Demolishing the Tao

[lifegazer]

I need to do this for several reasons. But the main reason is that I'm tired of getting rebuttals to my philosophy such as this:-

"He who knows does not say. He who says does not know."

Really? So whoever is saying this stuff doesn't know then, does he? Self-defeating philosophy.
Furthermore, the statement implies that it is possible to know, but not in words or thoughts. So, I'd like to ask the Taoists amongst you how it is even possible to have knowledge without thought? How can we know without thought/reason?

Here's snippets of another sermon I've had to endure:-

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.

I have few problems with this except to mention that 'God' is not a name, like Bob, but is in fact the classification of an entity... along the lines of omnipresent, omnipotent, etc..
Don't forget that several religions name their God(s). In reference to my own philosophy though, God remains nameless... to date.

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.

Ever desireless = dead. When life wants for nothing, life gets nothing.

Under Heaven all can see beauty as beauty only because there is ugliness.
All can know good as good only because there is evil.
Therefore having and not having arise together.

The nameless One, as you would define It, has always had itself and the attributes which constitute that self, thus enabling the onset of creation: the onset of having and not having things.
But 'having' is not solely of this world, nor is not-having solely of this world. For before this world was, the nameless One did not have it (the world). But it did have itself and it did have the characteristics which constitute that self.

Therefore the sage goes about doing nothing, teaching no talking.

Doing nothing infers stillness and death.
The "sage" is not much of a sage if he thinks that what he has thought is not worth sharing. For isn't that sage glad that somebody conveyed the truth to him??

Even from this short snippet of "truth", I think it's fair to say that the Tao makes little sense.

[RussDill]

What would you think of someone on this board who never read your philosophy, and critizized your philosophy, primarily on the basis that it did not match their own.

You'd tell them they are an idiot, and that they need to shut up, and go sit in the corner


so I'll say simply, lifegazer, shut up.

First, go read the Tao (its not very long)
Second, do not simply compare it to your own philosophy
Third, you can tear it down

I think the very apt phrase here would be "He who says does not know"

[Wudang]

Oh well, here we go again. lifegazer, unable to answer simple questions on his philosophy, prevaricates for a while then starts yet another thread on a subject he hasn't bothered to read up on.
The Tao te Ching is available for free online in several places. You would be well advised though to first read Needham's Science and Civilization in China - a 1-volume condensed edition is available but the author escapes me for the moment. Needham nicely delineates the shamanistic and pre-scientific streams of Taoism that were united only really by a common vocabulary of alchemical terms.

[lifegazer]

Get a grip guys. I have presented statements of the Tao and have addressed the logic inherent within those statements. That's all I have to do.

[DarkMagician]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Ever desireless = dead. When life wants for nothing, life gets nothing.When life wants for something, life becomes a greedy child who should be shot.

[DarkMagician]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Get a grip guys. I have made a complete fool of myself. That's all I have to do. FIXED!

EDIT: Better?

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Get a grip guys. I have presented statements of the Tao and have addressed the logic inherent within those statements. That's all I have to do.

No you have to understand them. If I present isolated statments of yours and attack them without understanding them is that all I have to do? I don't think so and that's why I'd like you to answer the oft-asked question about why you privelege inner sensation?

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by DarkMagician
FIXED!

Hail El Pilazo!

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang


No you have to understand them. If I present isolated statments of yours and attack them without understanding them is that all I have to do? I don't think so and that's why I'd like you to answer the oft-asked question about why you privelege inner sensation?
"He who knows does not say. He who says does not know."

Speaks for itself Wudang. Therefore, it must answer to reason. And it does not.

[lifegazer]

Does anyone want to address the first post or not? So far, it's like talking to a mob after last orders.

[Wudang]

That's unusually silly. Words take their meaning from their context. The statements from the Tao Te Ching - which I don't care for as it happens - have to be understood in context.
What you say does not stand for itself as the lacking elemnt of context is why you privelege inner sensation? And why you keep running away from Upchurch's question?

(typo corrected)

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

"He who knows does not say. He who says does not know."

Speaks for itself Wudang. Therefore, it must answer to reason. And it does not.

I've already explained to you MORE THAN ONCE how this makes sense. If you'd bother to read the Tao, maybe you understand more, however, it apears you are too self absorbed with your own greatness to bother.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Does anyone want to address the first post or not? So far, it's like talking to a mob after last orders.

I did adress it:

Shut up, you haven't a clue what you are babbling about.

OK, I've addressed it

[lifegazer]

I'll wait for some intelligent responses. Hopefully, my patience will be rewarded.

[DarkMagician]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I'll wait for some intelligent responses. Hopefully, my patience will be rewarded. Reminds me of the blonde trying to find alligator-skin boots...

*BANG*
"Dang, this one doesn't have any on either!"

EDIT: *BAND*? Why the heck did I type "*BAND*?"

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I'll wait for some intelligent responses. Hopefully, my patience will be rewarded.

Nobody is going to give you an intelligent response until you:

a) Read the Tao
b) Stop simply comparing it to your own philsophy

I'm thinking its pretty safe to assume that everyone in this thread except you has read the Tao Te Ching.

[scribble]

Originally posted by lifegazer
[B]I need to do this for several reasons. But the main reason is that I'm tired of getting rebuttals to my philosophy such as this:-

"He who knows does not say. He who says does not know."


I think you misheard that. No one here has given you such a lousy rebuttal of your philosophy. Do you really think this is the most pressing rebuttal you have to contend with?

You're what we would call "a few cards short."

[Martin]

Originally posted by scribble
You're what we would call "a few cards short."I reckon he's missing the entire deck. Except the jokers, of course.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by scribble
I think you misheard that. No one here has given you such a lousy rebuttal of your philosophy. Do you really think this is the most pressing rebuttal you have to contend with?

Actually, if you'd been reading the Wittgenstein thread, you wouldn't have said this.

You're what we would call "a few cards short."
That's not a rebuttal scribble. It's a baseless insult. That's all you seem capable of.

[DarkMagician]

Originally posted by lifegazer
That's not a rebuttal scribble. It's a baseless insult. That's all you seem capable of. :id:

[Martin]

Baseless?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Actually, if you'd been reading the Wittgenstein thread, you wouldn't have said this.


You are paranoid. I do encourage anyone to read the thread, because it's claims like this that really paint lifegazer for who he is (skip ahead to page 5). You'll find a very long post by Geoff refuting everything lifegazer has previously said, at the end, Geoff throws the quote in.

I think the problem here is that lifegazer ignores any critique that he cannot answer, so from lifegazer's point of view, the rest of the post did not exist, and instead, he only say the quote.


That's not a rebuttal scribble. It's a baseless insult. That's all you seem capable of.

I don't think it's baseless. I myself however, would prefer to have your own words do the insulting.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
Nobody is going to give you an intelligent response

Well, at least we have acknowledge this. And you are absolutely correct: nobody has.

until you:

a) Read the Tao
b) Stop simply comparing it to your own philsophy

(1) Do not tell me what to do nor try to blackmail me nor speak on behalf of everyone else.
(2) Asking me to read the whole Tao so that I may address the logic inherent within singular blocks of text is completely dumb. It's like me asking you to learn all of my philosophy before you address singular statements within singular posts.

I'm thinking its pretty safe to assume that everyone in this thread except you has read the Tao Te Ching.
Congratulations. Clearly, the nonsense completely evaded your rational gaze. No surprise there then.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
You'll find a very long post by Geoff refuting everything lifegazer has previously said, at the end, Geoff throws the quote in.

That's a complete lie.

[scribble]

Originally posted by RussDill
I don't think it's baseless. I myself however, would prefer to have your own words do the insulting. [/B]

Thanks, Russ - you said what I meant, but you explained it better. I didn't think the longer explanation would be worth my time. Consider lifegazer's affliction: is he likely to read, understand, and agree to what you wrote, regardless of how much effort you put into it?

[epepke]

The Tao that can be demolished is not the real Tao.

While we're at it, if you meet the Buddha on USENET, put him in your kill file.

Not to mention the great Philip K. Dick neologism: Deedle deedle queep.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Well, at least we have acknowledge this. And you are absolutely correct: nobody has.


Yup, your thread does not require or deserve any kind of intelligent response


(1) Do not tell me what to do nor try to blackmail me nor speak on behalf of everyone else.


Now I'm trying to blackmail? I promise, I'll keep the hamster "thing" a complete and total secret. Anyway, if you want to discuss the Tao Te Ching, read it first. It's not very long, and is available online.


(2) Asking me to read the whole Tao so that I may address the logic inherent within singular blocks of text is completely dumb. It's like me asking you to learn all of my philosophy before you address singular statements within singular posts.


