Is philosophical Daoism (daojia) agnostic?

[Stosh]

But THIS

1. pertaining to knowledge.

2. possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.

 

Is not presenting 

 

 another position, gnostic, in addition to the other three.

 

Still wrong.

[gatito]

Stosh,

There are two pairs of opposites (4 possible positions): -

theist & atheist
gnostic and agnostic

That's just basic english.

[Stosh]

It may be basic dualistic language , and You can take your pick on the use of the word gnostic , but if the Gnostic tradition is theist , or if the gnostic tradition is also theist , then the two pairs are not distinct. and so youre back to having only the three choices of either believing in god , not believing in god , or not being able to make up your mind for some reason.

Yes there is a fourth possibility , which is the group who has never heard of or considered deities, but then , they couldnt weigh in, now could they? so they arent a choice.

[gatito]

But gnostic isn't necessarily synonymous with theist and to conflate the two words may therefore be wrong Stosh.

 

What if a gnostic is an atheist?

 

[Stosh]

Im not conflating the terms , the gnostic then falls into the atheist camp, and is still not a fourth option. 

[gatito]

You are getting further from the Truth, not closer, with your faulty line of "reasoning".

Let's try this another way..

Your position depends on your (wrong) decision to redefine a gnostic as either an atheist or a theist, which isn't the dictionary definition of gnostic (no capital letter). I've already disposed of Gnostic (capital letter), so your attempt to reintroduce Gnosticism is just a red herring.

The rest of your argument is based upon this false axiom. It's false because you are ignoring the dictionary definition and choosing to make up a version that suits your perspective by conflating gnostic with atheist or theist (and you cannot say with certainty whether a gnostic is an atheist or a theist).

I am using the dictionary definition, which I gave you several posts ago and which you are unwilling to accept.

Have you read Alice in Wonderland...?

[Stosh]

You are getting further from the Truth, not closer, with your faulty line of "reasoning".

 

Let's try this another way..

 

Your position depends on your (wrong) decision to redefine a gnostic as either an atheist or a theist, which isn't the dictionary definition of gnostic (no capital letter). I've already disposed of Gnostic (capital letter), so your attempt to reintroduce Gnosticism is just a red herring.

 

The rest of your argument is based upon this false axiom. It's false because you are ignoring the dictionary definition and choosing to make up a version that suits your perspective by conflating gnostic with atheist or theist (and you cannot say with certainty whether a gnostic is an atheist or a theist).

 

I am using the dictionary definition, which I gave you several posts ago and which you are unwilling to accept.

 

Have you read Alice in Wonderland...?

Yes I have , 

 

gnos·tic

 

               adjective

1.  
   of or relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge

    

   noun

1. an adherent of Gnosticism.

    

   I already told you enough for you to recognize that gnostics have a faith with includes deities which they presumably believe in , that is why they are theists. If you have one who for some reason doesnt really fit the norm, and doesnt believe in the deities, well then they would be either agnostic or atheist ,( though affilliating themselves with Gnosticism anyway). 

    

   I really dont care whether the individual considers themselves nominally , atheist or theist  or agnostic, there are only these three realistic options , thats it , three.  There are no others , no matter how you twirl and spin so as to not have to admit you were wrong on this one tiny little issue , you are still wrong. Even getting insulting and haughty so as t tick me off, still wont change that you were ,and are, wrong on this one.

   Just admit it , it will make you feel better.

   It will remove the egoic need to be right all the time ,and you find out I will still think highly of you anyway.

    

    

Edited April 3, 2015 by Stosh

[gatito]

The dictionary definition of gnostic is:-

 

1. pertaining to knowledge.
2. possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.

 

It makes no mention of God or gods, atheism or theism.

 

And a Gnostic not a gnostic Stosh.

 

A gnostic is a Sage (an ācārya).

 

And none of the Sages that I've come across have beliefs (or disbeliefs) about the existence or the non-existence of God or gods.

 

[Stosh]

Skipping the gnostic issue, still leaves atheism to cover your sages. Atheism has both the positive or hard form, which positively asserts there is no god. But there is also the soft or negative form of atheism which doesnt make any positive assertion regarding the issue.

It it is a passive non-assertion that they do have no acceptance of gods. Its essentially an abdication of assertion on the issue, but its still atheist.

I can provide the quotations or source monday, its a pain to do on this phone.

[Marblehead]

Yeah, some things shouldn't be done on a phone.

[gatito]

Feel free to post whatever authority you want to believe in Stosh.

However, as  I've said, the Sages I know neither believe nor do they disbelieve in God or gods and no definition that you post will alter that fact.

The word gnostic defines that someone knows. Someone who knows neither believes nor do they disbelieve because they know.

