Yin/Yan and 5 Element theory quaint ancient ideas

[thelerner]

This topic is a good one and it was mixed up with a Roman Catholic thread.

 

To wit:

Stosh: How do you think, considering yin and yang as 'forces'

sheds light on objective reality?

 

Yes things are defined to exist in part because they have limitations.

(if x then not y)

But folks group women with lakes and the moon etc etc

and there is no "force".

Its just a substitute paradigm for "good and bad" .

Science has not reached its zenith and pretending a 2300 year old

attempt at it was 'true' and everyone since then is deluded,,,

well it boggles me!

Im sure you already know the ancients of the west also had a similar stage

of development with their ideas of elements and virtues and the foundations of reason.

Its not like the east stumbled on some unusual jewels nobody else found.It is a stepping stone toward greater civilization thatn these subjects are encountered.

.but in the east there was more emphasis on looking

inward to the mind rather than outward to a humanlike god.

 

Stosh "

 

I'd answer yin yan theory and even more so 5 element theory is an ideal way to view the world. It allows the mind to come up with real world solutions to real world problems. Its a way of strategic thinking that works well. It's not be chemically correct, but if studied gives a dynamic way of looking at and solving problems.

[Stosh]

I'd answer yin yan theory and even more so 5 element theory is an ideal way to view the world. It allows the mind to come up with real world solutions to real world problems. Its a way of strategic thinking that works well. It's not be chemically correct, but if studied gives a dynamic way of looking at and solving problems.

 

thelerner...

 

Ok , possibly , Ill test you out on it.

 

I push a ball up a hill It gains potential energy

it rolls down the other side gathering speed

there is transition from potential energy to kinetic energy (forget friction for now)

But there is no energy loss in the system.

 

I see an issue with the ball getting more active powerful-yang as it speeds up

while becoming lower-weaker-yin, and at the same time it is entirely passive

to gravity throughout.

One can calculate a value for the energy of the ball due to position and speed using science.

 

How do you discuss the system in terms of yin and yang ?

How is yin yang view equally or more informative about the energies involved?

 

Stosh

Edited July 10, 2012 by Stosh

[ChiDragon]

Fellas...

Before we jump into the Yin-Yang and the Five Elements, don't you think it would be a good idea to give them a little introduction of how they came about first...???

[Stosh]

Fellas...

Before we jump into the Yin-Yang and the Five Elements, don't you think it would be a good idea to give them a little introduction of how they came about first...???

 

I dont think I know this story.

. unless its the thing about burning wood turning to fire making ash etc

Go on..

Stosh

[ChiDragon]

I dont think I know this story.

. unless its the thing about burning wood turning to fire making ash etc

Go on..

Stosh

 

Yes, that is the basic idea where the interactions of the Five Elements came from.

 

And the Yin-Yang story is different.

[zanshin]

Science works great when it comes to classical mechanics, balls rolling up and down hills in closed systems follow the laws of physics real well and it's all nice and predictable. So much in life is chaotic, our brains, even our computers will probably never be able to do enough math to figure it out. However there are other ways of understanding how things work besides math, perhaps even application of classical mechanics in a closed system. Who would probably be better, quicker and safer at taking your antique piano upstairs: college physics students or a couple high school dropouts who have been working as piano movers for the past 5 years?

[Harmonious Emptiness]

However there are other ways of understanding how things work besides math, perhaps even application of classical mechanics in a closed system. Who would probably be better, quicker and safer at taking your antique piano upstairs: college physics students or a couple high school dropouts who have been working as piano movers for the past 5 years?

 

lol, Nice .

[spiraltao]

Science works great when it comes to classical mechanics, balls rolling up and down hills in closed systems follow the laws of physics real well and it's all nice and predictable. So much in life is chaotic, our brains, even our computers will probably never be able to do enough math to figure it out. However there are other ways of understanding how things work besides math, perhaps even application of classical mechanics in a closed system. Who would probably be better, quicker and safer at taking your antique piano upstairs: college physics students or a couple high school dropouts who have been working as piano movers for the past 5 years?

 

Oh how it just fills me with joy to see this common sense!

[zerostao]

taoism always stays at least one step ahead of science at every turn

[Stosh]

I see plenty of folks making assertions but no one is providing a 'fer instance'

Its like watching politicians sidestep an issue.