If your read the Tao Te Ching, you'd understand the context of those statements, and the philosophy surrounding them.

Can I take one quote from your philosophy, compare it with materialism, and then declare your philosophy destroyed?


Congratulations. Clearly, the nonsense completely evaded your rational gaze. No surprise there then.

*sigh*, Like I said, I don't need to bother with insulting him, he does it all on his own.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by scribble


Thanks, Russ - you said what I meant, but you explained it better. I didn't think the longer explanation would be worth my time. Consider lifegazer's affliction: is he likely to read, understand, and agree to what you wrote, regardless of how much effort you put into it?
*Muzzle*

Go away scribble. Your contribution to rational discussion beyond the parameters of your own closed mind-set, amounts to absolute zero.
You have no answers and no rebuttals. Yet you have the gall to continually dish-out insults in a forum meant purely for intellectual debate. You create ill-feeling and promote moronic banter, thus destroying the credibility of this forum.
You are a complete bozo. I pity you.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

That's a complete lie.

Um, right, then why don't you all show us. Otherwise, it's just your demented, warped view of things. Everything that is said seem to go through some kind of grinder before it reaches your brain.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by scribble
You're what we would call "a few cards short."

Those without cards do not call. Those who call do not lack cards.


N/A

Except for the occasional bluff to keep those without cards honest.

[BroodingSkill]

Ok I'll take a stab at this. Just keep in mind that I am a hard atheist and skeptic, but once upon a time I was a believer. I spent considerable time learning about Taoism and Buddhism. Now I walk my own path. So lets get to it.

"He who knows does not say. He who says does not know."

This is pretty easy and could, like most things in the Tao Te Ching, be interpreted in many ways. Simply, it means that people who babble on about the tao have no understanding of it, and those that know the tao have no need to shout it to the roof tops. Their knowlege and belief are self evident in how they conduct themselves.

next:

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.

The Tao is not the name of God or any other deity. The word tao simply means "the way".


Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations

Desireless does not equal death, it just means that one sees that desires are transitory and are nothing but tempory. Knowing this puts you closer to the tao. this sentence could also be interpreted to mean that the tao is the source of all earthly material things, as well as all things unseen.



"Therefore the sage goes about doing nothing, teaching no talking."

"Doing nothing infers stillness and death.
The "sage" is not much of a sage if he thinks that what he has thought is not worth sharing. For isn't that sage glad that somebody conveyed the truth to him??"


Lifegazer you're taking this sentence to literally. The sage teaches by example. Taoist teachers in China, at least, don't seek students, students seek them.

The Tao Te Ching like most religious texts I have read is vague and open to mryiad interpretations. That is its' appeal. For myself I've turned my back on it all and have never been more at peace.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by BroodingSkill
Ok I'll take a stab at this. Just keep in mind that I am a hard atheist and skeptic, but once upon a time I was a believer. I spent considerable time learning about Taoism and Buddhism. Now I walk my own path. So lets get to it.

THANKYOU VERY MUCH.

"He who knows does not say. He who says does not know."

This is pretty easy and could, like most things in the Tao Te Ching, be interpreted in many ways. Simply, it means that people who babble on about the tao have no understanding of it, and those that know the tao have no need to shout it to the roof tops. Their knowlege and belief are self evident in how they conduct themselves.

The statement explicitly states that those that know simply do not say. You seem to be watering it down to something else, like: He who knows doesn't often say. He who says probably doesn't know.

next:

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.

The Tao is not the name of God or any other deity. The word tao simply means "the way".

Sure. I was making a reference to my own philosophy here, since I often mention 'God'. I just wanted to be clear that 'God' is not a name, as such. The identity of God remains an enigma beyond Its inherent omni-attributes.

Desireless does not equal death, it just means that one sees that desires are transitory and are nothing but tempory. Knowing this puts you closer to the tao. this sentence could also be interpreted to mean that the tao is the source of all earthly material things, as well as all things unseen.

Only the dead and the dieing have no desires.
I think the conflict arises from the usage of that term "desireless".
Imo, it is not desire itself which is the enemy of the soul, but the direction in which this desire flows. I think it's possible to be burning with noble and selfless desires, for example, which are an expression of the soul's love for everything and everyone. I see no problem whatsoever, spiritually speaking, with this kind of desire. Does the Tao make the distinction between good desire and bad desire? It appears not.

Lifegazer you're taking this sentence to literally. The sage teaches by example. Taoist teachers in China, at least, don't seek students, students seek them.

What example does a sage teach by doing nothing and not speaking? I just don't understand. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

The Tao Te Ching like most religious texts I have read is vague and open to mryiad interpretations. That is its' appeal. For myself I've turned my back on it all and have never been more at peace.
Being care-free does have its advantages. In the short-term, anyway.

[Upchurch]

Ah, the ol' double standard. Or is it just plain hypocracy?Originally posted by lifegazer

(2) Asking me to read the whole Tao so that I may address the logic inherent within singular blocks of text is completely dumb. It's like me asking you to learn all of my philosophy before you address singular statements within singular posts.
Originally posted by lifegazer (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870228703)

Being quick to declare that "you have no philosophy" just might actually be a consequence of never reading my stuff Geoffrey.
Originally posted by lifegazer (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31311&perpage=40&pagenumber=9)

So please don't discard my philosophy until you have heard it.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Ah, the ol' double standard. Or is it just plain hypocracy?


Have a word with yourself.
Geoffrey claimed that he never read any of my arguments (which is probably a lie, but this is his claim). Yet he refuted everything I said (according to him of course) without addressing any of it!!

Here, however, I address specific statements head-on before making any conclusions. There's no hypocrisy here. There's just you playing politics again, instead of participating in the actual thread.

[Dancing David]

Daoism is many different things to many different people and the scholars who have studued believe that it has two main purpose
one: mystical philosophy and two: political adice.

But to use it to counter another argument is foolish, daoism is what it is, an expression of a mystical philsophy and a way of life. It can not be used as an argument to counter anything.

The dao is considered to be like many different things in the Dao de Zhing, mostly water, it is like the forces of nature, it follows the paths of nature and is a mystical philosophy based upon that.

The statements about knowledge pertain to the way of the tao, it stands as it is, those who say do not know. Therefore for someone to state that to you as some sort of counter argument is very foolish. The way of the dao is in letting things take thier own path in thier own way, and therefore to try to convince someone to change thier beliefs would be a waste of time.

I think that there are comparisons and differences between daoism and the form of monism that Lifegazer presents. The tao is said to be the giver and reciever of the ten thousand things, this is much like the role that mind plays in LG's philosophy.

But to demolish the dao is foolish, just as trying to convert someone to taoism is foolish. These two spring from the same source but differ in name. Darkness within darkness, the source of all mystery.

[phildonnia]

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.

This gem occurs right at the beginning, and basically renders the rest superfluous. Sounds even better when followed by "So shut up", a sentiment that Master Lao also seems to advocate.

[epepke]

Originally posted by BroodingSkill
"He who knows does not say. He who says does not know."

No comment.

[Jet Grind]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The statement explicitly states that those that know simply do not say. You seem to be watering it down to something else, like: He who knows doesn't often say. He who says probably doesn't know.

He didn't seem to water it down to me at all, I actually thought his explanation was quite good. Can you please explain your reasoning here?

Originally posted by lifegazer
Does the Tao make the distinction between good desire and bad desire? It appears not.

You wouldn't know, you haven't read it. One thing you have to understand is that the text of the Tao Teh Ching (that's the name btw, it's not just Tao. "Tao" means "way" and "Tao teh Ching" means "book of the way") is that it is often metahporical and enigmatic. "Desireless" could mean exactly what the poster you replied to said it did. We can't really know, as I can't read Lao Tzu's mind (or the Lao Tzu, as the book may have been written by many men using "Lao Tzu" as a pen name).

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I need to do this for several reasons. But the main reason is that I'm tired of getting rebuttals to my philosophy such as this:-

"He who knows does not say. He who says does not know."

Really? So whoever is saying this stuff doesn't know then, does he? Self-defeating philosophy.
Furthermore, the statement implies that it is possible to know, but not in words or thoughts. So, I'd like to ask the Taoists amongst you how it is even possible to have knowledge without thought?
Perhaps the statement is open to interpretation (i.e. not a law to be taken literally which is written in stone).

I think the phrase can also be interpreted as "it is impossible to know with 100% certainty".

How can we know without thought/reason?
Insects have no cognitive ability, they are thriving.

