Greetings, /lit/.For 2500 years, academics and spiritualists have layered their own feeble interpretations onto this text, obscuring its essence with jargon and dogma. We are going to perform an autopsy.The Method: One page per thread. We will proceed with the patience of water wearing down stone.The Goal: To collectively approximate an understanding of the Way, or to determine it is, in fact, brainlet-tier nonsense. Both are valid outcomes.The Rules:1. There is no "correct" interpretation. The first line itself declares this. The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.2. We're using the Gia-Fu Feng translation. Arguing over translations is against the Nameless.3. We read one page per thread. Don't skip ahead.4. We embrace the contradictions. We are here to feel the text, not just understand it.OneThe Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.The name that can be named is not the eternal name.The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.These two spring from the same source but differ in name;this appears as darkness.Darkness within darkness.The gate to all mystery.Begin.
It seems clear first of all that the Way here is not the Way of Confucius, which is more or less an internalisation of virtue which yields the good for the individual and for society. This is closer to the Way of Zhuangzi, something within which the individual exists, nature in its perfection, from which we are kept by man-made systems.
>The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.The second character 道, functioning as a verb, does not mean "to tell" (告 gào, 言 yán, or 說 shuō would serve this function). It means "to treat as a way," "to regard as a path," or "to dao-ify."The line actually states: "A dao that can be dao-ed (treated as THE dao) is not a constant dao.""Eternal" misrepresents 常, which in Warring States usage means "constant," "regular," or "normative", referring to reliability and consistency, not temporal infinity.Classical Chinese philosophical texts operate through structural parallelism. The first two lines form a perfect parallel couplet:>道可道非常道>名可名非常名The grammatical structure is identical: [Noun] [Modal] [Verb] [Negation] [Adjective] [Noun]. Feng's translation destroys this parallelism by rendering the structures differently, obscuring the point that dao and ming (name) operate under identical logical constraints.>There is no "correct" interpretation.The statement 道可道非常道 does NOT claim "all interpretations are equally valid." It establishes that any dao reduced to a fixed, systematized doctrine (a "dao-able dao") fails to capture the processual, dynamic nature of the actual normative pattern.>Arguing over translations is against the Nameless.Translation necessarily involves interpretive choices with philosophical consequences.
>>24860273is there a fully parallel translation? looking into it (briefly) it seems this is a particularly difficult text to translate, with people from different camps shitting on each text (I went with Goddard as I liked the language of it)
>>24860265The Confucians attempted to codify normative behavior into fixed patterns. Laozi argues that any dao reduced to a systematic, teachable doctrine (a "dao-able dao") necessarily fails because genuine normativity must remain responsive to situational particularity.
>>24860227Tao Te Ching or Dao De Jing? For me, it's Dao De Jing >The Towel that can be held is not the eternal Towelundisputable factsthis first verse/stanza/whatever is truest of trues so what is there to talk aobut?
>>24860290No. The source itself is unstable; we have multiple manuscript traditions (Guodian, Mawangdui A/B, Wang Bi, Heshang Gong) with hundreds of substantive variants. There's also the issue of the ambiguity of Classical Chinese.
>>24860227>of the ten thousand thingsof the ten thousand creatures. I.e. of every creature.
>>24860293So the dao is eternal but not static? Once we have put a name or a form to it we have lost it, something like that?
>>24860303yeah I've heard even learning Chinese is pointless in regards to this text as it is so archaic and even contemporary native Chinese have difficulty understanding some aspectswhich seems fitting
>>24860322>So the dao is eternal but not static?The character 常 (cháng) in Warring States texts consistently means "constant," "regular," or "normative". NOT "eternal" in the sense of temporal infinity.>Once we have put a name or a form to it we have lost it, something like that?The "nameless" represents the undifferentiated source prior to categorical distinction; the "named" represents the manifested world of determinate entities.
Who /Earthsea/ here? What's your favorite Ursula K Le Guin book? I just started her translation, and let me tell you, The way you can go isn’t the real way. The name you can say isn’t the real name. Heaven and earth begin in the unnamed: name’s the mother of the ten thousand things.So the unwanting soul sees what’s hidden, and the ever-wanting soul sees only what it wants.Two things, one origin, but different in name, whose identity is mystery. Mystery of all mysteries! The door to the hidden.
monitoring this thread
>>24860273Y’know this validates a lot of my feelings about Daoism. Nevermind it being lost to time in its own cultural context, in a vague language, deliberately using nonsense structures or poetry vagueness, add to that a translation layer and there’s no fucking way to derive meaning you’re not just making up for yourself. Crappy Alan Watts hippie interpretations are just as good as any other western reading.
