Is anything really objective?

[steve]

 

Interesting too "wu wei". Seems to me that were one in total wu wei one would truely be living in the objective universe (the physical as well as the spiritual).

What makes you suspect we are not?

[deci belle]

[Marblehead]

... or are you going to go back to your tree now.....

 

I did that. Went back to my tree and had a good night sleep.

 

Yes, what is real and what is objective would be very close to the same question.

 

I will read the rest of the posts since this one and then return or perhaps speak to it along the way.

[Marblehead]

 

Show me the Qi!

 

That almost sounds like, "Where's the beef?"

[Marblehead]

What makes you suspect we are not?

 

Oh, little pointers here and there. All these illusions and delusions most of us have. Is humankind not still killing each other? That doesn't sound very wu wei to me.

[Marblehead]

[Stigweard]

Nothing to add, just wanna share in the groovy vibe

 

Carry on

[Marblehead]

Ok, what does real mean? Maybe that's the same question so its a bit unfair I suppose. Or better what does Taoism say about what is real?

 

Okay. Let's see what happens when I look at this again with my blurred vision and cluttered mind.

 

Objective - existing outside and independent of the mind.

 

Subjective - arising within one's self or mind in contrast to what is outside.

 

Real - not artificial, not imaginary.

 

So anything real would include all things in their natural state without having been manipulated by any one or any thing else. The new-born babe? The uncarved block? No, the block has already been changed from a tree to a block. Uncarved wood would work though, wouldn't it? The uncarved wood could be a piece of dead wood from a tree or a part of the living tree itself?

 

Could we then say that 'real' is equal to 'natural state'?

 

I will suggest here that everything that is a part of the universe exists objectively. It exists in and of itself without man needing to observe it. The dinosaurs existed before man ever came into being. So did the tree.

 

Okay. Man has arrived. Man sees the tree. This is all it takes for the tree to become subjective. (But it still objectively exists.) So one person views the tree and sees it as being useless, where another person sees the same tree and sees usefulness in the tree. (He can sit down in its shade and rest for a while.)

 

And here I am, back to useful and useless.

 

I will stop here and await input as I have no idea in which direction to go from here.

[Apech]

...

 

And here I am, back to useful and useless.

 

I will stop here and await input as I have no idea in which direction to go from here.

 

I'm going to suggest this.

 

Real is real. Its not a 'thing', its not the tree or the man observing the tree. It includes these but is not them. Like this. Subject (the real) = Subject + predicate ... where predicate is everything that can be said about the real. E.g. its hard, its soft, its hot, its cold, its a tree, its not a tree ...

 

The terms objective and subjective only arise because of observation. As in ... objective only arises because subjective exists ... sounds quite Taoist, eh?

 

We look at a chair. Or sit on it even. It's real. Why not we're not Buddhists (wash my keyboard with soap and water) . Its real ok ... but what is it? What is it's nature beyond just saying ... oh. its a chair of course. Philosophers argue for centuries and struggle to define what it is. Descartes got in a real tizz over the ontological gap between his thoughts (he thunk so he was) and the objective ...he struggled to link the two ... because although intuitively we know its real .. but we can't ever quite say what it is.

 

Taoists say ... you can't give it a name (the real) because as soon as you do ... its not the true real.

[Marblehead]

Okay.

 

But I need question this:

 

Real is real. Its not a 'thing', its not the tree or the man observing the tree. It includes these but is not them. Like this. Subject (the real) = Subject + predicate ... where predicate is everything that can be said about the real. E.g. its hard, its soft, its hot, its cold, its a tree, its not a tree ...

 

What's my question? Hehehe. Shouldn't it be: Object + Predicate = Subject?

 

 

 

(I should be working in the yard now. I don't feel like working in the uard now therefore I am not working in the yard now.)

 

That means something but I have no idea what.

[steve]

That almost sounds like, "Where's the beef?"

That was the intention. Qi is certainly the beef of Daoist medicine in many ways...

 

Oh, little pointers here and there. All these illusions and delusions most of us have. Is humankind not still killing each other? That doesn't sound very wu wei to me.

Why would that not be Wu Wei? All living things survive by eating others. Death is everywhere whether it be through the agent of murder, accident, survival, or natural disaster (think of ZZ's Empty Boat). Humans are subject to illusion and delusion, how do we know that is not our natural condition? How to know it is NOT Wu Wei? This is what I was alluding to in a comment to Taomeow on another thread. We think that there is some state that is other than what currently is for each of us. And we are always trying to be or do something other than what is right now. How to know what is Wu Wei and what is not? I don't think it is so obvious, easy, or trivial... And Wu Wei might just be this, always and forever.