Here's snippets of another sermon I've had to endure:-


--------------------------------------------------
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
--------------------------------------------------

I have few problems with this except to mention that 'God' is not a name, like Bob, but is in fact the classification of an entity... along the lines of omnipresent, omnipotent, etc..
Don't forget that several religions name their God(s). In reference to my own philosophy though, God remains nameless... to date.
Forgive me for being dense, but what exactly was the problem you had with the particular segment you quoted. You wrote some text beneath it, but it didnt immediately register as a critique, criticism, or reply... allow me to ask "Huh?".

Ever desireless = dead. When life wants for nothing, life gets nothing.
Is that a fact?

I believe there was a fella by the name of Buddha who preached a Philosophy well into the "rid yourself of your desires" mentality. He wasnt telling people to kill themselves, I know that for sure, he was saying spiritual nirvana comes at the point where you cease to have material desire.

Therefore, your "ever desireless = dead" is very premature untrue. In Buddhism, ever desireless = nirvana/perfection/happiness/etc. Its not necessary to be dead to cease desires.

(Oh, and insects have no desires...)


--------------------------------------------------
Under Heaven all can see beauty as beauty only because there is ugliness.
All can know good as good only because there is evil.
Therefore having and not having arise together.
--------------------------------------------------

The nameless One, as you would define It, has always had itself and the attributes which constitute that self, thus enabling the onset of creation: the onset of having and not having things.
But 'having' is not solely of this world, nor is not-having solely of this world. For before this world was, the nameless One did not have it (the world). But it did have itself and it did have the characteristics which constitute that self.
Again, I ask "Huh?".


--------------------------------------------------
Therefore the sage goes about doing nothing, teaching no talking.
--------------------------------------------------

Doing nothing infers stillness and death.
The "sage" is not much of a sage if he thinks that what he has thought is not worth sharing. For isn't that sage glad that somebody conveyed the truth to him??
I think you have misrepresented the context of the quote, then you managed to attack the misrepretented context. Not too shabby... yeah, whatever...

Even from this short snippet of "truth", I think it's fair to say that the Tao makes little sense.
Ta'i Chi would whoop your Philosophy round the block.

(If "making little sense" is all it takes to demolish an entire Philosophy... well, your own Philosophy's future isnt looking too smilie...)

Tao rebuilt.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Have a word with yourself.
Geoffrey claimed that he never read any of my arguments (which is probably a lie, but this is his claim). Yet he refuted everything I said (according to him of course) without addressing any of it!!

Here, however, I address specific statements head-on before making any conclusions. There's no hypocrisy here. There's just you playing politics again, instead of participating in the actual thread.

Lifegazer: you have gone off the deep end, Upchurch is not Geoff.

And until you make the effort to understand the stance of the tao, is would be very difficult to deconstruct it.

Can you say that a philosphy of non-intervention is ill considered? The tao gives some very sage advice on different matters, some of which you may not agree with. But to try to take taoism from the surface value is very silly.

"the tao that can named is not the eternal tao"
would substantialy translate into
"the mind that can be named is not the eternal mind'

Do you feel that the words you use to express the Eternal Mind actualy express your feelings about the world and it source? I feel that you have a very deep grasp of what your own philosophy means, but that you have had great difficulty expressing those thoughts to ther people. What you feel is self evident, may noy be seen that way by others.

That is why the tao also states :less is more. The more words the farther the subject is led from the object, by living your life by your values, you express those values more clearly than words.

'Nuff said, you can not refute taoism , and taoism can not refute you.

Anyone who threw those words at you does not understand the tao.

in other words.

[Dancing David]

Being care-free does have its advantages. In the short-term, anyway.

The tao de zhing also states , 'the sage will take a journey of a thousand li and never loose sight of the baggage'..

'the good rests on the bad'

I have heard you make this very argument here Lifegazer, you are the one who stated that it was nessecary to have the bad so that the ultimate good could be understood. That is very similar to some people's interpretation of the tao.

I prefer"What is the bad man, the good man's charge", what does that phrase mean. Does it mean that the bad man is the accusation of the good man, or does it mean that the good man should care for the bad man and try to lead him to the good?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
But to use it to counter another argument is foolish, daoism is what it is, an expression of a mystical philsophy and a way of life. It can not be used as an argument to counter anything.

The presentation of a wisdom to promote the truth and the noblest manner of living, should indeed be liable to scrutiny, lest the masses be eternally duped. How many people have closed their minds to this specific brand of brainwashing?
Well those people owe it to themselves to question the rational credibility of the so-called "wisdom" that is contained within this religion.
And I intend to show that the logic of the Tao is flawed. I invite people to paste selected text for meaningful appraisal. I invite mature debate.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Being care-free does have its advantages. In the short-term, anyway.


And don't forget about how the dao talks about the woo way.

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by RussDill


And don't forget about how the dao talks about the woo way.

:D Now I will forever be prone to cracking up laughing when I hear this phrase.


...and the foolish student laughs.
But we do well to remember
that with no sudden laughter,
there would be no natural way.

[T'ai Chi]

Hi lifegazer,

I'll try to address some of your points.


"He who knows does not say. He who says does not know."
Really? So whoever is saying this stuff doesn't know then, does he? Self-defeating philosophy


If memory serves me, you are talking about Chapter 56. I think it is suggesting the limitations of language in understanding the world.


Furthermore, the statement implies that it is possible to know, but not in words or thoughts.


Yes, I'd agree that that is what it is implying.


So, I'd like to ask the Taoists amongst you how it is even possible to have knowledge without thought? How can we know without thought/reason?


I think it could be possible. I admit that I don't know for certain. A Taoist ideal is to experience everything as 'pure' as possible, that is without unecessary sensory input. I think that it could be able to understand things, for example, by touching them.


"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things."
I have few problems with this except to mention that 'God' is not a name, like Bob, but is in fact the classification of an entity... along the lines of omnipresent, omnipotent, etc..
Don't forget that several religions name their God(s). In reference to my own philosophy though, God remains nameless... to date.


That is from Chapter 1 (I know that for sure) :) . I believe 'God' is a name like 'Bob' at least in the Taoist meaning of 'name'. In fact the word for name, ming, specifically means a proper name. 'Entity' itself is a name. 'Tao' is a name. That is why the 'names' that are fixed references to things are not really true naming, or put differently, that the greatest image has no shape.


For isn't that sage glad that somebody conveyed the truth to him??


I think that they'd view everything as provisional, so they aren't entirely concerned about the truth, but rather experience of the universe as a process.

[Wudang]

In the Wittengenstein thread you did the same as in the QM and relativity threads - demonstrated complete ignorance of the subject matter,avoided any difficult questions, claimed that any arguments displaying knowledge of the subject were waffle and finsihed with insults before walking away.

Answer Upchurch's question

And stop using "infer" when you mean "imply"

[UndercoverElephant]

Just for the record....

I did not post the first two verses from the Tao Te Ching as a "rebuttal". I merely posted them because Lifegazer was attacking Taoism having never read a single verse of the Tao Te Ching. I simply wanted to show him what it was he was attacking. The last thing I was trying to do was "convert" him.

:)

Geoff.

[UndercoverElephant]

As for "defending the Tao" against your "attacks" - as has already been pointed out - this would be plain silly. It would be silly because the very fact that I felt any need to "defend" it against you or anybody else would indicate that it was somehow in need of defence, which is absurd. Also, if I felt that I myself was in any position to defend it then I would simply be demonstrating that I do not understand Taoism.

By trying to defend it I would be inferring that somehow I believed that it was vulnerable to being attacked. :)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by RussDill


And don't forget about how the dao talks about the woo way.

ROTFLMAO!

[Dancing David]

Lifegazer, you are one silly rabbit, you have ignored the message of your own philosophy, one mind one light remember so

What makes your light so freaking special?

'the tao that can be told is not the ternel tao',
I ask again do you think all your words and posturing have actualy communicated your ideas to anyone, do you think that words can truely convey the sense of your Mind?

When you read the tao and don't understand something, why not come to us then.

'darkness within darkness the gate to all mystery'

by the way did you refute

'the sage will take a journey of a thousand li and not loose sight of the baggage'

or how about

'a good door has no lock'

or

'ruling a great country is like cooking a small fish'

or

'if people payed as much attention to the end of things as the beginings then the country would be better run'

[UndercoverElephant]

Lifegazer, you are one silly rabbit, you have ignored the message of your own philosophy....


Yep. :)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Hi lifegazer,

I'll try to address some of your points.

Thanks. Not many around here are too concerned with addressing my points.

If memory serves me, you are talking about Chapter 56.

Chapter 56!!

I think it is suggesting the limitations of language in understanding the world.