Nevertheless, a Sage is entirely capable of adopting an atheistic, theistic or agnostic line of reasoning as a means to liberate a disciple from their false beliefs and disbeliefs.
 

[Geof Nanto]

However, as  I've said, the Sages I know neither believe nor do they disbelieve in God or gods and no definition that you post will alter that fact.

 

The word gnostic defines that someone knows. Someone who knows neither believes nor do they disbelieve because they know.

 

Nevertheless, a Sage is entirely capable of adopting an atheistic, theistic or agnostic line of reasoning as a means to liberate a disciple from their false beliefs and disbeliefs.

 

This is a particularly interesting train of thought you're posting here, gatito. But I'll write no more because, to my mind, you've brought the discussion to the edge of what can be expressed in words and ideas. To go further, a person would need to share the experience of these sages you know.

[Stosh]

Well, im not making any post about authorities , im just saying that there is no alternative to the positions that were already posted

Whether your sages adopt lines of reasoning they do not believe in to affect others is beside the point. I am not judging the deception. If your description of their attitudes is correct, they are atheist. If they lied to you, no conclusion can be drawn.

[gatito]

Any lines of reasoning that are adopted are simply methods of Philosopical Sublation, which is analogous to Formula Iteration.

 

In either example, an aspirant is free to view sucessive iterations either as lies or as successively closer approximations to a Truth that cannot be put into words.

 

An aspirant who chose to view sucessive iterations as lies would be demonstrating that they were unqualified to follow a Jnanic (or a mathematical) Path and would be rejected by a competent teacher.

Edited April 4, 2015 by gatito

[gatito]

Here's an nice animation of the growth of the Mandelbrot set as it iterates towards infinity, which illustrates the point quite well: -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Animation_of_the_growth_of_the_Mandelbrot_set_as_you_iterate_towards_infinity.gif

 

Edit to add: -

 

although attractive fixed-point iteration would have been an even better example.

 

Edited April 4, 2015 by gatito

[Geof Nanto]

I personally don't find the Western concepts of  'philosophical Daoism', 'religious Daoism', 'theist', 'atheist', and 'agnostic' that frame this discussion as a particularly meaningful way to understand Daoism. (I'll leave gatito and ‘gnostic’ aside as I do find his use of the word meaningful, but beyond and outside of further discussion.)  Rather, here is a brief and concise overview of Daoist cosmogony from Louis Komjathy’s The Daoist Tradition.  Each to his or her own interpretation in terms of the above Western concepts if you so desire.

 

(For those interested, I strongly recommend reading his whole book as an excellent starting point for understanding the diverse totality of the Daoist tradition. It will soon become apparent that there are no simple or unequivocal answers to questions such as those of this thread topic, because such questions only have significance from a world-view that’s familiar to us but foreign to Daoism.)

 

Daoist cosmogony

 

The primary Daoist cosmogony involves an impersonal and spontaneous process of manifestation and emanation. One dimension of the Dao manifests in and as the universe as cosmological process ("Nature"). Generally speaking, Daoists do not believe in intentionality, agency, or inherent and transcendent meaning in the cosmos. That is, in contrast to many monotheists, Daoists believe in neither a creator god nor "creation" as such. The foundational Daoist cosmogony involves a spontaneous transformation that led from primordial nondifferentiation to differentiation.

 

There was a beginning. There was not yet beginning to be a beginning. There was not yet beginning to be not yet beginning to be a beginning. There was being. There was nonbeing. There was not yet beginning to be nonbeing. There was not yet beginning to be not yet beginning to be nonbeing. Suddenly there was nonbeing. But when it comes to nonbeing, I don't know what is being and what is nonbeing. Now I have just said something. But I don't know whether or not what I have said has really said something. (Zhuangzi, Chapter 2)

 

The Dao represents primordial nondifferentiation or pure potentiality. In a pre-manifest "state," the Dao is an incomprehensible and unrepresentable "before," also understood as original qi, the primordial "energy" of the universe. Through a spontaneous, unintentional, and impersonal process of unfolding or differentiation, this nondifferentiation became the One or unity. That is, even unity or the wholeness of Being-before-being is not the Dao in its ultimate sense. The One represents the first moment or stage of differentiation. From this unity, separation occurs. In the next phase of differentiation, the one divides into two, yin and yang. Here yin also relates to terrestrial qi or the qi of the earth (diqi), while yang relates to celestial qi or the qi of the heavens (tianqi).

