A Conversation with ChatGPT about spiritual practice, no-mind, neidan and emotions

[Giles]

4 hours ago, wandelaar said:

@Giles

 

Perhaps you should describe more precisely what you mean by someone "who isn't led by their emotions"?

 

That already seems reasonably clear to me, which leads me to ask what's your level of English proficiency?

[ChiDragon]

3 hours ago, wandelaar said:

Thank you! The issue isn't controversial: the TTC promotes simple living. Not only in chapter 80 but also in some other chapters that I mentioned. But you simply can't win a discussion with those who prefer to see it otherwise.

 

The TTC does not promote simple living. Laozi use this example to show people are living in harmony. There was no conflict between neighbors. Hence, no weapons were needed. It was so peaceful, even there was no contact with the neighbors but only hear the sounds of the dogs and chickens. Finally, the main theme here is there is no war at all to maintain peace in a quiet way at all times

[wandelaar]

Quote

 Robert G. Henricks' 1989 translation of Ch. 70:

My words are easy to understand,
And easy to put into practice.
Yet no one in the world can understand them,
And no one can put them into practice.
Now my words have an ancestor, and my deeds have a lord,
And it's simply because [people] have no understanding [of them],
that they therefore don't understand me.
But when those who understand me are few, then I'm of great value.
Therefore the Sage wears coarse woolen cloth, but inside it he holds on to jade.

 

 

[wandelaar]

8 hours ago, Giles said:

That already seems reasonably clear to me, which leads me to ask what's your level of English proficiency?

 

Years back I asked on this forum whether my English was OK, and nobody had any problem with it then. Nor has it been a problem afterwards. I also read books in English as easily as I read books in Dutch. So I don't think the problem lies there.

[freeform]

9 hours ago, Wilhelm said:

I can't believe this guy took 81 chapters to tell people to live simply.

And counting on knotted rope instead of an abacus… oh and a bit of genocide too (you know - to lower the population to appropriate levels)… the other sagely wisdom of Lao Tzu… apparently.

 

It always surprises me that people don’t assume there’s a deeper level of meaning in texts like these…

 

Not to mention the denial of the level of subjective interpretation going on.

 

Even the ‘expert sinologists’ seem confused whether it’s talking about machines that can do the work of 10,000 men or its talking about weapons… 

 

Like chatGPT many of us are very certain of our views on texts that were translated in many different ways by many different people - most of whom are simply academics who have engaged heavily with languages - but never touched Dao.

[Cobie]

.

Edited February 17, 2023 by Cobie

[wandelaar]

About ignoring and/or twisting the facts: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/05/alternative-facts

Edited February 16, 2023 by wandelaar

[Barnaby]

40 minutes ago, freeform said:

Not to mention the denial of the level of subjective interpretation going on.

 

Can't get away from it.

 

cf Gadamer in Truth and Method

 

"He rejects as unachievable the goal of objectivity, and instead suggests that meaning is created through intersubjective communication."

 

 

[freeform]

51 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

About ignoring and/or twisting the facts

The DDJ is not ‘facts’… 

 

The Bible is not ‘facts’…

 

Poetry is not facts…

 

Two ‘experts’ that were quote by you and Cobie had directly contradictory translations of the same simple source text… 

 

If DDJ was close to being factual - then there wouldn’t need to be so many translations, interpretations, disagreements and commentaries on it.

 

Mathematics is pretty factual - not many experts disagreeing about multiplication and division…

 

The DDJ is not maths… to think that it is puts you in the same camp as fundamentalists that believe that the bible is factual and that the world was created in 7 days and dinosaur bones were placed by god to test our faith or something.

[wandelaar]

The song remains the same.

[Wilhelm]

33 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

The song remains the same.

Interesting.  Have you read any of the alchemical classics like the Cantong Qi or Wuzhen Pai?  Or is this approach mainly how you see the DDJ/Zhuangzi/etc.?  Just asking because the former don't really allow for an interpretation at face value

Edited February 16, 2023 by Wilhelm

[Taoist Texts]

42 minutes ago, freeform said:

The DDJ is not ‘facts’… 

thats true. DDJ has nothing to do with facts.

Quote

fact noun. something that actually exists; reality; truth:

Because  different groups of people have their own unique realities.

[wandelaar]

41 minutes ago, Wilhelm said:

Interesting.  Have you read any of the alchemical classics like the Cantong Qi or Wuzhen Pai?  Or is this approach mainly how you see the DDJ/Zhuangzi/etc.?  Just asking because the former don't really allow for an interpretation at face value

 

I have tried several times to read such alchemical texts and books and articles about them and I struggled through The Dao De Jing: A Qigong Interpretation by Jwing-Ming Yang. But it's not my cup of tea. And I see no reason to force such interpretations on those parts of the TTC that already have a clear meaning and that don't need any interpretative hocus-pocus to give them one. The parts of the TTC I mentioned about simple living have a clear meaning, and are also seen to have such a clear meaning by all (or most) expert sinologists. I don't have the expertise to fabricate a TTC interpretation of my own that's worth its salt. So I go by what the experts say, unless they are clearly mistaken. The latter seldom happens.