[steve]

Okay. Let's see what happens when I look at this again with my blurred vision and cluttered mind.

 

Objective - existing outside and independent of the mind.

 

Subjective - arising within one's self or mind in contrast to what is outside.

 

Real - not artificial, not imaginary.

 

So anything real would include all things in their natural state without having been manipulated by any one or any thing else. The new-born babe? The uncarved block? No, the block has already been changed from a tree to a block. Uncarved wood would work though, wouldn't it? The uncarved wood could be a piece of dead wood from a tree or a part of the living tree itself?

 

Could we then say that 'real' is equal to 'natural state'?

 

I will suggest here that everything that is a part of the universe exists objectively. It exists in and of itself without man needing to observe it. The dinosaurs existed before man ever came into being. So did the tree.

 

Okay. Man has arrived. Man sees the tree. This is all it takes for the tree to become subjective. (But it still objectively exists.) So one person views the tree and sees it as being useless, where another person sees the same tree and sees usefulness in the tree. (He can sit down in its shade and rest for a while.)

 

And here I am, back to useful and useless.

 

I will stop here and await input as I have no idea in which direction to go from here.

Objective - where does the mind end? At the eyeball? At the sight of what is "out there (which is actually in the optical cortex)? Or at the "external" object itself? Somewhere in the air in the middle? When you have a sensory experience of something, are "you" separate from it? Can you put your finger on the "you" that is having the experience?

 

Real - is a car not real? A barbecued steak? Why is unmanipulated more "real" than manipulated?

 

Before man, dinosaurs where there to see the tree. Before dinosaurs, trees were in relationship with each other and whatever other living (and not living - perhaps) organisms were present. Sure, their level of awareness is different from ours but they do exist in an environment and interact at some level with that environment.

 

I guess one could imagine what would the universe be like in the absence of all awareness of any kind. But we do not exist in a universe absent awareness. We live in the kind of a universe which is suffused with awareness. We can't know if there was ever a time when awareness did not exist in the universe. And there is no reason that it must be human awareness - have you thought about that?

 

It comes back to whether the tree that falls in the forest makes a sound if no one is around to hear it. The answer is no. Sound does not exist in the absence of an ear and a brain. Only disturbance in the air exists. You are trying to excuse yourself and all of humanity from being complicit in this wonderful mess we find ourselves in. And just because you feel that the universe existed before you were alive and will go on when you are dead doesn't mean that awareness didn't exist. Awareness remains.

 

I guess a reasonable question is - does awareness arise from within the brain, is it locked inside of the skull and skin and sensory apparatus, or is it elsewhere? Where does it come from? How to find it. That's a tough one but be very careful, it's tricky. When one brain dies there are still many others. And the quality or stuff or activity (no words are correct) that is awareness is more or less the same for all aware things (or at least let's just stick with people for now). And all living things with awareness are "me". Nothing feels like "him" - we are all me. So as long as there is life, there is awareness. And as long as there's life there is "me."

 

Is there awareness without people? Of course. All living things are aware, all are me's at some level. Without all living things? How to know? And just because an animal may not have the same type of internal dialogue we have going on does not mean that their conscious awareness does not participate in the birth of the universe that is ongoing at every instant.

 

I don't think use has anything to do with it.

[steve]

I'm going to suggest this.

 

Real is real. Its not a 'thing', its not the tree or the man observing the tree. It includes these but is not them. Like this. Subject (the real) = Subject + predicate ... where predicate is everything that can be said about the real. E.g. its hard, its soft, its hot, its cold, its a tree, its not a tree ...

 

The terms objective and subjective only arise because of observation. As in ... objective only arises because subjective exists ... sounds quite Taoist, eh?

 

We look at a chair. Or sit on it even. It's real. Why not we're not Buddhists (wash my keyboard with soap and water) . Its real ok ... but what is it? What is it's nature beyond just saying ... oh. its a chair of course. Philosophers argue for centuries and struggle to define what it is. Descartes got in a real tizz over the ontological gap between his thoughts (he thunk so he was) and the objective ...he struggled to link the two ... because although intuitively we know its real .. but we can't ever quite say what it is.

 

Taoists say ... you can't give it a name (the real) because as soon as you do ... its not the true real.

Excellent post.

[Birch]

I'm going to suggest this.

 

Real is real. Its not a 'thing', its not the tree or the man observing the tree. It includes these but is not them. Like this. Subject (the real) = Subject + predicate ... where predicate is everything that can be said about the real. E.g. its hard, its soft, its hot, its cold, its a tree, its not a tree ...

