Mair 6:3

[Taoist Texts]

Ok well , look at this from my perspective, I tell you I'm willing to give your perspective a fair shake, grant credibility,, and right off the bat you're arguing that there's guys driving the stars around like go-karts, and the universe is a giant brain.. 

I totally agree, it is absurd when viewed from a materialistic angle. What do you make of religion in general? Or what is your take on this

 

Credo quia absurdum is a Latin phrase that means "I believe because it is absurd."

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_quia_absurdum

[Taoist Texts]

  you're arguing that there's guys driving the stars around like go-karts

 

  

Well leaving aside driving for a moment, you know there are guys who inhabit a star. A cool 6 billion of us.

[Stosh]

I totally agree, it is absurd when viewed from a materialistic angle. What do you make of religion in general? Or what is your take on this

 

Credo quia absurdum is a Latin phrase that means "I believe because it is absurd."

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_quia_absurdum

I never heard the phrase , that I remember, in either english or latin. What wiki says about it , is that it has been taken to mean some different things. As in , Who would make up such a ridiculous story? ,perhaps a weak indication that a story could be true.

But also , I think many do have an escapist agenda for wanting to believe stuff that is 'beyond normal' rationale, ,, or it can be used as a logic bomb,, but really just says one intends to not even try to make sense, so its a white flag of surrender, while trying to maintain the face of a stalwart defense.

Religion in general , is subject to humongous stereotype , folks rarely share much common belief within even their own denomination but that stereotype indicates an inclusion of type , the participant Wants to fall under the broad banner. 

The existence of the Religion is a figment , the beliefs of individuals is however , what they believe. And people throughout the centuries have lived loved eaten died fought etc - believing whatever they did believe., and quality of life is not really dependent on having a standardized faith or not. In america , atheists tend to be more charitable statistically , than those who are not , so it can be argued that morality is independent of religion.,, fairly IMO. 

[Stosh]

And contradictions are freely offered.

Well, is there more to that ? are you saying I was self contradictory or .. what , I don't get it. 

[Marblehead]

Well, is there more to that ? are you saying I was self contradictory or .. what , I don't get it. 

 

No Stosh, that wasn't pointing to you.  Actually, it was pointing to me regarding a conversation we had where you pointed out that there were contradictions in my philosophy.

 

I accept my contradictions.  I find it a little harder to accept the contradictions of others.

[Stosh]

Long ago you once said , ,, and if you look closely, youll find other contradictions. Which I still consider to be one of the best come backs ever spoken. Maybe its the same event, but anyway, it is just true that sometimes we do have mixed rationale.

Edited March 23, 2017 by Stosh

[dawei]

Very good point. Ironically its 不可 again haha). Yes zhuan 傳 is understood as transmission (give-receive) but it is more of a broadcast 转播. Only those specially attuned receive.

 

Another option is 可傳而不可受 'can be given but can not be taken (unilaterally)'

 

Upon re-reading, I realize I did not keep this in context... we're talking about Dao

 

So, here is how I understand it:

 

[Dao] can transmit/give but [Dao] does not receive [it from another or itself]

[Taoist Texts]

 

The existence of the Religion is a figment , the beliefs of individuals is however , what they believe. And people throughout the centuries have lived loved eaten died fought etc - believing whatever they did believe.,  

Yes. They say the modern human evolved 200 000 years ago and was predominantly religious until 200 years ago. Either the humanity deluded itself for 99.999% of its history, or went off the rails to senility in the last .001%.

[Stosh]

Yes. They say the modern human evolved 200 000 years ago and was predominantly religious until 200 years ago. Either the humanity deluded itself for 99.999% of its history, or went off the rails to senility in the last .001%.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with religion, it just needs to update once in a while.

[morning dew]

This is an interesting little section and discussion on it. I'm not really familiar with this part of the book; I was a little surprised to see ZZ getting theological.

 

Perhaps this part (and others) are specifically designed to work either way, i.e. religious or materialist/philosophical interpretations, reflecting the uncertainty/scepticism of the butterfly dream from earlier chapters? Perhaps, ZZ didn't even have an opinion either way and left it open to people to decide?

 

I'm not sure, just speculating.

[Marblehead]

Your observations are sound, I think.  Chuang Tzu was a mystic so many things he says can be read from many different perspectives.

[morning dew]

Yeah, I will have to look at this little section in more detail when I get a chance, but it seems to me even from the beginning of the ZZ with the giant bird, Peng (?), and the little birds he's on a relativist drive.

 

I remember seeing quite a fascinating film many years ago (might have been directed by a current or ex girlfriend or wife of David Lynch) that could have been interpreted in many different ways: a mundane film, horror film, or something else (can't quite remember). It was very cleverly designed so the interpretation was completely open and you couldn't really argue either way as to what had happened in the film and how it ended.

