Does naming create a schism?

[taodenairn]

Quote from a commentary of the first verve of the Tao te ching states

 

" The name possible to express runs counter to the constant name. Without description, the universe began. Our practice of labeling (naming) things we observe in the world create a schism, which rips us from the whole. One name begins two, begets three and to on to infinity… it is without end or resolution. That means without peace.."

 

What is your understanding of this, do names and labels create a division in the whole?

 

Thanks

[Protector]

Yes

 

Exhibit one, christianity and its many crazy offshoots

 

...which is already based off something else, huh

[Wayfarer]

Nothing creates anything to be honest. You are IT and what you name is IT, if you name something does that make it any less IT - all is in the mind and thoughts...if you think it creates a schism then it will appear to do so but in fact nothing will have happened.

 

Worrying over names is just an idea. The quote from TTC is talking about our ideas only. We cannot be split as there is no 'we' and the Tao cannot be parted from itself

 

Not sure this helps at all!

[The Daryl]

To name a thing can create a mental construct around it; a box, if you will. Named is "tamed". That thing is now separate, neat and tidy in its box.

 

We communicate our concepts with words, without any genuine way to transmit experience. So on one hand everything named is a division, and a distortion. On the other hand, it's to describe the shadows of those things. There really should be a third hand.

[Jetsun]

It only creates a schizm if you believe the name is the thing rather than a conventional label which helps things get done.

[Marblehead]

Good question and good responses so far.

 

I would agree that naming things help us to communicate our own thoughts. However, objectively, naming anything never changes what it is we are naming.

 

With that in mind, I don't believe doing so necessarily creates a schism, and, it may lead to a better understanding of the thing we have named. (A personal memory just popped up regarding this.)

[Zhongyongdaoist]

I agree with this:

 

It only creates a schizm if you believe the name is the thing rather than a conventional label which helps things get done.

When I first read the Tao Te Ching almost fifty years ago I took the first verse to be an ancient version of the fundamental axiom of General Semantic, 'the map is not the territory' and also as anticipating the wider implications of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. It talks only about the inadequacy of names as anything other than convenient labels.

To name a thing can create a mental construct around it; a box, if you will. Named is "tamed". That thing is now separate, neat and tidy in its box.

We communicate our concepts with words, without any genuine way to transmit experience. So on one hand everything named is a division, and a distortion. On the other hand, it's to describe the shadows of those things. There really should be a third hand.

 

A name can be merely a label and does not necessarily involve a 'mental construct', however the historical context in which this chapter was written is 'the rectification of names' a movement in China that attempted to bring names and the act of naming in to a system which made them unambiguous, to create names that were more descriptors and which communicated something of the nature of the named in the name, thus removing the cause of misunderstandings.

 

This chapter is a reminder of the difficulties of such an endeavor.

[The Daryl]

Donald (or do you prefer to be called Zhongyongdaoist? - I'm new here),

 

Please note I said "can". Not does/did; "can create", not "does create". I was speaking of the potential not claiming an absolute. So you essentially phrased a reply in a corrective tone that was only agreeing with what I said. This is where the third hand comes in Perhaps, in some causes the 4th, the 5th, etc.

 

(And I suppose I should clarify, that to me, the extra hands are not literal- just additional ways of perceiving things. Other options that are not immediately apparent, if you will).

 

Take it easy,

Daryl

 

P.S. Apologies for the odd formatting, I can't seem to intuit the quote system, or copy/paste (maybe because I don't have full privileges)

 

[Marblehead]

P.S. Apologies for the odd formatting, I can't seem to intuit the quote system, or copy/paste (maybe because I don't have full privileges)

Post more and think less and soon you will have full privileges.

[The Daryl]

HAHA thanks Marblehead, that laugh was appreciated

[Silent Answers]

The quotes, copy and paste functions mess up all the time for me too. Try using a different internet connection or web browser. Mine works fine at home but quite the opposite at work. (Hence my many edited posts )

[Taoist Texts]

When I first read the Tao Te Ching almost fifty years ago I took the first verse to be an ancient version of the fundamental axiom of General Semantic, 'the map is not the territory'

of course the map is not the territory. that would be silly. the map is where the territory comes from.

[Taomeow]

If you have a cat or a dog, you name them for mutual convenience of communication. My cat knows his name, he also knows he's not his name. The only function of the name is to shorten the distance between the cat "over there" and me "here" -- it's like a soundwave leash, I can pull it and he will come close. I have to use my hands to stroke and hug and feed him, my eyes to look at him, my ears to enjoy the purring, my presence to make him feel wanted. I use his name when I want him to know I'm thinking of him, but I don't think he thinks I'm thinking of the name, I believe he knows I'm thinking of the real thing. The name can't purr, but it can indicate to the cat that I'm interested in hearing some purring.

 

My cat is a good cat, so I call him Haomao. If he's being a bad cat, I cancel his name, by calling him Bu-hao mao ("NOT a good cat.") He doesn't care...

[Spotless]

Naming has a tendency to put things in a past tense - it tends to hold you in a sense to the name and interferes with simple presence in the now to something anew.

 

Think of someone you do not care for here in these posts - think of the persons moniker.

 

Notice - you see the name - it is a set of judgments.

 

If you can "see" and you remember to use your seeing and not the framing you have composed of the person, you may notice the colors have changed and a new person has arisen. In any case, the person is always changing though some may offer little hope of major change anytime soon - this is all past and future - naming does facilitate this proclivity of not viewing in "now".

Edited October 3, 2014 by Spotless

[Wayfarer]

my mistake please delete this post

Edited October 3, 2014 by Wayfarer

[dust]

I agree with everyone. I think.

 

I'm made to think of Alan:

 

We are sick with fascination for the useful tools of names and numbers, of symbols, signs, conceptions and ideas. Meditation is therefore the art of suspending verbal and symbolic thinking for a time, somewhat as a courteous audience will stop talking when a concert is about to begin.

 

Only words and conventions can isolate us from the entirely undefinable something which is everything.

 

 

 

What follows is just me pontificating based on Mr Watts's words. Probably not adding anything new.

 

Words are names. Nouns, verbs, adjectives... "jump" is the name I give to the thing I do when I propel myself into the air. "Beautiful" is the name I give to something I like to look at.

 

Names are symbols. They represent something, but are not that actual thing.

 

We need to be able to represent things with symbols in order not just to communicate with each other but to communicate with ourselves. Human thought is based on words.

 

So, I suppose it just depends on whether or not one believes that human thought creates a schism. And as the goal of many of us is to be free from thought, we must believe that it does..?

[Rara]

It only creates a schizm if you believe the name is the thing rather than a conventional label which helps things get done.

Most people do though...right? The label defines what we are...and therefore we cannot possibly be something else *says sarcastically*

[Marblehead]

I am a Nietzschean, Atheistic, Materialistic, Physicalistic, Anarchistic Taoist.

 

How's that for a Label?

Edited October 13, 2014 by Marblehead

[Rara]

I am a Nietzschean, Atheistic, Materialistic, Physicalistic, Anarchistic Taoist.

 

How's that for a Label?

NAMPAT for short.