What are the Principles in the TTC...?

[rene]

 

 

 

The OP did "not anticipate this kind of comment from an administrator".

 

I am happy to share the philosophical acumen of Zhuangzi's reductionism of Laozi. - ???

 

For ZZ, Dao is even excrement... and thus, while Dao is even in language, it is actually a bit messier.

 

For ZZ, one should get rid of "this" and "that"; and "It" should get discarded as well.

 

Get rid of these and get closer to the Source [of "it"].

 

Thus, if LZ says, "F' This", ZZ's reductionism would be simply "F' ".

 

LZ has shown that if we focus on the words then we don't really understand the meaning. That is a principle of the TTC

 

Okay. First I apologize to CD for this interrupting post.

 

dawei - your post tossed me as you have more knowledge of these things. I was always of the idea that 1) ZZ expanded/complicated the ideas of LZ, not reduced/simplified them. 2) ZZ said Dao is even in the sh*t - not Dao is the sh*t.

 

marblehead - would you, as you have time and only if you wish, start a new thread on the differences between LZ and ZZ in these matters? I know of no other here that is as versed in both of them, than you.

 

Please place any replies to this post in that new thread, if MH makes one, to not further interfere with this one.

 

Thanks!

[dawei]

dawei - your post tossed me as you have more knowledge of these things. I was always of the idea that 1) ZZ expanded/complicated the ideas of LZ, not reduced/simplified them. 2) ZZ said Dao is even in the sh*t - not Dao is the sh*t.

 

Another example of reductionism... one less word and you get to the source of what it means.

 

 

Added: A better word then reductionism is deconstruction [of Dao]. If a thread gets setup I can probably add some links too. In either case, the point is that words step on each other and create immediate contradictions. ZZ was a master of tearing down dualism (call it reductionism or deconstruction).

[Brian]

Tao is.

[Marblehead]

marblehead - would you, as you have time and only if you wish, start a new thread on the differences between LZ and ZZ in these matters? I know of no other here that is as versed in both of them, than you.

 

Please place any replies to this post in that new thread, if MH makes one, to not further interfere with this one.

 

Thanks!

Good idea. I will do so. Give me a little time as while I do have a write-up regarding that it is rather long so I should first shorten it significantly so that I don't lose my readers before the discussion gets started.

[Marblehead]

Tao is.

And then it is not.

 

 

PS: Read that carefully.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Marblehead

[dawei]

And then it is not.

 

 

PS: Read that carefully.

 

Now you're making ZZ smile

[rene]

Marblehead: glad you're going to do this - thanks!!

 

 

 

 

Another example of reductionism... one less word and you get to the source of what it means.

 

 

Added: A better word then reductionism is deconstruction [of Dao]. If a thread gets setup I can probably add some links too. In either case, the point is that words step on each other and create immediate contradictions. ZZ was a master of tearing down dualism (call it reductionism or deconstruction).

 

 

dawei -

 

IMO - if ZZ did any reductionism - then it was deconstructing ideas that others added on to Dao and LZ.

 

Dao, and the clarity underlying LZ, are already in their simplest form.

 

***************

 

Actually - this might not be too far off the OP's topic.

Especially if The Laozi is viewed to be an "instruction manual" .

 

warm regards

[ChiDragon]

The concept of Wu Wei is the primary principle of the Tao Te Ching. If the concept did not exist, then the Tao Te wouldn't have had been written.

The definition is this:
Wu Wei is "let Nature takes its course". The philosophy is that do not interfere with the course of Nature. E.g. If a man-make dam was built on a river to restrict the water the water flow, then, it is interfering the course of Nature.

The Tao Te Ching evolves around the concept of Wu Wei by suggesting how a ruler should run a country with less interference to the people. Of course, there are some people would like to interpret it some other way to meet their philosophy. That is fine. However, it is outside the scope of the thread.

I want to make clear that the definition of Wu Wei, on this thread, is NOT NON-DOING. Rather it is DO NOTHING which INTERFERES with Nature and CAUSE IT HARM.

Edited January 4, 2015 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

Chuang Tzu said that creation and destruction are the same thing.

[ChiDragon]

Chuang Tzu said that creation and destruction are the same thing.

Where does it say that....???

 

If I understand what you are saying, I would say that Wu Wei for Nature is creation and destruction. For human, one has no option to create but self destruction. Please don't tell me that a mule is a human creation.

Edited January 4, 2015 by ChiDragon

[Marblehead]

How about this? Burton Watson translation

Chapter NINETEEN - MASTERING LIFE

“All that have faces, forms, voices, colors - these are all mere things. How could one thing and another thing be far removed from each other? And how could any one of them be worth considering as a predecessor? They are forms, colors - nothing more. But things have their creation in what has no form, and their conclusion in what has no change.”

This idea was worked many times in different ways.

(I forget who’s translation actually said it the way I said it but likely Legge or Lin Yutang.)

[ChiDragon]

I am not sure that we are talking about the same thing.

[Marblehead]

I am not sure that we are talking about the same thing.

Hehehe. That wouldn't be the first time.

[Michael Sternbach]

Chapter 2 (continued)

 

All things spring up, and there is not one which declines to show itself, they grow, and there is no expectation (of a reward for the results). The work is accomplished, and there is no resting in it (as an achievement).

Principle for cultivation: Action of the unfettered mind

 

Natural action taken without clinging to the results. Focussing on the desired outcome rather than on the action itself leads to doubt, impatience, perfectionism, in other words, to tension and waste of energy - the opposite of Wu Wei. To the sage, the way is the goal. His mind is where his hands are. Without tension, the most perfect results are achieved. Once they are achieved, the mind doesn't stop there, but remains free to flow on to its next task.

 

By seeking reward, one loses one's natural innocence. Being in need of praise, one makes oneself equally susceptible to blame. No doubt, social conditioning is relying on this. The sage is free thereof.

 

Dedicated to ChiDragon.

[dust]

Natural action taken without clinging to the results. Focussing on the desired outcome rather than on the action itself leads to doubt, impatience, perfectionism, in other words, to tension and waste of energy - the opposite of Wu Wei.

 

I was thinking about this the other day. Another thing is, perhaps, that humans get so caught up in language -- which is, basically, thought -- that we forget about simply trusting our intuition and doing things. We overanalyse, overthink. And I think maybe the structure of our language causes us to focus on (often distant) outcomes, rather than actions themselves..?

[Michael Sternbach]

I was thinking about this the other day. Another thing is, perhaps, that humans get so caught up in language -- which is, basically, thought -- that we forget about simply trusting our intuition and doing things. We overanalyse, overthink. And I think maybe the structure of our language causes us to focus on (often distant) outcomes, rather than actions themselves..?

 

I agree. We are often stalemating ourselves by overly analysing and thinking about possible outcomes, rather than just giving it a try. And yes, our over-intellectualizing ties in with our verbal thinking. I am not sure if this is supported by Western languages, in particular, or a characteristic of language in general.

 

I also realised after writing my post that we tend to focus on the action more if we enjoy it. If I'm watching an entertaining movie, I'm not in a hurry to see the end (which I can usually foretell, anyway). On the other hand, if I had to clean up my house after Saxon was having a party, I would probably be concentrating more on the desired result. Thus...

 

"The Sage only does what he enjoys doing. And whatever he is doing, he enjoys."

Edited January 25, 2015 by Michael Sternbach