From the Wittgenstein thread:
"The call was that language cannot make absolute claims about entities or concepts such as God. That was the call.
Yet, making that call is an absolute claim in itself, in reference to that concept or entity.
So, it's clear to see that such statements always dig their own graves." [page 5, me]
Also...
"Whatever conclusions Mr W (or Taoism) imposes upon philosophy are imposed upon their own philosophy, by default.
So, no universal/absolute truths are either conveyable or acceptable via Mr W's philosophy (or via Taoist philosophy).
Somehow, they overlook this in the expression of their philosophy, as they try to convey - using language, which they more-or-less denounce - a universal philosophy to the masses: Namely, that language is a useless method to convey absolutes and that no absolutes are acceptable. Yet, via their use of language, we are asked to accept their conclusions, en masse!!!!"
[page 4, me]

... Pretty-much sums-up my feelings about that.

A Taoist ideal is to experience everything as 'pure' as possible, that is without unecessary sensory input. I think that it could be able to understand things, for example, by touching them.

But 'touch' is a sensation, and it requires recognition of the sensation, via reason/judgement, to know what it is. All knowledge requires the attribute of reason/thought/judgement.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
As for "defending the Tao" against your "attacks" - as has already been pointed out - this would be plain silly. It would be silly because the very fact that I felt any need to "defend" it against you or anybody else would indicate that it was somehow in need of defence, which is absurd.

You're living in denial Geoffrey. I have pointed out inconsistencies of logic within the mantras you have felt obliged to teach us all (which means of course that you do not know, otherwise you wouldn't have said anything! LOLOL).
Please yourself Geoff. I cannot force you to have a rational discussion. Nor can I force you to question your beliefs. But spare me the nonsense of pretending that you're some kind of peace-loving sage.

Also, if I felt that I myself was in any position to defend it then I would simply be demonstrating that I do not understand Taoism.

By trying to defend it I would be inferring that somehow I believed that it was vulnerable to being attacked. :)
What a crock.
Any religion in the world could say the same thing Geoff.

[UndercoverElephant]

spare me the nonsense of pretending that you're some kind of peace-loving sage.


It is yourself who claims to be a messenger from God heralding a world with no killing, not me. :)

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Thanks. Not many around here are too concerned with addressing my points.


And those who do, such as those of who you address your central point that "inner" sensation should be priveleged over "external" sensation, are still waiting after several weeks for an honest attempt on your part to answer the question.

[lifegazer]

Let's pretend that I'm the bloke who wrote the Tao...

I know the truth.
Anybody who speaks the truth doesn't know it... apart from me, of course. Anybody who knows the truth doesn't speak it... apart from me of course. Whilst we're at it, we'll also allow this "law" to be overlooked whilst you all spread my wisdom. Just act dumb if anyone spots the inconsistency. Do a Geoffrey.
The truth cannot be known by words/thought. A bit of a bummer really, I know. But it sounds good, anyway. We know because... well, we just do. Be poetic and you can get away with anything.
Be like me and have no desires. Basically, just pretend you're dead and don't want anything. Yep, that's right, ignore everyone else and forget about having selfless desires too. In this philosophy, we just aim for zombieness.

Why would we do this, one asks? Why would we talk ga ga and pretend to be zombies? What's the pay-off? Well I haven't got a bleedin' clue. Perhaps if we ask Geoffrey nicely enough, he'll have some sort of explanation of why anyone would want to be a Daoist?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang


And those who do, such as those of who you address your central point that "inner" sensation should be priveleged over "external" sensation, are still waiting after several weeks for an honest attempt on your part to answer the question.
I answered that in the 'upchurch's question' thread.

[UndercoverElephant]

What a crock.
Any religion in the world could say the same thing Geoff.


Some do, some don't. But it is worth nothing that religions like Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism do not go around seeking converts and do not generally feel the need to defend themselves against perceived threats. What I mean by this is that the followers of these religions do not seem to feel threatened by other religions and people with other beliefs. There is no plan to take over the world like there is in Islam, or in your own belief system. There is no defend-it-to-the-death attitude, because they feel confident that it can defend itself - so there is no paranoia. Catholicism and Islam have historicaly tended to be much more agressive and much more paranoid, as are you.

:)

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Perhaps if we ask Geoffrey nicely enough, he'll have some sort of explanation of why anyone would want to be a Daoist?

Because they had found it and liked it. :)

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I answered that in the 'upchurch's question' thread.

As I have said before, I have read that thread and you have not answered the question. More evasion.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
"Perhaps if we ask Geoffrey nicely enough, he'll have some sort of explanation of why anyone would want to be a Daoist?

Because they had found it and liked it. :)
"Liked"?
There's another inconsistency for ya. How can he that is without desire, have preferences? *Smug snigger*

C'mon Geoff... let's own up to the fact that this is a crock...
If you have the guts to actually debate these issues, I'll save you by showing you all the little inconsistencies that exist within this so-called philosophy of life.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang


As I have said before, I have read that thread and you have not answered the question. More evasion.
If you're really bothered about this, go and resurrect that thread and I'll have another go at answering your version of the question. But not in here. Can't be any fairer than that.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
But it is worth nothing that religions like Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism do not go around seeking converts and do not generally feel the need to defend themselves against perceived threats. What I mean by this is that the followers of these religions do not seem to feel threatened by other religions and people with other beliefs.

Those religions all have differences Geoff. Only one of them - at most - can be absolutely-right in what they say. Thus, it's a certainty that at least two of those religions are wrong about some/all of the things that they say.
Hence, having no need to defend ones own religion does not, as a default, give credance to that religion. It just earmarks the adherents of said religions as closed-minded fools.

There is no plan to take over the world like there is in Islam, or in your own belief system.

God is not after taking over anything. God could do that whenever, of course. God awaits man, as a whole, to give himself to God. And that day will arrive. It's inevitable, barring armageddon, of course.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

C'mon Geoff... let's own up to the fact that this is a crock...
If you have the guts to actually debate these issues, I'll save you by showing you all the little inconsistencies that exist within this so-called philosophy of life.

I never claimed I could defend Taoism. You claimed you were going to demolish it, all I have done is post two verses of it, without comment. I am not an apologist for Taoism. I haven't made any claims - I have justed quoted some verses. If they cannot speak adequately for themselves then so be it. :)

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Those religions all have differences Geoff. Only one of them - at most - can be absolutely-right in what they say.


None of them can be absolutely right in what they say. :)


Thus, it's a certainty that at least two of those religions are wrong about some/all of the things that they say.


It is a certainty that all three are wrong about some of the things they say.


Hence, having no need to defend ones own religion does not, as a default, give credance to that religion.


No, it just relieves you of any need to defend it! :D


God is not after taking over anything.


I never mentioned God. I mentioned two religions and one person.

[Dancing David]

HMPH! LG you have ignored the stanzas that I quoted. As usual you are here to fight not discuss.

How do words lead to the eternal mind?

A good door has no lock.
Ruling a great country is like cooking a small fish.
There shall arise one in the future who shall speak my words but not agree with them. ( ;) Just seeing if you were paying attention.)

I am amazed that the man who believes in the light of the mind, can say things like "only one of these religions have the absolute truth", the light is the truth Lifegazer, how can the objects of the mind be any more or less true. How can one religion contain absolute truth?

[T'ai Chi]

Hi lifegazer


Chapter 56!!


Yeah, Chapter 56. :) I just checked and it was from Chapter 56.


From the Wittgenstein thread:
"The call was that language cannot make absolute claims about entities or concepts such as God. That was the call.
Yet, making that call is an absolute claim in itself, in reference to that concept or entity.
So, it's clear to see that such statements always dig their own graves." [page 5, me]


All of what you wrote above I'd say is true. I'd think that Laozi, if he even existed or existed as a single person, would say something like:

'Language creates problems, but as a human, language is my main mode of communication, so I have to use what I've got to tell people my thoughts if they choose to listen. I understand that this is problematic and recognize that I could be wrong. My excuse is that experience is processual and therefore always provisional. My Chapter 1 covers my a**. Those who speak don't know. Hey, I did probably write the fewest words of any religious/spiritual book out there, so what does that mean? ;) '


Namely, that language is a useless method to convey absolutes and that no absolutes are acceptable. Yet, via their use of language, we are asked to accept their conclusions, en masse!!!!"


I agree with the first sentence, but not the second one. I am telling you right now that I could care less if I am the only Taoist in the universe. :)


But 'touch' is a sensation, and it requires recognition of the sensation, via reason/judgement, to know what it is. All knowledge requires the attribute of reason/thought/judgement.