>>24860227I cant help but interpret this passage in a vaguely neo-Platonic and/or Hegelian fashion. The Tao Te Ching is not in any way equivalent to these philosophers of course, but i think it is a very similar attempt to philosophically think through the consequences of what it means to think the "unconditioned absolute" (to use a more Hegelian vocabulary), i.e something completely limitless, independent, complete. The Tao that can be 'Tao-ed' or spoken is not the Tao, the same way the Neo-Platonic One cannot be meaningfully thought or rationally contemplated (named). After all, naming or knowing splits the unconditioned One into a knower and known, a name and named. You cannot say anything about the unconditioned absolute without conditioning it. To be desireless then, one approaches the mystery of the Tao, because the Tao is everything without restriction: there is nothing outside of it, nothing it could desire. To desire is to be conditioned, incomplete, and so to see the differences, the manifestations, the ten thousand named things.But you cannot even say the Tao is desireless, because this is again conditioning the Tao. The Tao must contain both the undesiring unity and the desiring multiplicity, because it is unconditioned. Desire and desirelessness "spring from the same source but differ in name". To make the contradiction more obvious, you could rephrase it like this: the nameless and the named but differ in name. To keep it unconditioned, we must deny it difference, multiplicity, the named. But to do so is ironically to condition the unconditioned absolute: by calling it nameless, we have named it. Thinking the unconditioned absolute contradicts our thinking about the unconditioned absolute, and so the Tao appears as darkness, darkness within darkness. Finally, it is not any specific answers to the contradiction, but the contradiction itself that should form our starting point for actually thinking the Tao, hence why this darkness is 'the gate to all mysteries'
>>24860227>The Tao that can be toldThe Conception of "the Tao">the eternal TaoThe actual Tao. I.e., the conception of the Tao is not the actual Tao. The rest of chapter 1 elaborates on thisIt's like saying your conception of what the tree in your backyard is is not the actual tree itself. The conception of a thing is not the thing.
>>24860322Change is the only constant in nature. Therefore there is no way of life that suits all conditions. This is a refutation of the rigid prescriptions of Confucianism.
I approve this thread and am bumping accordingly.
>>24860273Okay but 道 as a verb absolutely can mean "say/speak".
>>24860227This anon >>24860273 is correct. The stanza is communicating the following:• It is impossible to create a set of rites which enable prosperous and "correct" living in every circumstance of life (this was not only a Confucian ambition incidentally, far from it, all the other philosophical schools besides Taoism had the same ambition. Confucius was revered because the Chinese came to feel that he was the one who succeeded, or got closest anyway)• For the above reason, while the Tao is a philosophy, its core insight is impossible to articulate clearly, as a sentence. The great principle must be grasped intuitively; the use of discourse and instruction can only be to help the adherent along to this intuition (and bad instruction may thwart him).• Semi-relatedly, it is paradoxical that all of nature operates on one set of laws which can be intuited, but from these laws springs an uncountable myriad of particularities. Mysterious! (Later, a number of reflections on this paradox will be offered as well as assertions on the sage's role in relation to it)
>>24860293>The Confucians attempted to codify normative behavior into fixed patterns. Laozi argues that any dao reduced to a systematic, teachable doctrine (a "dao-able dao") necessarily fails because genuine normativity must remain responsive to situational particularity.>>24861777>It is impossible to create a set of rites which enable prosperous and "correct" living in every circumstance of life (this was not only a Confucian ambition incidentally, far from it, all the other philosophical schools besides Taoism had the same ambition. Confucius was revered because the Chinese came to feel that he was the one who succeeded, or got closest anyway)>Here's Book 2, Chapter 12 of the Analects of Confucius (Lunyu):>子曰:「君子不器。」>Zǐ yuē: "Jūnzǐ bù qì.">[2:12] The Master said: “The noble man is not a utensil.”I don't think none of you actually understand Confucius beyond stereotypical notions gathered through cultural osmosis >t. Wang Yangming
>>24862083Most people don't read Confucius they just address "Confucianism".