 

I didnt equate Taoism with a high school dropout

relative to the 'college physics student' of Science.

Though it might be apt analogy,

Besides it isnt at all clear from that analogy

what this yin yang advantage is supposed to be

experience over understanding?

Experience leads to understanding but

ignorance isnt an advantage.

Whether the college student is ignorant

of what was required to move the piano

or if the dropout is ignorant of the forces involved.

 

,I was told that yin yang theory had some virtues

which science lacks, that it was someway better.

 

And since everyone ,so far, has failed to describe

even the super simple system I

provided ,in terms of yin and yang.

or address the issues I pointed out for redress...

I dont think that any of yall have really

given your own system a fair shake and

certainly havent given my point one.

 

You should provide a scenario now ,

to display your yin yang proto-science

advantage over modern science. Since you failed at mine.

 

 

Stosh

Edited July 11, 2012 by Stosh

[zerostao]

stosh, i reckon you have looked over taomeow's thunder trigram thread?

yin yang 5 elements 8 trigrams

how much have you looked into yin yang theory?

[Stosh]

stosh, i reckon you have looked over taomeow's thunder trigram thread?

yin yang 5 elements 8 trigrams

how much have you looked into yin yang theory?

 

I reckon I have no Idea what Taomeows thread was

and that we were investigating

the ideas in thelerners thread here.

I also reckon you are still sidestepping the point I was making

and I have looked into yin yang theory enough to know that it is

proto-science.

How much have you looked into whether it makes sense at all to

call yin and yang forces?

 

(lunch is over I have to get back to work ,bye)

 

Stosh

Edited July 11, 2012 by Stosh

[zerostao]

"(lunch is over I have to get back to work ,bye)"

 

and you said i was side-steppin' . interesting.

the reason i asked how familiar you are with yin yang theory

is that i am up for this conversation

and

want to start at an appropiate place

 

one note> when do taoist theories ever get over turned by a new discovery,

unlike a 'scientific' theory that do sometimes/often get over turned at times when there is a new discovery in the scientific world

 

edit> what scientific discoveries have i apparently missed that invalidates yin/yang theory?

Edited July 11, 2012 by zerostao

[ChiDragon]

taoism always stays at least one step ahead of science at every turn

 

Taoism did not believe in science, that is why.....???

[ChiDragon]

thelerner:

"To wit:

Stosh: How do you think, considering yin and yang as 'forces'

sheds light on objective reality?"

 

Stosh:

"How much have you looked into whether it makes sense at all to

call yin and yang forces?"

 

Shall we get back on course again...???

[joeblast]

I'd answer yin yan theory and even more so 5 element theory is an ideal way to view the world. It allows the mind to come up with real world solutions to real world problems. Its a way of strategic thinking that works well. It's not be chemically correct, but if studied gives a dynamic way of looking at and solving problems.

 

thelerner...

 

Ok , possibly , Ill test you out on it.

 

I push a ball up a hill It gains potential energy

it rolls down the other side gathering speed

there is transition from potential energy to kinetic energy (forget friction for now)

But there is no energy loss in the system.

 

I see an issue with the ball getting more active powerful-yang as it speeds up

while becoming lower-weaker-yin, and at the same time it is entirely passive

to gravity throughout.

One can calculate a value for the energy of the ball due to position and speed using science.

 

How do you discuss the system in terms of yin and yang ?

How is yin yang view equally or more informative about the energies involved?

 

Stosh

The analogy is a bit limited, then again most all are limited in some sense. Confused that it can be put coherently either way in yinyang theory?

 

Taoism did not believe in science, that is why.....???

Taoism is scientific. Whether some methods are more accurate in their own particular idiom, or whether they are more robust in a larger context is merely different glints of the gem. Salient point is can a particular method be reliably and efficiently utilized?

[steve]

I also think this is a good topic to discuss -

To preface where I'm coming from, I have one foot in the Western paradigm and one in the Eastern paradigm.

My work and most of my education is in Western science.

My practice is in Daoist meditation techniques and internal Chinese martial arts.

I have very little knowledge or training in Chinese philosophy, Yijing, or Fengshui, so I reserve the right to be completely mistaken.