 

The terms objective and subjective only arise because of observation. As in ... objective only arises because subjective exists ... sounds quite Taoist, eh?

 

We look at a chair. Or sit on it even. It's real. Why not we're not Buddhists (wash my keyboard with soap and water) . Its real ok ... but what is it? What is it's nature beyond just saying ... oh. its a chair of course. Philosophers argue for centuries and struggle to define what it is. Descartes got in a real tizz over the ontological gap between his thoughts (he thunk so he was) and the objective ...he struggled to link the two ... because although intuitively we know its real .. but we can't ever quite say what it is.

 

Taoists say ... you can't give it a name (the real) because as soon as you do ... its not the true real.

 

Well you can give it a name, but IMO it ought to be one that correctly reflects the real and not just what you want to do with it:-) Or what you want someone else to do with it. Otherwise you're messing with its qi (and everyone else's in the process) IMO/IME.

 

I'm not sure I'm being very clear with this but it's another one of 'my' ideas in progress. Naming something separates it from the rest of the processes in which it is embedded. That might not be very harmful at all in some cases, in others, I figure it could be explosive. Especially if the way you name it leads you (or someone else) to do something with it that isn't how it actually works or makes it work counter to anything useful or beneficial. I won't get into lying in this post.

 

How to spot things that have been misnamed? Well they tend to require extra 'help' to maintain their names. May require repetition ad nausea. They will get questioned as soon as anyone notices that there's something 'off' about that 'thing' having that name. Books may be written. People will do their best to correct you if you question it because there's some importance accorded to maintaining the name and it can't be maintained "naturally" so it requires lots of consent.

 

It's sort of a tangent, but I think it's why in some religions, God has no name and mentioning it will get you hung. Sadly, the initial idea was correct but since the act of not naming became its name, well...anyway, you just have to read the emptiness threads to see how weird that can get. I think Taoism got rid of that problem off the top by explaining it was the problem.

[Apech]

Okay.

 

But I need question this:

 

 

 

What's my question? Hehehe. Shouldn't it be: Object + Predicate = Subject?

 

 

 

(I should be working in the yard now. I don't feel like working in the uard now therefore I am not working in the yard now.)

 

That means something but I have no idea what.

 

No the object is the predicate.

 

This is quite deliberate to say that the subject (which is reality itself) is itself + all that can be said about it. So yes S=S+P ... difficult to understand but very profound ...

[Apech]

Well you can give it a name, but IMO it ought to be one that correctly reflects the real and not just what you want to do with it:-) Or what you want someone else to do with it. Otherwise you're messing with its qi (and everyone else's in the process) IMO/IME.

 

...

 

 

Yes you can give it name as in ... we'll call it Tao but know that this is not the real it ... or rather the name is not the it.

 

Otherwise the 'named' is the 10k things ... the predicate ... they are things that can be said about the Tao. So you can say things like 'the Tao is the tree, but the tree is not the Tao'. So if you say the Tao is the mysterious source, the unnameable, beyond definition, limitless, infinite ...you can also then say all the finites, the named things are modalities, aspects, qualities of the Tao.

 

So Tao = Tao + things

 

Subject = Subject + predicate.

[Marblehead]

Why would that not be Wu Wei? All living things survive by eating others. Death is everywhere whether it be through the agent of murder, accident, survival, or natural disaster (think of ZZ's Empty Boat). Humans are subject to illusion and delusion, how do we know that is not our natural condition? How to know it is NOT Wu Wei? This is what I was alluding to in a comment to Taomeow on another thread. We think that there is some state that is other than what currently is for each of us. And we are always trying to be or do something other than what is right now. How to know what is Wu Wei and what is not? I don't think it is so obvious, easy, or trivial... And Wu Wei might just be this, always and forever.

 

I don't know Steve. I prefer associating wu wei with my 'peace & contentment'. Sure, there will be times when action need be taken. Sure, we kill other animals in order to eat and survive.

 

I see it as being a part of all else, not 'all for me and none for you'.

 

Perhaps I am a dreamer. Oh, yeah, that's one of my delusions when I am at home. I am home now, just got back from a shopping trip.

 

Maybe our natural condition is to continue killing each other for no good reason. I just can't see why this needs to be.

 

But yeah, I am still an optimist. But a realistic one.

[Marblehead]

Objective - where does the mind end? At the eyeball? At the sight of what is "out there (which is actually in the optical cortex)? Or at the "external" object itself? Somewhere in the air in the middle? When you have a sensory experience of something, are "you" separate from it? Can you put your finger on the "you" that is having the experience?

 

Real - is a car not real? A barbecued steak? Why is unmanipulated more "real" than manipulated?