That's probably true. Experiencing everything as 'pure' as possible, that is without unecessary sensory input, is a goal of some Taoists I'd say. Chapter 12 says that basically it is good to avoid unnecessary distractions, and it is kind of echoed in Chapter 46. I think that they'd agree though that it is probably impossible to totally eliminate sensory input- but we can talk about why it might be good to eliminate distractions, that is, noise that occurs in the sensory process.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
HMPH! LG you have ignored the stanzas that I quoted. As usual you are here to fight not discuss.

Bop.

How do words lead to the eternal mind?

Read my philosophy and find out.

A good door has no lock.

Not where I was raised.

Ruling a great country is like cooking a small fish.

Over-rated?

There shall arise one in the future who shall speak my words but not agree with them. ( ;) Just seeing if you were paying attention.)

Are you in the right thread? Rather, are you on the right planet?

I am amazed that the man who believes in the light of the mind, can say things like "only one of these religions have the absolute truth"

The Mind of God is not light. Not as we know light, anyway.
And it's as clear as anything that there can only be one absolute-truth, at the very most.

the light is the truth Lifegazer

Photons are the truth?

, how can the objects of the mind be any more or less true. How can one religion contain absolute truth?
Objects of the mind have an abstract existence. They appear to exist when, in fact, they do not.
What exists is the Mind alone. Even now, as we are having this conversation, only the One can hear it. For there is no other.
Bop.

[T'ai Chi]

Hi lifegazer,


Why would we do this, one asks? Why would we talk ga ga and pretend to be zombies? What's the pay-off? Well I haven't got a bleedin' clue. Perhaps if we ask Geoffrey nicely enough, he'll have some sort of explanation of why anyone would want to be a Daoist?

I'm not sure about the zombie part. :) Could you find in the Daodejing or Zhuanzi where that was written or implied?

Why would anyone want to be a Daoist? Hmmm... I'm not too sure. For me it just intuitively 'made sense', but I can't put it into words. Perhaps it was the Daoist sexual yoga? ;)

Seriously I'm not sure why, but I think that I always favored the nature-based religions/spiritual-stuff. Now why did I choose Daoism instead of Shinto, Native American, or other nature-based things? I also have always been interested in the Chinese culture and its martial arts, so it was just a fairly natural progression from there. I also have always liked poetry and aesthetics. I'm also a fairly lazy person, and therefore I like short books. :)

How about you lifegazer? Why did you choose to be a representative of your religion/philosophy?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Why would anyone want to be a Daoist? Hmmm... I'm not too sure. For me it just intuitively 'made sense', but I can't put it into words. Perhaps it was the Daoist sexual yoga? ;)



Daoist sexual yoga? Okay you've convinced me, I've been converted;)


Provided of course that there are an abundance of hot daoist chicks....

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I'm not sure about the zombie part. :) Could you find in the Daodejing or Zhuanzi where that was written or implied?

In my book, any living entity which has no desire or will to effect self-gain, is a zombie. Rather, such an entity would be a zombie if it could actually function.

Why would anyone want to be a Daoist? Hmmm... I'm not too sure. For me it just intuitively 'made sense', but I can't put it into words. Perhaps it was the Daoist sexual yoga? ;)

How can one desire sex if one is a daoist? Another contradiction, as I see it. Is celibacy not a goal of the devout Daoist?

, but I think that I always favored the nature-based religions/spiritual-stuff. Now why did I choose Daoism instead of Shinto, Native American, or other nature-based things? I also have always been interested in the Chinese culture and its martial arts, so it was just a fairly natural progression from there. I also have always liked poetry and aesthetics. I'm also a fairly lazy person, and therefore I like short books. :)

Chapter 56!! ... not a short book, unless the chapters are very short. :p

How about you lifegazer? Why did you choose to be a representative of your religion/philosophy?
(1) I am sure it's true.
(2) I know of nobody else who shares my philosophy, exactly. Therefore, I have a responsibility to express what it is, before I die.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Provided of course that there are an abundance of hot daoist chicks....

Oooh good point!

[T'ai Chi]

Hi lifegazer,


How can one desire sex if one is a daoist? Another contradiction, as I see it.


I think it is ok and natural to desire, want, and like things, just not healthy to be obsessed and controlled by them.


Is celibacy not a goal of the devout Daoist?


I don't believe so. I think it is obtaining a nice merging of yin and yang in all aspects of life, something which intercourse provides I'd say. :)


Chapter 56!! ... not a short book, unless the chapters are very short. :p


The chapters are very short. There are 81 chapters and roughly 75 pages.


(1) I am sure it's true.


How do you verify this?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Thanks. Not many around here are too concerned with addressing my points.


It's because it's pointless, it's clear you are not interested in a mature discussion. We provide arguments, but you always ignore them, and instead insult people, and then restate your assumptions.


Chapter 56!!


Oh wow! Chapter 56!!!! Being so smart and reading books is hard!! A book with 12 chapters is enough, but 56!! It's too hard.

Get a grip lifegazer, take a breath. If you were interested in any discussion of the Tao Te Ching, you would have at LEAST browsed through SOME of it. However, given that you haven't a clue what a chapter is in the Tao Te Ching, you haven't. I don't know how a mature discussion is possible with someone who hasn't even looked into the context of the quotes.


From the Wittgenstein thread:
"The call was that language cannot make absolute claims about entities or concepts such as God. That was the call.
Yet, making that call is an absolute claim in itself, in reference to that concept or entity.
So, it's clear to see that such statements always dig their own graves." [page 5, me]
Also...
"Whatever conclusions Mr W (or Taoism) imposes upon philosophy are imposed upon their own philosophy, by default.
So, no universal/absolute truths are either conveyable or acceptable via Mr W's philosophy (or via Taoist philosophy).
Somehow, they overlook this in the expression of their philosophy, as they try to convey - using language, which they more-or-less denounce - a universal philosophy to the masses: Namely, that language is a useless method to convey absolutes and that no absolutes are acceptable. Yet, via their use of language, we are asked to accept their conclusions, en masse!!!!"
[page 4, me]

... Pretty-much sums-up my feelings about that.


Blah blah blah, I've addressed this enough times, and you haven't responded. I even boiled it down to a very simple set of questions to answer, however, it seems, you could not come up with the intellectual ability to answer questions given to 3rd graders. Just in case there was some kind of JREF fluke, and you missed them, I'll post them again:

Ok Lifegazer, what is the subject of the claim, god, or language? It would help here to write down the sentence, and the identify the subject of the sentence. Then, for comparison, make a claim about god, write out the sentence, and then identify the subject of that sentence.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You're living in denial Geoffrey. I have pointed out inconsistencies of logic within the mantras you have felt obliged to teach us all (which means of course that you do not know, otherwise you wouldn't have said anything! LOLOL).


And possible fallacies in your logic were pointed out. You, however, have failed to respond to those problems.


Please yourself Geoff. I cannot force you to have a rational discussion. Nor can I force you to question your beliefs. But spare me the nonsense of pretending that you're some kind of peace-loving sage.


Geoff realizes the follow of attempting to have a rational discussion with you. You will not respond to questions about your philosophy. You will not respond to counter-arguments about anything. If you will do none of these things, why should Geoff?


What a crock.
Any religion in the world could say the same thing Geoff.

ya, funny, you say the same thing too, what a crock.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Let's pretend that I'm the bloke who wrote the Tao...


OK, are we also assuming that you read it, and therefore have a clue what you are talking about? Or are will still going with the ignorant lifegazer perspective?


I know the truth.
Anybody who speaks the truth doesn't know it... apart from me, of course. Anybody who knows the truth doesn't speak it... apart from me of course. Whilst we're at it, we'll also allow this "law" to be overlooked whilst you all spread my wisdom. Just act dumb if anyone spots the inconsistency.


Right, I see, we are going with the ignorant lifegazer approach, because it's pretty clear you haven't a clue. Once again, I don't need any insults, you do it all on your own.


Do a Geoffrey.
The truth cannot be known by words/thought. A bit of a bummer really, I know. But it sounds good, anyway. We know because... well, we just do. Be poetic and you can get away with anything.
Be like me and have no desires. Basically, just pretend you're dead and don't want anything. Yep, that's right, ignore everyone else and forget about having selfless desires too. In this philosophy, we just aim for zombieness.

Why would we do this, one asks? Why would we talk ga ga and pretend to be zombies? What's the pay-off? Well I haven't got a bleedin' clue. Perhaps if we ask Geoffrey nicely enough, he'll have some sort of explanation of why anyone would want to be a Daoist?