 

Western science tries to be objective. It attempts to control as many variables as possible so as to understand small pieces of the puzzle as accurately as possible. It tries to remove as much observer error and interference as possible to achieve this end. And since the early part of the 20th century it has acknowledged the FACT that the system is never (can never be) independent of the observer. They are intimately interrelated. In some cases the effects of the observer-interference can be measured or recognized, in other cases not. In many cases, the observer effect is adequately accounted for such that the results of Western science can easily be demonstrated, whether those results be good or bad.

 

The Western paradigm is nothing more than a very useful tool. It is not reality. It's not even a good approximation of reality with the exception of limited areas. But it does produce tangible results. Some are healthy, some are unhealthy. Many provide opportunity for exploitation which humans are eager to take advantage of... It's still a very good and useful tool. My own personal opinion is that the Western paradigm will never capture the entire truth of existence (or whatever you want to call it).

 

Daoist methods, on the other hand, don't seem to be rooted in an attempt to be objective. At least, that's certainly the case with the cultivation methods I'm familiar with and what little I know of the other Daoist arts and sciences. These methods are completely rooted in the FACT that the system (environment, world, universe) is never (can never be) independent of the observer. The Daoist methods work from the starting point of the observer and extend inward (meditation techniques, internal arts) or outward (Yijing, Fengshui, martial arts) and ultimately working inward leads to the outside and working outward leads back to the inside. The Western paradigm is no different in this regard. A deep investigation of the environment (outward) led Heisenberg inward (the Uncertainty Principle). And any investigation inward shows us the connection and continuity with the outside (study of biologic systems or subatomic physics, for example).

 

Personally, I don't see that big of a difference between the two. Both are very useful and valuable tools. Both produce results. Neither are without flaw. Both can be exploited by the unethical. In the end, both are systems that were developed over time by the process of human thought in an attempt to explain observations and experience and to try and make predictions. Both have successes and failures. Neither, in my opinion, is complete or perfect. Nor is either "ideal." And, in my opinion, neither will ever fully capture or explain the entire truth of existence because that is beyond the human mind's capability. The mind is limited and it's nature is to try and comprehend everything that passes by. It's certainly laudable and worthwhile to use it to it's fullest and go as far as it will take us, but it will always have limits.

 

Sorry to sound so preachy.

[Stosh]

Ill try to address everyones points really fast and get back on track

 

zerostao

The sidestepping I am referring to is that respondants keep affirming what they want believed but arent suppllying an actual answer or example of what they are describing

I offered to respond to someone elses example or scenario since no one described

my scenario by principles of yin or yang or elements.

But I was ignored and I was asked if I read someone elses thread.

 

I work for a living and was letting you know I had to break off,

It was just common courtesy which you equated to the evasion I was talking about

Cmon gimme a break!

 

Taoism didnt believe in science?

Agreed, they werent using scientific method.

I still credit them with trying to find the fundamental basis

for social harmony , personal happiness, and the workings of the objective world

without just saying humanlike gods and fairies were running the show.

 

I think it was Chuang Tzu who said this

 

Who shall I employ as arbiter between us? If I employ some one who takes your view, he will side with you. How can such a one arbitrate between us? If I employ some one who takes my view, he will side with me. How can such a one arbitrate between us? And if I employ some one who either differs from or agrees with both of us, he will be equally unable to decide between us. Therefore, since you and I and another cannot decide, must we not wait for still others?

 

and I think it applies to why science uses the methodology it does

it is attemtpting to find an arbiter of what is true objectively

and employs the whole community and it employs logical reasoning

to get to a dependable answer

 

Science is a slow way to learn and come to conclusions until a sturdy broad

foundation is established and it will always require inspiration and insight

to form hypothesis,

but inspiration-intuition without an anchor is just flight of fancy.

Then again

Yin and Yang and Taoism dont monopolize any ownership of insight and intuition.

 

I had originally said that yin and yang are not forces.

 

Im not clear at what joeblast is getting at.

 

Steve I dont think you sound preachy and I dont disagree significantly with the points you made as I read them to be meant

But again ..

 

What do you think you get from considering Yin and Yang as forces

What makes you think they are forces since science doesnt list them

How is it better than modern non-taoist science.

 

Stosh

Edited July 11, 2012 by Stosh

[Stosh]

The heisenberg uncertainty principle doesnt say that things cant be known with reasonable certainty ,in an objective fashion

What it describes is a difficulty in measuring the multiple properties of atomic particles

at the same time because you interfere while taking the measurement.