 

 

Oh, yes, the car is real. But they do not grow naturally. What was created naturally has been used (manipulated) to build it. Same with the barbecued steak - cattle don't porduce them naturally.

 

Objective - the object - it ends at its outer limits. (A living thing would be different because of the energy it radiates.)

 

The mind has no limits. It can go anywhere it wants to. To the edge of the universe and beyond. Ha! That would exclude the mind from being an object, wouldn't it? The object is the brain. There! I found the difference between brain and mind. Brain is object and mind is subject.

 

Don't you do the Buddhist stuff on me and try to get me to put my finger on my "me". Hehehe. "Me" is a collection of stuff that makes "me" me. Ain't no single object "me". But there is an object "Marblehead" and that physical object has its limits (except for the mind as I mentioned above).

[Marblehead]

Nothing to add, just wanna share in the groovy vibe

 

Carry on

 

Thanks Stig. I deserved that. Hehehe.

[Marblehead]

Well you can give it a name, ...

 

Nice post -K-,

 

Yeah, I know you are still working with that religion thing. Hehehe.

 

But to names, yes, when we name a thing we are in fact placing limits on it. These limits could be valid but they could be invalid as well.

 

For me to point to an object and say, "That is a tree." places limits on it based on what I or another have defined a tree as being. If I were talking to a bird that had a nest in it I would be more correct in pointing to it and saying "Home". But, of course, this relates to the use of the tree.

 

(I'm not going to talk about religion with you. Hehehe.)

[Marblehead]

No the object is the predicate.

 

This is quite deliberate to say that the subject (which is reality itself) is itself + all that can be said about it. So yes S=S+P ... difficult to understand but very profound ...

 

I don't agree but I might one day.

 

But for now I ain't gonna' let you destroy my objective reality. So there!

[Birch]

I don't know Steve. I prefer associating wu wei with my 'peace & contentment'. Sure, there will be times when action need be taken. Sure, we kill other animals in order to eat and survive.

 

I see it as being a part of all else, not 'all for me and none for you'.

 

Perhaps I am a dreamer. Oh, yeah, that's one of my delusions when I am at home. I am home now, just got back from a shopping trip.

 

Maybe our natural condition is to continue killing each other for no good reason. I just can't see why this needs to be.

 

But yeah, I am still an optimist. But a realistic one.

 

"other animals" I think is the point. What 'other animals' kill each other ("same animal") for survival? In what conditions? Are there conditions in which they don't, or didn't before and now they do?

 

You know that if you want a mean dog, just beat the puppy up.

[Birch]

Nice post -K-,

 

Yeah, I know you are still working with that religion thing. Hehehe.

 

But to names, yes, when we name a thing we are in fact placing limits on it. These limits could be valid but they could be invalid as well.

 

For me to point to an object and say, "That is a tree." places limits on it based on what I or another have defined a tree as being. If I were talking to a bird that had a nest in it I would be more correct in pointing to it and saying "Home". But, of course, this relates to the use of the tree.

 

(I'm not going to talk about religion with you. Hehehe.)

 

Well you don't have to talk about religion with me Mr MH. You know by now where I stand on many of them :-)

[steve]

Don't you do the Buddhist stuff on me and try to get me to put my finger on my "me". Hehehe. "Me" is a collection of stuff that makes "me" me. Ain't no single object "me". But there is an object "Marblehead" and that physical object has its limits (except for the mind as I mentioned above).

It's more Hindu than Buddhist actually and, in fact, arises as a consequence of any form of self examination, including Daoist.

 

And you can't isolate Marblehead from his environment, it seems like you might be able to because Marblehead is mobile and is surrounded by a bag of skin and some cool antennae, but it's an illusion. Cut off from it's environment, Marblehead would quickly vanish and would never has existed in the first place.

[steve]

Oh, yes, the car is real. But they do not grow naturally. What was created naturally has been used (manipulated) to build it. Same with the barbecued steak - cattle don't porduce them naturally.

"Real - not artificial, not imaginary.

 

So anything real would include all things in their natural state without having been manipulated by any one or any thing else. The new-born babe? The uncarved block? No, the block has already been changed from a tree to a block. Uncarved wood would work though, wouldn't it? The uncarved wood could be a piece of dead wood from a tree or a part of the living tree itself?"

 

I was just responding to this. I'm not sure why you are making a distinction between natural and unnatural when it comes to real. It's sort of related to why we try and make distinctions between our everyday human behavior and some idealistic vision of what we think natural behavior should be. Why do we insist on thinking it should be differnt than what is? I find that puzzling.