Edited February 16, 2023 by wandelaar

[Wilhelm]

1 hour ago, wandelaar said:

 

I have tried several times to read such alchemical texts and books and articles about them and I struggled through The Dao De Jing: A Qigong Interpretation by Jwing-Ming Yang. But it's not my cup of tea. And I see no reason to force such interpretations on those parts of the TTC that already have a clear meaning and that don't need any interpretative hocus-pocus to give them one. The parts of the TTC I mentioned about simple living have a clear meaning, and are also seen to have such a clear meaning by all (or most) expert sinologists. I don't have the expertise to fabricate a TTC interpretation of my own that's worth its salt. So I go by what the experts say, unless they are clearly mistaken. The latter seldom happens.

Yeah that's fair enough.  I had never gone too far into philosophical readings of the DDJ, but I appreciate that it's the most popular approach in the West (and probably China as well, for all I know)

Edited February 16, 2023 by Wilhelm

[wandelaar]

1 minute ago, Wilhelm said:

Yeah that's fair enough.  I had never gone too deep into philosophical readings of the DDJ, but I appreciate that it's the most popular approach in the West (and I'd imagine China as well)

 

I recognize that there is an esoteric interpretation of the TTC that (in its early forms) can be traced back to at least Heshang Gong and to some parts of the Kuan tzu. A more rational interpretation of the TTC was given by Wang Pi. So divergent views on the meaning of the TTC existed from early on. What I take as my (axiomatic) guideline here is that one should not resort to far fetched esoteric interpretations when the text already has a clear meaning as it is. Other Bums might wish to do otherwise but they are on no firmer ground than I am.

[Sketch]

It's a desert topping AND a floor wax.

 

I've considered that the Laozi is essentially fractal, being useful at several levels of interpretation.  Reading more on the topic, like the Yang Jwing Ming book mentioned above, has not particularly changed that view. 

 

The armature will support multiple structures.  The principles are universal enough to operate at different scales. 

 

Language as a liquid,  not carved in stone. 

 

Poetry and fairy tales before myths and way before scriptures. 

Edited February 16, 2023 by Sketch

[Giles]

5 hours ago, wandelaar said:

 

Years back I asked on this forum whether my English was OK, and nobody had any problem with it then. Nor has it been a problem afterwards. I also read books in English as easily as I read books in Dutch. So I don't think the problem lies there.

 

OK. In that case let's break the problem down into easily manageable chunks in the expectation it will lead to a path out of this apparent quagmire.

 

Firstly:

 

5 hours ago, wandelaar said:

Years back I asked on this forum whether my English was OK, and nobody had any problem with it then.

 

Is this the conversation to which you're referring?

[wandelaar]

3 minutes ago, Giles said:

Is this the conversation to which you're referring?

 

Yes.

[Wilhelm]

1 hour ago, wandelaar said:

 

Edit: nvm.  2 people talking at you at once

Edited February 16, 2023 by Wilhelm

[Giles]

1 minute ago, wandelaar said:

 

Yes.

 

Thank you. 🙏🏻

 

So, in fact, during the entire course of that thread you never asked "whether [your] English [was] OK".

 

Furthermore, in fact, you stated clearly that your English was "improvised" and that you "hoped" that it was "readable".

[wandelaar]

I interpreted those reactions as showing that my English was in fact OK, and that they didn't see was I was worried about. In fact by presenting my English as possibly deficient I deliberately gave others the opportunity to tell me that there was (possibly much) room for improvement. Nobody took that opportunity. So I concluded that there was not much of a problem there. 

 

But let me now ask everyone here if my English is OK. Not asking if you agree with me on this or that, but simply this: are my posts written in readable and understandable English?

[Barnaby]

12 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

But let me now ask everyone here if my English is OK.

 

Your English is excellent.

 

It's practically impossible to tell that you're not a native speaker.

 

[Giles]

33 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

I interpreted those reactions as showing that my English was in fact OK, and that they didn't see was I was worried about. In fact by presenting my English as possibly deficient I deliberately gave others the opportunity to tell me that there was (possibly much) room for improvement. Nobody took that opportunity. So I concluded that there was not much of a problem there. 

 

Or perhaps all the who read that thread saw that you were entirely correct about your own assessment of your rudimentary grasp of English in 2018 but they were kind enough not to knock your confidence even further?

 

33 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

But let me now ask everyone here if my English is OK. Not asking if you agree with me on this or that, but simply this: are my posts written in readable and understandable English?

 

That's actually very helpful.

 

Let's wait and see if members believe that you're now able to understand a standard use of the simple English phrase "to be led by <something/someone>" because that will certainly help to illuminate the problem.

Edited February 16, 2023 by Giles
punctuation

[wandelaar]

 

@Barnaby Thank you very much.  

 

Time for @Wilhelm to proceed with our conversation. ;-)

Edited February 16, 2023 by wandelaar

[Wilhelm]

20 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

@Barnaby Thank you very much.  

 

Time for @Wilhelm to proceed with our conversation. ;-)

Yeah I understand you fine.  Wouldn't have known it wasn't your first language if it wasn't brought up.

 

Tbh I can't even remember what I had said but I think I was trying to agree to disagree, and adding a contentious but unconstructive point as to why I preferred my point of view.  More important was the bit I do remember: I don't understand the Dao De Jing.  I can appreciate an interpretation towards simple living, and even if I don't understand why verses like 1, 4, 14 etc. might be interpreted through that lens it doesn't matter cause I'd be arguing from ignorance anyways.

Edited February 16, 2023 by Wilhelm