The Principle and Logic of Tao Philosophy

[voidisyinyang]

You must have done a lot. I hope you can share. I will go to your site.

I haven't updated my site (www.dynamictao.com) for many years.

 

In my model, quantum physics ( or all physics) is at the object level, where you maintain the objects and their interactions to describe the "reality." So you have "particle" and "wave" and "entanglement of objects" etc. Lao-tzu tries to maintain the actual level (with realities), so there is no attachments to the objects. However, Lao-tzu still have to use objects to describe the actualities. That is why I say that he is not really against using objects (words) to describe Tao.

 

It is well established that we are hampered by our language. Even in quantum theory, we still don't have words for "particle with some wave property." So call it "wavicle." But it is not a word. If that is a word, how about "partclave???" So quantum is also stuck in words.

 

 

yes so words are based on the I-thought and so all words start from I-thought and the "I" word does not signify anything nor is it the signified - the "I" word is the root of the ego - and so I-I-I is not a mantra in the mind - repeating I-word to see the source of the self. That is logical inference. So then it means listening to the source of the I-thought.

 

Actually sound -- from numbers - this is in pre-Socratic Pythagorean philosophy that is the same as Taoism. So actually no ONE is listening because "one" is not a number according to Pythagorean philosophy - this is the same as the I-thought. There is no source of the I-thought that can be identified with perception but it is an eternal listening as logical inference.

 

This process of eternal listening can not be spoken about but it creates energy-mass and space-time.

 

So yes quantum physics is a big argument about what it means -- and so it is not really meditation. haha. But it is possible to reverse-engineer quantum physics back to the truth of nondualism philosophy. A few have done this like Bernard D'Espagnat and a few others -- but they get dismissed as woo-woo scientists since science has to always convert the non-commutative "infinite potential" back to symmetric commutative math using the Poisson Bracket.

 

Yeah -- so there is that non-local consciousness -- but it can only be logically inferred -- and quantum biology gets into this more.

 

Actually I have a new article called the Secret Science of Spiritual Healing - http://www.viewzone.com/spiritualhealing.html

 

So that goes into the process of transformation more.....

[dynamictao]

Anyway -- you mention Platonic philosophy a bit - and my book goes into that also - I'll grab a reference that you probably already know - I didn't check your references for it...

 

Early China/ancient Greece: thinking through comparisons (2002) by Steven Shankman

 

so that's a good one....

The model turns out to be so similar to "The Theory of Forms" of Plato. He must have figured it out already, but may have been interpreted in many ways. I am leaving that as another project. The basic models for many philosophical discussions are similar, but they do not use Figures. I am used to figures to keep the concepts straight for myself.

 

Here is my basic model:

 

[dawei]

(From the Book)

[The Principle of Oneness]

 

We may now summarize our discussion as a Principle. In Tao philosophy, Oneness or Nonduality is the base of all realities, so we may summarize the principle of Tao as The Principle of Oneness 恆一原則:

When we represent one reality Heng Tao by two true manifestations, Heng Wu and Heng Yu, the two manifestations will have opposite characteristics, but they are equivalent representations of the same reality.

 

I am glad that you are sharing your work with us. I had read it many years ago and the discussions since you came here caused me to re-look at Heng again. Both your diagram and Rene's are very similar so I welcome comments from either as you see fit.

 

But based on my readings over the last several months and comparing as many of the ancient cosmologies as I could, it is very clear that Heng belongs to the prominence you show; Dao is rarely the first cause. I will only share that I would different in your and Rene's diagram as follows:

 

1. True Dao / Dao is, IMO, the various arrows and lines; this is the self-sufficient, spontaneous, arising which happens from stage to stage.

 

At the first position, should be Heng Yi ( 恒一), Da Yi (大一), Tai Yi (太一) Or True One. This is attested in the majority of the ancient cosmologies;

 

2. True Wu (Mystery) and True Yu (Manifest) appear to anciently be:

HengXian 恒先; as (True Wu)

WuXian 物先; as (True Yu)

 

 

What I like about the unboundaried, "two manifestations of the same reality" is that this is more consistent to the ancient cosmologies. The Guodian Bamboo says the arising comes from Being and Non-being; Not Being from Non-being. And the most ancient and detailed cosmology (HengXian 恒先) clearly states that each produces only itself: Non-being can only produce non-being; being can only produce being.

