Protector

What the [email protected]#$ is Postmodernism?

Recommended Posts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSF176ukBjI

 

Then suddenly Taoism strikes.

 

Taoists use a Tao as a tool, or should, or maybe it's just me and I'm rambling like the guy in the video. Tao is outside of everything and touches nothing and that in turn makes it a part of everything. So in that way Taoists should be able to relate to everything, too.

 

Tao is the most fundamental part of nature, I especially like the mental part. Studying and recognizing it makes more solid and straightforward things, like religions, more understandable and relatable to each other. But everybody knows that. I guess I just wanted to show an interesting video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSF176ukBjI

 

Then suddenly Taoism strikes.

 

Taoists use a Tao as a tool, or should, or maybe it's just me and I'm rambling like the guy in the video. Tao is outside of everything and touches nothing and that in turn makes it a part of everything. So in that way Taoists should be able to relate to everything, too.

 

Tao is the most fundamental part of nature, I especially like the mental part. Studying and recognizing it makes more solid and straightforward things, like religions, more understandable and relatable to each other. But everybody knows that. I guess I just wanted to show an interesting video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSF176ukBjI

 

Then suddenly Taoism strikes.

 

Taoists use a Tao as a tool, or should, or maybe it's just me and I'm rambling like the guy in the video. Tao is outside of everything and touches nothing and that in turn makes it a part of everything. So in that way Taoists should be able to relate to everything, too.

 

Tao is the most fundamental part of nature, I especially like the mental part. Studying and recognizing it makes more solid and straightforward things, like religions, more understandable and relatable to each other. But everybody knows that. I guess I just wanted to show an interesting video.

 

The Tao is not outside of everything. That makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did try to watch the video. I cant help it, I have to say this : it isnt pronounced classickism, its classisism.

 

Tao is outside of everything only in the sense that it is inside of everything also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tao is not outside of everything. That makes no sense.

 

Then let me make it make sense.

 

Tao that can be named(or tao'd, as they say in that one thread) is not an eternal Tao. The reason is the moment it is given a name, it changes from what it was before. It was mystic and special and becomes mundane. If you put it on a pedestal where everyone can see it, people who see it everyday will get bored of it and loose interest. The same thing is with God, this is the reason it is forbidden to name God in many cultures, and in others God has many names because people get tired of the old ones. So the true Tao is not on a pedestal and outside of where curious taoists can grab it.

 

At the same time it is like one of the extremes of the taiji. It's so yin that it becomes yang and so yang that it becomes yin. It's not anywhere so it must be everywhere. I'm not holding it in my hand but it is in my hand, you can't experience it yet you do anyway. It contradicts itself and eats it's own tail, that's what makes it what it is.

 

Aw dang, I explained Tao perfectly and that means I'm wrong :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then let me make it make sense.

 

Tao that can be named(or tao'd, as they say in that one thread) is not an eternal Tao. The reason is the moment it is given a name, it changes from what it was before. It was mystic and special and becomes mundane. If you put it on a pedestal where everyone can see it, people who see it everyday will get bored of it and loose interest. The same thing is with God, this is the reason it is forbidden to name God in many cultures, and in others God has many names because people get tired of the old ones. So the true Tao is not on a pedestal and outside of where curious taoists can grab it.

 

At the same time it is like one of the extremes of the taiji. It's so yin that it becomes yang and so yang that it becomes yin. It's not anywhere so it must be everywhere. I'm not holding it in my hand but it is in my hand, you can't experience it yet you do anyway. It contradicts itself and eats it's own tail, that's what makes it what it is.

 

Aw dang, I explained Tao perfectly and that means I'm wrong :lol:

 

Semantic arguments are not absolutes in that semantics are agreed upon definitions of the so called objective world of objects. Therefor, the objective world can in no way be categorized or quantified to satisfy the incessant need of human primates to control what is not understood.

Edited by ralis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if something "doesnt make sense" you're still too caught up in contradictions...

 

I am certainly not caught up in contradictions. See my next post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Human primates are obsessed with the 'isness' of objects that have no inherent identity except what human primates designate as such. Elaborate attempts to describe the Tao even in terms if Yin/Yang are futile.

 

I would suggest reading Korzybski's work to have a better understanding.

 

 

 

http://www.amazon.com/Science-Sanity-Introduction-Non-Aristotelian-Semantics/dp/0937298018/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1357241847&sr=8-6&keywords=korzybski

Edited by ralis
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then are you saying you CAN understand how contradictory elements (can also) mutually coexist?

 

Terms are fabrications of the human mind and are not inherent in the universe. Language has evolved over time as a method of communication. A tribal contract. The evolution of myriad languages and not one absolute. One word in a language can have an entirely different meaning in another language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I think there are people who just don't know how to relate to the world except through contradiction and being contrary. I've been guilty of it at times myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The ironizing of nostalgia, in the very act of its invoking, may be one way the postmodern has of taking responsibility for such responses by creating a small part of the distance necessary for reflective thought about the present as well as the past.

 

HTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand Quantum theory.

 

More seriously, there has been some work done on the way terms are used not to describe but to prescribe. Think everything we say has an actual 'signified'? Think again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then are you saying you CAN understand how contradictory elements (can also) mutually coexist?

 

Its called irony

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Mr GranP.

If you remove the "m." from the start of your video URL (web link) it will show up directly embedded in your post.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Its called irony

.....

 

Proofs of consistency which are based on models, and which argue from the truth of axioms to their consistency, merely shift the problem.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't understand Quantum theory.

 

More seriously, there has been some work done on the way terms are used not to describe but to prescribe. Think everything we say has an actual 'signified'? Think again.

 

I wasn't intending to start a discussion of Quantum Mechanics but to prove a point about semantics. The point being is that verbal representations are not the objects in question but a collective agreement so that cooperation among persons in a culture and by extension other cultures can take place. E.g. a box is only named such so that someone else knows what I am referring to. There is no absolute object in the universe called a box. The box is a collection of smaller parts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I wasn't intending to start a discussion of Quantum Mechanics but to prove a point about semantics. The point being is that verbal representations are not the objects in question but a collective agreement so that cooperation among persons in a culture and by extension other cultures can take place. E.g. a box is only named such so that someone else knows what I am referring to. There is no absolute object in the universe called a box. The box is a collection of smaller parts.

 

Yes, I'd realised that. My post wasn't intended to discuss QM but was a joke to myself carried over from a different thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites