Also see:

On 12/14/2023 at 6:04 AM, Mig said:

I've just got mine and already I am very satisfied with the few pages I have read and compared with other notes. I highly recommend it and I am not sure why is not as popular as others as Watson. Thanks for sharing

The new translation by Lynn is from 2022. It takes time even for a good book to get well known.

For those interested in the occult interests of great scientists there are lots of decent historical studies available. Nothing secretive about it. That the subject is seldom mentioned in school books is simply because schoolbooks necessarily focus on the highlights and the most important results for the students to learn.

I have my doubts about the extend of the occult interests of Tesla, as far as I know he was a skeptic and mainly interested in debunking paranormal claims. Are there credible sources to prove otherwise?

4 hours ago, nizhaosi said:

Greetings, since I have to make the obligatory first post, I'll use it to accumulate some more knowledge.
Right now I'm reading  Tao Te Ching and The complete life works of Zhaozi, along with the encyclopaedia of Taoism, a Taoist guide to practical living, Taoist yoga, alchemy and immortality and the teachings of Tao, alongside a comprehensive guide to Taoist nei gong, which is by Damo Michell who i hear is a bit dubious in teachings. if any of these books are bad, or you know any books I could also start reading, please suggest them. Thanks.

It's a good start. You will gradually find out what aspects of Taoism you like most. There's something in it for (almost) everyone.

Newton investigated alchemy. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_occult_studies

Quote

(…) I could go on but will agree with your conclusion; trick to effective and enjoyable living is to question the right conditionals, and maybe even none sometimes.

I agree, except that it's not a trick but common sense. If you keep on questioning without end you will eventually go insane. Unless that is what you are after, than the more reasonable option is to provisionally believe what appears to be true and correct until you find (concrete not speculative!) reasons to change your opinions in a direction that again provisionally looks more reliable. That's what curious and inquiring people usually do, and that is what in a systematic manner science and philosophy are all about.

Not knowing anything for sure doesn't point in any direction in particular, and so there is no reason not to follow the road of provisional truth and make the best of that. In a sense you are back at square one, but now with a greater freedom to adept your provisional opinions to relevant (concrete not speculative) contrary evidence.

39 minutes ago, S:C said:

¿Are they really? [rhethorical question]

Still no answer to my question. Do you consider it an undecided (or even undecidable) problem if we are in fact currently having a discussion on an internet forum called The Dao Bums? And again I don't mean this as a question concerning absolute truth. One can endlessly discuss or doubt anything one wants to. Which leads nowhere.

44 minutes ago, S:C said:

I understand your preference and frustration with relativists, @wandelaar.

To your question and the interesting article (thanks), - a follow up question: who in your opinion is supposed to have the interpretational souvereignty or prerogative about matters of truth or expertise?

No need to invest anyone in particular with the authority to decide about matters of truth or expertise. That would only lead to some form of religion or cult. Do you think that we need anyone to decide if there is or is not an internet site called The Dao Bums on which we are in fact currently having a discussion? And I don't mean as a question of absolute truth, because you could of course argue that maybe it was just dream, or an illusion created by a demon, etc. Those options are all irrelevant to our daily live in which matters are decided by common sense, observations, arguments, etc.

4 minutes ago, Cobie said:

Ime (in the Netherlands) the atheist mainstream wants to impose their morality (as opposed to the preceding Christian one). And they are extremely judgemental. Any ‘transgression’ of their taboos is severely punished, backed by strict laws (Christians are fair game).

Any examples?

What I don't like about postmodernists is that they pretend to be relativists while at the same time attacking anyone who doesn't agree with them. In an absolute sense indeed we don't know anything for sure, but this doesn't mean that any opinion is as good as any other. Is the opinion that there is no internet site called The Dao Bums as good as the opinion that there is an internet site called The Dao Bums on which we are currently having a discussion? In an absolute sense maybe. But not in the common sense world we live in.

For common sense purposes I still adhere to this principle: https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

Postmodernism is a pseudo-intellectual fad, nothing more. Serious philosophers (or common people even) should move on and leave the fashionable bullshit behind.

7 minutes ago, S:C said:

Does it mean to follow one’s emotion to the extent that they arise (epicureanism)

Epicureanism is much more subtle than that. In fact it's a perfect example of how understanding nature (including human nature) leads one to an enlightened form of self-restraint in following one's emotions.

31 minutes ago, SirPalomides said:

I'd say the word "nature" is sufficiently vague and broad in application that there are, indeed, Chinese words that can stand in for it, depending on the meaning. But that's the problem, isn't it? How can we pinpoint nature and thereby also know what goes against nature? If we say "follow nature" then we also have to account for how something can arise against nature- can that be done without lapsing into some kind of dualist metaphysics? The Stoics avoided the question by adopting fatalism. Oftentimes "nature" is invoked to elevate preferences or historically bound views into cosmic principles. 

Strictly speaking nothing can go against nature, so there would be no point in telling people to follow nature. But the solution is simple enough: to "follow nature" also has a more practical meaning as acting with a deep understanding of how nature works, which is the most practical thing to do anyhow. Clearly there are people who act foolishly and there are also people who act with understanding, and both follow nature in the strict sense of the phrase. But only those with a deep understanding (which need not be discursive) of nature follow nature in the practical sense of the phrase.

In specific cases imitating water, plants, animals , etc. could be the way to go, but this all depends on circumstances. I wouldn't consider imitation as the primary practical meaning of "following nature".

The TTC is ethical in the sense of virtue ethics not in the sense of morality (moral rules and regulations). But as usual TT is cherry picking his sources to make his contrarian case. And he doesn't even hide the fact. In his own quote virtue is mentioned first and morality second. Virtue fits in with the rest of the TTC but morality doesn't. I prefer understanding above recalcitrant pedantry. But to each his own.