 

Interesting thread. thanks.

[rene]

1. True Dao / Dao is, IMO, the various arrows and lines; this is the self-sufficient, spontaneous, arising which happens from stage to stage.

 

Yes! Yes! Thats why I put the word 'Tao' outside of its circle on my diagram. It was the only way I knew to convey this.

 

I need to ponder the rest of your post...just wanted to share that part right away.

 

Glad you're joining in. (-:

 

warm regards

Edited May 3, 2013 by rene

[dawei]

Yes! Yes! Thats why I put the word 'Tao' outside of its circle on my diagram. It was the only way I knew to convey this.

 

I need to ponder the rest of your post...just wanted to share that part right away.

 

Glad you're joining in. (-:

 

warm regards

 

A tricky part to this is 2-D drawings on paper to represent the thought... When I look at your diagram, I am letting the parts float a little bit to see where they settle; so they are more 3-D in my mind.

 

I personally think the one mistake made among most cosmology interpretations is it is explained too linearly... too 2-D. I do see that you two have diagrams which appear to try and avoid that. At least that is my view of the two diagrams.

 

I am glad you explained about "Tao" outside the circle... I did not pick up on that... Now it is truly more 3-D in my mind.

 

What one would have to be careful of thinking of Dao as the 'matrix', the grid or lines... as in very ancient use, there is the concept of "field" arising first... and that field is the expansive cosmos (space-time).

Edited May 3, 2013 by dawei

[dynamictao]

Early China/ancient Greece: thinking through comparisons (2002) by Steven Shankman

 

so that's a good one....

 

Steven Shankman, “These Three Come Forth Together But are Differently Named: Laozi, Zhuangzi, Plato,” in

Early China/ancient Greece: thinking through comparisons by Steven Shankman, Stephen W. Durrant (SUNY

Press, 2002).

 

Knowing words: wisdom and cunning in the classical traditions of China

and Greece by Lisa Ann Raphals

 

Lisa Ann Raphals, Knowing words: wisdom and cunning in the classical traditions of China and

Greece (Cornell University Press, 1992), p. 18.

 

The book

The Tao and the Logos : literary hermeneutics, East and West by Chang, Lung-hsi (1992)

 

O.K. I go into great discussion of a deep critique of Platonic philosophy in the context of nonwestern, Nondualism -- in my book.

I will check these references. I have The Tao and the Logos, will find some time to revist it.

My interpretation of knowledge and wisdom is reversed, according to Lisa Raphals translation (in her table).

Shankman interprets the first chapter (Wu Yu and You Yu) in the traditional way, which I think is incorrect due to the meaning of Heng. He uses Wang Bi's version that Nameless (Wu ming) is the beginning of heaven and earth. I use Mawangdui for that verse. A lot of good papers there. [i read from amazon].

 

Thank for your discussions.

[lienshan]

A tricky part to this is 2-D drawings on paper to represent the thought...

 

I am glad you explained about "Tao" outside the circle... I did not pick up on that... Now it is truly more 3-D in my mind.

 

My favourite 2-D drawing has in this connection always been Swans reflecting Elephants:

 

 

 

 

This is the Picture of Zhuangzi not knowing if he is Zhuangzi or a butterfly dreaming that it is Zhuangzi?

 

The danish scientist Niels Bohr proved, that Light is both waves and particles exactly at the same time,

depending of the method one uses to messure it.

 

My take on what's symbolizing Tao in the painting is the Lake.

[dynamictao]

Finally, what's duality to me, in Chapter One, are Wu(無) and You(有).

 

The diagram looks good, it resembles the duality of Wu and You in Chapter One which correspond the Concept of Yin-Yang in the Yi Jing. However, I would prefer to replace "Mystery" with "Wu" and replace "Manifest" with "You" to have a much clear picture.

Rene,

 

That is also the way I use duality. When we separate the manifestations of Tao into two opposites Wu and Yu. Wu and Yu could be any two opposites (yin and yang, body and mind, left-brain and right brain, etc.) . Call them the objects. In reality, these two are correlated (interact, in physics) so they become inter-mixed as in the Tai Chi. The Tai chi states (Heng Wu and Heng Yu) are the actual manifestations of Tao.