Edited May 8, 2017 by morning dew

[silent thunder]

Religion and Science both attempt to answer the big questions... just by different processes.

 

They each have their merits and they're both prone to falling out of the presence of now and filtering little more than preconceived notions and biases of aversion and desire through dogma.  Though science does seem to have a bit more flexibility in its adoption of changing views based on new insight/data than religion does... but this is only my opinion, based on my exposure to them.

 

They are both processes of human energetics and thus seem to have more in common to me, than they do in distinction.

 

I wonder what Chuangzi would make of CERN and quantum physics, or the Judeo=Christian model if he were exposed to it...

[Marblehead]

 

 

I wonder what Chuangzi would make of CERN and quantum physics, or the Judeo=Christian model if he were exposed to it...

 

I'm sure he wouldn't be saying nice things about any of them.

[silent thunder]

I'm sure he wouldn't be saying nice things about any of them.

Can you just imagine the unyielding swordplay of words and concepts he would wield in its critique?

 

funny... that thought is as delicious to me as it is useless...

[morning dew]

Religion and Science both attempt to answer the big questions... just by different processes.

 

They each have their merits and they're both prone to falling out of the presence of now and filtering little more than preconceived notions and biases of aversion and desire through dogma. 

 

Yeah, no knowledge of 'The Truth'/'Reality' can really be gained through language, IMO (although we all seem to be talking about it including the DDJ and ZZ lol ); as soon as you start conceptualising you lose sight of it.

 

Though science does seem to have a bit more flexibility in its adoption of changing views based on new insight/data than religion does... but this is only my opinion, based on my exposure to them.

 

I'll come back to this and the plausibility of gods riding on stars as I think it would be an interesting discussion.

 

 

Polaris attained it,

and has not deviated throughout the ages;

 

The sun and moon attained it,

and have never rested throughout the ages;

 

 

I'm still struggling to understand who some of these people are and exactly why all these things have been listed.

 

IIRC, Polaris, the North star, never moves in the sky viewed from our position on the earth; all the stars rotate around it? But, so what? Is ZZ just saying Polaris has obtained its particular way (little 'd' dao) and that's it? Why did he pick Polaris and not something else? The sun and moon are always moving. Okay, but so are lots of other things. Also, why pick two things here? Why not just one, such as the sun or the moon?

 

Is there another meaning/layer here, or did he just have to pick something as an example and that's what he happened to pick? I was going to ask if Polaris might represent the Dao (big 'D' and noun – i.e., 'Reality'), and the sun and moon, yang and yin, but I'm not sure that would make any sense given the context of the quote.

Edited May 9, 2017 by morning dew

[Michael Sternbach]

You'd be saving me a lot of time , Look , if it Is a Rorschach blot, silly ramblings of a hallucinating mystic , and one can make of it what one will, then I would be the one weaving rationality into IT , So there is nothing for me to gain From it , the rational worldview is one I Already hold.

On the other hand , if IT has a rational core , meaning of its own , a message,, well then there is something to be gained.

 

From stuff you already said , I figure you see it as ,, essentially ,, cultural fairy tales,, interesting as a poetic piece , influential document , a maguffin.

All along I've argued the other side , that its the origins of scientific style thought .. essentially how the rationale of the world looks when one removes the arbitrary whimsy of Gods , and replaces that irrationality -with principles which can be trusted  learned and employed by humanity , to progress. 

Balking, you deprive me of the opportunity to show where these lines of thought diverge , or you deprive me of seeing my own silly yarn spinning. 

I am quite ready to accept either way.

 

That's akin to saying there is nothing to gain from a mirror.

[Stosh]

That's akin to saying there is nothing to gain from a mirror.

No , its saying I would look,  but you're not shedding the light.  as it says at the end ..

"Balking, you deprive me of the opportunity to show where these lines of thought diverge , or you deprive me of seeing my own silly yarn spinning. "

[Michael Sternbach]

Yeah, no knowledge of 'The Truth'/'Reality' can really be gained through language, IMO (although we all seem to be talking about it including the DDJ and ZZ lol ); as soon as you start conceptualising you lose sight of it.

 

 

 

I'll come back to this and the plausibility of gods riding on stars as I think it would be an interesting discussion.

 

 

 

I'm still struggling to understand who some of these people are and exactly why all these things have been listed.

 

IIRC, Polaris, the North star, never moves in the sky viewed from our position on the earth; all the stars rotate around it? But, so what? Is ZZ just saying Polaris has obtained its particular way (little 'd' dao) and that's it? Why did he pick Polaris and not something else? The sun and moon are always moving. Okay, but so are lots of other things. Also, why pick two things here? Why not just one, such as the sun or the moon?

 

Is there another meaning/layer here, or did he just have to pick something as an example and that's what he happened to pick? I was going to ask if Polaris might represent the Dao (big 'D' and noun – i.e., 'Reality'), and the sun and moon, yang and yin, but I'm not sure that would make any sense given the context of the quote.