 

Folks sometimes take it to mean that you interfere with anything being knowably true

because , if you measured it ,it would change.

which is just plain untrue.

Looking up to see if it is going to rain doesnt realistically affect its probability

to any significant degree any more than if I picked up an umbrella instead.

 

Stosh

[Stosh]

Steve your quote

And since the early part of the 20th century it has acknowledged

the FACT that the system is never (can never be) independent of the observer.

Id like to see what the originator said , who was it ? or where is the rest of

it.

 

PS Why would daoist information gatherers be exempt from that flaw?

 

Stosh

[steve]

I'll respond to both your posts at once.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle does indeed imply that the observer is not separate from the system.

At least that's how it was explained to me in a graduate level Quantum Mechanics course I took around 1981.

I'm pretty far away from all of that now and haven't really kept up with physics much.

What Heisenberg showed was that we could have precise knowledge about the mass OR momentum of a particle but not both.

The more accurately we know one piece of information, the less accurately we know the other.

From what I was taught, the Observer Effect was a part of his rationale.

To locate and/or measure the particle or its momentum requires the interaction of that particle with a photon which necessarily influences it.

I guess that it would be more accurate to say that the Observer Effect is the principle in physics that addresses the non-separation between observer and observed. I may be using the two (Uncertainty and Observer Effect) interchangeably and that's probably not optimal.

As I said before - I reserve the right to be completely mistaken.

[zerostao]

"Cmon gimme a break!"

fair enuff, break given.

 

"Taoism didnt believe in science?"

joeblast correctly said Taoism is science, a science that has continuously continued for a few thousand years. (it is also the divine art)

Taoism also " employs logical reasoning " (Wu)

 

i never said yin and yang were forces

 

"But I was ignored and I was asked if I read someone elses thread."

yes, this was bad form on my part.

 

this

"I didnt equate Taoism with a high school dropout

relative to the 'college physics student' of Science.

Though it might be apt analogy,"

 

may have been the impetus for my post and another post that no longer exists on this thread.

Edited July 12, 2012 by zerostao

[Stosh]

Zerostao,,

 

I hadnt noticed the post was gone.

But any way, I am just trying to hold my end up in this thread which

several folks seem to think is a good subject

 

Lets just get back to nuts and bolts.

 

Ive said, and still say, that yin and yang are not forces in the objective

frame of reference.

In physics ..

There is gravity , electo-magnetsim, the weak nuclear force

and the strong nuclear force.

thats it.

 

We live in the 'gravity pertinant' or 'gererally relativistic' frame of reference.

There is also a quantum frame of reference where gravity is negligible

and the nuclear forces become significant.

But discussing modern physics doesnt address the point of the thread!

 

Stosh

Edited July 12, 2012 by Stosh

[Stosh]

I may be using the two (Uncertainty and Observer Effect) interchangeably and that's probably not optimal.

As I said before - I reserve the right to be completely mistaken.

I havent had the chance to look more thoroughly at that stuff yet but I am

completely sure that it shouldnt be takne to mean that all science is bogus

Like I said , it is an idea that is taken into realms where it shouldnt be applied.

 

Back in a college microbiology class

I was required to grow stain and classify a bacterial culture

I calculated the expected growth curve and went back a day or so later

when the numbers were conducive to the staining counting and description process.

Then ..I observed the colonies calculated the numbers and growth, killed and stained them etc.

 

The moral of this little story is the data was normal ,

the colony growth was as predicted'

I completed the task of verifying what had been done by others before me etc.

But in observing the microbes

,,(that is , killing staining counting describing etc..)

I was affecting the system, but that didnt make the data bogus.

 

So certainly ,there may be an underlying subatomic level of uncertainty

about particles of mass but it doesnt make a hill of beans difference

in even microbiology.

And just as certainly it doesnt suggest any advantage

of yin yang and the 5 elements over science.

Stosh

[Brian]

<snip>

Who would probably be better, quicker and safer at taking your antique piano upstairs: college physics students or a couple high school dropouts who have been working as piano movers for the past 5 years?

 

 

As one who was simultaneously a college physics student and a piano mover (seriously), I'd say the answer should be, "Both!"

 

Or, if I can't have "both," I'm goin' with the fellas who've been practicing...