[click on the picture to magnify it]

 

Now, the problem of Nonduality. Tao itself is One, so it is nondual. How about Heng Wu and Heng Yu? They are whole (to be real, they must be whole, per our friend Hegel). Here is the myestery of Tao. There are two manifestation and each is a whole. They are also "equivalent" representations of Tao.

 

There is no real separation of Wu and Yu in "Heng Wu" and "Heng Yu," so they are the "nondualistic" manifestations of Tao. I have cakked them "Dualistic Realities" May be "Nondualistic realities" is a better name.

Edited May 3, 2013 by dynamictao

[dynamictao]

 

I wasn't able to find a larger image of this on your website... so I zoomed in on your Avatar to read the words...and guess what! If you merge together your Wu and Yu rectangles - bang! - you get the circles in circle item on mine - bang! - and the underlying structure of the diagrams are identical! Seems we were both pointing at the same thing in only slightly different ways.

 

fun stuff (-:

See if this is a larger picture.

 

Click on it

Edited May 3, 2013 by dynamictao

[dynamictao]

Here is the structure of Chapter 1 of the Tao Te Ching (from The Logic of Tao Philosophy)

 

Figure 1 Basic Architecture of Tao Philosophy

 

 

[Click to open]

 

In this Figure, the bold-faced terms within the thick-lined boxes are the terminology used by Lao-tzu in Chapter 1. Here, Heng Tao represents the absolute reality under discussion. The fundamental characteristic of this reality is the Oneness in “Tao begets One, or Tao brings Oneness into being道生一” [Ch. 42]. This is also the nameless.

For Lao-tzu, the myriad things in the phenomenal world are named. The important observation is that there is also reality in the phenomenal world. Therefore, we should describe Tao at two levels. The entities (Heng Wu and Heng Yu) at the Manifestations level are realistic and the objects (Wu and Yu) at the Object levels are not realistic, but are convenient entities to describe the manifestations. We also use the term actualities for these manifestations in our formal model.

The three levels are three ways we can discuss the same Tao. It is important to note that Tao philosophy recognizes the phenomenal world as a valid way of describing Tao. Lao-tzu does not deny the world as illusion and without reality.

Edited May 3, 2013 by dynamictao

[dynamictao]

Figure 3 The Harmonization Process

 

[click to magnify]

 

In the model, the objects are harmonized by their interactions to become the actualities. We may show this harmonization process or the actualization process in Fig. 3.

In this Figure, Wu and Yu are harmonized by their interactions to become the actualities Heng Wu and Heng Yu. We treat the actualities and the objects as concepts. Wu and Yu are harmonized by their interactions to become the actualities Heng Wu and Heng Yu. The objects are our simplified concepts and the manifestations (actualities) are more complicated concepts. The simple concepts, <Wu> and <Yu>, are interconnected by their interactions, so they are not stable (or true). These objects are harmonized to become the “stable” actualities <Heng Wu> and <Heng Yu>.

 

The result is

 

[Click]

Edited May 3, 2013 by dynamictao

[rene]

Rene,

...

Now, the problem of Nonduality. Tao itself is One, so it is nondual. How about Heng Wu and Heng Yu? They are whole (to be real, they must be whole, per our friend Hegel). Here is the myestery of Tao. There are two manifestation and each is a whole. They are also "equivalent" representations of Tao.

...

There is no real separation of Wu and Yu in "Heng Wu" and "Heng Yu," so they are the "nondualistic" manifestations of Tao. I have called them "Dualistic Realities" May be "Nondualistic realities" is a better name.

 

Good morning (-:

 

If I had a magic wand - I'd toss all the following words out of the window: Dual. Nondual. One. If for no other reason, because the words also represent concepts that are something other than the ideas you present, ideas that we share.

 

A long time ago you expressed a similar wish about "Te" - that, like "Tao" was, would have been better left 'un-converted' to the english word (Virtue). Now, it seems, the encumbered english words Dual, Nondual, One, are being forced to fit onto ideas that may be better served in some other manner. I dont know yet what that manner might be...

 

Thank you for the larger images of the models, time for tea and reviewing them. Who knows, maybe something brilliant will bubble up. LOL

 

warm regards

 

 

[rene]

Well... what bubbled up may not help your efforts.

