leth

This is a systematic problem with healt care systems that revolves on monetary gain. Coming from a welfare state i naturally have a different view of this, but then again I view health care system which requires monetary exchange with great disdain for so many reasons.

Then what is disconnected?

I often return to that part of Zhuangzi, I've read it many times and I quite like it, but lately i have not had many epiphanies when reading it and I tend to look elsewhere because I like epiphanies when I read. And Ziporyn's translation has been my favourite as of late. Sure, but revers flow is just another direction. it's not the same thing as the opposite of flow. Sure, here the directions are the opposites and the flow itself is not a part of that polarity. so in the sense of direction there is opposities in terms of directions, ecause if we have one direction then we must also have the opposite direction. What is there that flows? A stream of water flows but a rock stays still on the ground. A tiny pebble can flow down a mountains side while the mountain stays still. It is always a matter of perspective and context. We use this opposites to analyse reality and it is curcial to understand how dualisms works. You can't claim that a polarity in one aspect can be said to inherently have that polarity, it is only a polarity in the context of which that polarity is defined. Thus flow is opposite to stillness if we are talking about flow from an external perspective, but if we are talking about the qualities of flow then we can't talk about it as an opposite of stillness anymore, but rather must look at what the opposite of that quality is instead. The power of Yin-Yang theory is really this understanding of how dualisms work and how they are only applicable to the context of where the separation is made. And I interprete that part from Zhuangzi that you quoted in the post you refered to actually point this out. Yes, though i don't interprete it as to finding the changless within the change. Yes such is the nature of things. Everything in reality seems relative to something, and we interprete this reality as a complex of dualisms. And there is always Yin in Yang as there is always Yang in Tin. As there is no stillness there is no absolute flow either. There is just more or less flow and stillness. But in our mind there is such a thing as flow, and thus there is a such a thing as stillness in our mind aswell. And it is this way that we interprete the various forms of what is neither emptiness or form, that has neither flow or stillness. Yes. But I fail to see what this has to do with Yin-Yang theory. A circle is simply a circle, it has no other inherent qualities. If you call a circle perfect it is perfect if you call it imperfect it is imperfect. If there is such a thing as an perfect circle then there is such a thing as an imperfect circle. If there is vibration then surely there is stillness. Sure, it is always about perspective and context, such is our logic. But the concept of natural and unaturall only exists in our logic and is inherently a matter of perspective. What is the difference between a flow and Ziran? I disagree. Ziran is about attaining constant wu wei wu in accord to De. It is not flow it is flow without flow, it is not following it is following without following, it is not resonating it is resonating without resonating. Ziran is the same for all things. But Ziran manifests differently for different things. I don't fully understand what you mean, there seems to be inconcistancies in that which I interprete, perhaps I misunderstand you.

We think of things as related to something, that is an inherent part of our logic. But whether this is ontologically true is another question. Anti-flow is inherently not flow. If it is the same then they are not different and then neither exists. But they are the same in the sense that the are polarities of the same thing, and this means that they are opposites. Pointing out that the negation of something is the same thing as that which it negates only confirms that they are opposites. What is the nature of a circle? Now you're talking about the nature of humans and not the nature of circles. Also you seem to suggest the existance of naturallness and unnaturallness here. Zirans means whats in this context?

I don't really agree that discussion on Laozi as a work is mostly represented as discussion on Dao and De. I see a lot of comparative work on a multitude of subjects. But I am curious to if ther exists any statistics on the subject of comparative works involving laozi. Yes, but it is a central tenet of the work. I would guess that most mentions of 聖人 or 民 can be said to be statments related to either De or Dao. I suggest you insist on calling it something else than Daodejing yourself then, that is a good path towards changing this misconception. I'm not so sure, I don't think it is that a bad title of the work, often works are given title that corresponds to the most discussed subjects of a work, but that doesn't necessarily suggest it doesn't mention other subjects. We can't really do that without loosing historicity. We could speculate of course. We have clues, but nothing to really say anything with confidence. Can you give an example of usage of 善 that can't be analysed using ethics?

