblehead]

Could be Painful/Dangerous, especially if you have short legs or a high fence !

Please excuse me but this post caused the following thought:

 

Never pee on an electrified fence.