 

It seems all my words and ideas have fallen away, except for this:

 

man follows earth
earth follows heaven
heaven follows tao
tao follows what is natural

 

Tzu-jan, zi-ran, is more than 'natural'. The word/character points to a spiritual naturalness. Not 'spiritual' in the way someone might say: "I'm not religious but I am spiritual" ... but in the way that we inherently, and instinctually, feel and do; the source of our natural Te. Tao is more than its own unboundariedness; tao follows tzu-jan because there is no way it could not. Tao is the impetus of spiritual naturalness. It is the 'why' of the first arising. It remains the 'why' of all arisings.

 

 

warm regards

 

[dynamictao]

A long time ago you expressed a similar wish about "Te" - that, like "Tao" was, would have been better left 'un-converted' to the english word (Virtue). Now, it seems, the encumbered english words Dual, Nondual, One, are being forced to fit onto ideas that may be better served in some other manner. I dont know yet what that manner might be...

These words are useful only if we try to define the philosophical model. If we use them, we have to define them carefully, otherwise, we cannot get their relationship right. If we use them, we have to clearly define them. Different people may use them in different ways, it is ok if they define them clearly.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

let me save you some time.





The entirety of omniversiality is a 1-D existence.




The most that can be said or exemplified of this philosophy is the period at the end of this sentence.

[rene]

 

Figure 3 The Harmonization Process

 

Fig3_Actualization_process.jpg

[click to magnify]

 

In the model, the objects are harmonized by their interactions to become the actualities. We may show this harmonization process or the actualization process in Fig. 3.

In this Figure, Wu and Yu are harmonized by their interactions to become the actualities Heng Wu and Heng Yu. We treat the actualities and the objects as concepts. Wu and Yu are harmonized by their interactions to become the actualities Heng Wu and Heng Yu. The objects are our simplified concepts and the manifestations (actualities) are more complicated concepts. The simple concepts, <Wu> and <Yu>, are interconnected by their interactions, so they are not stable (or true). These objects are harmonized to become the “stable” actualities <Heng Wu> and <Heng Yu>.

 

The result is

 

Eq_1.jpg

[Click]

 

To me, the simple concepts <Wu> and <Yu> are stabilized by their interaction (which I perceive as unboundaried). As you see it otherwise, the addition of the actualities solves the perceived stabilization issue nicely. I've reviewed all the models and find them internally consistent, and not in gross conflict with Laozi thought or the architecture of the concepts.

 

 

 

These words are useful only if we try to define the philosophical model. If we use them, we have to define them carefully, otherwise, we cannot get their relationship right. If we use them, we have to clearly define them. Different people may use them in different ways, it is ok if they define them clearly.

 

As long as everybody defines things clearly... all should be well. You might have later difficulties with the term "Absolute Realitiy" in the place and manner you're using it; my impulse was to switch the words to: Reality of the Absolute (or similar), but that might be cumbersome and I can offer no alternative.

 

This is really nice work, most enjoyable to explore. (-:

 

warm regards

[dynamictao]

To me, the simple concepts <Wu> and <Yu> are stabilized by their interaction (which I perceive as unboundaried). As you see it otherwise, the addition of the actualities solves the perceived stabilization issue nicely. I've reviewed all the models and find them internally consistent, and not in gross conflict with Laozi thought or the architecture of the concepts.

 

the term "Absolute Realitiy"

 

Wu and Yu are stable in the two sub-domains; Heng Wu and Heng Yu are stable in the whole domain.

In the actualization process, we may say that Wu is actualized into Heng Wu, by the complement of Yu.

Some "boundaries" fade in Heng Yu and some "boundaries" appear in Heng Wu.

 

I shall just use "Reality" for Tao. Even "reality" is ill defined.

 

I am re-working my book on The Logic and will make it free again in the near future.

[rene]

I shall just use "Reality" for Tao. Even "reality" is ill defined.

 

It is, yes, and 'Reality' is usually the term used for every-day real life, etc. Between the two words, maybe "Absolute" would be a better word for that spot? Hard to pick a word...especially for 'Tao'. (-:

 

warm regards

[dawei]

Wu and Yu are stable in the two sub-domains; Heng Wu and Heng Yu are stable in the whole domain.