Mistake - nothing more to add.

As for living naturally as a human being see Chapter 80. It's a bit extreme but the idea it clear: simple living without too much artificiality.

4 hours ago, Mig said:

Okay, I guess my problem is trying to understand "following nature". Did you understand it because it was common sense when you read it or is it because you found one sentence, one commentary or one explanation in one of the classics and that is how you understood it? And more problematic is when I hear people say the Dào is nature or the Dào follows nature, thus nature is 自 zì 然 rán

Now human nature is or should be a replica of nature and I can observe that some individuals grow nice and some grow mean or psychopaths as now we can watch videos as how some pack animals can be cruel within their own territory. As for injustice, I think that is for another discussion later.

Having a lot of discussions and reading a lot of commentaries did the trick. I don't remember any one instance where I finally got it, it was a gradual process. Tao is what lies at the basis of everything and thus also of nature. It would be having things upside down when you would say that Tao follows nature. Tao is what it is al of itself, otherwise it wouldn't be Tao as the foundation of everything else. There are lots of interpretations around but only the one I gave makes sense to me, and as there are lots of unproblematic rules of thumb in the TTC that also make sense to me I also like to choose the most reasonable interpretations for the problematic parts.

The TTC is amoral, it simply contains advise on how to survive in a dangerous world. Some mean people are "successful", but they seldom lead happy contented lives. And people who (unnecessarily) take up the sword often die by the sword. These are all rules of thumb without any guaranty. There is no way that always works. It just so happens that being a generally nice person will help you get out of trouble. But not always. The TTC isn't some magical solve-all book.

@Sanity Check

More irrelevant nonsense. I'm gone, you win.

Following nature simply means working with natural tendencies to achieve your goals in stead of stubbornly trying to force the world to act according to your own preferences. In some cases animals and plants can be taken as an example, but not always. Following nature acknowledges our own relative insignificance by giving up futile attempts at heroism. Simple somewhat silly example: walking around a wall instead of stubbornly trying to knock it down or trying to climb over it. In the hassle of daily life this easy-does-it attitude is easily forgotten because we tend to get obstinate and irate at apparent injustices in the way the world works. So following nature has nothing to do with morality, and everything with surviving in an occasionally unjust world. Remember that the TTC was written in the Warring States period.

Where in the New Testament does it say that competing in Sport Tournaments and getting rich and famous by competing in business occupations are worthy goals? The path proposed by Jesus seems rather antithetical to all that. But let me know if I'm wrong by supplying some relevant NT quotes.

19 hours ago, Sanity Check said:

Discussion might be considered a form of brain competition.

It's perfectly possible to "win" a discussion by stubbornly engaging in endless lying and/or by using fallacies and debating tricks. The former method needs hardly any brains at all, while the latter only needs some tactical insight. Discussions that are engaged in as such a form of brain competition seldom lead to improved understanding of either party. It's a game for inflated egos and unscrupulous politicians.   

Quote

If you favor ignoring me and avoiding discussion.

 

Aren't you proving me right, when I say atheists do not like to compete?

No - if one cares to actually learn something by having a discussion (instead of just "winning") than one will carefully choose with whom one will have a discussion and with whom one doesn't. On the old Original Dao forum there were lots of decent right-wing members with whom one could have interesting discussions. Thus it's not a question of political position, but rather of mutual respect and concern for careful and factually based argumentation. Loosing in such a discussion will actually constitute a win in understanding, and thus would be nothing to be ashamed of. This is the complete opposite of discussing as a form of brain competition. Serious people will avoid the latter, except maybe occasionally when in a playful mood or to train one's tolerance for stupidity.

10 hours ago, Sanity Check said:

Discussion has always been something I'm good at. It comes easy to me.

 

What is hard is improving in areas where I struggle.

 

Strengthening weak links in the chain.

 

I think most can relate to this.

Your problem might be that you are incapable (or more likely unwilling) to recognize in what areas you struggle. Debating without allowing for the option that you might be wrong on this or that is not a sign of strength. It might however allow you to pose as a winner, which speaks to those who are into the whole cult of personality thing. This is not the road that was taken by either the philosophical Taoists or the early Christians.

2 minutes ago, Mig said:

Thanks for sharing. Do you have any feedback reading his translation and do you see any difference if you have read Watson or Mair?

I don't have Lynn's translation yet, but I may well buy it. As you can see on Google Books the translation is preceded by an extended introduction. I think knowing the cultural background of a text (particularly when it's a very old text) is essential for understanding, so the introduction might well be worth reading. But at the moment I just don't know if reading the book as a whole is worth the effort. Maybe later.

1 minute ago, Zhongyongdaoist said:

 

I did a quick search and they seem to be different.

 

ZYD

Thank you. A very strange coincidence.

On 12/3/2023 at 12:24 AM, Zhongyongdaoist said:

I'm glad this has stirred so much interest.  The whole book is interesting, and part of a series of books that, overall, was very well done. 

 

It is the second essay in this book:

The Structure of being, a Neoplatonic approach

Titled: On logical structure and the Plotinic cosmos / R.M. Martin

 

It is partly in rather technical prose which introduces and explains the proofs offered which are in a more symbolic mathematical framework.  It is an outline of his suggested approach.  It is also available on Archive.org as a limited preview with its usual restrictions on use and download for this type of work.

 

There are several interesting papers of more or less technical/mathematical difficulty.

 

I hope this information is interesting and useful.

 

ZYD

Found a whole book by John N. Martin on the same subject: https://www.amazon.com/Themes-Neoplatonic-Aristotelian-Logic-Abstraction/dp/113825102X

Are R.M. Martin and John N. Martin different people?