A concordance doesn't really help, just feed the work through a word counter. But i don't think it's usefull enough to merit the work even though it's actually very little work with computer to help you. No it's not, but it doesn't have a title so we must call it something, and that is the common way to refere to a work of this locality and time period so it makes sense to call it that. I don't think i follow that last sentance, but i agree at large. But what can be said of Wang Bi's edition is that it became the de facto source of many other verisions and most modern interpretions, aswell as the verison that many commentators throught the history read. And the works history before Wang Bi's edition is shhrouded in mystery.

No. But when there is Yin there is also Yang, when there is Yang there is also Yin.

You can't both have the cake and eat it.

Nor does it mean that your frequency analysis speaks for the idea that the work is not about Dao either. And this list tells us very little about what the work is actually discussing. We can't simply make any sort of judgement on the subject of the work based on word/character frequency. We have to analyse the content itself. It's common amongs academics, but the work is one of the most famous works in human history it and it's name has been impressed on the general public as daodejing. (and confusingly using different transcribing systems aswell) This is unclear, are you specifically talking about the Wang Bi edition here? If so what is your argument for it to be so? But what do you mean with laozi? We have to account for the fact that Wang Bi's edition is what we are mostly analysing and thus we cannot really escape early Daoism. We have to analyse it from the context of other texts which belong to the same tradition. Yes, perhaps not about the character itself. As i claimed later on in the post zhi is easer to discuss without mentioning it as Zhi specifically. I don't like to use the word virtue for De, and Dao is inherently untranslatable. I've never felt the need to use the term Zhi specifically to describe Daoist thought, though it would perhaps be much more concise if I would. The problem however is that it's not commonly understood by those that don't know any chinese. And that is perhaps another reason why it isn't discussed by itself. Moral goodness, and morally good are not really common terms in ethics. Ethics is a higly complex field in western philosophy aswell, and to narrow it down to only goodness is a gross oversimplification aswell.

First of all i think it is problematic to use word/character frequency to analyse what the subject of a text is. When we talk about a subject we tend to use words that describe it rather than the word for the subject itself. For instance how frequent is the word accident in a newspaper article about a large accident? Having that said, it would be intersting to see a word frequency count of the Goudian versions. The work is mostly referenced as 'Laozi' in academical works for the very reason that Daodejing is not an orignial title. But the title daodejing was applied because it is considered to have two parts, one which is focused around the subject of Dao and the other which is focused on the subject of De. This is true for the Wang Bi version which in a way has defined how we look at the work. The works history before Wang Bi's version isn't that well know, we know that he did not really author any of the content, but we also don't know much about the origins of the material he used, or how the chapter order and content developed. If we compare the Wang Bi version with what was found in Mawangdui and what was found in Guodian, we'll notice that not only the order and availability of chapters have changed but also to some extent their content. We can't make to many conclusions from this, but it appears that the work seemed to change during the han and pre-han era. But the Wang Bi version seemed to define the work as we now know it. And the work edited by Wang Bi is mostly about Dao and De, but of course it touches many other (and often related) concept. Another aspect is that the view of Daoism is mainly focused on Dao and De. And that is another discussion, but suffice to say that shiji is as fundamental in the categorisation of Daoism as Wang Bi's edition of Laozi is of the work itself. And i think this is a good example of how historical works can be very defining in the way we think about certain things. shiji is over 2000 years old, but still influences the way we think. Wang Bi's edition of loazi is sligthly younger but aslo greatly influences the way we think today. There are many other works that does this, but I think it's fair to say that laozi is indeed on of the greater immortals out there. And i dare to say that throughout history Dao and De has been the core of many Daoist schools of thought. So why should we not focus on them when we talk about Daoist traditions or Daoist thought? >知 zhi 'know' occurs 57 times in 31 chapters, and is clearly a very important term, but comparatively little is ever made of it; I've engaged in many discussion on epistemology or other realted fields in Daoist thought, and I dare to say that this is a rather common topic. Especially scepticism and linguistic determinism. >善 shan, commonly translated as 'good', occurs 52 times in 18 chapters; it is in my opinion equally as hard to define as 'De', and like zhi and a few others, rarely gets discussed. I have also been in many discussion on ethics and metaethics in Daoist thought. While there is merit in actually analysing the characters themselves, and I agree that these characters are underrepresented in character analysis. I really think that most discussion are do not really analyse characters. Sure Dao and De is often mentioned in debates, but i think that is because that is mostly because it is not always appropriate to use terms from western philosophy. I think it's easier to place 知 in epistemology than it is to place 道 in ontology or 德 in ethics for instance while 善 fits rather well in with ethics. But of course there is still much to be said about how these terms differ from western thought on the subject, but the terminology of ethics and epistemology is well developed and can deal with many different viewpoints of both knowledge and moral values.