In the actualization process, we may say that Wu is actualized into Heng Wu, by the complement of Yu.

Some "boundaries" fade in Heng Yu and some "boundaries" appear in Heng Wu.

 

I shall just use "Reality" for Tao. Even "reality" is ill defined.

 

I am re-working my book on The Logic and will make it free again in the near future.

 

It is interesting that you and Rene use the word 'stabilize' here; Waley proposed that "Heng" was anciently a 'stabilizing [shaman] ritual'; Heyboer sees the meaning of Heng as "steady" in a mawangdui yijing passage.

[dynamictao]

I have re-edited my book "The Logic of Tao Philosophy" and will publish it in Kindle again.

This revised version has gpne through 2 weeks of work and should be must better than before.

 

You can done get the book free from Amazon Kindle store again on June 1, 2013.

 

Tell your friends about it.

I think this book will help understanding the Tao Te Ching.

 

Search under my name: Wayne L. Wang or the book title.

Any question may be posted here.

[dynamictao]

 

I have re-edited my book "The Logic of Tao Philosophy" and will publish it in Kindle again.

This revised version has gpne through 2 weeks of work and should be must better than before.

 

You can done get the book free from Amazon Kindle store again on June 1, 2013.

I have added one more day (June 2, 2013) for free download.

Even if you have downloaded the previous copy on May 1, please download again this revised one.

 

Edited May 16, 2013 by dynamictao

[dynamictao]

Here are two excerpts from my two books.

Feel free to share the files with your firends.

 

Excert from Tao Te Ching: An Ultimate Translation:

Book_Translation_Preview_2013_May_17a.pdf

 

 

Excerpt from The Logic of Tao Philosophy:

 

 

 

Wayne

Edited May 17, 2013 by dynamictao

[dynamictao]

Book_Logic_Preview_2013_May_17a.pdf

Somehow the attachment for "The Logic of Tao Philosophy" is not shown above.

Try again

[Riyue]

I am proposing to discuss here the fundamental principle of reality and the logic (non-duality, oneness) of Tao philsophy. I feel this is the most fundamental approach to have a consistent understanding. My book (The Logic of Tao Philosophy) has been downloaded by 92 people, yesterday. I will continue to modify the book ( to improve on the writing, editing, etc.).

The principle of Lao-tzu is general and can be applied to many related areas. Any suggestion is welcome on setting this as a special topic?

 

(From the Book)

[The Principle of Oneness]

 

We may now summarize our discussion as a Principle. In Tao philosophy, Oneness or Nonduality is the base of all realities, so we may summarize the principle of Tao as The Principle of Oneness 恆一原則:

When we represent one reality Heng Tao by two true manifestations, Heng Wu and Heng Yu, the two manifestations will have opposite characteristics, but they are equivalent representations of the same reality. Both manifestations appear at the same time. As a reality, each of the two true manifestations will cover the same whole domain of the reality.

To describe the two true manifestations, we define two opposite objects, Wu and Yu, to represent the opposite parts of the whole domain. These objects belong to separate sub-domains. However, these objects participate in the formation of actual manifestations. Therefore, each manifestation, as a whole, will comprise simultaneously of both parts, with a strict principle to reconstruct its wholeness.

When we express the true manifestations in terms of the objects, the objects will be vague and the manifestations will appear with self-contradictory and indeterminate objects. Such ambiguity and vagueness is inherently the profound and mysterious nature of reality in the phenomenal world.

According to this Principle of Oneness, any “division” of a reality will result in “multiple” equivalent manifestations of the same reality. A reality is thus indivisible. Each “part” will still reflect the “whole.” The Oneness or Nonduality of Tao appears as a pair of Dualistic Realities in the world.

The Principle of Oneness is a general law of Oneness or Nonduality. The logical participation of the parts in the whole is an ancient philosophical problem. Our systematic model may also be applied to address this common philosophical problem.

---

Dynamictao

I Ilike your idea of "Tao as Principle of Oneness"

-

The problem of understanding is in using the term Duality.... as i see it...

 

 

The term "Duality" / Dualism" means:

two different beings fighting each other.

God and Devil - that is a Duality.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dualism

-

The term "Complement" means:

two parts building a one.- making complete...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/complement

 

heng wu - heng you

are "complements".

[gj551]

when can i get your book