And again, you haven't a clue, because you haven't read the Tao Te Ching. This might be an interesting discussion, if you read it, but, instead, all we would be doing is correcting you of assumptions about the Tao Te Ching (reminds me of the QM threads).

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

"Liked"?
There's another inconsistency for ya. How can he that is without desire, have preferences? *Smug snigger*


Perhaps if you took a break from a game of bridge, and read it (or maybe read it between turnss). You'd have a clue what the Tao Te Ching is talking about.


C'mon Geoff... let's own up to the fact that this is a crock...
If you have the guts to actually debate these issues, I'll save you by showing you all the little inconsistencies that exist within this so-called philosophy of life.

How can we debate your lack of knowledge and incorrect assumptions about the Tao Te Ching?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

In my book, any living entity which has no desire or will to effect self-gain, is a zombie. Rather, such an entity would be a zombie if it could actually function.


(humor)zombies have a desire to eat human brain(/humor)


How can one desire sex if one is a daoist? Another contradiction, as I see it. Is celibacy not a goal of the devout Daoist?

Chapter 56!! ... not a short book, unless the chapters are very short. :p


Maybe you should read the Tao Te Ching then


(1) I am sure it's true.
(2) I know of nobody else who shares my philosophy, exactly. Therefore, I have a responsibility to express what it is, before I die.

You have no proof your philosophy is true, how can you claim it to be then?


Edited because the humor tags did not apear

[DarkMagician]

Originally posted by lifegazer
(2) I know of nobody else who shares my philosophy, exactly. Therefore, I have a responsibility to express what it is, before I die. I thought that was called "Natural Selection."

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

If you're really bothered about this, go and resurrect that thread and I'll have another go at answering your version of the question. But not in here. Can't be any fairer than that.

Yes you can. Stop weaseling. Stop starting new threads when you haven't addressed the the questions asked in other threads.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I think it is ok and natural to desire, want, and like things, just not healthy to be obsessed and controlled by them.

"Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations."

Clearly, this text advocates the goal of desireless being. This is another contradiction, of course, since to aim for that goal is a desire unto itself.
Regardless, it seems that your attitude does not mirror that presented by the writer of the scripture. Which implies you disagree with that scripture.
I am not talking about the right & wrongs of having sex. Rather, I'm talking about the right & wrong of desiring anything in light of such scripture. It seems to me that this scripture advocates celibacy. In fact, it seems to me to advocate the life of a hermitical monk, of sorts.
To what ends, I have yet to discover, since an afterlife or a God is not mentioned. Reincarnation? I dunno... but the whole point of the Tao evades me.

[UndercoverElephant]

....the whole point of the Tao evades me.


We know. It shows. :)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


We know. It shows. :)
I don't think you know the point yourself. In fact, I'm sure that you don't.
Your tactic to avoid answering any logical inconsistency or any meaningful question doesn't do you any favours in a philosophy forum.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I don't think you know the point yourself.


No, I'm just a bozo. :)


In fact, I'm sure that you don't.


You are sure of lots of things. :)


Your tactic to avoid answering any logical inconsistency or any meaningful question doesn't do you any favours in a philosophy forum.


Well that should suit you, shouldn't it?

Makes your life easier if I don't argue with your "demolition", doesn't it?

I mean, other people are arguing with you, why aren't you happy with that? Why do you need me to argue with you in order to make your point? :confused:

[UndercoverElephant]

In fact, you've lost sight of what and who you are arguing with now, haven't you?

This thread wasn't about Taoism - it was an attempt by you to try to attack what you think is my belief system, because you see me as a problem you cannot get past. And you are apparently totally incapable of comprehending either (a) Taoism or (b) Why I am not interested in defending it.

So it seems your "philosophy of world peace" involves passionately attacking both people and philosophical systems which you do not understand and which make no attempt defend themselves.

Lifegazers philosophy, forced upon others :

World peace via endless pointless mindless conflict. You are a genius. :)

Geoffs philosophy :

Do not attempt to defend a philosophical position against people who do not understand that philosophical position, and under no circumstances attempt to force your beliefs on others.

Why?

Because it doesn't work.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
This thread wasn't about Taoism - it was an attempt by you to try to attack what you think is my belief system, because you see me as a problem you cannot get past. And you are apparently totally incapable of comprehending either (a) Taoism or (b) Why I am not interested in defending it.

I know alot about your belief system. Don't challenge me on this or I will tell the readers what you have told me. I have honoured your privacy about everything except the things you yourself have discussed within the public eye. Your love of Wittgenstein and the Tao was publicly expressed in the W thread. You even stated that Wittgenstein's conclusions about the death of philosophy mirror the Tao's proclamation that "He who knows doesn't say, etc.".
However, what you have failed to do, is to address the clear logical inconsistency that is apparent within the aforementioned conlusion/proclamation. It's as clear as daylight, yet your response is "I have no need to defend the Tao.". Well what about Wittgenstein? Did you have no need to defend him either?

You're a closed-minded extremist who has resorted to parroting mantras in order to sustain your own beliefs.

So it seems your "philosophy of world peace" involves passionately attacking both people and philosophical systems which you do not understand and which make no attempt defend themselves.

A philosophical system that cannot use logic to sustain its own axioms or assertions is worthless. Your philosophy has been found to be invalid in several key areas, yet in this forum of philosophical debate, your responses now amount to humble silence or "I have no need to defend...".
It's a complete crock and you know it. Your credibility aint worth a dime in here now. So please don't ever attack the credibility of my philosophy ever again.
In fact, do the honourable thing and limp away into the mist lest you make a complete mug of yourself. I'm beginning to feel embarrassed for you as I read your responses - they're really that bad.

Lifegazers philosophy, forced upon others :

World peace via endless pointless mindless conflict. You are a genius. :)

I have told you that all revolutions require radical change. And all change requires the destruction of the old as a preparation for the construction of the new. You are a witness to the destructive era.

Geoffs philosophy :

Do not attempt to defend a philosophical position against people who do not understand that philosophical position, and under no circumstances attempt to force your beliefs on others.

This isn't a philosophy. Because that's not what philosophy is all about. You'll have to call it something else. How about "tripe"?
Head for the mist Geoffrey. You can live in denial there. But not here. Stay here and the light of reason shall hunt you down until you fall.

[UndercoverElephant]

LG


I know alot about your belief system. Don't challenge me on this or I will tell the readers what you have told me.


You know what I've told you, that is all. Most of what I believe is likely to be beyond your comprehension anyway, in addition to being completely irrelevant to your own philosophy. Why are you so obsessed with what I believe, given that I haven't told anyone what I believe? :confused:

Also, should you choose to publish private messages, then I presume you will have no objection to me publishing the choicest selection of those you have sent me. :)


I have honoured your privacy about everything except the things you yourself have discussed within the public eye. Your love of Wittgenstein and the Tao was publicly expressed in the W thread.


No, you can't read. I mentioned there was a correspondence between something Wittgenstein said and something Lao Tsu said. I don't even like Wittgensteing, and I'm not really a Taoist. It's all in your head, Lifegazer.


However, what you have failed to do, is to address the clear logical inconsistency that is apparent within the aforementioned conlusion/proclamation.


You are right. Instead I have repeatedly told you that I am not an apologist for Taoism and have no desire to defend it. You are fighting shadows, Lifegazer. :rolleyes:


It's as clear as daylight, yet your response is "I have no need to defend the Tao.". Well what about Wittgenstein? Did you have no need to defend him either?


I didn't defend him either. Again, I merely clarified what he said.


You're a closed-minded extremist who has resorted to parroting mantras in order to sustain your own beliefs.


Whatever.... :v:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So it seems your "philosophy of world peace" involves passionately attacking both people and philosophical systems which you do not understand and which make no attempt defend themselves.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A philosophical system that cannot use logic to sustain its own axioms or assertions is worthless.
Your philosophy has been found to be invalid in several key areas, yet in this forum of philosophical debate, your responses now amount to humble silence or "I have no need to defend...".


Do I no longer have the right to silence?


Your credibility aint worth a dime in here now.


So why are you so obsessed with me? :D


So please don't ever attack the credibility of my philosophy ever again.


What has "your philosophy" got to do with this thread or with Taoism? :confused:

Do you think that by trying to poke holes in other belief system it somehow makes your own invulnerable to criticism? :confused:


I'm beginning to feel embarrassed for you as I read your responses - they're really that bad.


:shrugs:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lifegazers philosophy, forced upon others :

World peace via endless pointless mindless conflict. You are a genius.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have told you that all revolutions require radical change. And all change requires the destruction of the old as a preparation for the construction of the new. You are a witness to the destructive era.