We do. Yes, agreed. Which also explains why telling the masses doesn't really work well to change the problem at large. Why people trust anyone that has a monetary interest in a subject however is beyond my understanding. Well that too is ignorance, but I don't really understand why society still systemtically indoctrinates plutocracy. We should know better.

Henricks has also made translations of the Goudian slips, which i highly recommend reading.

Then we can not be more or less in tune either.

But what was the question?

I can see the point of discussing the philosophy of science in this site, but perhaps not the idea of devoting subforum for science.

But then there is such a thing as more or less ziran and thus the anti-ziran arises. And I think unnatural can signifiy this anti-ziran.

Is the universe a question?

That is a complex subject. It can be interpreted to point out codependant emergency of dualistic mental constructs and the relationship between mental constructs with ontology or even other related topics. None the less it does not answer the quesiton since i am talking about the purpose of the mental construct as a mean to communicate ideas. Is it going somewhere? But it doesn't really answer the question, we can agree it's a mental construct. But i'm not really talking about the signified here, i'm talking about the purpose of the signifier, it must have a point in being used. Where the signified comes from I am not interested in knowing and can't answer, But where the signifier comes from is a relevant question. And it's part of what I am asking you, because if we deconstruct it then we are saying that this signifier is pointless and serves no purpose, which in a way is saying that more or less half of laozi is a worthless work which has no point or wisdom, or serves any purpose what so ever.

Why is there no option, I don't really understand this. There are alternatives out there, and some of them are even gratis.

Well there are a number of reasons check ups serves a good purpose in general. First and foremost it serves the purpose of detecting subtle symptoms that might indicate a potentially fatal disease in it's earlier stages where the chanes of treating it is higher. Secondly it makes sense to check for subtle changes in health that could also be averted before they turn into a disease if the general health does not improve. The results from a chexk up could simply just help suggest improvements of health which might not really decreas chances of disease but instead just increases the quality of life. And as we get older we are more prone to health issues becuase our energies and/or bodies have been worn out, but also because it increases the chance of something subtle dveloping into something less subtle. Some tests are futile after a certain age, others are never really futile, but perhaps not something that needs to be repeated too often.

I don't really understand why someone would pay for a product that inherently works agains the user.

But if we're always ziran it doesn't matter that we forget we are ziran, and nor could we have more or less of the quality associated with ziran. and then why would it matter to even speak, or think about ziran, it holds not value.

I don't agree with this interpretion, but i guess that can be considered axiomatic in this discussin. I have a hard time accepting that you can be more or less of something without that thing having an opposite. Cryptic isn't really bad, i just wanted to clarify for discussion so i don't incorrectly assume something about yout statements or views. I don't agree that it deconstructs the self, only the idea or concept of ziran. Then it also deconstructs Dao, and why would laozi mention Dao?

Simply just uninstall Windows 10.

What De is can not be fully explained with words, it can only be expereinced and realized through studying Dao. One could say that De is the modus operandi of Dao. And to have De is to have a modus operandi of or in sync with Dao. And i do belive that love is apart of that, Dao loves. Or one could say that love is a fundamental force of Dao. Of course what one considers love to be is also a question on it's own. And I belive this is but a part of what De is. Or perhaps love is just another word for De, in which case love is far more complex that most would say it is.