Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:

skakos wrote: In this thread I will try to post some thoughts/teachings of Tao for discussion.

So now you wish to discuss what you say is incomprehensible?

Wouldn't that be a good way to make sense of that which is incomprehensible?

thedoc wrote:Wouldn't that be a good way to make sense of that which is incomprehensible?

Not if its incomprehensible no.

Arising_uk wrote:

thedoc wrote:Wouldn't that be a good way to make sense of that which is incomprehensible?

Not if its incomprehensible no.

Then don't talk about it. Bye.

Tao'ism is a severly outdated philosophy form, and no wonder China was called "the sick man of asia".

Tao is a word representing nonlocality .all things move as a flux around tao.the yin and yan are a differentual in tao the one.all things come out of tao and then go back to tao.

In the Tao, the yin and yang represented a unity of opposites. Light and dark, good and evil are opposites but they are one within the Tao. The opposites balance each other out.

Taoism is about balance between the forces as said above yin and yang is the symbol for good and evil, or black and white, or whatever opposites you want to imagine, and as you can clearly see they are equal. So for example if you say an optimist sees the glass as half full and a pessimist as half empty to a Taoist that would say only one thing, that you are unbalanced in your ethos. It's a very Eastern way of looking at things, a Taoist for example believes that when in a new situation one should do nothing so as to weight up the proper course of action, rather than rush in and "play it by ear".

It's a fascinating religion if a little off to Western sensibilities.

The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.

Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei

I've done a little reading on Taosim and find it much more insightful than say Confuscionism. Although as an atheist I suppose I can take the wheat from the chaff.

jackles wrote:Tao is a word representing nonlocality .all things move as a flux around tao.the yin and yan are a differentual in tao the one.all things come out of tao and then go back to tao.

No jackles it is not it is about balance not difference, hence differential is probably the complete opposite of Tao, calculus would probably intrigue a Taoist but differential calculus would probably be an anathema to his beliefs, and non local would probably leave him not only cold, but in need of some reason.

It's a religion very much based on earlier religions about proper conduct, proper action, and paucity, it is not a religion based on change, and in that respect it reflects wholly the Middle Kingdoms ideology, aka China. Essentially China has always been very much non interventionist, believing that the gweilo, were not really people and hence not something they should care about.

tao is nonlocal to any event.yin and yan are local balance.all local things move in flux.but not tao .tao has never moved but is the cause of all movment.tao is is the inside and out side the up and the down the male and female of all things.

jackles wrote:tao is nonlocal to any event.yin and yan are local balance.all local things move in flux.but not tao .tao has never moved but is the cause of all movment.tao is is the inside and out side the up and the down the male and female of all things.

The Tao is not a thing, its the law that change is the rule.

Yin and Yang are never in balance but always flowing.

jackles wrote:Tao is a word representing nonlocality

"Tao represents ___ (or FITB)" would be close. It's the Chinese version of a Rorschach blot for Westerners. Not only uncovering the latest thought-disorders which are trending among us, but leaving a historical record of the past <strike>zany</strike> interpretations that we projected upon such.

ha ha hick ha.yes yin and yan are in flux or flow as you say.but tao is still it does not move it has never moved.it tao is sizeless and there for is not a thing but is the cause beond all yin and yan moving things and events.tao is principle omni present and of its self nonlocal to yin yan localitys.tao is the super position and relativity in the yin yan flux.and tao is is the nonrelative part of observation which is always not moving in any reference frame when measuring the speed of light.tao os also the love of lovers who have loved for a lifetime.

jackles wrote:ha ha hick ha.yes yin and yan are in flux or flow as you say.but tao is still it does not move it has never moved.it tao is sizeless and there for is not a thing but is the cause beond all yin and yan moving things and events. ...

If its not a thing then its not a cause. If it is a cause then it moves.

tao is principle omni present and of its self nonlocal to yin yan localitys.tao is the super position and relativity in the yin yan flux.and tao is is the nonrelative part of observation which is always not moving in any reference frame when measuring the speed of light.tao os also the love of lovers who have loved for a lifetime.

Mishmashing cultures this way produces nothing but obfuscation, as does using the terms from Physics as metaphor. A noumena may well exist but according to Kant one can't use reason to talk about it and the eastern religions appear to agree and yet such as you try to do this all the time?

i find myself agreeing with you arising.in one sence and that would be a sence of the past.we i think need to up date the past in terms of physics and its place in the spirit.but over all what you say is true.but also we must not stick our philisophical heads in the sands of ignorance because of the fear of moving on.a little.

jackles wrote:i find myself agreeing with you arising.in one sence and that would be a sence of the past.we i think need to up date the past in terms of physics and its place in the spirit.but over all what you say is true.but also we must not stick our philisophical heads in the sands of ignorance because of the fear of moving on.a little.

I think Jackles you need to learn about physics, you seem to be mangling its terms to make points someone who is studying physics can't remotely understand, and that I think is not a good place to be...

I don't think physics as a science needs to change its practice, I think people who do not understand it need to school themselves on it to understand why it has such practices. Then proceed to discuss whatever terms in the context a science uses, are made applicable to whatever other thing you want to make either an allegory or an analogy on hence forth.

Without a common language all philosophy is merely babble.

you are wrong arising .a cause does not have to be a thing.as in where did energy come from..you are jumping to your own conclusions to fit your own individual ego out look.tao is nonlocal.tao means nonlocal.sizeless!