There is a polarity being highlighted: Polaris follows his Dao by standing still. Whereas Sun and Moon follow their Dao by constantly moving.

 

I would say, the Luminaries were chosen because they are the most prominent objects in the sky, and also among the fastest moving ones; even though Mercury and Venus move faster than the Sun (as seen from Earth), they sometimes stand still and change direction. - And yes, Sun and Moon are among the most archetypal expressions of yang and yin.

 

The celestial bodies were often seen as the Gods by the ancients - or as their visible bodies. Which isn't a far cry from the modern conception of the Earth being a highly complex system that indeed has its own kind of consciousness (Gaia hypothesis).

 

Now, according to Newtonian physics, the celestial bodies are bound to move a certain way due to the laws of gravity. However, Poincaré showed that, in the long run (on a time scale that the Gods may be totally comfortable with), their course cannot be determined with certainty. The French scientist hereby laid the foundations for Chaos theory - but you could just as well say that the will of the Gods becomes a factor here.

[dawei]

IIRC, Polaris, the North star, never moves in the sky viewed from our position on the earth; all the stars rotate around it? But, so what? Is ZZ just saying Polaris has obtained its particular way (little 'd' dao) and that's it? Why did he pick Polaris and not something else? The sun and moon are always moving. Okay, but so are lots of other things. Also, why pick two things here? Why not just one, such as the sun or the moon?

 

Is there another meaning/layer here, or did he just have to pick something as an example and that's what he happened to pick? I was going to ask if Polaris might represent the Dao (big 'D' and noun – i.e., 'Reality'), and the sun and moon, yang and yin, but I'm not sure that would make any sense given the context of the quote.

 

I think Michael's explanation is good.

 

If you wanted to read more on the North Star and its ancient recognition, I've written some here:

 

http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/32324-cosmology-in-ancient-chinese-text/?hl=allen#entry489961

 

http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/18957-the-water-book-taiyi-sheng-shui-太一生水/?p=267229

[morning dew]

There is a polarity being highlighted: Polaris follows his Dao by standing still. Whereas Sun and Moon follow their Dao by constantly moving.

 

I would say, the Luminaries were chosen because they are the most prominent objects in the sky, and also among the fastest moving ones; even though Mercury and Venus move faster than the Sun (as seen from Earth), they sometimes stand still and change direction. - And yes, Sun and Moon are among the most archetypal expressions of yang and yin.

 

The celestial bodies were often seen as the Gods by the ancients - or as their visible bodies. Which isn't a far cry from the modern conception of the Earth being a highly complex system that indeed has its own kind of consciousness (Gaia hypothesis).

 

Now, according to Newtonian physics, the celestial bodies are bound to move a certain way due to the laws of gravity. However, Poincaré showed that, in the long run (on a time scale that the Gods may be totally comfortable with), their course cannot be determined with certainty. The French scientist hereby laid the foundations for Chaos theory - but you could just as well say that the will of the Gods becomes a factor here.

 

Thanks, very interesting. I also found this link quite fascinating:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_of_the_Solar_System#Overview_and_challenges

[morning dew]

I think Michael's explanation is good.

 

If you wanted to read more on the North Star and its ancient recognition, I've written some here:

 

http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/32324-cosmology-in-ancient-chinese-text/?hl=allen#entry489961

 

http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/18957-the-water-book-taiyi-sheng-shui-太一生水/?p=267229

 

Thanks as well. This is very interesting, although I'm not sure I fully grasped it all or who everybody was (I shall have to do some more reading on this).

 

Okay, to recap: ZZ may have picked Polaris and the sun and the moon because (1) they display a very clear polarity – static and dynamic; (2) they are very obvious to see in the sky; I would also suggest (3) they are examples that are easy to be understood by anybody whatever educational level they may have; and (4) they are natural examples, i.e. he didn't suggest something artificial and manufactured like a water clock to represent dynamic(ism).

 

Going by your links it does seem that some people would view Polaris as symbolic of the Dao (big 'd', noun) or the One, a static entity, and the Milky Way as the 10,000 things springing from it with Yin and Yang (symbolised here as moon and the sun) as the dynamic element that changes and transforms them, etc? Could this be reason 5 (i.e. to have multiple meanings and suggest Taoist cosmology), or am I just overstretching here and pursuing a lost cause?

 

Also, an unrelated question: IIRC (from Eva Wong), the shamans of Wu were into the bear dance/shuffle around 2000 BCE to induce trance states so they could journey to Polaris. Why would they do this? Any idea? Would it be to meet Da Yi?