The only thing you are capable of destroying is yourself, and you are doing a very fine job if it too. :)


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Geoffs philosophy :

Do not attempt to defend a philosophical position against people who do not understand that philosophical position, and under no circumstances attempt to force your beliefs on others.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This isn't a philosophy. Because that's not what philosophy is all about. You'll have to call it something else.


That isn't philosophy?

It is, actually. It is called ETHICS. It is the branch of philosophy that is about understanding what sort of behaviour is acceptable and what sort of behaviour is not. :)


Head for the mist Geoffrey. You can live in denial there. But not here. Stay here and the light of reason shall hunt you down until you fall.


Sorry but....

:dl:

[UndercoverElephant]

So remind me again...

Was it me you wanted to demolish or was it Taoism?

Taoism is one of many philosophical systems. I am what is called a coherentist. This means that I can have many interlocking beliefs, provided they are all coherent. It also means I am an anti-foundationalist. This means that there is no one absolute foundation to my beliefs system.

By contrast, everybody here who is a materialist, and yourself, are foundationalists. This means there is an absolute foundation to your belief system, in their case it is materialism, in your case it is a load of incomprehensible garbage that you made up.

However, since I am an anti-foundationalist coherentist it is not possible to "demolish my belief system" by attacking what you believe is its foundation - since it has no foundation. It also means that if you choose to attack one small part of what I believe it does not make me feel threatened in the way you feel threatened by me.

So - go ahead and keep trying to demolish Taoism if it makes you happy.

Also, if you really want to attack me, rather than Taoism, you could always start a thread with the stated aim of attacking me (oops, forgot, you tried that already and found out it wasn't so clever, then tried to pretend it wasn't you, got found out again, then tried to pretend it was your hamster.....)

Should anyone be interested in the relationship between coherentism, foundationalism and skepticism then you may find the following article interesting :

http://personal.bgsu.edu/~roberth/coherence.html

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Bop.

Rebop ah bebop

Read my philosophy and find out.

It would seem that most who read your philossophy have a violent disagreement to it, so have the words had the effect that you might have hoped for?


Not where I was raised.

Which is the anmwer that leads to the solution of taoism A good door has no lock...


Over-rated?

A good explanation. Also a matter of timing and not over doing it.


Are you in the right thread? Rather, are you on the right planet?

And you said I had no sense of humor.


The Mind of God is not light. Not as we know light, anyway.
And it's as clear as anything that there can only be one absolute-truth, at the very most.

Yes but how do we as mere humans express that light. You are more in agreement than you know, with the tao. Except I am not sure Lao Tzi would have said something like absolute truth.


Photons are the truth?

Obstufication: your words lead people farther from the truth. darkness within darkness...


Objects of the mind have an abstract existence. They appear to exist when, in fact, they do not.

Hmm, now you sound like me. ;) So there is nothing abstract?

What exists is the Mind alone. Even now, as we are having this conversation, only the One can hear it. For there is no other.

Which puts you more in a greeement with the tao than you can imagine.

Bop.

Bop beep. bip. bap. Bub.

I return your bop, thanks.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

"Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations."

Clearly, this text advocates the goal of desireless being.

Silly rabbit is you want to know the source you still the desire, if you want to see the manifestations then you follow the desire.

This is another contradiction, of course, since to aim for that goal is a desire unto itself.

In some eastern philosphies it is considered that the truth of nature can not be contained in words, contradictitions are deliberate and meant to occupy the mind. Heard of zen?

Regardless, it seems that your attitude does not mirror that presented by the writer of the scripture. Which implies you disagree with that scripture.

I think that Laotzi would never have felt that humans can actualy remove desire from thier lives, just advice to tone things down, 'merge with the dust' and all. Daoism would deny any absolutes in the human realm. They would be relegated to Heaven.

I am not talking about the right & wrongs of having sex. Rather, I'm talking about the right & wrong of desiring anything in light of such scripture. It seems to me that this scripture advocates celibacy. In fact, it seems to me to advocate the life of a hermitical monk, of sorts.

So you think that it is good idea to live your life purchasing more things and consuming more goods and lusting after more objects. There is the middle path you know...oh, maybe not.

To what ends, I have yet to discover, since an afterlife or a God is not mentioned. Reincarnation? I dunno... but the whole point of the Tao evades me.

The point of the tao is lacking!

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

"Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations."

Clearly, this text advocates the goal of desireless being. This is another contradiction, of course, since to aim for that goal is a desire unto itself [...] I dunno... but the whole point of the Tao evades me.

I wonder why...why would the Tao evade you...hmmm...maybe because you've never read it! You haven't a clue what the text advocates. If you wish to know, read it, or wait, no, sorry, reading books is too hard and it might change your perception of the world.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I know alot about your belief system. Don't challenge me on this or I will tell the readers what you have told me.


Ooohhh...big man, defending your points on Daoism has come down to blackmail. I'd think being that you have the cosmic truth and all, answering questions about it, debating other philosophies, etc, would be a piece of cake, but, instead, we get threats of blackmail.


Your love of Wittgenstein and the Tao was publicly expressed in the W thread.


Really...is this anything like the time you said that we were attacking your philosophy with "He who knows does not say, he who does not know, says"? You yelled, and moaned, but you still haven't shown us where or when that happened. Instead, you continue to make up stuff that NEVER HAPPENED:

paranoia paranoia everybody's coming to get me just say you never met me i'm going underground with the moles….put me in the hospital for nerves and then they had to commit me you told them all i was crazy. -- Flagpole Sitta -


However, what you have failed to do, is to address the clear logical inconsistency that is apparent within the aforementioned conlusion/proclamation. It's as clear as daylight, yet your response is "I have no need to defend the Tao.". Well what about Wittgenstein? Did you have no need to defend him either?


The statement you speak of has already been addressed, you have failed to make any attempt to defend your position. You view is without any merit.


You're a closed-minded extremist who has resorted to parroting mantras in order to sustain your own beliefs.


Ignoring the fact that this doesn't sound like Geoff to me, who else do we know that refuses to question their beliefs, and repeats the same mantras over and over...hmmm....that sonds like lifegazer to me.


A philosophical system that cannot use logic to sustain its own axioms or assertions is worthless.


I'd same I'm glad to hear you say this, but then I realize you'd never apply the same standard to your own philosophy.


Your philosophy has been found to be invalid in several key areas, yet in this forum of philosophical debate, your responses now amount to humble silence or "I have no need to defend...".


Wait, when were discussing Geoff's philosophy?


It's a complete crock and you know it. Your credibility aint worth a dime in here now. So please don't ever attack the credibility of my philosophy ever again.


excuse me while I get back in my chair, I suddenly had a large number of spastic vocal reactions and fell off of it.

You are the one failing to respond to argument. You are the one ignoring questions about your philosophy. You are the one claiming things that NEVER HAPPENED.


In fact, do the honourable thing and limp away into the mist lest you make a complete mug of yourself. I'm beginning to feel embarrassed for you as I read your responses - they're really that bad.


you are truly a master debater, I'm sure your words cut really, really deep. In fact, I should PM Geoff to make sure he is ok.

[Special tip for LG, show someone's post is embarrassing, *then* say they are]


I have told you that all revolutions require radical change. And all change requires the destruction of the old as a preparation for the construction of the new. You are a witness to the destructive era.


Uh-huh...I'm waiting (hears elevator music)

[UndercoverElephant]

Russ


Ooohhh...big man, defending your points on Daoism has come down to blackmail


Cute, isn't it? :)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Was it me you wanted to demolish or was it Taoism?

Both. Any philosophy which amounts to a religion founded upon beliefs shall be exposed as such.

Taoism is one of many philosophical systems. I am what is called a coherentist. This means that I can have many interlocking beliefs, provided they are all coherent. It also means I am an anti-foundationalist. This means that there is no one absolute foundation to my beliefs system.

Your belief-system may borrow from several philosophies, but ultimately, it should be a singular philosophy which does not contradict itself.
Since I know that a great part of your belief-system is founded upon Wittgenstein's conclusion about the death of philosophy, I practically bring the whole house of cards down by exposing this massive flaw in your thinking. Yet you avoid facing the music by saying dumb mantras: "I don't need to defend my philosophy". That has to be the biggest load of pooh I've ever heard from you. It's an insult to this forum's intelligence that you should try to use it as a legitimate retort within a philosophical debate.

[UndercoverElephant]

Both.


Ah. So the thread should really have been called "Demolishing Geoff", yes?

:w2:



It's an insult to this forum's intelligence......


:s2:

[T'ai Chi]

Hi lifegazer,


"Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations."