 

At this moment yin and yang have not yet formed patterns of interaction. The interaction of yin and yang is referred to as "three," this moment involves yin and yang in dynamic and continual interaction, resulting in further differentiation. This further differentiation leads to the emergence of materiality as well as to more individuated beings and forces, including human beings. Human beings, as vertically aligned beings, are often seen as the life form with the clearest capacity to connect the heavens and the earth. This is a structural and organizational distinction, not an ontological or theological one. In the later Daoist tradition, the three dimensions of the heavens, earth, and human beings are referred as  the "Three Powers" (sancai).

Edited April 4, 2015 by Darkstar

[Marblehead]

We should keep on mind, I think, that Daoism is first and foremost a philosophy of life.

 

Therefore, anyone, any belief system, can utilize the concepts within the Lao Tzu or the Chuang Tzu any time they wish to.  And whoever, whatever felief system, adopts the Daoist Philosophical concepts into their life then Philosophical Daoism become that whatever belief system.

 

The Tao cannot be defined.  Its processes can be defined.  (They are observable in nature.)

 

Therefore, bottom line, to say that Philosophical Daoism is "this" or "that" is an error, I think.

[gatito]

From my perspective, I like the flexibility offered by Taoism anfd the fact that I've never been told to stop posting in a Taoist Forum because other people hold the mistaken belief that I'm not a Taoist.

 

[Marblehead]

You are a Taoist Gatito.  Trust me on this one.

[flowing hands]

You are a Taoist Gatito.  Trust me on this one.

Doesn't matter who you are, whether one believes in a single God or Gods or no God at all. Whether you have come into this life as a bacteria or some other life form, you are a Daoist. Whether one can recognize this and follow the way is another matter.

[Stosh]

The iterative function describes all the iterations of its function. The answers may intersect with other functions, but when all is said and done, the function still covers all its iterations.

 

Tao, may have many iterations, all are covered by the function Tao. But if we are talking about theism we arent looking at the full spectrum of possibilities under Tao, just the possibilities of two juxtaposed variables. N to the second power yeilds four possibilities. One of the is self nullifying, so viable choices regarding belief in a god, yes or no, ,,,and positive assertion or not ,about that god ,are three.

These are the full set

 

Asserting there is a god

Asserting there is no god

Not asserting the belief there is a god

Not asserting the belief there is no god

 

Not asserting the existance of god implies no non asserted assumption, and no asserted assumption. not asserting there is no god Imo does implicitly suggest there is the non asserted, assumption that

there is a god.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Stosh

[Stosh]

I should add that this square, is just for determing the number of possibilities. The way an individual may express their beliefs may not match my wording.

[flowing hands]

The iterative function describes all the iterations of its function. The answers may intersect with other functions, but when all is said and done, the function still covers all its iterations.

 

Tao, may have many iterations, all are covered by the function Tao. But if we are talking about theism we arent looking at the full spectrum of possibilities under Tao, just the possibilities of two juxtaposed variables. N to the second power yeilds four possibilities. One of the is self nullifying, so viable choices regarding belief in a god, yes or no, ,,,and positive assertion or not ,about that god ,are three.

These are the full set

 

Asserting there is a god

Asserting there is no god

Not asserting the belief there is a god

Not asserting the belief there is no god

 

Not asserting the existance of god implies no non asserted assumption, and no asserted assumption. not asserting there is no god Imo does implicitly suggest there is the non asserted, assumption that

there is a god.

Trying to assert and understand the Dao by modern mathematics may lead to misunderstanding    Speak of the Way and it is not the Way etc. Write of the way and put it in a box and all is lost, but seek the Dao in your heart, there lies the true path to understanding.

[Stosh]

Trying to assert and understand the Dao by modern mathematics may lead to misunderstanding    Speak of the Way and it is not the Way etc. Write of the way and put it in a box and all is lost, but seek the Dao in your heart, there lies the true path to understanding.

Quite right. I was just using the math approach because Gatito was moving in that direction ,and if thats how he feels the issue best understandable, ill try to accommodate. But I am not really a big fan of math.

[Geof Nanto]

To my understanding, it is the view of the majority of specialist Daoism research academics that the division of Daoism into Philosophical Daoism and Religious Daoism is a Western misinterpretation. (See for instance Livia Kohn, Daoism and Chinese Culture; and Louis Komjathy, The Daoist Tradition.) Certainly, no one denies  there is a philosophical aspect to classical Daoism, or perhaps more correctly, there are aspects of classical Daoism that respond well to philosophical analysis.

 

However, I don’t agree with these same academics when they negate the validity of Philosophical  Daoism on traditional grounds. To my mind, Philosophical Daoism has now established itself as a new sub-tradition within the great and diverse Daoist community. Daoism’s ability to change and grow  - and thereby embrace our very real contemporary needs -  is an affirmation that it’s alive and well. 

Edited April 4, 2015 by Darkstar