>>24860227Call me crazy, I always felt like he was talking about rice
>>24860227Cool idea for a thread, but the Tao is really not something you can dissect. Those who get it, get it, and those who don't, ridicule it.But I'll give it a go at least this timeBasically I feel reading the I Ching is a prerequisite to comprehending the mindset involved in the Tao de Jing. Its all about yin and yang baby>The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.The Tao lies beyond a conceptual understanding >The name that can be named is not the eternal name.No concepts fit it etc>The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.The nonconceptual Tao is the primordial source of Yang (Heaven) and Yin (Earth)>The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.The combination of yang and yin gives birth to everything in existence through various mixtures. >Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.Acquiring stillness(Passivity/Yin) in mind and freedom from attachments leads one to a state of Wu-wei where one flow with the current of the dao >Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.Being contantly engaged in logical thinking and attached to things in the world (Activity/Yang) one can never grasp the Dao only its manifold manifestations >These two spring from the same source but differ in name;Yin and yang are two sides of the same coin>this appears as darkness.Yin and yang is near impossible to comprehend conceptually >Darkness within darkness.>The gate to all mystery.Beyond the darkness of Yin and Yang lies the Dao, something impossible to comprehend conceptuallyOnly by embracing a state of non-conceptual state of mind will understanding of Dao emergeAnyway thats just my takeAlso I recommend anyone who is remotely interested in the subject to watch this. It's not exactly 100% historically accurate but it really comfy and well made https://youtu.be/GXoC6HZ40tI?si=0gjQiwJMkUiv_vPO
The second you explain the Tao, you've proven you dont understand the Tao at all. Its sort of like fight club except it isnt gay like that.
The Tao is unknowable, one must strive to be like the uncarved block but even an attempt to explain this with language and conceptual schemes begins to carve the block. For this reason Taoism leans far more into mysticism than an actual coherent philosophy. Despite this, I found the time I spent studying Taoism to be the most enriching and fascinating part of my philosophical studies.
>>24860227I remember reading this a few times in college. Couldn't tell you what it means unfortunately.
>>24860227>>24860273 is correct.Dao is comparable to 淡, blandness, in the culinary arts and aesthetics. You are left with only a fleeting taste in encounter with it, not enough to savor. Attempts to flavor it, to systematize it with one or more of the five flavors, are fruitless because it denies that processual pattern.The not-named is a counter to the rectification of names, 证明. That which is yet-to-be-named was in process before its naming. But naming differentiates the whole into one-and-many.Mystery is a term with too much conceptual baggage for the Christian mind to liquidate it of its sacramental character. In line with the 'bland' way of translating the Laozi, 'subtle' is my preferred term.Not desiring conventions, rote-performed but meaningfully dead rituals. It isn't just "desireless." 故常 is the subject. Having appetite (once again, read Jullien), observe the boundaries (of appetites)! (imperative statement)
>The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.The 'Tao' is just gibberish.>The name that can be named is not the eternal name.The 'Tao' is gibberish on a page.>The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth.Gibberish is the beginning.>The named is the mother of the ten thousand things.Gibberish when gestated brings forth more gibberish.>Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.Reading gibberish, there is no desire. See the 'mystery'.>Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.See what you want to see in the gibberish.>These two spring from the same source but differ in name;'Gibberish' is not gibberish.>this appears as darkness.Gibberish is mysterious.>Darkness within darkness.Moar gibberish.>The gate to all mystery.The gate is the shapes on the page; the mystery is the gibberish.No idea why you'd want to read this book. It's just a bunch of gibberish poetically made to seem deep.
>>24862635Thank you Bertrand, very cool!
>>24860227>the tao that can be told is not the eternal taoa definite means of doing something won’t work for everything>the name that can be named is not the eternal nameall truth is contingent >the nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth reality is independent of thought>the named is the mother of the ten thousand thingsthought produces more reality > Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.the world mind exploits your fear and desire to put thoughts into you, only by calming the mind can you see the world as it is> Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations.Without using thought as a tool it’s impossible to function in the world> These two spring from the same source but differ in nameThe world is knowable by thought because thought itself exists beyond thought> this appears as darkness.People think this is paradoxical> The gate to all mystery.understanding it allows you to resolve all paradoxes
>>24862635I'm trans btw, forgot to say.