Edited May 10, 2017 by morning dew

[dawei]

Going by your links it does seem that some people would view Polaris as symbolic of the Dao (big 'd', noun) or the One, a static entity, and the Milky Way as the 10,000 things springing from it with Yin and Yang (symbolised here as moon and the sun) as the dynamic element that changes and transforms them, etc? Could this be reason 5 (i.e. to have multiple meanings and suggest Taoist cosmology), or am I just overstretching here and pursuing a lost cause?

 

Also, an unrelated question: IIRC (from Eva Wong), the shamans of Wu were into the bear dance/shuffle around 2000 BCE to induce trance states so they could journey to Polaris. Why would they do this? Any idea? Would it be to meet Da Yi?

 

please re-state reason 5.

 

I have no idea.  But in context, why do shamans care about the North Star/Polaris?

 

I would be interested to hear Flowing Hands on this. 

 

Xi Wang Mu is the goddess over Kunlun.  You should ask her.   Or I can ask her. 

[morning dew]

Reason 5: to illustrate Daoist cosmology/working of the universe? Maybe I am just overstretching. I guess it doesn't really contain any teachings; it just continues a theme, perhaps? The Dao/One/Polaris is static, never changing; Yin and Yang/moon and sun are dynamic/always moving/ always changing (or causing change).

 

I'm not sure what you meant by 'in context'? I don't think my question has any relevance to ZZ. I just saw your links and it reminded me of Eva Wong. I don't think she mentions any particular reason why they did that, although I seem to remember her including the dance steps for the shuffle.

 

I'm not familiar with Xi Wang Mu. I shall add her to my list of investigations.

 

ETA: I just saw this random snippet. I didn't realise Wu shamans appeared in ZZ although not very favourably. I'll have a bit more of a read on the subject tomorrow and see if I can find anything else.

 

Zhuang Zhou, the reputed author of the Zhuangzi, is believed to have lived in the dis­trict of Meng within the State of Song near the border of Chu during the reigns of King Liang (370-319 B.C.E.) and Qi (319-301 B.C.E.). There are references to shamans (wu) in the Zhuangzi, but these individuals were not de­picted favorably. They were portrayed as charla­tans who fool people into believing they can di­vine the future, and as outdated practitioners of cruel sacrificial rituals. It was Zhuangzi's ideal human beings who had many of the traits of shamans: they took spirit journeys, entered trances, were masters of fire and the natural elements, and demonstrated an extraordinary un­derstanding of the Dao, or way. Many examples were given in the Zhuangzi of ideal human beings who were recognized by their names (the true man, the daemonic man, the perfect man, the sage, the nameless man). They were also recognizable by their unusual appearances: hunched backs and skinny necks. Some of these individuals became shamanlike following an illness (Master Yü) or during a meditative trance (Ziqi of the South Wall).

 

 

http://world-news-research.com/shamanism.html

Edited May 10, 2017 by morning dew

[Michael Sternbach]

Thanks as well. This is very interesting, although I'm not sure I fully grasped it all or who everybody was (I shall have to do some more reading on this).

 

Okay, to recap: ZZ may have picked Polaris and the sun and the moon because (1) they display a very clear polarity – static and dynamic; (2) they are very obvious to see in the sky; I would also suggest (3) they are examples that are easy to be understood by anybody whatever educational level they may have; and (4) they are natural examples, i.e. he didn't suggest something artificial and manufactured like a water clock to represent dynamic(ism).

 

Going by your links it does seem that some people would view Polaris as symbolic of the Dao (big 'd', noun) or the One, a static entity, and the Milky Way as the 10,000 things springing from it with Yin and Yang (symbolised here as moon and the sun) as the dynamic element that changes and transforms them, etc? Could this be reason 5 (i.e. to have multiple meanings and suggest Taoist cosmology), or am I just overstretching here and pursuing a lost cause?

 

Also, an unrelated question: IIRC (from Eva Wong), the shamans of Wu were into the bear dance/shuffle around 2000 BCE to induce trance states so they could journey to Polaris. Why would they do this? Any idea? Would it be to meet Da Yi?

Since you seem to be quite interested in cosmological contexts, I shall mention that Polaris actually isn't completely static but, due to precession, revolves in the course of millennia around the pole of the ecliptic in Draco, something I once wrote about here:

 

http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/35896-astrological-musings/page-4#entry575161

 

Not that it would be pertinent to our present discussion of ZZ - for whose purposes it was totally adequate to refer to Polaris as the star the whole firmament revolves around on a daily base -, but if you want to be really thorough, you may want to look into this further.

 

Edkins writes that Draco was Tsi Kung, the Palace of the Heavenly Emperor, adding, that this palace "is bounded by the stars of Draco, fifteen in number, which stretch themselves in an oval shape round the pole-star. It was itself the pole in the Epoch of the commencement of Chinese astronomy."

 

BTW, your linked Wikipedia article is rather interesting -thanks.

 

And I think you have summarized ZZ's reasons well for using the examples that he did.