That is from Chapter 1. The "Ever desireless" part, in Chinese, is the word 'wuyu'. It does not mean the total absence of desire, but rather it is the goal of differential desire. That is, it is desire based on a noncoercive relationship with the universe. The desire is not to control things, but rather to enjoy and celebrate them. So the Daoist problem of desire does not concern desiring itself or the things that are desired, but rather the manner of the desiring.
(paraphrased from Daodejing Making This Life Significant, p. 42)

A different translation for that same excerpt from Chapter 1 is:


"Thus, to be really objectless in one's desires (wuyu) is how one observes the mysteries of all things.
While really having desires is how one observes their boundaries."
-Ames and Hall, 2003



It seems to me that this scripture advocates celibacy. In fact, it seems to me to advocate the life of a hermitical monk, of sorts.


I doubt it, simply because that might be a little too much yin, and they are always about balance. :) There are also stories in other Daoist books that talk about women, wives, etc. I'm sure some Daoists are celibate, especially the dirty ones in mountains somewhere in China.


..contradiction, of course, since to aim for that goal is a desire unto itself.


To reiterate, desire is no problem, it is the manner of the desiring that might be the problem.


To what ends, I have yet to discover, since an afterlife or a God is not mentioned. Reincarnation? I dunno...


Well of course 'God' is not mentioned (except in early translations where the translators were missionaries!) since it is a purely Chinese work of philosophy. :)

Reincarnation? I'm not sure. It is said, and easily seen from observation, that life is a transformation though.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Hi lifegazer,

Hello. I've come to the conclusion that you are not a daoist, but are in fact a hippy. :p

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Hello. I've come to the conclusion that you are not a daoist, but are in fact a hippy. :p

Hopefully, this is an attempt at humor, and not an advertisement of your ignorance...

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill


Hopefully, this is an attempt at humor, and not an advertisement of your ignorance...
Lighten up Russ. Chapter 62.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Lighten up Russ. Chapter 62.

Just checkin', cause it would be rather silly for someone to say such a thing without reading the Tao...oh, chapter 62

No man should be abandoned
because he has not found the Tao.

[T'ai Chi]

Hi lifegazer,

Originally posted by lifegazer

Hello. I've come to the conclusion that you are not a daoist, but are in fact a hippy. :p

*shrug*

Feel free to address some of the points in my previous post about desire and etc. :)

[T'ai Chi]

Hi JustGeoff,

Thanks for that interesting page on foundationalism, skepticism, and coherentism. The authors' other writings were pretty interesting too.

[DarkMagician]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I'm an insult to this forum's intelligence that you should try to use it as a legitimate retort within a philosophical debate. FIXED!

[epepke]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I don't think you know the point yourself. In fact, I'm sure that you don't.

The Dao that has a point is not the true Dao.

[Dancing David]

The books talk about dulling the sharp and not tinkling like jade chimes , but the secong book talks about the buthcher and the knife that never needs sharpening. So would the doa have a point, other than the one on my head?

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Hi JustGeoff,

Thanks for that interesting page on foundationalism, skepticism, and coherentism. The authors' other writings were pretty interesting too.

Yeah...interesting stuff is going on in philosophy. :)

As for this :


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Hi lifegazer,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello. I've come to the conclusion that you are not a daoist, but are in fact a hippy.


Yet again, when we all thought it couldn't get any sillier, our friend has managed to surpass himself. He appears to have responded to the word "Hi", whilst ignoring completely the rest of your post!

However - there seems to be a noticeable silence in that department around here today. ;)

[UndercoverElephant]

.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by epepke


The Dao that has a point is not the true Dao.
= The Dao is pointless.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
However - there seems to be a noticeable silence in that department around here today. ;)
Was you missing me Geoff? How nice.
I need Randi's dosh and then I can devote myself to saving the world!!;)

[T'ai Chi]

Hi lifegazer,

Do you have any comments on our discussion about 'desire'?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

"Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations."


That is from Chapter 1. The "Ever desireless" part, in Chinese, is the word 'wuyu'. It does not mean the total absence of desire, but rather it is the goal of differential desire. That is, it is desire based on a noncoercive relationship with the universe. The desire is not to control things, but rather to enjoy and celebrate them. So the Daoist problem of desire does not concern desiring itself or the things that are desired, but rather the manner of the desiring.
(paraphrased from Daodejing Making This Life Significant, p. 42)

A different translation for that same excerpt from Chapter 1 is:


"Thus, to be really objectless in one's desires (wuyu) is how one observes the mysteries of all things.
While really having desires is how one observes their boundaries."
-Ames and Hall, 2003


I doubt it, simply because that might be a little too much yin, and they are always about balance. :) There are also stories in other Daoist books that talk about women, wives, etc. I'm sure some Daoists are celibate, especially the dirty ones in mountains somewhere in China.

To reiterate, desire is no problem, it is the manner of the desiring that might be the problem.

So, it's alright to desire things, as long as you don't try to force those things to happen? It's a bit vague, to be honest, but sounds much better than the literal interpretation of that specific text.
But I still have a problem with it; for in my opinion, the noblest form of desire is selfless desire that is actively enforced.
The laid-back approach of the daoist might be misread as indifference. What say ye?

Well of course 'God' is not mentioned (except in early translations where the translators were missionaries!) since it is a purely Chinese work of philosophy. :)

Reincarnation? I'm not sure. It is said, and easily seen from observation, that life is a transformation though.
So, you have no answer to the question: What possible reason might I want to be a daoist for? What might I gain from it?

[T'ai Chi]

Hi lifegazer,


So, it's alright to desire things, as long as you don't try to force those things to happen?


Yes, I think as long as the desire is to celebrate and enjoy and not own or control the object(s).


It's a bit vague, to be honest,


It is more than a bit vague. :)


The laid-back approach of the daoist might be misread as indifference. What say ye?


Yes, I think it could be misread. The actions a Daoist takes are hopefully spontaneous, and therefore are nonassertive, not no-actions.


So, you have no answer to the question: What possible reason might I want to be a daoist for? What might I gain from it?

It probably varies from person to person, but for me it was to get a new perspective on reality, furthering and more deeply appreciating the things that make up my field of experience, to help with my goal of self-transformation, and cultivating a disposition for making my way in the world. These things can probably be done with any philosophy/religion, but as I've mentioned, I already had enjoyed Chinese martial arts and culture (and short books).

[Wudang]

Um, Tai chi - you know your tai chi is rotating in the degenerative cycle?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Wudang
Um, Tai chi - you know your tai chi is rotating in the degenerative cycle?

Just stand on the opposite side of your monitor and it will be spinning in the correct direction. ;)

I really don't care for all the 'table setting' that goes on (what direction it is spinning, if white is on top or if black is, different colors being used for black and white, etc.). All that matters to me is the idea of yin, yang, and t'ai chi. :)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer

"Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations."

Clearly, this text advocates the goal of desireless being. This is another contradiction, of course, since to aim for that goal is a desire unto itself.
Regardless, it seems that your attitude does not mirror that presented by the writer of the scripture. Which implies you disagree with that scripture.
I am not talking about the right & wrongs of having sex. Rather, I'm talking about the right & wrong of desiring anything in light of such scripture. It seems to me that this scripture advocates celibacy. In fact, it seems to me to advocate the life of a hermitical monk, of sorts.
To what ends, I have yet to discover, since an afterlife or a God is not mentioned. Reincarnation? I dunno... but the whole point of the Tao evades me.
I didnt want to do this so quickly, but I think I need to introduce you to something, its called the "GOLDEN MEAN".

Try to imagine a graph, on either side is the extreme. In the middle is what you would call the mean. Here is a graphical representation.

[Total and Complete Celibacy]######==========-------------------==========######[Obsessive Compulsive Sexoholic]


In the middle of that graphical representation is the Golden Mean.

The Golden Mean is where you want aim if you ever hope to achieve a form of "perfection" or "happiness". Any extremes can lead to "unhappiness".

Because most peoples Moral Attitude is subjective, their Golden Mean will most likely vary slightly with yours.

My criticism to the Golden Mean is simply "sometimes extremes are necessary, sometimes the Golden Mean is unacheivable". Aside from that, its a pretty sturdy Philosophy (albeit a rather primitive one).

Aristotle's metaphysics may have been crap, but his Ethics were perfect, fine, dandy, and fluffy. That is at least one way I can present the whole "Desire/Desireless" debate.


Your interpretation that the Daoist Philosophy is a doctrine of moral absolutes or that it implies Total and Complete Celibacy is incorrect.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Wudang
Um, Tai chi - you know your tai chi is rotating in the degenerative cycle?
For some reason, it just doesnt look right spinning like this...