>>24862244>prohecting zhou dunyi neoconfucian cosmology onto the daodejingThere’s a reason the daodejing only uses the words “yin” and “yang” once
>>24860273So it's more like "The Tao that can be followed/systematised is not the constant/consistent Tao"? Fascinating, it's incredible the shared understanding and experiential value that has been lost to inadequate translation of key texts across different cultures over the centuries. What's more fascinating is that the more I grasp Taoism the more it corroborates key insights I've sensed about reality since I was a kid as a Lynchian schizoautistic hick. Things to do with the implications of an infinite universe, and how all perception breaks down upon close enough scrutiny. And how I've survived a chain of events that when you string together the probabilities the number is so small it freaks me out and would make even the sanest person question how conventional "conventional" reality is.>>24860985Further to the above, I think it helps to frame what Taoism is correctly. If I'm right in what I'm thinking so far, it's better described as insight than as philosophy in the western sense. Insight into the morphology of reality. Humans have developed their semantic abilities so much they now mistakenly try to use the same tool on every problem, and try to narrativise life and expect it to work along the same lines as the rules of semantics. They've lost sight of the fact that the morphology of semantics occurs downstream of the morphology of raw consciousness, which is a step closer to broader reality in how it works.FWIW, this may come off a bit silly to people who haven't seen his later interviews talking about how 'nothing is real in the sense we think it is', but I think Pete Shelley from Buzzcocks got closer to the truth of all this in his lifetime than most westerners. David Lynch, too, though it was dressed up more in his Hollyweird cult stuff.
>>24862967N.B. Taoism can be taken as literal cosmology, then, but for the skeptical, an interpretation like 'secular buddhism' can also be made to say that the Taoist books then amount to essentially a series of statements intended to capture certain perennial observations about how life & the human mind operate and thus best guesses at how to navigate it towards decent outcomes in matters of individual life and society. Something that leaves room for error but gets pointed to as 'the answer' when working with it as an operating principle in common in organised fashion necessarily yields positive results for a civilisation compared to working without. Call that tautological but I think the cosmological principle attested by Taoism *is* rather tautological, something between a mobius strip and an equation/algorithm that never resolves.Question for the better-read ITT: Is it the case that Taoist thought suggests a reality that changes by increments, in which the rules of the game themselves change also by increments, with each increment?
1/ read the daodejing2/ compare all available translations3/ ????4/ PROFIT!
>>24862981it's not incremental it's flowing
>>24862864if it's by the way it's ok
>>24862864Wall 4, Shelf 3, Volume 26, page 327faggot
>>24860227Read the daoism section of pic related if you want to know what it’s really about.The way is the same ultimate principle of reality that all of the other mystics and mystical schools around the world speak of. God, Brahman, the platonic one, etc.
>>24863471>jeet nonsenseI'll stick with chink nonsense thank you very much.
>>24863295Then how is there any relative order (or illusion thereof) at a local level? It would be unfettered chaos with no apparent phenomena if there wasn't, at least at a local level, a matter of degrees to it. It's just that that itself can change eventually?
>itt striving against 道
>>24862887>>prohecting zhou dunyi neoconfucian cosmology onto the daodejing>implying an influential and wellknown text such as the I Ching, thats all flexibility and adapting to anysituation, wasnt apart of the intellectual currency of the times and didnt at least subconsciously influence a text, thats all about flexibility and adapting to any situation.You can't ignore the influence ones surrounding culture has on ones thinking, you just can't!
>>24863651No, the authors were of the daodejing were unlikely to be influenced by i ching very much. the dao de jing was written during the warring states period, there was no unified culture let alone a canon of which the book of changes would have been a part.
>>24863801>No, the authors were of the daodejing were unlikely to be influenced by i ching very muchKnowledge of yin and yang was acknowledged in the Tao de Jing (once is enough ;) ) therefore the ideas manifested the I Ching was known, even if the text itself was not>the dao de jing was written during the warring states period, there was no unified culture let alone a canon of which the book of changes would have been a part.So?Warring states meant more cultural exchange thus more evidence that an influence took place. Thanks for aiding my case :^)
>>24862244as good as you'll get OP, the rest of the book is commentary on this
>>24863528the change is so fast you don't experience itthe change is so slow you don't experience itthe change is so far away so you don't experience itthe change is (You) so you don't experience iteverything *IS* unfettered chaosphenomena are only apparenthope that helps
>>24863557do you mind if I copy that image?
